Petries job in doubt?

[IfAt1st]

wow.

Some members of this board prove yet again that they are not watching this Kings team close enough.

ANYONE who says that the Salmons/Beno trade didn't hurt the Kings is flat-out wrong, at this stage in the season.

That's not debatable, that's not subjective, that's straight-up demonstrable.

* Beno proved over years, that he steadied the team's offensive sets and provided crucial scoring when the opposing team's defense ratcheted up the pressure. That's a matter of historical fact - check the games. In the games this year, the Kings have shown a startling inability to execute offensive plays which has led to TO's and countless transitional buckets for the other team.
Saying that this Kings team lacks an experienced PG that can steady the team and help run offensive sets without repeatedly turning the ball over is not speculation - it's a fact.

* Trading for Salmons did end up making it so that the Kings didn't get any other quality SF to fill the gaping hole there.
Again, that's not arguable - that's a historical fact. It happened.

So regardless of ANYthing else that has gone on this season, trying to rationalize that losing a steadying vet PG presence and adding Salmons instead of any other vet SF hasn't hurt this Kings team is wrong.

The only thing that's arguable is whether or not the other SF they would have gotten without the Beno/Salmons trade would have played better than Salmons or not. Maybe he would have been injured? We don't know that....

 

[IfAt1st]

It's my understanding that the disastrous offseason the Kings had this year and a few years prior was totally and completely due to broke-a** Maloofs not letting Petrie-Dish spend any money...

That understanding is wrong, based on the evidence available.

The trades and signings this year were Petrie's choices, along with Westphal.
Petrie was involved, and is responsible for them.
He signed for Outlaw.
He signed Hayes (who I like for the team, but hasn't proven to help the team so far).
He traded Beno for Salmons.

That wasn't the Maloofs.
Laying everything bad about this team at the Maloofs feet is scapegoating.... something that's already been discussed that this board is very fond of doing for close to 10 years now.

 

[Rookie]

ANYONE who says that the Salmons/Beno trade didn't hurt the Kings is flat-out wrong, at this stage in the season.

That's not debatable, that's not subjective, that's straight-up demonstrable.

* Beno proved over years, that he steadied the team's offensive sets and provided crucial scoring when the opposing team's defense ratcheted up the pressure. That's a matter of historical fact - check the games. In the games this year, the Kings have shown a startling inability to execute offensive plays which has led to TO's and countless transitional buckets for the other team.
Saying that this Kings team lacks an experienced PG that can steady the team and help run offensive sets without repeatedly turning the ball over is not speculation - it's a fact.

Come on...he was steady and consistent and someone we know who can play his role. But to make him like a PG that we needed is silly. Why would we even try to find another PG is silly if he was that good? He was decent..not Steve Nash. He's not even close to Rubio even with the inconsistency. Our need back then and even last year was SF. Losing Beno to me reduce our skill at PG but we trade for Salmon to improve greatly at SF. (Of course its still debatable on how much we improve since Salmon isn't playing to expectation).

I agree that the fact is we need a good PG ...but even IF Beno provided that then (which I see him as average PG that shoot decently well) we would have to sacrifice the SF position with someone unknown. If that make this team better is pure speculation. We would lose out bigger in the SF position and have 6 guards to play IMO.

* Trading for Salmons did end up making it so that the Kings didn't get any other quality SF to fill the gaping hole there.
Again, that's not arguable - that's a historical fact. It happened.

So regardless of ANYthing else that has gone on this season, trying to rationalize that losing a steadying vet PG presence and adding Salmons instead of any other vet SF hasn't hurt this Kings team is wrong.

The only thing that's arguable is whether or not the other SF they would have gotten without the Beno/Salmons trade would have played better than Salmons or not. Maybe he would have been injured? We don't know that....

Agreed..nothing is for certain but I rather have 3 guards+2 rookies (IT showing promise and better D) and a known defensive SF then 6 guards. Unless you don't think we should draft Jimmer and draft a SF..but that is even worst IMO. (But that would be another discussion)

 

[IfAt1st]

I really don't know where to begin.

Don't bring up Steve Nash or Rubio.

I'll repeat, because you've missed this so far:
The Kings didn't need to trade their only proven (backup) PG to get a SF.
If they had not traded Beno for Salmons, they would have gotten a different SF. That is a fact.

 

[Telemachus]

I really don't know where to begin.

Don't bring up Steve Nash or Rubio.

I'll repeat, because you've missed this so far:
The Kings didn't need to trade their only proven (backup) PG to get a SF.
If they had not traded Beno for Salmons, they would have gotten a different SF. That is a fact.

Just who do you think the Kings would have gotten at SF? I'm curious, because it isn't like the Kings didn't try to sign a SF despite already having Salmons (and still couldn't get them to sign). The FAs everyone talked about were AK47 (he stayed in Russia), Battier (who signed with Miami almost immediately for less money than he could have signed for), and Prince (who resigned with Detroit for more money than I think he is worth). None of them were coming to the Kings with or without Salmons on the roster. So please tell me who this upgrade at SF is that the Kings weren't able to sign because of the trade for Salmons. You should be able to give me a name since according to you, it is a fact.

 

[VF21]

Just who do you think the Kings would have gotten at SF? I'm curious, because it isn't like the Kings didn't try to sign a SF despite already having Salmons (and still couldn't get them to sign). The FAs everyone talked about were AK47 (he stayed in Russia), Battier (who signed with Miami almost immediately for less money than he could have signed for), and Prince (who resigned with Detroit for more money than I think he is worth). None of them were coming to the Kings with or without Salmons on the roster. So please tell me who this upgrade at SF is that the Kings weren't able to sign because of the trade for Salmons. You should be able to give me a name since according to you, it is a fact.

Seconded.

 

[pshn80]

The Kings are doing better, have looked like a team more and more. I think Petrie knows what he doing and the Kings have and will profit in Ws and Ls from it. I keep watching but I haven't seen him make any mistakes. I'm sure many on here would think I'm crazy or a least wrong but I don't think so. It's always fun talking about it as long we don't take ourselves too seriously.

 

[Tetsujin]

Just who do you think the Kings would have gotten at SF? I'm curious, because it isn't like the Kings didn't try to sign a SF despite already having Salmons (and still couldn't get them to sign). The FAs everyone talked about were AK47 (he stayed in Russia), Battier (who signed with Miami almost immediately for less money than he could have signed for), and Prince (who resigned with Detroit for more money than I think he is worth). None of them were coming to the Kings with or without Salmons on the roster. So please tell me who this upgrade at SF is that the Kings weren't able to sign because of the trade for Salmons. You should be able to give me a name since according to you, it is a fact.

Then you obviously haven't thought of the vaunted Cisco for Kevin Durant trade that he's probably been working on all season.

 

[Rookie]

I really don't know where to begin.

Don't bring up Steve Nash or Rubio.

I'll repeat, because you've missed this so far:
The Kings didn't need to trade their only proven (backup) PG to get a SF.
If they had not traded Beno for Salmons, they would have gotten a different SF. That is a fact.

I didn't missed it. Read my post..."do you want us to draft more SF"?
Hey I don't like bringing those guys up but you made it seems like we lost those guys.

Beno is proven as a backup PG..."BACKUP". You said it yourself not me. We don't even have a STARTING SF! Who do you think we need (especially with Thorton being signed and drafting two more guards (gambling on one of them to take over Beno IMO but has not planned out YET)? a proven backup or a starter?

Maybe GP could of trade for another SF (first who could we get and actually get a trade done? I don't have as much info as many of you seem to have) and also who could we give up? Donte/Garcia/more draft picks (We would definitely get someone better than Salmon for those guys ). Oh wait we could have traded JT(a guy playing a position we need) for a better SF (still who). Please I really would like to know the specific of your fact.

We had two positions desperately needed...SF and PF if DMC is playing center and a center if DMC is PF. Two starting roles that needed to be filled, the trade got us one but that other role most of us would like it to be Dally (of course that didn't planned out and it's not GP fault IMO).

Maybe it's just me but I like to build a solid starting 5 first if possible before I build backup players. I know it doesn't make sense but that's just me.

 

[IfAt1st]

None of them were coming to the Kings with or without Salmons on the roster. [/q]Factually, this is an unknown.
The Kings already had Salmons on their roster when the free agent signing period came, so we'll never know who the Kings would have signed or traded for if they hadn't gotten Salmons.
[q] So please tell me who this upgrade at SF is that the Kings weren't able to sign because of the trade for Salmons. You should be able to give me a name since according to you, it is a fact.

I said it was a fact they would have gotten a SF not named John Salmons - not who.
As for SF's who are better than Salmons - I'm not a "tradeguy specialist", but there are currently 50 players who have a better PER (>8) than Salmons. That's 50 who are listed at SF - which Salmons is not, interestingly enough.

If you are suggesting the Kings couldn't have picked up one of them in the offseason, well I'll have to disagree with you.

 

[IfAt1st]

I didn't missed it. Read my post..."do you want us to draft more SF"?
Hey I don't like bringing those guys up but you made it seems like we lost those guys.

What are talking about?!

Who mentioned drafting a SF?!
You really need to read posts closer.

You just dismissed Beno as a "Backup PG".
He averaged 34.6 minutes last year for us.
I wouldn't call that a backup role.
And he was ranked 23rd amongst PG's in PER. That's not elite, but that's not a throw-away level of skill, either (it's above Tyreke and way above Salmons.)

But most importantly - the team needed his playmaking and steadying-the-offense ability desperately last year, and it has been proven in the games so far this year they still need him, even after drafting 2 rookie guards. And with Thornton being hurt this year, Beno again would have been starting this year.

I agree that the Kings had 2 positions they needed filled - SF and C.
If you are of the opinion that the Kings could not have gotten a SF better than Salmons, again I disagree.

 

[Glenn]

I agree that the Kings had 2 positions they needed filled - SF and C.
If you are of the opinion that the Kings could not have gotten a SF better than Salmons, again I disagree.

What SF did you have in mind and how would the Kings have acquired him? This is getting nit picky and not enjoyable at all. We don't know how the Salmons trade will work out. He started out very poorly which is well documented and well earned on his part. Now he is playing much better. At least I think he is playing better. It is my opnion and not a fact. If he continues to play at this level, it will be difficult to say that acquiring him was a total bust, a bad move, etc. or whatever word fits that trade. Salmons is playing better offense and defense and seems to be rebounding better. That's all the information I have to go on at the moment and most is simply my opinion.

 

[IfAt1st]

What SF did you have in mind and how would the Kings have acquired him?

I'm not a professional who makes millions of dollars and has a career that allows me to follow the NBA to know who would have been a better fit for this team than Salmons.
I don't spend much time in the Personnel Moves forum, but I know there were many SF's mentioned during the offseason.
I just mentioned a list of 50 players (I'm not going to copy-paste 50 times) but it's here:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...n.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sf

And you're inarguably right : Salmons HAS played much better the last 3 games. That's not just your opinion - that's fact.
And if he continues playing at this level, it would be harder to compare the trade.

But the fact remains - the post I was replying to was written on 2/2 in the morning. That was BEFORE Salmons necromancer'ed himself into viability. At THAT time, the trade most clearly was a hideous one for the Kings, and it's still a matter of fact that the Kings are missing Beno out on the floor.

Anyone who's watched the Kings offense this year can see that.

 

[Glenn]

I think we are all learning with Salmons and Daly that making an early judgment on a player new to the team with no preseason practice is risky. The team is coming together which helps individuals AND the team. Last week the trade for Salmons was considered the worst in Kings history or close to that and now this week it is considered at the very least, good. Now I wonder what we will think next week. Let these guys settle in with the team and maybe even more important, let the team settle in with the player. And who knows, maybe having a competent coach helped Salmons.

I'm happy for him and the Kings. It is very interesting that our two weak positions seem to be not so weak anymore. Salmons is much better (for the moment) and JT seems to have filled the position otherwise known as "the position next to Cuz."

 

[rainmaker]

I'm not a professional who makes millions of dollars and has a career that allows me to follow the NBA to know who would have been a better fit for this team than Salmons.
I don't spend much time in the Personnel Moves forum, but I know there were many SF's mentioned during the offseason.
I just mentioned a list of 50 players (I'm not going to copy-paste 50 times) but it's here:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...n.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sf

Ah, I see, you kick and scream yet offer no solutions. Fun world to be living in.

 

[Rookie]

What are talking about?!

Who mentioned drafting a SF?!
You really need to read posts closer.

I was wondering what you would have us do to fill the SF position. You need to read my post closer. I never stated that you said that but question what your plan would be to fill that spot if not trade. And if trade how would you have done it? In order to criticize someone I would expect you have all that figured out. But if none and still keep Beno..that's just plain dumb IMO.

You just dismissed Beno as a "Backup PG".
He averaged 34.6 minutes last year for us.
I wouldn't call that a backup role.
And he was ranked 23rd amongst PG's in PER. That's not elite, but that's not a throw-away level of skill, either (it's above Tyreke and way above Salmons.)

With Thornton/Evans as main, he would be playing backup 99.9% guaranteed. The backup came up with you not me: “The Kings didn't need to trade their only proven (backup) PG to get a SF.” The PER stat is not really fair to compare players IMO: 1-If you good enough you get your minutes, 2-the longer you play the less effective your stats are for most players.

I’m not sure if cbs sports ranking is fair but Beno ranking at the PG is very bad compare to Salmon at SF. However I took that with a grain of salt.

But most importantly - the team needed his playmaking and steadying-the-offense ability desperately last year, and it has been proven in the games so far this year they still need him, even after drafting 2 rookie guards. And with Thornton being hurt this year, Beno again would have been starting this year.

All I can say is we suck with him for years and without him we suck as well (for the most part so far this season). Like I said you can plug in Beno to cover for Thornton but who would cover the SF position for the whole season? It seems I’m repeating myself.

I agree that the Kings had 2 positions they needed filled - SF and C.
If you are of the opinion that the Kings could not have gotten a SF better than Salmons, again I disagree.

Agree to disagree. IMO most GM would have no problem trading a B player for an A player if possible. If there was a better proven SF player than Salmon and the team willing to take on Beno, I don’t see why one would not pull the trigger. We don’t know, so I give GP (who I think is intelligent enough) the benefit of the doubt and Salmon was the best we could get for Beno.

 

[gunks]

Speaking of the Salmons/Beno trade...

Leonard getting more props from Pops after holding Durant to 22 points on 19 shots. Pops reiterates that he could be a Bowen type for the Spurs in a few years. Ah well, at least we got Jimmer. GJ GP.

-end bitterness over my guy not getting drafted by us and doing great on another team-

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Speaking of the Salmons/Beno trade...

Leonard getting more props from Pops after holding Durant to 22 points on 19 shots. Pops reiterates that he could be a Bowen type for the Spurs in a few years. Ah well, at least we got Jimmer. GJ GP.

-end bitterness over my guy not getting drafted by us and doing great on another team-

Kl was the other guy I wanted in this draft. God to see him playing well

 

['89 Kings Fan]

Just who do you think the Kings would have gotten at SF? I'm curious, because it isn't like the Kings didn't try to sign a SF despite already having Salmons (and still couldn't get them to sign). The FAs everyone talked about were AK47 (he stayed in Russia), Battier (who signed with Miami almost immediately for less money than he could have signed for), and Prince (who resigned with Detroit for more money than I think he is worth). None of them were coming to the Kings with or without Salmons on the roster. So please tell me who this upgrade at SF is that the Kings weren't able to sign because of the trade for Salmons. You should be able to give me a name since according to you, it is a fact.

Lets not confuse the issue and let Petrie off the hook. Last year we had the Garcia/Casspi/Greene trio and they produced:

PER
Year Us Opp. Diff
10/11 12.3 16.5 -4.1

Not very good, obviously in need of an upgrade. So we trade our backup PG, a conditional first, drop 3 spots in the draft, casspi and take on the final year of Salmons salary (and 3 years of Outlaw the worst starter in the NBA last year) and get:

PER
Year Us Opp. Diff
11/12 8.5 14.3 -5.8

Mission Accomplished. I know Hickson is a power foward, but he is a lost cause and needs to be traded before he hurts his trade value anymore.

I know people give Petrie a pass since free agents don't want to sign here. But as has been pointed out by other posters all we had to do was draft Kawhi Leonard at #7. We could have even traded down to 10 to get him. He was going anywhere from 6 to 11 in mock drafts so we wasn't a reach. I also wanted them to try and get a mid first rounder to get Chris Singleton also.

 

[Telemachus]

Lets not confuse the issue and let Petrie off the hook. Last year we had the Garcia/Casspi/Greene trio and they produced:

PER
Year Us Opp. Diff
10/11 12.3 16.5 -4.1

Not very good, obviously in need of an upgrade. So we trade our backup PG, a conditional first, drop 3 spots in the draft, casspi and take on the final year of Salmons salary (and 3 years of Outlaw the worst starter in the NBA last year) and get:

PER
Year Us Opp. Diff
11/12 8.5 14.3 -5.8

Mission Accomplished. I know Hickson is a power foward, but he is a lost cause and needs to be traded before he hurts his trade value anymore.

I know people give Petrie a pass since free agents don't want to sign here. But as has been pointed out by other posters all we had to do was draft Kawhi Leonard at #7. We could have even traded down to 10 to get him. He was going anywhere from 6 to 11 in mock drafts so we wasn't a reach. I also wanted them to try and get a mid first rounder to get Chris Singleton also.

I never said in my post that the current SFs for the Kings were producing this season. I was replying to another poster's commets that the Kings trading for Salmons had kept them from going out and getting another SF this offseason (stating that it was a fact). I merely pointed out that the Kings tried to sign another SF despite already having Salmons and couldn't get any to come here.

As for the Kings current SF situation, I don't think anyone thought Salmons would play as poorly as he has (until recently) so far this season (not even his detractors). Throw in the fact that both Garcia and Greene have been very unproductive, and Outlaw has played about as poorly as possible, and you have a bad situation at SF. Of course, that could change is Salmons continues to play like he has the past 2 games, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

It's hard to criticize Petrie the way Cousins and Thomas are playing. They could end up being two of the best picks in Kings history.

 

[VF21]

It's hard to criticize Petrie the way Cousins and Thomas are playing. They could end up being two of the best picks in Kings history.

You have to add in the hire of Keith Smart to the mix. I think Petrie's job is safe.

 

[IfAt1st]

It's the resurrection of Salmons, combined with IT's ability to run the offense that will save Petrie.

Without a capable offense-initiator, this offense still breaks down, DMC beasting or not.

 

[Bricklayer]

It's the resurrection of Salmons, combined with IT's ability to run the offense that will save Petrie.

Without a capable offense-initiator, this offense still breaks down, DMC beasting or not.

Its really not though. Those are welcome developments, but Petrie's sole argument, and ANY GM's sole argument in a rebuild, is that they have drafted guys who are going to be stars and the new core of the team. He will be saved, or not, by Cousins, Evans and Thornton continuing to develop into the next Kings core. If they don't not lal the Salmons and ITs in the world will save him. If they do, and we have young stars just in need of a better supporting cast, he'll probably get the chance to build that cast.

 

[IfAt1st]

Yes, DMC and Tyreke becoming stars are more critical, but I sustain that if Salmons continued playing as bad as he was, combined with the complete inability of the team to even run a play on offense without turning it over against solid defenses, he may well have not had the advantage of time for Tyreke and DMC to develop enough to make that clear.

Without Salmons and IT, the Kings would have lost the last 3 games.
In a row.

Petrie would have still been on the fire.

 

[King Baller]

Yes, DMC and Tyreke becoming stars are more critical, but I sustain that if Salmons continued playing as bad as he was, combined with the complete inability of the team to even run a play on offense without turning it over against solid defenses, he may well have not had the advantage of time for Tyreke and DMC to develop enough to make that clear.

Without Salmons and IT, the Kings would have lost the last 3 games.
In a row.

Petrie would have still been on the fire.

And yet Geoff Petrie is still the same guy. Is there a lesson in this for us all?

KB

 

[King Baller]

Like








































Trust in Petrie

KB

 

[rainmaker]

Petrie still has a whole lot of work to do. Yes he picked Cousins, but Cousins also fell into our lap. IT is an amazing pick, and Petrie appears to be the only gm in the league who saw anything in him, which is shocking. Jimmer will be fine, and expect to see steadier contributions after an off season and full training camp.

Salmons has really stepped it up the last week or so, but he's still not an answer for guarding the top half of sf's in this league. We still need more from that position on defense and the glass down the road. I hope Salmons can keep this up for the rest of the season, but still consider his a stop gap. The Outlaw signing still make little sense. Aside from IT, we're practically getting nothing from our bench. JJ has been underwhelming to say the least. Cisco's contributions are in the locker room.

So while there are positives we can point to, there are also a fair amount of negatives which need to be addressed. If JT is the new starting pf, which I like, we don't have a backup center. JJ doesn't play defense, and Hayes is a pf. Just too short to guard centers and contest shots inside.

I do think this stretch might take some pressure off Petrie, and give him some time to work out the roster, but it can't be ignored the shortcomings on this roster are due to some poor moves, or not making any moves to address a certain problem. Other issue is the huge difference we're all seeing between Smart and Westy. What Smart is currently doing, and the effect he's had not just on individuals but the team as a whole, makes bringing back Westy and keeping him around even more of a travesty.

Smart is fixing a lot of the mess our FO created.

 

[Heuge]

3 wins shouldnt matter. 8 years of losing should.

 

[King Baller]

3 wins shouldnt matter. 8 years of losing should.

The last 8 years? Really?

2010-11 Sacramento 24 58 .293 5th Pacific Division - - - DNQ
2009-10 Sacramento 25 57 .305 5th Pacific Division - - - DNQ
2008-09 Sacramento 17 65 .207 5th Pacific Division - - - DNQ
2007-08 Sacramento 38 44 .463 4th Pacific Division - - - DNQ
2006-07 Sacramento 33 49 .402 5th Pacific Division - - - DNQ
2005-06 Sacramento 44 38 .537 4th Pacific Division 2 4 .333 Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2004-05 Sacramento 50 32 .610 2nd Pacific Division 1 4 .200 Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2003-04 Sacramento 55 27 .671 2nd Pacific Division 7 5 .583 Lost West Conf Semis