Second guessing the Brockman pick...

[Chupacabra]

Ummm, Brockman wasn't picked ahead of Blair. Blair was picked by the Spur's one pick before the Kings picked Brockman. So the Kings never had a chance to pick or pass on Blair. That is unless you want to count our second first round pick. Or say that we shouldn't have made the deal with Portland before the draft trading the 31st pick for Sergio.

Thank you. This makes any brockman-blair arguement moot. Damn those spurs.

 

[DoDiGaG0]

I think anyone would take Blair over Sergio and Brockman

however, I don't think anyone saw Blair falling to where he did...

 

[Showtime]

And we got Sergio and Brockman for our 31st pick.

Both of which combined could be less valuable than Blair...

And about the pick, it's already been addressed. If GP didn't have the mediocre "patch" mentality, the Sergio deal isn't made, the Kings have 31, and Blair is there for the taking.

 

[kennadog]

Both of which combined could be less valuable than Blair...

And about the pick, it's already been addressed. If GP didn't have the mediocre "patch" mentality, the Sergio deal isn't made, the Kings have 31, and Blair is there for the taking.

And if every GM had thought that highly of Blair, or even close, at draft time, he would never have been available at #31 anyway. So its silly to blame GP for not having a magic ball that every other GM in the league didn't have.

 

[Showtime]

And if every GM had thought that highly of Blair, or even close, at draft time, he would never have been available at #31 anyway. So its silly to blame GP for not having a magic ball that every other GM in the league didn't have.

I'm not blaming GP for not expecting Blair to fall that far, I'm blaming him because his decisions cost the Kings that chance.

1. It's GP's job to know more than we do.

2. Even if Blair was taken #1, there's still no need for the sergio deal.

3. GP was gambling that there would be no player available for their 3rd pick that would be more valuable than Sergio + Brockman. He lost.

Teams were fearful of Blair's durability. Obviously GP should have known about that. Talent was never the issue with Blair. But even if we remove Blair from the issue, he still made a pointless deal with Portland. Pointless. Yes, because it's IRRELEVANT to the team's season and future, just like other deals he's made in the past.

 

[bajaden]

Both of which combined could be less valuable than Blair...

And about the pick, it's already been addressed. If GP didn't have the mediocre "patch" mentality, the Sergio deal isn't made, the Kings have 31, and Blair is there for the taking.

As my grandmother used to say. "IF" is for children.

 

[Showtime]

As my grandmother used to say. "IF" is for children.

One of the best things one could do to learn is to examine the past, and see where mistakes where made in order to avoid them in the future. By looking at different potential courses of action, we use the "if" question in scenarios, which has helped me make good decisions in my life. Hindsight is 20/20, but that 20/20 clarity leads to an understanding which could aide us in the future.

 

[Warhawk]

I'm not blaming GP for not expecting Blair to fall that far, I'm blaming him because his decisions cost the Kings that chance.

1. It's GP's job to know more than we do.

2. Even if Blair was taken #1, there's still no need for the sergio deal.

3. GP was gambling that there would be no player available for their 3rd pick that would be more valuable than Sergio + Brockman. He lost.

Teams were fearful of Blair's durability. Obviously GP should have known about that. Talent was never the issue with Blair. But even if we remove Blair from the issue, he still made a pointless deal with Portland. Pointless. Yes, because it's IRRELEVANT to the team's season and future, just like other deals he's made in the past.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Petrie addressed a need (PG depth) with a trade that means we got Sergio and cash to move down a few spots in the draft, not far. In what was considered a pretty weak draft in the second round. Where Blair was not anticipated to be available on anyone's card.

You can't blame him for missing on Blair in the second round.

 

[Showtime]

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Petrie addressed a need (PG depth) with a trade that means we got Sergio and cash to move down a few spots in the draft, not far. In what was considered a pretty weak draft in the second round.

And that's my point. He saw a weakness at the PG position, and got a mediocre filler that isn't even definitively better than Beno, who was the cause of that position's weakness by his regression the previous season. Making the deal for Sergio was irrelevant and pointless, because it did NOTHING in the long run to solve the team's PG problem. All it did was add another mediocre PG to split minutes with Beno while Evans develops. And that decision actually hurt the team's future.

Where Blair was not anticipated to be available on anyone's card.

You can't blame him for missing on Blair in the second round.

Did you not read my post? I said that even if we remove Blair from the issue, GP still made a pointless move that won't help the team's PG problems, which was the entire reason for doing the deal. Now, factor Blair into the issue, and we have GP's mentality of getting mediocre fillers that actually cost the team a future prospect. Either way, GP's decision making has either hurt, or done NOTHING for this team. That is something I can blame him for, because it's his job to make the team better.

 

[VF21]

You're presenting a lot of assumptions as though they're proven facts...

Just one, for example, stands out. You have no way of knowing how Sergio is going to do. He could end up - like a lot of other Petrie acquisitions - having the best years of his career in a Kings jersey. He might actually be a good back-up point guard.

 

[Showtime]

You have no way of knowing how Sergio is going to do.

No, I don't. But I do know that he will be splitting minutes with Beno and Evans at the point, so he won't get an optimal amount of time to play well. I also know what kind of player he is, having watched him in Portland and in preseason with the team. I also know that Portland wanted a PG, and let him go. They signed Andre Miller in free agency. So we know that they didn't even think he could compete for the job with Miller or Steve Blake. So we know a team with championship hopes felt they had a PG position issue, and let Sergio go. The Kings, the worst team in the league, has a PG position issue, and look to acquire him. I think that's telling.

He could end up - like a lot of other Petrie acquisitions - having the best years of his career in a Kings jersey.

And even if he does, it won't be good enough for a long term solution. It won't add wins enough to matter. It won't bring the team success that we are looking for, because Sergio at his very best is not a top PG in this league. So in reality, he hasn't solved the point guard problems. He's just helped decrease the depth problem, not the talent issue.

He might actually be a good back-up point guard.

Well, if you are content that GP's mentality of temporary fillers has brought a potentially "good" back up to the team instead of a promising future prospect, then I think that's where this conversation ends.

 

[VF21]

Considering your other thread/poll, it's clear that your opinion of Petrie is diametrically different than mine. I think THAT'S where the conversation ends.

 

[Showtime]

Considering your other thread/poll, it's clear that your opinion of Petrie is diametrically different than mine. I think THAT'S where the conversation ends.

I came to no conclusions about GP in that thread. I clearly stated that while some of his recent decisions have lead the team in the wrong direction, there is also the issue of getting a better replacement, and the lessons learned from Adelman. I presented a basis to pose the question to the voters, not to rally for his dismissal.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

1. It's GP's job to know more than we do.

This is true. I tend to assume that in fact he does. Outside of the glaring mistake in drafting Douby his draft record is stellar, which supports my assumption at least as far as the draft goes.

2. Even if Blair was taken #1, there's still no need for the sergio deal.

Well, "need" is a strong word. I think that in principle (meaning outside of the consideration of what we gave up, as in your Blair #1 scenario) picking up Sergio on the cheap-cheap was a good idea, regardless of whether it was strictly necessary. It allowed us to get a backup point for Beno - which would be a big help if A) we weren't able to get a PG we liked in the draft, or B) if we find a taker for Beno's contract.

3. GP was gambling that there would be no player available for their 3rd pick that would be more valuable than Sergio + Brockman.

I agree. I think that's exactly the kind of consideration one would have to make before pulling the trigger on the deal.

He lost.

I think the jury is still out on that one. We haven't even had a single regular season game yet.

 

[Oprostaj]

It allowed us to get a backup point for Beno - which would be a big help if A) we weren't able to get a PG we liked in the draft, or B) if we find a taker for Beno's contract.

I don't get it... we drafted Tyreke to be, per the FO thinking, a PG. So... was Sergio brought up to spell them both, or to act as a backup when Beno/Reke were side by side? Was he brought in as insurance if the Reke/pg experiment failed? I think Showtime brings up great points from him POV.

 

[kingsnation]

I don't get it... we drafted Tyreke to be, per the FO thinking, a PG. So... was Sergio brought up to spell them both, or to act as a backup when Beno/Reke were side by side? Was he brought in as insurance if the Reke/pg experiment failed? I think Showtime brings up great points from him POV.

Agreed. I think the Sergio trade would've been a solid trade IF we hadn't already drafted Reke at 4 or had Beno.

Instead of going out and trading for a backup Center, we traded for a backup PG when we already had 2. Soo.. logic was what again?

 

[Bricklayer]

The Sergio trade was announced before the draft began, including before we drafted Reke. Now givent hat the draft was 90% PGs we mght well have been intent on drafting somebody at PG, regardless of who. BUt we did not already have Reke/Beno, and even if we had, we might have been thinking we might somehow unload Beno during the summer.

 

[Warhawk]

The Sergio trade was announced before the draft began, including before we drafted Reke. Now givent hat the draft was 90% PGs we mght well have been intent on drafting somebody at PG, regardless of who. BUt we did not already have Reke/Beno, and even if we had, we might have been thinking we might somehow unload Beno during the summer.

and given Beno's injury history......

 

[kingsnation]

The Sergio trade was announced before the draft began, including before we drafted Reke. Now givent hat the draft was 90% PGs we mght well have been intent on drafting somebody at PG, regardless of who. BUt we did not already have Reke/Beno, and even if we had, we might have been thinking we might somehow unload Beno during the summer.

Like you said, the draft was 90% PG and unless Blake fell to us, we were taking a PG. So, the Sergio trade had to be made for 1 of 2 reasons, maybe both:

a. Like you said, we were/are hoping to unload Beno.

b. Our FO isn't sold on Reke as our PG just yet.

Is there any other reason that the Sergio trade could've been made? I just don't see it.

That being said, I really hope we can get rid of Beno very very soon. He has the potential to become a lighter Kenny Thomas. If we do get rid of him, then the Sergio trade immediately becomes a great trade.

 

[bajaden]

Like you said, the draft was 90% PG and unless Blake fell to us, we were taking a PG. So, the Sergio trade had to be made for 1 of 2 reasons, maybe both:

a. Like you said, we were/are hoping to unload Beno.

b. Our FO isn't sold on Reke as our PG just yet.

Is there any other reason that the Sergio trade could've been made? I just don't see it.

That being said, I really hope we can get rid of Beno very very soon. He has the potential to become a lighter Kenny Thomas. If we do get rid of him, then the Sergio trade immediately becomes a great trade.

What Bricky stated made perfect sense. If the Kings felt that the only point guard that could step right in and play from the get go was Evans, and they had no assurance that Evans would be there when they picked, then it made good sense to cover all your bases and pick up Sergio, especially when he came as cheap as he did and you only moved down a couple of spaces.

This entire argument is in the abstract and in the abstract you can make anything come out any way you want. Its like me spraying my room with elephant spray and telling you its working because there aren't any elephants in the room. Or saying you can't win an NBA championship unless everyone on the team drinks milk, because history shows that so far every player with a ring drinks milk.

Its a stupid riduclous argument! If you want to argue that Blair could help the team and its a shame that he got picked one spot before we picked. Fine. I'm with you. But when you go back and try an change history based on an outcome you wanted, you lose me. All I can say is that maybe we should fire Petrie and hire Showtime, because of his ability to see into the future. A valuable commodity to have. Maybe I should hire him for financial advice on the stock market.

 

[Showtime]

What Bricky stated made perfect sense. If the Kings felt that the only point guard that could step right in and play from the get go was Evans, and they had no assurance that Evans would be there when they picked, then it made good sense to cover all your bases and pick up Sergio, especially when he came as cheap as he did and you only moved down a couple of spaces.

Then you are making the assumption that that was the only recourse in acquiring a safety net for the PG position. I refuse to accept that if GP wanted to add depth to 'cover his bases', that the Sergio trade was the only possible course of action.

And I take issue with the premise of the deal itself, which was looking for a solid PG with some experience to add depth. "Well, what if they felt the PG they were going to draft wouldn't be ready?" SO WHAT? This was the worst team in the league last season. They don't NEED a good point guard because it won't make a DIFFERENCE enough to matter in the win/loss column. So what if Evans isn't up to par at point and looks raw? It's not going to hurt the team by having him develop on the floor and make mistakes, because wins and losses don't matter at this point.

This entire argument is in the abstract and in the abstract you can make anything come out any way you want. Its like me spraying my room with elephant spray and telling you its working because there aren't any elephants in the room. Or saying you can't win an NBA championship unless everyone on the team drinks milk, because history shows that so far every player with a ring drinks milk.

This is a ridiculous comment. I'm not making an abstract argument. I'm evaluating events which HAVE happened. I'm looking at the purpose of the Sergio deal, and what consequences came from that deal. The FACT is that the trade's purpose (adding a PG) could have been accomplished by other means. The FACT is that the trade cost the Kings the 31st pick. The FACT is that there were promising prospects at that range that the Kings no longer could choose because the deal had already been made. These are consequences that I'm evaluating based on the Sergio deal, so when I look at the premise of the deal, and the return, and the consequences of it, I'm not making abstract arguments.

Its a stupid riduclous argument! If you want to argue that Blair could help the team and its a shame that he got picked one spot before we picked. Fine. I'm with you. But when you go back and try an change history based on an outcome you wanted, you lose me.

You are beyond stupid if you think that evaluating a deal is attempting to change history. And if you think this discussion is ridiculous, then stop posting about it. I'm sure you would have better things to do or more interesting topics to discuss than one you feel is stupid and ridiculous.

All I can say is that maybe we should fire Petrie and hire Showtime, because of his ability to see into the future. A valuable commodity to have. Maybe I should hire him for financial advice on the stock market.

It has nothing to do with seeing into the future, because the Sergio deal was irrelevant and pointless the very MOMENT it was made, not after the draft. It just so happens that it ended up costing the kings a promising player.

But again, this is about WHY the deal was made, which is in part due to GP's approach and mentality, which is what I'm discussing. GP's mentality of acquiring mediocre fillers (SAR, Moore, Beno, Mason, Sergio, etc), combined with the position's lack of depth is why this deal was made, and if he didn't have that approach, this specific deal might not have been made. But it was all the same, and his trend of doing this ended up costing the kings something. Evaluating his decisions isn't stupid and ridiculous, and if you think that evaluating decisions is a waste of time, then I wish you good luck in your life.

 

[bajaden]

Then you are making the assumption that that was the only recourse in acquiring a safety net for the PG position. I refuse to accept that if GP wanted to add depth to 'cover his bases', that the Sergio trade was the only possible course of action.

And I take issue with the premise of the deal itself, which was looking for a solid PG with some experience to add depth. "Well, what if they felt the PG they were going to draft wouldn't be ready?" SO WHAT? This was the worst team in the league last season. They don't NEED a good point guard because it won't make a DIFFERENCE enough to matter in the win/loss column. So what if Evans isn't up to par at point and looks raw? It's not going to hurt the team by having him develop on the floor and make mistakes, because wins and losses don't matter at this point.



This is a ridiculous comment. I'm not making an abstract argument. I'm evaluating events which HAVE happened. I'm looking at the purpose of the Sergio deal, and what consequences came from that deal. The FACT is that the trade's purpose (adding a PG) could have been accomplished by other means. The FACT is that the trade cost the Kings the 31st pick. The FACT is that there were promising prospects at that range that the Kings no longer could choose because the deal had already been made. These are consequences that I'm evaluating based on the Sergio deal, so when I look at the premise of the deal, and the return, and the consequences of it, I'm not making abstract arguments.



You are beyond stupid if you think that evaluating a deal is attempting to change history. And if you think this discussion is ridiculous, then stop posting about it. I'm sure you would have better things to do or more interesting topics to discuss than one you feel is stupid and ridiculous.


It has nothing to do with seeing into the future, because the Sergio deal was irrelevant and pointless the very MOMENT it was made, not after the draft. It just so happens that it ended up costing the kings a promising player.

But again, this is about WHY the deal was made, which is in part due to GP's approach and mentality, which is what I'm discussing. GP's mentality of acquiring mediocre fillers (SAR, Moore, Beno, Mason, Sergio, etc), combined with the position's lack of depth is why this deal was made, and if he didn't have that approach, this specific deal might not have been made. But it was all the same, and his trend of doing this ended up costing the kings something. Evaluating his decisions isn't stupid and ridiculous, and if you think that evaluating decisions is a waste of time, then I wish you good luck in your life.

So the foundation for your entire premise is that you believe that Petrie is a bad GM that only makes deals aquiring mediocre players such as you stated. And anything he's done in the past that was a good deal, if you admit that he made some good deals, is irrelevant.

You believe that if Petrie was looking for a good backup for insurance, he shouldn't have made the deal for Sergio, because he should have known that it was possible that Blair was going to be there, or, he just shouldn't have made the deal because you don't think we needed a backup point guard for insurance, or, he should have looked elsewhere for such a deal, although we don't know who or where or when such player would become available.

So here's the question. If Blair hadn't been there, would the deal have been OK for you. Or, is it that you just wouldn't have liked the deal no matter what, and If so, then the real premise is that you think trading a second round pick for another a few spots later, and a backup point guard, that Petrie has always liked, plus money is a bad idea. I mean Blair aside, it cost us virtually nothing. For once Petrie was proactive instead of reactive. Sitting on his hands is what he usually does. For once I thought the Kings got the better of a deal. But thats because I don't like Pendegraph.

By the way. You have called me stupid twice now and I have yet to call you anything much less stupid. I've attacked your ideas, not you. I might think one of your ideas is stupid, but that doesn't mean I think your stupid. I've come up with some pretty stupid ideas in my time.

 

[fnordius]

If the Kings felt that the only point guard that could step right in and play from the get go was Evans...

Then I'd say they seriously misjudged several guys, ranging from Flynn to Beaubois, any of whom we could have picked, no matter what happened at picks 1-3. They may not all start their teams' season openers, but I don't doubt that several of them will be playing big minutes by midseason.

Like Brick also pointed out, this was a draft which was crammed with PGs.

I don't think that acquiring Rodriguez was dumb, but I really don't think it was justified by the lack of NBA-ready PGs in the draft. I think they must have had other reasons.

 

[Showtime]

So the foundation for your entire premise is that you believe that Petrie is a bad GM that only makes deals aquiring mediocre players such as you stated. And anything he's done in the past that was a good deal, if you admit that he made some good deals, is irrelevant.

No, that's not my argument.

You believe that if Petrie was looking for a good backup for insurance, he shouldn't have made the deal for Sergio, because he should have known that it was possible that Blair was going to be there,

No. I said GP's decision to trade the pick to acquire a piece that will be irrelevant had the consequence of losing the 31st pick which ended up being an opportunity to get a steal. I didn't say he shouldn't have done the deal BECAUSE of Blair, I said that his decision to make an irrelevant move had the consequence of losing the opportunity to get Blair. It's GP's method of choice to solve his PG issue is what I have a problem with.

or, he just shouldn't have made the deal because you don't think we needed a backup point guard for insurance,

Beno is injury prone. We all know that, as do the Kings. They also knew that the odds were heavily stacked that they would choose a PG or combo guard at their draft position. So they knew they would get a rookie PG and an injury prone mediocre PG in their backcourt. My problem is that:

1. If they felt their rookie may not have been ready, so what? This is the worst team in the league, so put the guy on the court. What is so wrong with playing a rookie when wins and losses don't matter?

2. If an insurance policy on Beno was to be made for a backup, then surely one could be obtained without giving up a pick or spending a lot of money.

or, he should have looked elsewhere for such a deal, although we don't know who or where or when such player would become available.

Oh c'mon. Are you seriously going to say that there was NO possibility of adding ANY backup point guard (remember, as a backup, and possibly 3rd string player, so talent isn't that much of an issue) to the roster at that time other than Sergio? Get real. I could go through the list of free agents, but I'm not going to waste my time.

So here's the question. If Blair hadn't been there, would the deal have been OK for you.

I've already answered this countless times, but for some reason you can't get it. I've already said that if Blair and the draft was removed from this issue, then the deal with Portland still accomplishes ultimately nothing for the Kings, because the addition of another backup doesn't change anything regarding this upcoming season. They are lottery bound with or without Sergio, and he is not the future of the point position for Sacramento.

I like Sergio, and was glad when I heard he would get a shot here in Sac, but this does nothing to change the team for the better in the big picture, because the team is rebuilding.

Or, is it that you just wouldn't have liked the deal no matter what, and If so, then the real premise is that you think trading a second round pick for another a few spots later, and a backup point guard, that Petrie has always liked, plus money is a bad idea.

It depends on the position of the team and the circumstances surrounding the season. For a contending team on the verge of a championship, a filler deal is usually the option instead of having a better draft position in the second round.

We know this team was the worst last season, and we know it will be at the bottom of the pacific division, and probably be a bottom 5 team yet again. What this team doesn't need right now is trading draft picks, even early second round ones, for a backup filler who will be gone in a year.

I mean Blair aside, it cost us virtually nothing.

But that's the entire point: dealing low value picks for nothing in return, aka an irrelevant deal. The decision to make a move that accomplishes very little cost the team a prospect because GP decided to get a mediocre addition who will do NOTHING for this team. So my point is, why does he continue this trend for these types of players when the situation of the team doesn't dictate it?

For once Petrie was proactive instead of reactive. Sitting on his hands is what he usually does. For once I thought the Kings got the better of a deal. But thats because I don't like Pendegraph.

And what is the alternative to: Rookie PG, + Beno, + filler? Oh right, there was no alternative, because GP just made a move which didn't change anything. How is that being proactive? How is that different than if he signed a guy to a minimum deal in free agency to come backup Beno in a potential 3rd string role? It's not different, and it didn't change anything other than costing the Kings a pick in a rebuilding period.

By the way. You have called me stupid twice now and I have yet to call you anything much less stupid. I've attacked your ideas, not you. I might think one of your ideas is stupid, but that doesn't mean I think your stupid. I've come up with some pretty stupid ideas in my time.

Well, you have implied that not just my ideas in this topic are stupid, but my thinking process is stupid, and that I'm childish in the way I evaluate this deal. It's semantics. Saying a person has a childish thought process and stupid ideas/evaluations is essentially calling them stupid. But whatever. I guess I'm too stupid to figure out why you continue to post in this thread when you have called it ridiculous and a waste of your time in multiple posts.




The bottom line is that I want this team to get better, and this deal didn't accomplish that. Not only did it not accomplish that, it actually ended up potentially doing the opposite in the long run. As a fan, I am not, and will not, be content with seeing this happen.

 

[bajaden]

Then I'd say they seriously misjudged several guys, ranging from Flynn to Beaubois, any of whom we could have picked, no matter what happened at picks 1-3. They may not all start their teams' season openers, but I don't doubt that several of them will be playing big minutes by midseason.

Like Brick also pointed out, this was a draft which was crammed with PGs.

I don't think that acquiring Rodriguez was dumb, but I really don't think it was justified by the lack of NBA-ready PGs in the draft. I think they must have had other reasons.

No, I quite agree with you. As its turned out it appears that there might be several pt's that are capable of stepping in and playing. But thats not the point of the discussion. It comes down to whether he thought the team needed insurance at that position just in case.

Now people can disagree that he was wrong, but draft picks and how their game translates to the NBA is always subject to opinion. And with the way Beno played last year, I think the move was reasonable. I understand that some might disagree, but when you consider the cost, and with no long team contract attached, I don't see the harm.

 

[Telemachus]

No. I said GP's decision to trade the pick to acquire a piece that will be irrelevant had the consequence of losing the 31st pick which ended up being an opportunity to get a steal. I didn't say he shouldn't have done the deal BECAUSE of Blair, I said that his decision to make an irrelevant move had the consequence of losing the opportunity to get Blair. It's GP's method of choice to solve his PG issue is what I have a problem with.

Almost every part of every argument you have made throughout this thread is based on assumptions or situations built on hindsight. That pretty much makes it all irrelevent.

You assume that Sergio will be irrelevent to the Kings. But have yet to give any basis for that. He has been viewed as a young, talented pure PG by a lot of people. He was caught in a logjam in Portland, but there is no reason to believe he can't be a good contributing PG for the Kings.

You also assume that Blair is going to be a steal. There is no doubt that he has played well in the pre-season so far, but we all know that it means nothing until the season begins. I have seen way too many players put up huge numbers in Summer league and pre-season over the years only to watch them do nothing once the season began too many times. You are also assuming that what he is doing with SA is the same as what he would accomplish with the Kings. You put an average player on a good team, surrounded by good players and they have a tendency to put much better numbers than what they would do on a bad team.

I would like to once again point out that this whole argument is based an NOT getting a player in the SECOND round of the draft because of a deal made PRIOR to the draft. This is dealing in the abstract, which makes the whole thing moot and a waste of time.

 

[Showtime]

Almost every part of every argument you have made throughout this thread is based on assumptions or situations built on hindsight. That pretty much makes it all irrelevent.

False. I've posted relevant information about this deal, looking at the purpose of the trade prior to the draft, so it's not just hindsight. This deal was irrelevant the moment it was made IMO. It's more than just mere assumptions, but informed ones.

You assume that Sergio will be irrelevent to the Kings. But have yet to give any basis for that.

False. I've posted detailed reasons why this is an informed projection. I'm not going to repeat them, so just go back and look. But on your point about assumptions...

...if I say the Kings are a lottery team, that is an assumption as well, but one that has a strong basis of actual information. Could I be wrong in that assumption? Sure, they could make the playoffs, because it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. Making the informed projection that the Kings will miss the playoffs this upcoming season is more than mere assumption.

He has been viewed as a young, talented pure PG by a lot of people. He was caught in a logjam in Portland, but there is no reason to believe he can't be a good contributing PG for the Kings.

A good contributing backup does not send the team to the playoffs, because a good contributing backup can't make a significant impact with reserve minutes. Plus, while he is a young and talented guard, he isn't even definitively superior to Beno. All of these points I've brought up before. So if the team is lottery bound with or without Sergio (who might be gone in a year), then I would ask you how that is NOT an irrelevant move.

You also assume that Blair is going to be a steal. There is no doubt that he has played well in the pre-season so far, but we all know that it means nothing until the season begins. I have seen way too many players put up huge numbers in Summer league and pre-season over the years only to watch them do nothing once the season began too many times.

That is right. I have said he has to prove he can stand an 82 game season. However, if no actual evaluation of preseason play matters, then that would also apply to our Mr. Evans. I could say his preseason means nothing, and he could very well end up a bust. But I doubt anybody here would agree with me if I made that statement.

You are also assuming that what he is doing with SA is the same as what he would accomplish with the Kings. You put an average player on a good team, surrounded by good players and they have a tendency to put much better numbers than what they would do on a bad team.[/COLOR]

Ah, finally a solid point against mine! Yes, this is true. This current kings team could have Hakeem and they wouldn't go to him in the post. I really don't think Blair would be in the same position to succeed from an individual standpoint.

I would like to once again point out that this whole argument is based an NOT getting a player in the SECOND round of the draft because of a deal made PRIOR to the draft. This is dealing in the abstract, which makes the whole thing moot and a waste of time.

This is about GP's mentality and why it has lead him down specific course. I agree there was a depth issue at the point position prior to the draft, but it's GP's approach to solve such an issue that worries me, specifically dealing draft picks for fillers during a rebuilding period. I don't disagree with his goal of adding PG depth, just the manner in which he went about it, and the consequences of such an approach.

 

[bajaden]

First off, I continue to post on this subject because I think your wrong. But then thats just my opinion. Also, because I'm trying to figure out how you think. How you come to your conclusions. Don't get me wrong. I know it makes perfect sense to you. But thats why I tried to break it down and seperate the parts.

See, you started this whole thing out by making Blair the center piece of the issure. And thats what everyone that disagreed with your opinion addressed. But the core of the entire thing is that you simply don't believe we needed to aquire Sergio. And Petrie is a bad GM etc.... Which relates to the deal and your opinion.

This I don't have a problem with. I may not agree, but no one knows how good or bad Sergio is going to be or how much he'll help the team, or not! So I can't prove to you based on anything solid that picking up Sergio is a brilliant move. All I have is my opinion. And my opinion of Sergio is probably higher than yours, but doesn't make it any better.

Watching players and judging them is what I do as a hobby. Thats why I love college basketball. I'm certainly not infalable, but I like to think that because I put in a lot of time I may be more knowledgable than most. I'm sure Gary, Vlade, and some others would disagree. But I respect their opinion. I think Sergio is a very talented guy. But he has some huge holes in his game. He's really never had a legit chance in my opinion. So maybe I like the deal because I'm curious to see him up close and personal, and also that I believe that if I'm right, and we all want to be right, he could actually help the team. OK!

I just never got the Blair connection. Yeah! I can see that if we didn't make the trade he would have been there. But hell, there's no guarantee that even then, Petrie would have picked him. So to me we were arguing over something that couldn't happen. So maybe we can agree to disagree on this part.

My post that said my grandmother said that if is for children was mean't to be directed at you, but as a general statement. Its an old saying, and if your not familiar with it, it simply means that when we get caught up in what if, were wasting our time. And only children have time to waste. So I wasn't calling you a child, or saying that your thinking was childlike. I was saying that its a waste of time to argue about something thats already done and over with. But hey, if you want to waste your time and think its important enough to do so. Thats fine. Apparently enough people thought it was important enough to keep this thread going. I still think its a waste of time, but being retired, I have plenty of it.

I never called you stupid. If you took it that way sorry. You did however call me stupid. You didn't hint about it or do it through nuance. You just flat called me stupid. You also do come across as condesending at times. I know its just passion on your part, but you have to expect some kneejerk reaction from people. Especially when some of them got up on the wrong side of the bed. By the way, if I really thought you were stupid, I wouldn't be wasting my time with you. Ump, sorry about the wasting part.

 

[kingsnation]

Ok, I had interest in this thread until Page 3. Now, it's just redundant.

 

[Warhawk]

Well, you have implied that not just my ideas in this topic are stupid, but my thinking process is stupid, and that I'm childish in the way I evaluate this deal. It's semantics. Saying a person has a childish thought process and stupid ideas/evaluations is essentially calling them stupid. But whatever. I guess I'm too stupid to figure out why you continue to post in this thread when you have called it ridiculous and a waste of your time in multiple posts.

He rebutted your idea/arguement, which, frankly, I find to be outlandish and indefensible to begin with. That aside, knock it off with the "stupid" comment. Keep your comments directed at the posts, not the posters.