Should Watkins start?

[PurpleHaze]

With SAR still not 100%, Miller milk-toast inside the paint, Artest suspended at present, K-9 grossly over-matched most nights, Moore with no inside game and apparently no outside game either - WHY NOT start Watkins!

When Artest returns he can replace Watkins at PF and leave Salmons at SF.

 

[fnordius]

I'd like to have Justin back, and give him and Watkins lots of minutes on most nights. I don't think it matters who starts. But if we're going to put Ron at PF, then we're really talking smallball, which makes half of our payroll redundant. They are arguably so anyway, but if we do that we commit to not trading them. And I'm not sure whether we have the ball movement to play that way.

 

[Jerichoholic]

If I'm the coach and want the best chance to win with all internal politics aside I absolutely would start Watkins in Thomas' place. Unfortunately politics sometimes play the biggest role and you can't have a minimum salary player starting over a guy making over 7 million.

I'm tired of hearing that Thomas is our best post defender and rebounder when he is barely average at both. Sure he is better than Moore and Abdur-Rahim but he isn't close to as good as Watkins. Look at what happened when he came in during the first half, we got boards, Chandler just had fits turning the ball over on like 3 straight possesions. West and Chandler dominated Thomas and Moore but Watkins handled them well.

Oh, and while Thomas and Moore are missing layups...Watkins stuffs it home like a power forward should!

 

[VF21]

If you're the coach and want the best chance to win, you know full well it's not going to make a difference on whether you start Kenny Thomas or Daryl Watkins - especially not while Bibby and Artest are out.

This is like worrying about your ashtray being full as your car plummets over the cliff headed for the rocks 1000 ft. below.

 

[Jerichoholic]

If you're the coach and want the best chance to win, you know full well it's not going to make a difference on whether you start Kenny Thomas or Daryl Watkins - especially not while Bibby and Artest are out.

This is like worrying about your ashtray being full as your car plummets over the cliff headed for the rocks 1000 ft. below.

Oh don't get me wrong if I want the best chance to win we have to replace half this team, even better having Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and LeBron James would give me the best chance to win...but it's not going to happen.

The point is with this current batch of players playing against a team of equal strength (perhaps the TWolves) who would I feel confident in starting to get the win? At PF is would be Watkins, and it's not just based off of one game either.

 

[BawLa]

You can't just start him...yet. Throw some more minutes his way, see how he responds.

 

[RunNGun]

Starting a player implies giving him more than just minutes. It means giving them lots of minutes. Watkins had some great minutes tonight, but he's far too young and inexperienced to play more than 5-10 minutes in any game. People feel way too hopeful when a player gets some great minutes in a game and then all of a sudden he should start. Williams and Watkins are not starters...period. If they aren't sitting under the basket, then they are essentially useless on the offense. Not too mention that if Thomas and Reef don't play most of the time at the 4 then you're gonna have two veterans that are gonna show up to Arco and leave a big stinking **** on the front lawn for roughly 13 million a year.

 

[Bricklayer]

If they aren't sitting under the basket, then they are essentially useless on the offense.

Much of the rest of your post has sense to it. However here you have just described Tyson Chandler -- the same Tyson Chandelr who destroyed us tonight. You have also just described Ben Wallace, either of Dallas's centers, etc. Point not being that our guys are as good (or big) as those players, but that those players can be very very effective as starters -- far more so than a mediocre non-rebounding non-defending "big" who's calling card is a bleeping faceup jumper.

 

[dude12]

Sometimes players have a way of looking really promising when they get limited minutes....and then when given the chance for big minutes, their games are exposed for what they are. Watkins needs to come off the bench and play 10-15 minutes for now. How did Greene look in an expanded role? Not so good and his lack of offense was not helped with Bibby and Artest out of the game. Greene is a good guy to put in for a dozen minutes per game as long as he has the right guys around him. Watkins looked good in his limited role. I'd like to see more of him also but I'm just saying that may not be the best thing.

 

[Jerichoholic]

Sometimes players have a way of looking really promising when they get limited minutes....and then when given the chance for big minutes, their games are exposed for what they are. Watkins needs to come off the bench and play 10-15 minutes for now. How did Greene look in an expanded role? Not so good and his lack of offense was not helped with Bibby and Artest out of the game. Greene is a good guy to put in for a dozen minutes per game as long as he has the right guys around him. Watkins looked good in his limited role. I'd like to see more of him also but I'm just saying that may not be the best thing.

Yes, sometimes players look really good in limited minutes but that's not always how they play when given a more promising role...you mean like Gerald Wallace or maybe Kevin Martin...oh wait that can't be right.

With all due respect I just don't buy into the whole inexperienced thing. There are quite a few rookies and second year players this year who are starting or getting significant minutes off the bench and they have just as much if not less experience than Watkins or Williams.

Using your example of Greene, I think Greene was the best guy to start because he is the best pure PG we currently have that can play...none better that is healthy. However at PF we do have better players than Kenny Thomas and the only reason they don't get significant minutes is because they're inexperienced is ridiculous. How do we expect young guys to get more experienced if they hardly play?

 

[jcassio]

I wouldn't normally suggest putting a kid like Watkins into a starting lineup, but if he can pull down 10+ boards/game without killing us with big mistakes, then he's an upgrade. And it's that simple.

The only logical reason for not giving a rookie lots of minutes is because they tend to make lots of mistakes. So having a rule that YOU DON'T DO THAT is a pea-brained notion. You have to make those decisions on a case by case basis - depending on how the player responds. If Watkins can't handle the job, we'll know soon enough. Then we can put him on the slow apprenticeship program.

Starters:
Salmons
Martin
Garcia
Watkins
Miller

Off the bench:
Douby
Greene
Thomas
Moore

 

[Gary]

If you're the coach and want the best chance to win, you know full well it's not going to make a difference on whether you start Kenny Thomas or Daryl Watkins - especially not while Bibby and Artest are out.

This is like worrying about your ashtray being full as your car plummets over the cliff headed for the rocks 1000 ft. below.

True statement. The difference between player A/B/C at the PF spot really isn't an issue. They are all pretty bad. Why ruffle KT's feathers and bench him after one game? It could cause more issues in the lockerroom than we might think to do something like this. Even if JW comes back I say we bring him off the bench.

 

[Jerichoholic]

True statement. The difference between player A/B/C at the PF spot really isn't an issue. They are all pretty bad. Why ruffle KT's feathers and bench him after one game? It could cause more issues in the lockerroom than we might think to do something like this. Even if JW comes back I say we bring him off the bench.

Right, let's compromise our entire rebuilding process just as not to upset Kenny Thomas. I don't mean to sound condescening but I'm just tired of all the politics. It's time to get back to basics, if you don't perform you sit, PERIOD. If someone plays better than you he gets more minutes than you. If you complain about it the other players should put you in line. If that doesn't work then there's the door.

 

[dude12]

Yes, sometimes players look really good in limited minutes but that's not always how they play when given a more promising role...you mean like Gerald Wallace or maybe Kevin Martin...oh wait that can't be right.

With all due respect I just don't buy into the whole inexperienced thing. There are quite a few rookies and second year players this year who are starting or getting significant minutes off the bench and they have just as much if not less experience than Watkins or Williams.

Using your example of Greene, I think Greene was the best guy to start because he is the best pure PG we currently have that can play...none better that is healthy. However at PF we do have better players than Kenny Thomas and the only reason they don't get significant minutes is because they're inexperienced is ridiculous. How do we expect young guys to get more experienced if they hardly play?

Your saying that Watkins is going to be as good as Wallace and KMart. Oh....OK. Your basing this on 10 minutes of regular season play. Oh......OK.

Your 2nd paragraph, not buying into the "inexperienced thing." Are you expecting Watkins to start the next game? Already? Because the kid pulled down 4 boards in 10 minutes doesn't mean he's going to pull down 20 boards in 48 minutes. How about letting the kid get his feet wet?

 

[Jerichoholic]

Your saying that Watkins is going to be as good as Wallace and KMart. Oh....OK. Your basing this on 10 minutes of regular season play. Oh......OK.

Your 2nd paragraph, not buying into the "inexperienced thing." Are you expecting Watkins to start the next game? Already? Because the kid pulled down 4 boards in 10 minutes doesn't mean he's going to pull down 20 boards in 48 minutes. How about letting the kid get his feet wet?

I did not say that Watkins would be as good as Wallace or Martin whatsoever, I'm saying that I don't know what he can do. The same way I didn't know what Wallace could do because he didn't play and the same way I didn't know how Martin could do until Bonzi got hurt. With all three of these players I saw and see potential and hate the idea that we should bury these guys on the bench because they are inexperienced and the veterans have experience regardless if it's good experience or not.

With Wallace, okay...we were title contenders and he was playing behind BJax, Christie, Peja, and Hedo...hard to get minutes. With Martin, he was playing behind Bonzi who was doing well. But Watkins is playing behind Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, and Moore who are not doing well and we are not title contenders by any stretch. Now is the time to see what the youngsters can do. I agree with you...let him get his feet wet and 10 minutes mostly all in the first half is not enough to do that.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Once again Petrie's failure to PLAN for this season is hidden in the details. the only time you start a guy like Watkins is if you HAVE to. If New Coach guy did then he is signalling to the league that he has to and therefore Reef adn Kenny become even more unmovable than they allready are. Also the move would be a compleet slam to both of them. Reef might still try but you could expect to see levels of pouting and cancerous behavior out of Kenny that would be off the charts.

Now had GP moved Kenny or simply bought him out then this discussion would have some serious merit. Of course in the end all playing Watkins big min does is give him experience and allow for his development. Might be good might be a bust don't know. But This team is NOT a Gerald Watkins away from acomplishing anything.

 

[Jerichoholic]

I think the best thing to do is be a realist and not fall on false hope. You say that if we start Watkins it signals to the league that Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, and Moore are terrible and makes them even more untradeable. Here's the truth, those 3 guys are terrible, the league already knows it, and they are as untradeable as they can possibly be.

As far as their attitudes go, I'm sorry but if I'm the coach I can't let that hold my team back. As I said before it's up to the other players to put those attitudes in line, if they can't then they can leave.

Finally, a contending team is not built overnight. We are certainly not a Watkins away from accomplishing anything but he is a piece, and Williams might be a piece. A couple good draft picks here and there and we have something. Here is what I know for sure, Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, and Moore are not those pieces.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I think the best thing to do is be a realist and not fall on false hope. You say that if we start Watkins it signals to the league that Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, and Moore are terrible and makes them even more untradeable. Here's the truth, those 3 guys are terrible, the league already knows it, and they are as untradeable as they can possibly be.

As far as their attitudes go, I'm sorry but if I'm the coach I can't let that hold my team back. As I said before it's up to the other players to put those attitudes in line, if they can't then they can leave.

Finally, a contending team is not built overnight. We are certainly not a Watkins away from accomplishing anything but he is a piece, and Williams might be a piece. A couple good draft picks here and there and we have something. Here is what I know for sure, Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, and Moore are not those pieces.

No one has EVER accused me of false hope before... I am not saying don't start Watkins beceause I expect better paly from SAR, KT or Moore. What I am saying is that in the real world BEFORE you CAN start Watkings you need to clean house. Your statment "If they don't like it they are free to leave" is compleetly false and the truh that they are NOT free to leave and for better or worse we are stuck with them EXPLAINS almost everything. I agree KT is untradeable adn SAR would be a dam hard sell untill or unless he show on the court the ablity to still play at a high level. The dream once was to package one of these turds into a deal with a desireable guy like Bibby. Ok that boats has saild. Now it is up to Petrie, NOT New Coach Guy to fix the problem buy buying out Kenny.

Its still a dang mystery as to why Moor was brought in in the first palce but since he is a full 7 feet tall and was never officially in the starting line up you can cal him back up PF/C and no harm no foul. Reef has a good attitude and is still comming back form surgery so again no real problem bu if you paln to start Watkins in the REAL wold you need to get KT OUT of the building first and not just tell him "If you don't like it you are free to go." But my point was that at this point all New Coach Guy can realistically do is start Kenny, pull him early and often give more min to Watkins and beg his boss to write a check.

 

[dude12]

I agree with you...let him get his feet wet and 10 minutes mostly all in the first half is not enough to do that.

True...I would like to see the guy more. I'm afraid his defense may be suspect but can't tell unless he gets more time. At least he finishes around the basket, and is NOT undersized unlike our other guys.

 

[jcassio]

if you paln to start Watkins in the REAL wold you need to get KT OUT of the building first and not just tell him "If you don't like it you are free to go." But my point was that at this point all New Coach Guy can realistically do is start Kenny, pull him early and often give more min to Watkins and beg his boss to write a check.

Nah. KT wants to be the starter, but - just as important to him - he wants to get his minutes of PT. You can't start him and yank him early in the hopes that he'll have a good attitude. Getting yanked early or being a starter with limited minutes hits a player's ego just as hard as having someone else start in front of them.

I think if we want to make KT feel good and maximize his trade value, we should start him and let him tell Reggie when he wants to rest.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I agree that giving KT's min to Watkins will likey set of another of his temper tantrums... hence my repeated suggestion that we buy him out. I was simply pointing out the realistic limits of the coaches position in dealing with the mees.

 

[Jerichoholic]

I guess it's my frustration at the organization that is creeping into this thread, I think it's that way for a lot of us. The original question was, "should Watkins start?" which is a coaching question. To that I say with all else being equal and WITHOUT internal politics I honestly believe Watkins would give me a better chance to win than Thomas.

Now I was also the one to bring REALISM into the thread, what I meant by Thomas is free to leave if he doesn't like his situation is what HndsmCelt was saying...buy him out. They should, you can't trade him and you got to pay him regardless so Petrie might as well do something productive and get his toxic attitude out of the lockerroom.

 

[Entity]

at this point with NO takers on KT contract and just about anybody over 6'9 can fill his void fine from Justin, to Darrel, to DJ Mbenga. Why not just buy out this guy. He has nothing to offer.

 

[kennadog]

Since everybody says buy out KT, I assume it's just to get him and his atitude off the team, right?

We're stuck with him taking up salary on the team until the end of his contract, even if we buy him out. If he'll accept less than he's guaranteed, it could reduce it, but he's not going to settle for a lot less. It really sucks.

 

[Gary]

Right, let's compromise our entire rebuilding process just as not to upset Kenny Thomas. I don't mean to sound condescening but I'm just tired of all the politics. It's time to get back to basics, if you don't perform you sit, PERIOD. If someone plays better than you he gets more minutes than you. If you complain about it the other players should put you in line. If that doesn't work then there's the door.

when it wouldn't make a difference who we started than why create problems? That's what I was trying to get at. There wouldn't be a difference in starting Thomas or Watkins.

 

[Jerichoholic]

when it wouldn't make a difference who we started than why create problems? That's what I was trying to get at. There wouldn't be a difference in starting Thomas or Watkins.

I understand where you're coming from, here's my point. It does make a difference in both short-term and long-term. If I'm coach Theus I want to win in the short term and Watkins gives me more of a chance to do that than Thomas. Watkins may make some rookie mistakes here and there but he is much more of an x-factor than Thomas who may make fewer mistakes but will contribute nothing.

In the long-term Watkins might end up being a solid contributor for our rebuilding team, you never know. But here is what I do know, Thomas will not. Remember that we have Thomas for THREE MORE YEARS! Should we not give young guys a chance at our PF position for 3 more years because it would upset Thomas? That is compromising our future and cannot happen which is why buying out Thomas is the best thing to do, even if you have to pay him in full.

 

[jcassio]

when it wouldn't make a difference who we started than why create problems? That's what I was trying to get at. There wouldn't be a difference in starting Thomas or Watkins.

Have any Kings players or coaches ever reported on KT being a problem in the locker room? Or are fans just assuming that he's a problem because he doesn't have a cheery, upbeat personality? His personality bugs me, but I'm just wondering how much of this KT stuff is myth and how much is real?

I can't stand the idea that we should play KT or anyone else - so they don't get upset. That's like rewarding a spoiled kid with more of whatever it is they want - just so they'll stop bothering you (for 5 minutes). I know lots of parents do this, but it doesn't lead to anything positive, does it? Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here.

 

[Glenn]

Only if it's not your money.

I have a question. When is the last time a veteran's contract was bought out at a time when the veteran was not at retirement age? I don't know of any but maybe Brick knows.

Certainly, if the Kings were willing to take nothing much in return, the financial details could be worked out and the Kings would get something in a trade and that is better than flushing money down the drain - a lot of money! Is Thomas so toxic that we are willing to take the chance that SAR's knees finally give up the ghost, Hawes is as much a defensive liability as Thomas is an offensive liability, and Watkins and Williams turn out to be duds when given major minutes - not so far fetched?

 

[HndsmCelt]

Only if it's not your money.

I have a question. When is the last time a veteran's contract was bought out at a time when the veteran was not at retirement age? I don't know of any but maybe Brick knows.

Certainly, if the Kings were willing to take nothing much in return, the financial details could be worked out and the Kings would get something in a trade and that is better than flushing money down the drain - a lot of money! Is Thomas so toxic that we are willing to take the chance that SAR's knees finally give up the ghost, Hawes is as much a defensive liability as Thomas is an offensive liability, and Watkins and Williams turn out to be duds when given major minutes - not so far fetched?

Well Philly bought out Chris Webber

 

[chrisnu]

Minny bought out Troy Hudson this off-season. He's not at retirement age yet. Neither was Adonal Foyle, when he was bought out by the Warriors.