Peja Stojakovic: King For Life?

Packt · Jul 3, 2005

For all we know Wallace could be hitting shots from all over the floor during practice. And like those backyard shooters, it doesn't mean he'll hit those same shots in an actual NBA game. Does he not light up summer league?

Don't act like suggesting Peja play the Steve Kerr role is off-topic for this thread. Is that support role beneath Peja or what? You seem to understand the value of such a player but don't seem to want Peja to be that player.

Packt · Jul 3, 2005

funkykingston said:

I see. The Kings starting small forward, and probably their biggest trade asset at this point should be averaging under five shots a game? He should be playing 18 mpg and putting up 6 points, 1 rebound and 2 assists?

And for the record, Steve Kerr's playoff numbers, ALL of them with the exception of FT% (1% higher) are lower than his regular season numbers. Granted, Kerr hit the biggest shot he ever needed to hit, the Game 6 winner in Chicago, but outside of that game and that 12 point effort in San Antonio against the Mavs, his playoff stats are underwhelming.

Steve Kerr is not Robert Horry. ESPN could run a 10 minute montage of all of Horry's game changing or winning plays. I wonder if Kerr even played 10 minutes during the 99 Finals? He played 20 minutes in the 2003 finals, and in only four of the six games. In two of those he scored NO points. His highlight was a six point output in Game 5.

I'm not one to put Kerr on a pedestal. My comment was in reply to piksi's comment on Kerr's rings, and how he must've done something right.

5 rings. Can't argue with that.

Superman · Jul 3, 2005

piksi said:

Yeah, play for 5 championship teams, all of which including several future HOFers. All of which would have won those titles with or without Steve Kerr's contributions. He's not a game breaker.

Just to be clear, I am not comparing Peja to Kerr. I'm simply saying that, although shooters are an important part of the game, they don't win championships.

Mr. S£im Citrus · Jul 3, 2005

funkykingston said:

The word applies literally; I am less than concerned with how people choose to interpret it.

funkykingston said:

The truth of the matter is that neither Bibby nor Williams ever created as many shots for Stojakovic as Christie or Divac did, so Stojakovic's productivity during those seasons were not as much a function of the PG as they were of the other players around him... My point was that Bibby's ability to shoot enables him to run plays with Stojakovic that he wouldn't be able to run effectively with nearly as many PG's as Bibby would with another SF. Stojakovic, in my opinion, is more replaceable in the Kings offense than Bibby is; that makes him more expendable.

funkykingston said:

No. Miller might not be able to create his own shot, but his presence facilitates Bibby's offense, whereas Stojakovic's does not to any significant degree. Bibby's effectiveness on offense is maximized by the presence of a F/C who can spot up from 15-20 feet, and pass the ball. Miller can provide that; Stojakovic can't. That makes Miller the less expendable of the two.

In terms of our "core," taking away Bibby affects the game of Miller and Stojakovic. Taking away Miller affects Bibby's game. Taking away Stojakovic does not appreciably affect either's game.

BigSong · Jul 3, 2005

Mr. S£im Citrus said:

Im not sure where any of your statements make sense, at least in any real world scenario. I do believe though that in the eyes of Petrie any and all Kings players are expendable if it makes the team better as a whole, and if that means trading Stojakovic, so be it.

funkykingston · Jul 3, 2005

Really?

I've long said that Peja's biggest contribution to the offense from play to play is providing spacing for the offense to operate in. I've seen several posts discussing the idea of Kenny Thomas at the SF. The disruption to the offense in such a move (or any move replacing Peja with a non-shooter) The number of open midrange shots for Miller would decrease dramatically if teams were allowed to sag off of the wings. Furthermore, Bibby would find a lot more clutter inside the arc, getting switched on picks far more often without a big time outside threat to make opponents pay for it.

The vaguely Princeton-like offense of the Kings is still predicated on many of the same notions as Carrill's actual offense: passing, cutting and intelligent movement without the basketball. All of those things require good spacing, hence Petrie's predilection for acquiring skilled shooters at all positions. Of course, as the team has changed the last few years, Adelman has had to make changes based on the players he has at his disposal - for instance, running less and less triple post offensive sets.

That's why an analysis of who should be traded based on offensive interdependence is not a good way to go about things. Not only is it difficult to quantify in the first place, but when players are changed, the offense is adjusted accordingly.

I could make the case that the Kings need to improve their defense, and therefore Bibby, being the weakest defender (and possibly the worst defensive starting PG in the L), he is the most expendable.

Just as cursory and ultimately unproductive a strategy, it also neglects THE reason to trade any player: because you can improve your team.

So who is the "most expendable" King? Whoever can bring back the best player or player(s) in return. That might very well be Bibby. Or it could be a package including Peja, or Peja for a guy still under his rookie deal. I doubt that it's Miller.

I wouldn't mind if it was all three.

Superman · Jul 3, 2005

That's a good post, and a different way of looking at things.

But what I think Slim is saying is that Peja relies on his teammates for his offense more than his teammates rely on him for theirs. And it's true. Although Peja does create space for his teammates to operate - especially against a team that's playing a two-down or a three-down zone - he does not create offense.

He isn't adept at beating a double team by finding the open man (like Brad Miller is), by splitting the defense (like Mike does), or by attracting attention down low and freeing up his teammates outside (like Webber was), all of which he should be since he has the physical tools to do so. He isn't a defensive stopper, able to generate transition offense through good defense or defensive rebounding.

When it comes to Peja's offense, it's all about Peja. He gets his points off of the effort of his teammates, and when he has the ball, more often than not he's going to a) shoot, or b) pass to another teammate for them to make something happen. At least with Mike or Brad, there are other options. With Peja it's either A or B. Nothing else.

You can't even compare him to Rip Hamilton or even Michael Redd, as both of them can get their own shot consistently, and Hamilton is good for five assists a game on top of that.

As far as one player being more expendable than another, that's for Petrie to decide. I think we have a lot of pieces that we have at our disposal, and we have a good management team that will figure all that out this summer. I doubt Bibby goes anywhere, and I doubt Brad goes anywhere, as we worked awfully hard to get Brad and Bibby has paid his dues as a reliable player and teammate. Peja, on the other hand, is an unknown. His future is uncertain as a player, but he could be a star. We'll see what happens. I just really hope he doesn't get max money from Sacramento.

VF21 · Jul 3, 2005

All this really makes me realize why Geoff Petrie gets the big bucks... and why I'm very glad I'm not in his shoes.

burekijogurt · Jul 4, 2005

Superman said:

Peja is not only usless to us, he is detrimental. He can be replaced with a piece which has more than option A or B who is not going to score of their teammates efforts but create his own shot bu splitting a double team or posting up. That way everyone can fend for themselves and we will not have anyone who is just using the effort of his teammates. Each and every player would get what they deserve. Don't know how the team would fare though. Alternatevily, we can try to have a team create something by running one of the plays they have been practicing with their couching staff as opposed to just watching one player 'make something happen'.

KP · Jul 4, 2005

burekijogurt said:

I see where you are coming from, but I think this statement^ is a little harsh. Peja has tended to fall apart under pressure and showed a lack of hustle/heart at other times, but he also scores a lot of points for us at the offensive end. With the guys we have left if you take him away their would be a serious lack of production, from him, and from everyone else that gets open looks because the opponents defense has to be aware of him at all times. Yes, he can be shutdown by good defenders at times, but that helps everyone else in a way to get open looks. He plays well with Brad too and if they can get on the court at the same time for an extended period I think Pejas confidence/production will improve. He has also shown the commitment on defense, especially in the playoffs. I don't think the Kings should get out of control and sign him next year to a max deal, he has hardly earned it, but I wouldn't exactly call Peja useless, or detrimental, he's definately one of the best players left on the team... I just think people are dissapointed that he couldn't take over the team and really lead us after Webb left. Maybe next year...

VF21 · Jul 4, 2005

I agree, KP.

I think it's unfortunate that people are becoming so polarized about Peja. He's not perfect, IMHO, but he's not the anti-Christ either.

He's a Sacramento King. He has his strengths and his weaknesses, just like the rest of them AND every other player in the NBA. There are things he's going to be able to do and things he will never do, just like donkeys will never fly.

People who are disappointed that he didn't take over the team were setting him up for failure, IMHO. He's never been a real leader. Why should he become one all of a sudden?

The truth about Peja and his value to the Kings and to the fans is somewhere in between the two camps that seem to have developed. He's not useless; but he's not able to carry the team by himself. He's not a detriment; but he's not such a super star that he makes everyone around him better.

If he is part of the core the Maloofs want to rebuild this team around, then we all need to have faith that Petrie will find the role players to help him do his very best.

AleksandarN · Jul 4, 2005

VF21 said:

That right there is a perfect analysis of Pedja and our fans. The one thing I have noticed since I have been on this board is that there have alway been a polarization of our star players. Each side of coin has its extreme what we have to do find the middle ground. Like I said before we are one of most passionate fans on the net and would not want it any other way.

funkykingston · Jul 4, 2005

Unless I'm way off here, I'm pretty sure burekijogurt's post was laced with sarcasm. It's something that often doesn't translate well on a message board. I think the point he was trying to make is that Petrie and the Kings need to be concerned with doing what is best for the team and not worrying about whose offensive numbers are affected by any changes.

Unless I'm forgetting something, there are ONLY three things that a player can do with the ball 1) shoot 2) pass 3) dribble. I have video evidence that Peja can dribble a basketball. Even while driving a car with Vlade and an old lady.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't agree with it. Miller does NOT provide more options with the ball. As for him beating double teams with a pass, what team has EVER double teamed Brad Miller? He can't score in the post and he can't create a shot with the ball.

Actually, Peja is MUCH better than Rip Hamilton at creating his own shot. While Peja STILL has problems with quick and physical defenders, the fact is that he prefers to have the ball in his hands. Hamilton gets his shots by running off multiple screens. Other than being great shooters, he and Peja are very different offensively. One of my criticisms of Stojakovic has always been that he doesn't run off screens well enough. He tends to round off his cuts instead of coming sharp off the screener. Whether that's because the Kings don't run him off enough screens or the Kings don't run many screens because he isn't that effective is a question I don't know the answer to.

I don't see it that way. For better or worse, Peja is what he is. If nothing else, he has been incredibly consistent since becoming a full time starter. The only reason for hoping for anything more is the season he had two years ago, but even that wasn't a quantum leap forward. At this point I don't think you can reasonably expect much improvement.

Of course, that's also the case with Bibby and Miller. All three can make minor improvements to their games (and I hope they do), but the largest gains are generally made between the rookie/sophomore year and between the sophomore/third year. These guys are not young in basketball terms. If anything, they are all in their primes. Whether that's good enough is a question Petrie needs to ask, and one which we won't know the answer to until May.

I like Peja. I like Brad Miller. I like Mike Bibby. The problem is that as a group their individual weaknesses (toughness, defense, rebounding) become team weaknesses. I'd like it if the team could stay intact and compete for a championship. In fact, maybe I'm underrating this team. Bobby was hurt all year, Brad missed all the games down the stretch and Adelman has so much as admitted that they didn't have the time to properly assimilate the new guys.

But in my opinion this team needs to make moves. Bibby has "paid his dues as a reliable player." Sure, but so has Peja. That's not a reason to keep a guy. And just because the Kings made a big move to get Miller doesn't make him less likely to be dealt.

Bricklayer · Jul 4, 2005

The decision about Brad is the key because:

1) Brad Miller is necessary if we are going to run any semblance of our old high post passing big man offense
2) Mike Bibby's game would in particular be effected by Brad's loss, as he is a pick and roll two man game PG.
3) Peja is dependant on other player's passing as well, and the loss of one passer wouold likely hurt him a bit too
3) Therefore trading Brad has two major downsides: a) the offense goes with him; b) we lose significant production from one major returning player, and probably at least some from abother;

Now on the flipside obviously, Brad is vertically challenged, slow, and just got his *** handed to him all year by every opposing offensive player over 6'5" this season. On BOTH ends of the court mind you because he also is 7'0" with so little postgame that OGs can, and literally do, defend him with his back to the basket and embarrass him with their abiltiy to stop them inside.

Mike is a more independent decision -- if Brad goes, Mike's value to us drops. But if Mike goes first? Well if he is not replaced with a serious replacement EVERYONE's game sinks a bit as we lose our PG and court leader, but if he's replaced by a quality replacement there is no one player who's game is especially apt to suffer (the closest might be Mo Evans who early in the year seemed to really be ont eh same page with Mike for flying alley oops).

Peja is more independent still, sorry funkykingston, but I DO agree in general with the "parasitic" comment. He takes, but does not give back. He needs help, but does not help in turn. And that "selfishly" (for lack of a better term) oriented game carries over onto defense -- he is solid on his man, but his help defense sucks and he's never been willing to so much as break a nail on the team's behalf on the hustle board. Its all about Peja. Peja's shots principally. You guys take care of the boards, the hustle, the passing, helping others, including me at times, on defense, oh, and by the way, would you mind terribly setting a whole line of staggered screens for me so I can get off an open jumper which I can't create for myself? If we had a great post player Peja's presence on the perimeter would create some space (although I have mentioned before that perimeter guys are rarely doubled and its hard to do so, so an outside guy does not create nearly the defensive distortion a major post player does) -- but as it is, EVERY single player in the Kings starting lineup at season's end was a jumpshooter first and foremost. Jumpshooters create minimal space for each other. And with SO many jumpshooters, Peja's individual impact on our spacing is minimal -- EVERYBODY is outside, everybody creating the same type of space as Peja does. Bottomline? If Peja leaves there is not a single player on the team obviously damaged by his departure. Not one. Nobody who he sets up. Nobody who he creates for. Nobody who his game is designed to help. The TEAM could still lose ground if we did not get back the right player, but Peja's game doesn't particularly help anybody but himself.

I'm not the least worried about a spillover effect from trading Peja. I'm considerably worried about a spillover effect from trading Bibby, but it all depends on what we got back. And the Brad decision is tough, his defense is truly problematic inside, but he's a fairly unique player in his suitability to run our offense and the obvious effect he would have on at least one major King's game. He, at least, you might keep around not because of his individual brilliance or overall talent, but because of the effect he might have on everybody else if he's gone.

hrdboild · Jul 4, 2005

Isn't there a much simpler solution though? Get a post player. Then all of those shooters really would space the floor and you always have a second option to go to when there aren't any open shots. It doesn't need to be a Tim Duncan 'best player on the floor' superstar post player. It just has to be someone who you can throw the ball to in the paint and he can make a few moves and put the ball in the basket around 50% of the time. That one player instantly makes everyone else better offensively simply by providing a low post threat.

This whole 'who is more valuable' gambit is so pointless. Obviously Bibby is a point guard. His job is to set up his teammates. Obviously that gives him the biggest "spillover" effect but that doesn't necesarily mean another similarly capable PG couldn't come in and do just as good of a job running the show. You always think twice about trading your PG especially if he's one of your best players because PG and C are the two most important positions to fill. Brad is more valuable to us than he would be to a lot of teams because he sets himself apart with his shooting and his passing which are ideal qualities to have in your C if you run a Princeton offense. But the value of those two players shouldn't count against somebody else.

Take Rip Hamilton for example. He runs off screens and shoots midrange jumpers. You could say that he isn't really helping his teammates out. They're sometimes setting two and three screens just so he can get his shot. But his value is in putting points on the board which makes him a vital part of Detroit's offense. You can play the best defense in the world and still lose if you can't score enough points. Rip provides consistent scoring and that's his value. Is he more or less expendable than Chauncey Billups or the Wallaces or Tayshaun Prince? Every one of them has something they do well and that makes them essential parts of the team.

Which brings me to this question. If we have two obvious holes to fill at SG and PF, why would you want to create another hole so you can maybe patch one of those? Doesn't it make more sense to play to your strengths? If you want to see the Detroit Pistons, go watch the Detroit Pistons because the Kings are never going to be them. That doesn't mean they can't win a lot of games and contend for a championship their own way. If there was a simple formula to follow to win you a championship, every team out there would look the same.

Venom · Jul 4, 2005

hrdboild said:

Rip is the most expendable Piston starter at this point in time. That does not mean the Pistons are trading him, just that if you called w/ an offer for Rip they would listen. That said, Peja is not even close to Rip right now. Rip plays help defense, creates turnovers, is a secondary ballhandler, goes to the hole and gets himself to the line. He can post smaller guys and use his fadeaway jumper, and has an excellent two-dribble pull-up jumper. There are many players the Pistons would trade Rip for, but Peja is not one of them. Conversely, Petrie would make that trade in a heartbeat.

BigSong · Jul 4, 2005

Venom said:

Rip is the most expendable Piston starter at this point in time. That does not mean the Pistons are trading him, just that if you called w/ an offer for Rip they would listen. That said, Peja is not even close to Rip right now. Rip plays help defense, creates turnovers, is a secondary ballhandler, goes to the hole and gets himself to the line. He can post smaller guys and use his fadeaway jumper, and has an excellent two-dribble pull-up jumper. There are many players the Pistons would trade Rip for, but Peja is not one of them. Conversely, Petrie would make that trade in a heartbeat.

i don't think skillwise either are that far apart, but why mess with the chemistry?

Bricklayer · Jul 4, 2005

hrdboild said:

And every one of them DOES in some critical ways:

1) they attack inside/out, not outside in
2) they play tough, physical defense
3) their best players are either creaters, post players, or both.

Every team has "strengths". The Clippers have strengths. The Hawks have sterngths. That doesn't mean that when your strengths aren't good enough that you say oh, well we better not trade Al Harrington or Corey Maggette because they are our "strengths". Particularly when your strength is absolutely the wrong one to have to win an NBA title, the theoretical goal.

We can go out and get 12 soft shooters for all it matters -- we STILL do not win a title without creative players, without post players, wihtout stud defenders, tough guys, clutch guys. So until you get your hands on those players, the real "core" players that a title team needs, anybody and everybody is expendable. And if you can't realistically get your hands on one or more of those players without trading your shooting "core", then you trade your shooting core. Because a shooting core is worthless without a heart, and if NBA championship history has shown anything, its that you may need only one, and at most two shooters to get a title anyway. They don't even have to be major players. Roleplayers will do. And so you figure which one of these shooters can we most spare.

piksi · Jul 4, 2005

Bricklayer said:

even lakers ?

"losing" has to be one of them because the are really good at it and also very consistant

AriesMar27 · Jul 4, 2005

piksi said:

lmao.....

Superman · Jul 4, 2005

funkykingston said:

Create. Either for yourself or your teammates. Peja isn't particularly good at either one of them.

Brad Miller can find the open man when he has the ball, whether it's in the post, at the elbow, or out near the free throw line. He's been an essential part of our offense the entire time he's been a King, and he has more assists in the past two seasons than Peja has in the past three. He knows how to set his man up, whether he's being double-teamed or not, which is the point I was making.

I think you're insane.

Richard Hamilton, while he does get most of his points off of setups, is a much better ball-handler, is much quicker, gets to the line a lot more often, and is therefore better at creating his own shot. A good defender can shut him down just like Peja, but he not only works harder to get open, he has more stamina and is still good for almost 6 free throws a game, compared to Peja's 4.

funkykingston · Jul 5, 2005

God is Love.
Love is Blind.
Stevie Wonder is Blind.
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

There's a breakdown in the logical progression of evidence. Yes, Hamilton is quicker and a better ballhandler than Peja. That doesn't make him any more adept at creating his own shot. Doug Christie is also quicker and a better ballhandler yet he has always been horrible at creating his own shot. DC is probably the only SG I can think of who I never saw shoot off the dribble. As NBA anomalies go, it's right up there with Travis Best as a PG who can't pass off the dribble. But I digress. . .

There's a reason why Hamilton is so often compared to Reggie Miller. They have very similar bodies and games. Hamilton lacks Miller's range, but he is a little more skilled with the ball in his hands. Still, neither one "creates" his own shot. Never have. Hamilton's game (and Reggie's for that matter) is about moving without the ball, reading defenses well, cutting well off picks and having a quick release. Go back to this year's playoffs and find one circumstance where the Pistons ran an isolation play for Hamilton other than possibly on a switch where he could post up Parker.

On the other hand, watch some Kings games from two seasons ago when Peja was the primary option on offense. If anything I thought Peja tried to create offense too often when the ball was in his hands.

And that's not to say that he is great at it. He can jab step and shoot, pump fake and drive or stop and pop fairly well, but can still be flustered by quick defenders. My point is that saying that Rip Hamilton is better at creating his own shot just doesn't jibe with what I witness from those two players. Because that's not Hamilton's game.

The BEST player in the league at creating his own shot is Kobe Bryant. He doesn't need any plays run for him, doesn't need a single screen in order to create a scoring opportunity. The best you can hope for is to keep him outside the paint and hope his shot isn't falling.

True, Hamilton is not as easily stymied by athletic or physical defenders. I'm not even arguing about whether or not Hamilton is a better player than Peja. My only argument here is about the ability to create a shot. If Hamilton was so adept at this skill he wouldn't need to work harder to get open. He'd only need to work hard enough to get the ball. And since I can't recall an NBA team running a box and one or a two man trap on a guy without the ball, any perimeter player can get the ball at almost any time.

I had another point or two to make, but honestly, the effort would have been half-hearted at this point. Constant dialogues about how much each member of the Kings sucks and why are just tiring at this point and I guess I'm done defending Peja or anyone else. I realize that I was actually happier as a Kings fan when the team couldn't win 30 games than I am now.

Superman · Jul 5, 2005

Good analysis, sir. One that I disagree with, but still well-articulated.

I keep seeing this one move that Rip did several times throughout the playoffs, against both the Heat and the Spurs: he gets the ball on the weak-side with the clock running down, his man squared up defensively, takes a strong step to his right, shoots a runner from the left side of the lane at about 13 feet, and drains it. This is something he can do because he's quicker and more capable with the ball than Peja is. This is something he can do because he can shoot better than Doug can.

You used the whole "Stevie Wonder" faulty logic thing on me, then turned around and did exactly what you accused me of doing.

Rip and Reggie are compared because both move well without the ball and shoot well on the move, not because they have the same limitations. Letting his teammates works best for Rip, but he's always been a player that could get his own shot off if necessary. Not against elite defenders, but better than Peja and Reggie Miller.

And he works harder at getting open because that's what works best for him, not because he has to. Peja would do well to take a page out of his scrapbook and learn from it. Because Peja has to work to get open looks, or else he won't have many scoring opportunities. Those pump fakes and jab steps and pick and pops work against less than adequate defenders, or defenders who are already out of position.

Any argument for Peja being able to create his own shot went out the window the night I saw Brevin Knight totally frustrate any and every effort Peja made to get some offense going. Brevin F. Knight, the 5'10" point guard out of Stanford.

funkykingston · Jul 5, 2005

Eh, agree to disagree I guess.

I suppose it doesn't matter much. Arguing about who creates their shot better between Peja and Rip is like arguing over who is the best bullfighter in Ohio.

funkykingston · Jul 5, 2005

I doubt it. Suspicions continue to foment in my mind that Petrie will NOT trade Peja. I can't shake the feeling that Geoff simply loves Peja's game and views him as his golden boy. Mostly I have developed this idea because of the way Petrie talks about him in interviews and especially during the summer of 98 when Stojakovic finally made his move across the pond.

Right now the bloom is off the rose for me in terms of everything and everyone associated with the Kings. My opinion of the Maloofs has decreased, both because of their actions regarding the team and due to some personal information. Petrie certainly doesn't have my blind faith anymore. I'll wait before I decide for sure, but right now his executive of the year awards are starting to look like they were attained with smoke and mirrors. Luck, more than actual skill. I want to be wrong on this. But I'm afraid I'm right.

Let's see what team enters training camp. For better or worse, I'm almost certain Peja will be on it.

ParniValjak · Jul 5, 2005

piksi said:

Vlad · Jul 5, 2005

Venom said:

Is this post a joke? If you really think that Petrie would trade Peja for Rip in a heartbeat, than maybe these comments aren't worth acknowledging. Rip is 3-4 inches shorter than Peja and more than a year older. Peja shoots better and I think Peja is also a better creator. And, Petrie loves Peja.

Vlad · Jul 5, 2005

funkykingston said:

Kobe is pretty darn good at it, but so is T-Mac.

vj9999 · Jul 5, 2005

I have followed this thread somewhat, but not that closely.

All I have to say about Peja is:
- talent is there but he doesn't use it all the time
- he needs to stop being streaky and as VF21 said .. shut up and play
- if he can put an effort, like that last game agains Sonics in the playoffs, on a consistant basis he deservers more money (nobody in my opinion deserves a max contract on current Kings roster).
- performance he put in that last game had to come somewhere. it showed that he has it inhim, but he needs to use it or else he is as expandable as the next guy with a pretty face and a nice shot

I'd love for Peja to be King for life, but it is up to him to give 100% every night and earn the paycheck.

burekijogurt · Jul 5, 2005

Bricklayer said:

T
Peja is more independent still, sorry funkykingston, but I DO agree in general with the "parasitic" comment. He takes, but does not give back. He needs help, but does not help in turn. And that "selfishly" (for lack of a better term) oriented game carries over onto defense -- he is solid on his man, but his help defense sucks and he's never been willing to so much as break a nail on the team's behalf on the hustle board. Its all about Peja. Peja's shots principally. You guys take care of the boards, the hustle, the passing, helping others, including me at times, on defense, oh, and by the way, would you mind terribly setting a whole line of staggered screens for me so I can get off an open jumper which I can't create for myself? If we had a great post player Peja's presence on the perimeter would create some space (although I have mentioned before that perimeter guys are rarely doubled and its hard to do so, so an outside guy does not create nearly the defensive distortion a major post player does) -- but as it is, EVERY single player in the Kings starting lineup at season's end was a jumpshooter first and foremost. Jumpshooters create minimal space for each other. And with SO many jumpshooters, Peja's individual impact on our spacing is minimal -- EVERYBODY is outside, everybody creating the same type of space as Peja does. Bottomline? If Peja leaves there is not a single player on the team obviously damaged by his departure. Not one. Nobody who he sets up. Nobody who he creates for. Nobody who his game is designed to help. The TEAM could still lose ground if we did not get back the right player, but Peja's game doesn't particularly help anybody but himself.

Given this description, I would not pay Peja a penny. All he does is use other players to get stats without contributing anything. Regardless of whether he is there or not its the same thing, except when he is not there the other players might not be annoyed at Peja for using their effort for personal gain! If this assesment is correct he should go unsigned when his contract expires.

Peja Stojakovic: King For Life?

Starter

Starter

All-Star

Doryphore of KingsFans.com

Bench

Super Moderator

All-Star

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Super Moderator

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!

Bench

Bench

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Hall of Famer

AriesMar27

Guest

All-Star

Super Moderator

All-Star

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

All-Star

Bench

Bench

Starter

Starter