The Miller Impact

[Kingster]

So how much impact is Miller going to have on this team over the next few games? Call me a skeptic, but I don't see Martin's game improving appreciably because of it, despite Reynolds and Napier's opinions to the contrary. I guess the one area it could help is that it will probably result in less Miki Moore, and with Miki, less is more...

 

[Kev.in]

Because he can handle the ball away from the basket, sets good screens, plays the pick and roll really well and has the "familiarity factor" it will help our starting guards out quite a bit. Not that Beno and Kevin will see their scoring numbers skyrocket, it just makes the game easier for them and gets them better shots. Hopefully they can become more efficient and as a team we see them space the floor a lot better on offense.

We're already getting good production out of Thompson and Hawes, now we add another starting-quality big man to the rotation. Fouls aren't as much of a concern, it makes the frontcourt more versatile and hopefully Miller has a positive effect on our young bigs when they're on the floor with him.

 

[AriesMar27]

it depends on his role... if he is willing to shoot the ball when he's open and he's taking moores minutes then it will help martin and beno...

go kings...

 

[Prince_XY]

Miller's impact should be as big as he is at 7' 0", especially if he plays the same way he played last season with stats : 13.4 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.7 assists, 1 block per game.

And with Hawes and Thompson showing they can also be a double-double in points and rebounds and have shown they are "bigs" willing to give extra effort in defense, our frontline is more or less complete. The 3 of them should be able to give this team the needed rebounding and defense inside the paint - with of course the help of Williams and Moore once in a while.

I just hope that the insertion of Miller and Garcia will not hinder the development of our young ones though.

I suggest the following starting crew/rotation/minutes to accelerate the development of our young Kids :

Starting 5:

#5 Miller ( 7' 0" )
#4 Hawes ( 7' 0" )
#3 Thompson ( 6' 11" )
#2 Martin ( 6' 7" )
#1 Udrih ( 6' 3" )

Rotation/Minutes:

#5 Miller ( 30 min ) Hawes ( 18 min )
#4 Hawes ( 12 min ) Thompson ( 18 min ) Moore ( 9 min ) Williams ( 9 min )
#3 Thompson ( 12 min ) Greene ( 18min ) Salmons ( 9 min ) Garcia ( 9 min )
#2 Martin ( 36 min ) Salmons ( 6 min ) Garcia ( 6 min )
#1 Udrih ( 30 min ) ( BBrown 18 min ) ( BJax or Douby - garbage time )

 

[Bricklayer]

Considerable, and likely a net positive.

1) I agree that he makes it easier for Kevin and Beno -- that is a minor indictment of Kevin as superstar of course (you don't notice a LeBron or Kove having his numbers fall off because a teammate is missing). He sets good screens, he is patient and more interested in hitting guys on backcuts than scoring himself. On his good nights we are better offensively and our guards flow freer.

2) His individual production is unlikely to be much better than what Hawes gave us (12 and 8). The bounce, if any, will come from his effect on others (Hawes has passing skills but no idea how/when to use them yet).

3) Defensively however there is likely a falloff. Spencer was actually blocking shots a at pretty decent rate there, and while the impact was minimal, its still likely more than can be said for Brad.

4) Depth. Somewhat remarkably all of a sudden the Sacramento Kings trot out 4 guys listed at 6'11" or taller. Will somewhat depend on hos Spencer (or whoever) reacts to the benching, but in theory we gain in depth and have no reason at all to paly a guy like Mikki if he is not giving us a game.

Overall I think there is a positive impact, W-L wise at least. Last year Brad and Ron had by far the best +/- scores on the team. that was of course at least partically because of a lack of qualified backups behind him, but also some indication that he makes things easier. Now of course since I am interested in the future, was ratehr enjoying watching Spoencer and Jason develop, and have no interest at all in W-L this year, I would just assume hear an announcement before the game that Brad has been traded.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I really hope that Brad sends Mikki, not Spencer, to the bench. Spencer has completely outplayed Mikki in the beginning part of the season.

 

[bajaden]

Considerable, and likely a net positive.

1) I agree that he makes it easier for Kevin and Beno -- that is a minor indictment of Kevin as superstar of course (you don't notice a LeBron or Kove having his numbers fall off because a teammate is missing). He sets good screens, he is patient and more interested in hitting guys on backcuts than scoring himself. On his good nights we are better offensively and our guards flow freer.

2) His individual production is unlikely to be much better than what Hawes gave us (12 and 8). The bounce, if any, will come from his effect on others (Hawes has passing skills but no idea how/when to use them yet).

3) Defensively however there is likely a falloff. Spencer was actually blocking shots a at pretty decent rate there, and while the impact was minimal, its still likely more than can be said for Brad.

4) Depth. Somewhat remarkably all of a sudden the Sacramento Kings trot out 4 guys listed at 6'11" or taller. Will somewhat depend on hos Spencer (or whoever) reacts to the benching, but in theory we gain in depth and have no reason at all to paly a guy like Mikki if he is not giving us a game.

Overall I think there is a positive impact, W-L wise at least. Last year Brad and Ron had by far the best +/- scores on the team. that was of course at least partically because of a lack of qualified backups behind him, but also some indication that he makes things easier. Now of course since I am interested in the future, was ratehr enjoying watching Spoencer and Jason develop, and have no interest at all in W-L this year, I would just assume hear an announcement before the game that Brad has been traded.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, including the trading of Miller. Anything that moves us closer to a total revamp is fine with me. However, Miller will make a difference. He's a very good passer, and so is Hawes. Its just that Miller has familiarity and Hawes doesn't. Keep giving Hawes enough minutes and that will come.

Miller also sets good screens. I haven't quite decided yet as to why Hawes, Thompson, and Williams screens aren't as effective yet. One must remember that screens are a two person operation, and that the person at fault isn't always the person setting the screen. Whatever the reason, the timing just seems to be off between our bigs and our guards.

Once again it comes down to that word experience, which is better word to use than the word talent when finding fault.

 

[NME]

Hopefully, his impact will be showcasing for a trade. I'd like to think there's some deal out there just waiting for an answer on current year relief from SAR's contract. The anniversary of his last game played is next week, so if there's medical retirement relief the Kings can begin to consider deals that are a net salary increase this season without fearing the luxury tax.

 

[Entity]

I am thinking that you will see more of JT at SF now and have Miller, Hawes, and Thompson on the court at the same time for a few stretches. Miller is likely to get 25-30 min I suspect guys will lose min across the frontline. Sheldon may feel the brunt of it and get some DNP's unless we really need a banger in there.

 

[SacKings7]

I really hope that Brad sends Mikki, not Spencer, to the bench. Spencer has completely outplayed Mikki in the beginning part of the season.

Even the refs have outplayed Mikki so far. I think our (starting) lineup should still be Miller, Moore, Salmons, Martin and Beno. I want Greene, Brown, Garcia, Thompson and Hawes to get major minutes off the bench though. I think starting young players puts a lot of pressure on them, and I think it could hinder their growth. So i'm really ok with Moore starting over Hawes and Thompson, just so long as they get their minutes

 

[rhythmless]

Starting 5:

#5 Miller ( 7' 0" )
#4 Hawes ( 7' 0" )
#3 Thompson ( 6' 11" )
#2 Martin ( 6' 7" )
#1 Udrih ( 6' 3" )

Rotation/Minutes:

#5 Miller ( 30 min ) Hawes ( 18 min )
#4 Hawes ( 12 min ) Thompson ( 18 min ) Moore ( 9 min ) Williams ( 9 min )
#3 Thompson ( 12 min ) Greene ( 18min ) Salmons ( 9 min ) Garcia ( 9 min )
#2 Martin ( 36 min ) Salmons ( 6 min ) Garcia ( 6 min )
#1 Udrih ( 30 min ) ( BBrown 18 min ) ( BJax or Douby - garbage time )

1. Thompson cannot guard swingmen. Period. I wish people would stop putting him as a 3 so we can have a 7' avg frontline, or whatever the reason is these days. If he's averaging 12 minutes at the 3, why even start him there?

2. No way Salmons and Garcia gets 15 minutes a game. You have Greene, who is not even playing, getting more than the starting 3 and supposed 6th man.

 

[VF21]

1. Thompson cannot guard swingmen. Period. I wish people would stop putting him as a 3 so we can have a 7' avg frontline, or whatever the reason is these days. If he's averaging 12 minutes at the 3, why even start him there?

2. No way Salmons and Garcia gets 15 minutes a game. You have Greene, who is not even playing, getting more than the starting 3 and supposed 6th man.

Sometimes arguing logic in situations like this is a lot like trying to teach a goldfish physics.

 

[Prince_XY]

1. Thompson cannot guard swingmen. Period. I wish people would stop putting him as a 3 so we can have a 7' avg frontline, or whatever the reason is these days. If he's averaging 12 minutes at the 3, why even start him there?

2. No way Salmons and Garcia gets 15 minutes a game. You have Greene, who is not even playing, getting more than the starting 3 and supposed 6th man.

You have to read the statement I made before I stated my suggestion:

" I suggest the following starting crew/rotation/minutes to accelerate the development of our young Kids : "

I am just being realistic here and out of desperation getting bold.

Maybe we can put some sort of innovation in our rebuilding process?

Do not forget that our main goal in this rebuilding is to build an elite/championship team.

REALITY :
Without Hawes, Thompson, and Greene in the current roster - the team does not even have a glimpse of hope of becoming an elite team. Yes, they are untested and you can say they are not ready, but the fact remains that we have at least more chance on them in attaining our goal of forming an elite team than on our less-than-starter veterans ( Moore, Salmons, and Garcia. )

Do you honestly believe Moore, Salmons, and Garcia can still be developed into key starter players ( in their respective positions right now ) capable of matching the starters of another elite team?

DESPERATION :
Having concluded that Moore, Salmons, and Garcia are less than starter players in their current positions now, and that we can not count on them as becoming starter pieces in building an elite team, I felt it as an exercise in futility to continue playing them more minutes at the expense of our promising players.

I would rather experiment now on Hawes, Thompson, and Greene when there is much to gain ( high draft pick ) if we fail, and much more to gain if we succeed.

The veterans mentioned above do not have "IT" and we know that. The young ones "might" have "IT".

BOLD MOVE :
Have Hawes and Thompson start now, eventhough not on their natural positions just to let them learn early the ropes of being starters. Hawes had shown he has talents of a power forward. Thompson is sometimes being used in small minutes as a small forward.

Why not continue that experiment with Miller as center even on small minutes and maybe they would learn more and become more versatile?

Didn't you notice I suggested only 12 minutes for them to start on those controversial positions, and more of their playing time on their natural positions with Hawes playing center, and Thompson playing power forward?

BTW, we don't know yet if Thompson definitely cannot guard a swingman, so don't put a period on that. Also, maybe a traditional swingman cannot guard Thompson? So, for the purpose of developing advantageous match-ups in favor of us it would still be wise to experiment on partly developing Thompson on #3.

 

[rhythmless]

Fair enough Prince, but why would you decide to "make them starters" with 12 minutes at the starting position? It just seems pointless to dub them "starters," except just for the sake of. To a rookie, minutes are minutes right now. 12 minutes as a "starter" at the 3 doesn't mean anything more than 12 minutes backing up the 3. I see no acceleration in that, but I DO see a pissed off John Salmons sulking behind Jason Thompson, and a statline that resembles Quincy Douby and not the Salmons we have seen thus far. Seeing that definitely put a raised eyebrow towards your thought process as a whole.

Bold move: I would rather develop Thompson's versatility on the 4/5 slash rather than the 3/4. We have enough guys who like to drive around and shoot the ball from 20+ feet out. In fact, thats about all we have. The guys that don't (can't) do that... cant shoot at all (Thomas, Williams, Moore). I think we need an inside presense first and foremost. Hawes can do it, but why only have 1 post guy, when we have 8 shooters? Why NOT make Thompson our active rebounder, defender, weak side mobile help enforcer? Why relegate him to chasing 6'6" swingmen around the perimeter, when he can be swatting shots inside?

Your advantageous argument is really null. We could stick Martin at the 5 and he'd really have an advantage, wouldnt he? Et cetera and so on... We FINALLY have a couple big men with upside. How many knocked on our old big men for playing like swingmen? How many are drooling at Dwight Howard? And you take arguably our best athletic big so he can play the 3? Let me be clear; I'm not saying that JT shouldn't develop his perimeter defense and shot, but that 3 should be his last priority. 4, 5, 3.

 

[Kingsgurl]

I think it's clear that Brad, at this point, possesses a savvy and a skill level that the young guns can only hope to aspire to. I think Hawes SEES some of the passes that Brad makes so easily, but is still mastering the timing to get it there (and yes, not being able to GET the ball to a player IS going to hurt said players production)
I guess it depends on how you see the young guys developing as to what your opinion on the 'trade Brad' bandwagon would be. I see them developing better with Brad there to show them the ropes, as oppossed to learning on their own, and I don't see Brad, at this point in his career, as being able to net us value in excess of what he himself brings. I think his value as a teacher is being overlooked.

 

[Gary]

Hawes is a smart guy I think he will learn..

Brad's play is the reason I want him back in a reserve role when his contract is up. You cannot get that type of play from a center unless Vlade, or Sabonis comes out of retirement. It sucks because he will probably still be able to do things he does this year down the road five or so years. He's not hard enough on his body to wear it out......

 

[Prince_XY]

Fair enough Prince, but why would you decide to "make them starters" with 12 minutes at the starting position? It just seems pointless to dub them "starters," except just for the sake of. To a rookie, minutes are minutes right now. 12 minutes as a "starter" at the 3 doesn't mean anything more than 12 minutes backing up the 3. I see no acceleration in that, but I DO see a pissed off John Salmons sulking behind Jason Thompson, and a statline that resembles Quincy Douby and not the Salmons we have seen thus far. Seeing that definitely put a raised eyebrow towards your thought process as a whole.

Bold move: I would rather develop Thompson's versatility on the 4/5 slash rather than the 3/4. We have enough guys who like to drive around and shoot the ball from 20+ feet out. In fact, thats about all we have. The guys that don't (can't) do that... cant shoot at all (Thomas, Williams, Moore). I think we need an inside presense first and foremost. Hawes can do it, but why only have 1 post guy, when we have 8 shooters? Why NOT make Thompson our active rebounder, defender, weak side mobile help enforcer? Why relegate him to chasing 6'6" swingmen around the perimeter, when he can be swatting shots inside?

Your advantageous argument is really null. We could stick Martin at the 5 and he'd really have an advantage, wouldnt he? Et cetera and so on... We FINALLY have a couple big men with upside. How many knocked on our old big men for playing like swingmen? How many are drooling at Dwight Howard? And you take arguably our best athletic big so he can play the 3? Let me be clear; I'm not saying that JT shouldn't develop his perimeter defense and shot, but that 3 should be his last priority. 4, 5, 3.

First, let me be clear again that my suggestions are based on my premise that in our current roster Hawes, Thompson, and Greene are the best hopes in building an elite team and there is no reason to delay their development.

The necessity of starting Hawes and Thompson:

There is a big difference between starting and coming off the bench. Most players will say it is psychological. If you have played organized basketball, or have played real games, you will certainly know that starting helps a player play better throughout the entire game. There are exceptions though, like in the case of Ginobili and our very own Bobby Jackson who seem to play better coming off the bench.

It is not pointless to start Hawes and Thompson NOW, especially if you believe that they are the future starters for a Kings elite team. That is the essence of what I call ACCELERATION. Have them PLAY THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES NOW AS STARTERS, especially now that they’ve shown they are NBA ready anyways.

And when I say 12 minutes, I don’t mean STRICTLY 12 MINUTES. For sure one of our fronliners will have to sit before the end of the first quarter. If it was Miller, then Hawes slides to #5, Thompson slides to #4, and so on. If it was Hawes, then Thompson simply slides to #4.

Why start Hawes on #4?

The answer is - we still have the capable big in MILLER to start at #5.

Miller is still the best BIG in this team. He’s got experience, still a double-double player, and being a very good passer is still a significant facilitator of King’s offense. This is especially true now that our point guards suck. He is still the best BIG that we should start and play significant minutes at #5. The young bigs will learn a lot playing alongside him.

Having the aging Miller start at #5 is a blessing. It allows us to experiment with Hawes starting at #4 alongside Miller for approximately 12 minutes. The bulk of Hawes’ playing time can then be at #5 when Miller takes a break.

Hawes has some post up moves and skills of a power forward. If Hawes develops to more than adequate talent at #4, can you imagine the tandem of a passing big Hawes and the passing big Miller in our frontline?

It might mean we found another Webber/Divac passing BIGS tandem again!

Hawes/Miller = Webber/Divac!

Why not #5 for Thompson instead of #3?

The best prospect for #5 are Miller and Hawes - not Thompson. In other words, we are pretty much set at #5.

There are only 48 minutes of playing time in a game and inserting Thompson at #5 will surely mess-up the minutes of Miller and Hawes. I would rather give Miller 30 minutes and Hawes the remaining 18 minutes at #5. Also, out of necessity and based on Thompson’s qualities he is best suited at the power forward position. If Thompson develops into a very good power forward he should not find it difficult to play spot minutes at #5 if necessary anyways.

Why even try starting Thompson at #3 when he very well fits the #4?

Since Miller and Hawes are starting already at #4 and #5, I will start Thompson at #3 ( on limited minutes ) with Greene assuming the #3 once #4 becomes available for Thompson to play.

Thompson is fast / agile for his height. His background (playing guard position when younger) will tell you he can run the floor and probably can chase around any other big #3 in the league. I believe he can play the small forward position well depending on the match-up.

And out of necessity, the Kings needs a player big enough to match the other elite teams’ small forward. I believe it is worth the try to develop Thompson some small forward skills at the same time we develop Greene.

I’ll give you some teams that might give us some difficult match-ups in the frontline because we have relatively small players at #3:

LAKERS:
#5 - Bynum ( 7’ 0” )
#4 – Gasol ( 7’ 0” )
#3 – Radmanovic ( 6’ 10” ), or Odom ( 6’ 10” )

HORNETS:
#5 – Chandler ( 7’ 1” )
#4 – West ( 6’ 9” )
#3 – Peja ( 6’ 10’ )

MAGIC :
#5 – Howard ( 6’ 11” )
#4 – Lewis ( 6’ 10” )
#3 – Turkoglu ( 6’ 10” )

BTW, do not worry about a pissed off Salmons. If things are explained to him nicely, he should be professional enough not to be pissed off. He will get paid his $millions whether he likes the scheme, or not.

Also, who knows? Maybe the Kings may soon trade Martin for a franchise player power forward, or center, then he can start at #2. I don't have any problem with Salmons starting at #2 if we lose Martin.

The needs of the team supersedes the needs of the players.

 

[VF21]

We aren't going to trade Kevin Martin. Donte Greene is horribly raw; starting him at this point would not help his development. In fact, it could easily totally derail it and ruin him in the process.

You still insist that starting is the only way to develop a player. That's not an assumption you can support with any kind of fact.

Watching Hawes learn from Miller, Thompson learn from Mikki (and yes, there are things Moore can teach the kid), and Brown and Udrih learn from Bobby Jackson is an indication of how Petrie intends to rebuild this team. He blends the old with the new, and keeps his eye on the future.

We aren't going to be an elite team this year, or next year, but I think we're finally doing things the right way.

 

[bajaden]

We aren't going to trade Kevin Martin. Donte Greene is horribly raw; starting him at this point would not help his development. In fact, it could easily totally derail it and ruin him in the process.

You still insist that starting is the only way to develop a player. That's not an assumption you can support with any kind of fact.

Watching Hawes learn from Miller, Thompson learn from Mikki (and yes, there are things Moore can teach the kid), and Brown and Udrih learn from Bobby Jackson is an indication of how Petrie intends to rebuild this team. He blends the old with the new, and keeps his eye on the future.

We aren't going to be an elite team this year, or next year, but I think we're finally doing things the right way.

It all comes down to being conservative in one's approach, or taking a leap of faith into the unknown. No different than what most of us have to face in our lives. No different than having a good job and knowing what to expect every day when you go to work, and being offered a new job with more possibilities, but also with that uncomfortable feeling of the unkown it posesses.

Its that unknown the causes people to freeze. To not step into that unknown. There are people who live their lives with " Nothing ventured, nothing gained". And those that live with " Nothing ventured, nothing lost". I would dare to say, that most sucessful people, have been the one's that were willing to take a gamble on the future.

So either were thinking short term, or, long term. Which vision did Martin have when he decided to play on a injured ankle. In a game made up of running and jumping, was there no one that didn't see that it was just a matter of time before he went down.

I have no problem with being careful and making sure you have everything as prepared as is possible. Check your parachute as many times as you want. But at some point, you have to jump. Or, ride the plane back into the ground.

 

[rhythmless]

The necessity of starting Hawes and Thompson:

Since were going on psychology, I bring you this counterpoint; what if they are not ready? With the starter tag means starter responsibilities. As a rookie, as a second year guy, if you have an off game, its understandable, and expected. As a starter, you play the majority of the game, and take the majority of the responsibility of the team. Disregarding ability, the psychology of starting on a big stage is enough to HURT development.

Also, starting kids this early is akin to giving a son/daughter too much, too fast. They do not go through the growing pains of fighting for a spot, and the usual learning curve of watching the olds, learning from the olds, before they take their spot. Like Kevin Martin said, "itll be them in 12 years." I'm not advocating that long a time, but there are things to be said for coming up from the inactive list to role player, to rotation player, to 6th man, to starter, to star. You fight for every spot, and you value each progression. Would kevin martin be so good if he didn't get left off the playoff roster? He said himself that it was a great source of motivation. Do not take that transition period away from them.

Accelerated learning could give the kids a sense of entitlement. Right now, Thompson has to play a lot better just to earn his minutes. Nothings given to him right now. He must consciously play and learn in order to get minutes. You give him starter minutes right now, and you risk giving him a sense of entitlement to the minutes. Whats this leave you? A bunch of kids who won't listen because they're "already there." Will this happen? Maybe not, but I firmly believe that on a subconscious level, there will be at least an incremental change to their psyche. Adversity builds strength. The strongest people (character) I know have gone through much more adversity than ones with silver spoons in their mouths. Do not deprive players of adversity.

Why start Hawes on #4?

You say you want to accelerate learning, but then you move Hawes over from his natural spot. You want to take out salmons, who is arguably our best player over this short time, but keep Miller as a starter. It just seems very willy nilly.

Why not #5 for Thompson instead of #3?

Miller is not a prospect. He is aging, like you said. We are NOT set at the 5. Thompson imo, can be a more impactful center than he can a small forward. The best PROSPECTs for a 5 that we have are Hawes and Thompson, in that order, exclusively.

Then you say Thompson's best at the 4, but throw him as the 3 starter to "accelerate" his learning. I do not see how starting a rookie in his least favorable position would accelerate his learning how to play the 4.

You now say that not playing Thompson at the 5 will let him develop into a good pf, and have good spot minutes at the 5. How does playing him at the 3 facilitate this? If he can so easily learn the 5 position, why does he even need minutes at the 3? You are contradicting yourself. Either he needs minutes at the position to develop, or he doesn't. Don't throw him in the 3 citing he needs it for "acceleration," and then not give him time at the 5, but just say he'll pick it up. Not buying it.

Why even try starting Thompson at #3 when he very well fits the #4?

Again, starting a player out of position does not help acceleration. If you were a salesman, and wanted to be manager, and I gave you the managing position at our engineering division, does it make you a better sales manager? No. And as stated, Greene is too raw to start anytime soon.

You are not advocating giving him spot minutes depending on matchup. You are making him a starter at the position. Tell me where someone starts for all of 10-15 minutes? As for the tall lineups, He matches well with Radmanovic, but mainly because Radman is slow and doesn't do much besides spot up and shoot the 3. Peja is very active, and they set an array of screens for him. I don't see Thompson chasing peja around screens as a good matchup. As for Magic... Rashard Lewis is the 3... not Hedo. That doesn't even work logically. So you want to put Hawes up against Rashard Lewis? It's ludicrous. And don't tell me you think Thompson could match up on Rashard Lewis.

I think all you're looking at is height. It doesn't work this way.

Salmons
Explained to him nicely? He was backing up a certifiable superstar, and he couldn't produce off the bench. If he couldn't play behind someone he knows is absolutely better and will always be at that position, you think he is going to come to play behind Jason Thompson, your 6'11 PF cum SF ,and Donte Green??? Not buying what you're selling at all. Did you not see his production the last couple of seasons?

Who knows? Show me a franchise power forward/center, and I will show you a team not trading him. Plus, if you get that, where do you put him? Since your starting frontline is Miller/Hawes/Thompson?

It's like youre writing me a story from you playing NBA2k9.

 

[Jerryaki]

Hawes/Miller = Webber/Divac!

best quote of the thread.

 

[Andre87]

Kmart plays just a whole lot better with Bmiller same goes for Moore, heck even the offense runs smoothly through Brad in the high post!

 

[yanon]

Brad probably will not resign with the Kings after his current contract expires because his next contract will probably be his last. Brad has enough skills to help out a championship contending team. With the way things are shaping up right now, the Kings (barring a superstar point guard or powerforward somehow ends up joining the Kings) are projected to be just a playoff contender two years from now.


Anyway, Brad still serves a good role--a great mentor for Spencer Hawes--on this rebuilding team. However, the Kings will never be bad enough to get a top three pick with Brad in the line up, . Thus, the Kings have very little chance of drafting a superstar/all-star level point guard like Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

 

[Prince_XY]

We aren't going to trade Kevin Martin. Donte Greene is horribly raw; starting him at this point would not help his development. In fact, it could easily totally derail it and ruin him in the process.

You still insist that starting is the only way to develop a player. That's not an assumption you can support with any kind of fact.

Watching Hawes learn from Miller, Thompson learn from Mikki (and yes, there are things Moore can teach the kid), and Brown and Udrih learn from Bobby Jackson is an indication of how Petrie intends to rebuild this team. He blends the old with the new, and keeps his eye on the future.

We aren't going to be an elite team this year, or next year, but I think we're finally doing things the right way.

You might want to read all my post in this thread again. You are mislead, or misleading if you think I am advocating for Greene to start now. I want Hawes and Thompson to start now, not Greene.

Also, NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT STARTING IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEVELOP A PLAYER. I don't know where you read that, but I certainly am not the one who stated that.

Actually, I am the one who believes there are several ways to develop a player by advocating for Hawes and Thompson to start NOW, rather than having them start later as the conventional way dictates ( which it seems the only way you know ).

Hawes and Thompson are NBA ready and capable of starting now, especially if you'll consider how good they've been playing for the team. NOW THE FACT IS - IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR A ROOKIE TO BE STARTERS EARLY ON THEIR CAREER. I need not mention the list of teams who have done just that.

Now, is that good enough fact, or you would want me to give you the stats of Mikki and compare them to Hawes' and Thompson's?

Certainly, we aren't going to be an elite team this year, or next year if we keep on trying the same slow conventional way of developing players. You can not expect a different result from doing the same thing over and over again.


How long has it been since the Webber/Divac glory years?

Five years?

I guess we can wait for another 3 years.

Sigh...