The ones who are left
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
1) We are spoiled. I remember when having 50 LOSSES was an improvement. Having a 50 win season is something only a top tier team can accomplish, but it does not guarantee a good playoff position. We are still a top team, just not the very top.
2) There is usually very little I agree with Charles Barkley about, but I do agree with what he says about SUPERSTAR players. There are 2: Shaq and Duncan. The rest are stars, role players, and bench warmers. I think that Peja, Brad, and Mike have been and can still be stars for us. We can rebuild around them and be contenders again.
3) You do not need a superstar to win it all. There was not a superstar on the Piston's team last year. They have players that are very good at what they do. So do we. We just have them at different positions (for the most part) and have less role players.
4) We need our team mentality back. We did not have that spirit last year. Losing the guys we gave up, hurt too much and too deep to readjust in the time we had. IMHO, not having Doug on the team was our biggest loss. He wasn't our main guy, but he seemed to be the settleing force. If we can regain that (not him,but the team spirit), we will be competative again.
5) I disagree with many of you that believe we cannot succeed with those three as our core. I believe we can. We need a serious overhaul with the rest, but I say they have and are still capable of accomplishing great things for us. I can get just as discouraged as any fan, but I really believe their best days are ahead.
LASTLY- somebody suggested earlier that we tank next season. Hopefully you were being scarcastic. Tanking should NEVER be an option. Not for a King's player or fan.
2) There is usually very little I agree with Charles Barkley about, but I do agree with what he says about SUPERSTAR players. There are 2: Shaq and Duncan. The rest are stars, role players, and bench warmers. I think that Peja, Brad, and Mike have been and can still be stars for us. We can rebuild around them and be contenders again.
3) You do not need a superstar to win it all. There was not a superstar on the Piston's team last year. They have players that are very good at what they do. So do we. We just have them at different positions (for the most part) and have less role players.
4) We need our team mentality back. We did not have that spirit last year. Losing the guys we gave up, hurt too much and too deep to readjust in the time we had. IMHO, not having Doug on the team was our biggest loss. He wasn't our main guy, but he seemed to be the settleing force. If we can regain that (not him,but the team spirit), we will be competative again.
5) I disagree with many of you that believe we cannot succeed with those three as our core. I believe we can. We need a serious overhaul with the rest, but I say they have and are still capable of accomplishing great things for us. I can get just as discouraged as any fan, but I really believe their best days are ahead.
LASTLY- somebody suggested earlier that we tank next season. Hopefully you were being scarcastic. Tanking should NEVER be an option. Not for a King's player or fan.
Winning 50 is a nice benchmark when you're on the way up. Something to get excited about with the hope of more to come. But it is no better than expected after you've already arrived, and actually a little sad if you once were an elite team capable of winning 60 and being a serious title contender. It is, and now I will break out my own Barkley quote, the sign of "a good little playoff team", nothing more. You take it if its all you can get, but if its your realistic high end potential, you have to seriously consider tearing yourself down to get better in the end. 50 wins would be great for Cleveland next year. For Golden State or the Clippers it would be cause for thier fans to get on their knees and kiss the ground. For us...its something different. Its an acceptance of being just another team with its golden years fading in the rearview mirror.
Once we were important, not only a contender, but a contender bearing the standard for an entire style of basketball. We mattered and the world took note. If we sink back into passive acceptance of 50 wins by a starless pack of midlevel softies as "good enough" its basically a sign of surrender and lack of nerve. Ideally there should be two modes 1) contending for a title; or 2) building toward contention for a title. There should never be 3) lingering on while clinging desperately to familiar players because you're too scared to take a chance. That's not playing to win. Its playing not to lose.
Once we were important, not only a contender, but a contender bearing the standard for an entire style of basketball. We mattered and the world took note. If we sink back into passive acceptance of 50 wins by a starless pack of midlevel softies as "good enough" its basically a sign of surrender and lack of nerve. Ideally there should be two modes 1) contending for a title; or 2) building toward contention for a title. There should never be 3) lingering on while clinging desperately to familiar players because you're too scared to take a chance. That's not playing to win. Its playing not to lose.
Last edited:
I only referred to tanking the season sarcastically. I think we should do everything possible to make next years team better than this years team for now and the forseeable future. And by we I mean the Kings.
What is the fascination with Paul Pierce? He's not a superstar. He's no stronger than Peja defensively and he needs the ball a lot more to get his points. I wouldn't trade Peja straight-up for Paul Pierce much less throw in some other players to get him.
What's the biggest criticism people have for our core players? They're soft, they lack intensity and toughness. Well I think that's more of an attitude than anything else. They're not going to become super athletes, but if you bring in some guys with the right attitude that rubs off. That becomes a team identity. That rivalry with the Lakers helped this team. Whenever they played LA they got tougher. They played to win. Sometimes when they lose games to Charlotte and New Orleans it seems like they aren't playing to win. They've got tons of talent, they're just lacking intensity and a team identity. And you can create that without having a superstar.
What is the fascination with Paul Pierce? He's not a superstar. He's no stronger than Peja defensively and he needs the ball a lot more to get his points. I wouldn't trade Peja straight-up for Paul Pierce much less throw in some other players to get him.
What's the biggest criticism people have for our core players? They're soft, they lack intensity and toughness. Well I think that's more of an attitude than anything else. They're not going to become super athletes, but if you bring in some guys with the right attitude that rubs off. That becomes a team identity. That rivalry with the Lakers helped this team. Whenever they played LA they got tougher. They played to win. Sometimes when they lose games to Charlotte and New Orleans it seems like they aren't playing to win. They've got tons of talent, they're just lacking intensity and a team identity. And you can create that without having a superstar.
Interesting. By this definition, Barkley himself was probably never a superstar. Wonder if he's comfortable with that?
Also, that's a broad class of "stars". That makes KG, TMac, Lebron, Dirk, Amare, Kobe, etc. merely stars, yet any one of those guys would be quite sufficient as the new #1 option for the Kings. If that #1 option can be paired with one or two of the three remaining "lower tier" stars (as I will call them), then the Kings will matter again.
But, as I mentioned in a thread some time ago, and have read in this thread many times, not one of our three remaining stars will ever be in the same category (regardless of Chuck's haphazard definitions) as a true #1 option, and since we don't have Ben Wallace and Larry Brown on the payroll, I don't think the immediate future looks incredibly bright from a championship perspective.
Also, that's a broad class of "stars". That makes KG, TMac, Lebron, Dirk, Amare, Kobe, etc. merely stars, yet any one of those guys would be quite sufficient as the new #1 option for the Kings. If that #1 option can be paired with one or two of the three remaining "lower tier" stars (as I will call them), then the Kings will matter again.
But, as I mentioned in a thread some time ago, and have read in this thread many times, not one of our three remaining stars will ever be in the same category (regardless of Chuck's haphazard definitions) as a true #1 option, and since we don't have Ben Wallace and Larry Brown on the payroll, I don't think the immediate future looks incredibly bright from a championship perspective.
I completely agree with all of that. That is why, as much as I LOVED having Webb, Doug, and Vlade on our team, I think Petrie must have had a broader plan in not keeping them. It is also why I think he chose to keep Peja, Bibby, and Miller. They are all in their prime production years. I think that all three of them are only lacking a tougher mentality to become elite players. What they lack in athleticism they make up in either inteligence or plan talent.
Bibby consistently outplays the the top pointguards in the league. Peja has the talent to outscore anybody, and Miller can bang and rebound with the best when he simply decides to work at it. I still believe that we can make a serious run at the title with these players being the focal point of our team as long as good role players surround them. That being said, I can also see a trade involving one, but not more than one, of them to bring in more talent. I DO NOT see GP bringing in superstar caliber player. We just do not have the money. Of course, they never asked me to work for the Psychic Friend's Network either. I just don't want to panic and lose something that could be great, not because of being sentimental, but because they are Really good at their positions. I just can't seem to see how we get anyone with equal or better talent than them at their position that we could realistically get without losing too much.
Look at the T'wolves and even (God forbid) the Lakers. They each had a player that most would put on a list of top 10 players in the league, went to the West Finals last season and did not even make the playoffs. For me, it does not make much sense to copy them and count on 1 main player to win it all . That would be going backwards for us. We reintroduced the TEAM concept. We need to get players who not only understand it, but thrive in that system.
Our core three players are in their mid-careers now. They aren't kids that are suddenly going to blossom and become radically different players than they have been. They are vets with as many years behind them as ahead of them. They have played in our system for years now. None of them are turning into true elite players today, tommorow, or next week, and its just wishful thinking to constantly sit around saying "all they need is a change in attitude". No, they need a change in talent and basic attributes. That's not going to happen. Peja's going to be 28 in a few weeks, Bibby is 27, Brad is 29. These guys are right in their primes, in fact only 2 or 3 years away from maybe beginning to slow down a bit physically. If your game plan involves a trio of middle aged (for the NBA) players suddenly changing their stripes after spending their entire basketball careers being what they are, you're in a lot of trouble.
As an aside, Petrie moved Vlade/Doug/Webb because they got old. Simple as that. But that doesn't suddenly make our remaining core players great creaters, great leaders or great defenders through some sort of inheritance. They are what they have been.
P.S. This "team" idea is misunderstood and has become almost an ideological attachment at this point, and that's just silly. This is sports, not life. The "right" way to play is whatever way results in victory (within the rules). This isn't little league. We're not teaching basic values here. Its an adult sports league where you are competing to win.
As an aside, Petrie moved Vlade/Doug/Webb because they got old. Simple as that. But that doesn't suddenly make our remaining core players great creaters, great leaders or great defenders through some sort of inheritance. They are what they have been.
P.S. This "team" idea is misunderstood and has become almost an ideological attachment at this point, and that's just silly. This is sports, not life. The "right" way to play is whatever way results in victory (within the rules). This isn't little league. We're not teaching basic values here. Its an adult sports league where you are competing to win.
Last edited:
Core values
Brick,
Most of what you say rings true, but you are leaving out a couple of things.
1) The present core plus mediocre versions of Vlade and Doug led the league a season ago before Chris returned.
2) Nobody is going to trade us a player better than our core.
3) Our core is less athletic, but not less determined (ie soft) than some cores, but athleticism mainly comes from young players with little to lose. Our core could easily integrate young players since they are unselfish, solid guys. Thus they are good to build around.
4) With the present coaches and management, any more disruption of the team will lead to two years of chaos and then everybody wanting out. The best chance for the Kings is to play competently (get 50 games) and scour the NBA, The schools and the world for a couple of unrecognized gems, even problem souls (like Webber or Rasheed Wallace). God knows that just the addition of Rasheed Wallace would make us a contender, as it did Detroit.
5) Sentimentality isn't in it any more. Doug, Vlade and Chris were my favorite Kings. I just like solid unselfish players and lots of newcomer development as the basis for any kind of sustainable nonchaotic hopes for the Kings.
Brick,
Most of what you say rings true, but you are leaving out a couple of things.
1) The present core plus mediocre versions of Vlade and Doug led the league a season ago before Chris returned.
2) Nobody is going to trade us a player better than our core.
3) Our core is less athletic, but not less determined (ie soft) than some cores, but athleticism mainly comes from young players with little to lose. Our core could easily integrate young players since they are unselfish, solid guys. Thus they are good to build around.
4) With the present coaches and management, any more disruption of the team will lead to two years of chaos and then everybody wanting out. The best chance for the Kings is to play competently (get 50 games) and scour the NBA, The schools and the world for a couple of unrecognized gems, even problem souls (like Webber or Rasheed Wallace). God knows that just the addition of Rasheed Wallace would make us a contender, as it did Detroit.
5) Sentimentality isn't in it any more. Doug, Vlade and Chris were my favorite Kings. I just like solid unselfish players and lots of newcomer development as the basis for any kind of sustainable nonchaotic hopes for the Kings.
O
Everything u have said is true and that's why I wish I had a time machine to go back to '99 and relive everything this team went through again. I really think that webber injury messed with more than just his physical capabilities, but effected our team for the past 2 years and maybe for the future. As much as I love miller, the trade that sent away turkoglu and pollard was the start of our downside and I think it was all because they knew webber would not be back in time and they wanted to get a true offensive weapon. We should have won 2 rings in a row and we had a deep bench, and now we don't have the players we had and who knows where we'll be in the future. I do believe petrie recognizes all of this and has had something planned for quite a while now, but our cap problems and lack of skilled players may not allow him to do something great. Who knows anyways, and all we could do now is wait and see.
So are you saying that we should gut what is left from this current team and start from scratch or keep them and rebuild around them?
I think we keep at least 2 of them and build around them. I do not see any other possibilites. I also happen to think that all three of them are among the best at what they do. I am not arguing that we need a more athletic and defensive minded team. I am, however, saying that those three have not declined in talent and were part of the team that we all hailed as wonderful, championship contending team.
IMHO, if we get rid of 2 or all of them, we will be starting over completely. We will freefall from where we are (not saying we are at the top) and end up as a lottery team with a huge star (Lakers, T'wolves, Magic) or a team full of less talented players like the Bucks and Jazz.
If you have another suggestion, I would LOVE to hear it. I am not being sarcastic. Not many Kings fans around to bounce ideas off of down here. I would love to have as many suggestions as possible of how we can get out of this mess we seem to be in right now.
I think the Miller trade was more about finding a future replacement for Vlade. Scott Pollard was good as a backup, but he was never going to be a starter. Turkoglu was the guy they had to move to get the deal done. And it worked out better than expected I'd say as Brad Miller has become a very good starting center in the Vlade mold. Not a defensive presence obviously, but a facilitator. And he's got that outside shot which makes him very versatile at the high post. A real triple threat.
Losing Webber is the biggest cause of the falloff from the contending teams of 2002 and 2003. With Webber we had a superstar surrounded by a very good cast of All Stars and role players. We had that dominant low post player that every team needs to succeed in the NBA it seems. When he gets injured, we lose him for practically nothing. Nobody wants to trade for an injured superstar with a huge contract. How many teams could survive losing their superstar, their franchise player, for almost nothing? I think we should count ourselves lucky that we have such a good collection of players that we could suffer such a huge loss and still be one of the better teams in the league.
Losing Webber is the biggest cause of the falloff from the contending teams of 2002 and 2003. With Webber we had a superstar surrounded by a very good cast of All Stars and role players. We had that dominant low post player that every team needs to succeed in the NBA it seems. When he gets injured, we lose him for practically nothing. Nobody wants to trade for an injured superstar with a huge contract. How many teams could survive losing their superstar, their franchise player, for almost nothing? I think we should count ourselves lucky that we have such a good collection of players that we could suffer such a huge loss and still be one of the better teams in the league.
I think keep 2 of them and use the other with the rest of the team to get us better players. I don't know anything about the money part and whose salary matches whose but without sacrificing one of the core, wouldn't we have to give up almost all of the "rest" to get what we need? And with all our owies, we need all the players we can get.
I wish it wasn't all about the money but it is a business and that is the primary concern of those involved, a lot of them anyway.
I wish it wasn't all about the money but it is a business and that is the primary concern of those involved, a lot of them anyway.
maybe it's not always the "right" way to win, but teamwork is a way to win. i became a kings fan specifically because of their incredible teamwork.
the core of bibby, miller, and peja is not about one-on-one basketball; these guys are built on the team model. i think we need to go back to that collectively to win.
the core of bibby, miller, and peja is not about one-on-one basketball; these guys are built on the team model. i think we need to go back to that collectively to win.
Teamwork to the point where it is ALL about team is not a winning formula at the top level. Unselfishness = good. Being a bunch of system players INCAPABLE of being more is not. The Princeton offense never won anything at Princeton either, (other than Ivy League titles of course). The problem? It was being run by Ivy League athletes. It was a good system that gave them an underdog's upset chance against bigger/better athletes, but in no way shape or form was it going to allow short pasty kids to consistently beat bigger/better athletes. Medicocrity is not a virtue. The system, the team, has the potential to win only if you have players bigger than the system yet still willing to play within it most of the time. Bibby/Peja/Miller are nothing more than the supporting cast to a great player or players. Guys who can play very well off the ball but struggle in a leading role. Their role in a high level winning TEAM is to support, not lead.
Great players win championships. They win championships by stepping forward at key times and making the game about themselves, by bending the whole game around their greatness. By taking over and dominating regardless of the defense, regardless of the system. System players cannot do that. "Team" achieved through mediocrity cannot do that. And we have a borderline mediocre group of players right now. Literally the only thing we do at an above medicore level at this point is shoot. Before this "team", or any team, has a shot at contention again, it needs to find one or more players bigger/better than the system. That can play outside the system when called upon, that can be fed as a goto guy regardless of whether it is the playbooks or not, and who can lead this team through pure force of will and raw overwhelming talent. And if the system is there to back him and to support the lesser players, so much the better. The triangle didn't make Jordan great (indeed his numbers were more spectacular before he played in it), it made his lesser teammates better.
Great players win championships. They win championships by stepping forward at key times and making the game about themselves, by bending the whole game around their greatness. By taking over and dominating regardless of the defense, regardless of the system. System players cannot do that. "Team" achieved through mediocrity cannot do that. And we have a borderline mediocre group of players right now. Literally the only thing we do at an above medicore level at this point is shoot. Before this "team", or any team, has a shot at contention again, it needs to find one or more players bigger/better than the system. That can play outside the system when called upon, that can be fed as a goto guy regardless of whether it is the playbooks or not, and who can lead this team through pure force of will and raw overwhelming talent. And if the system is there to back him and to support the lesser players, so much the better. The triangle didn't make Jordan great (indeed his numbers were more spectacular before he played in it), it made his lesser teammates better.
It is great teams that win championships, not great players. The triangle helped Chicago become a great team. Jordan, without being a part of a great team would not have won any championships. A player can bend whatever he wants to his will, but if he is on a bad team playing against a team that can play basketball very well, he is not winning anything. Princeton teams were not great teams. They were if we are to use team as a synonym for unselfish, but unselfisheness is just one trait that helps 12 men form a great team. A great team can stop the opponent whether that oponent is a supernatural reality bender, or a great system run by good players. A great team can create for itself good percentage shots. A great team has the collective will to win and does not back down. You can have a great team, a winner at the top level, without a superstar.
One thing that made the superstars matter so much in the NBA were the ridiculous rules that prevented 5 guys guarding the opponent the way they could if just allowed to play basketball. But no, you have to follow the player you are assigned to even if he just goes to hang out with 3 other of his teammates in the corner while the game bender abuses the guy assigned to him.
One thing that made the superstars matter so much in the NBA were the ridiculous rules that prevented 5 guys guarding the opponent the way they could if just allowed to play basketball. But no, you have to follow the player you are assigned to even if he just goes to hang out with 3 other of his teammates in the corner while the game bender abuses the guy assigned to him.
I think the argument is that great teams are normally built around great players. The two aren't mutually exclusive. At the heart of all great teams is the great player (or two) that the team is built around and makes the other player's on the team. That's not saying that the great player is a ballhog and that just having a great player makes a great team (see Lakers, 2004-2005). It's that the right mix of players, role players complementing the superstar(s), sharing the ball and working together with the right chemistry, is the key to success.
We had a great mix of players, and the guy in Webb that you could count on when the Princeton system (or Triangle or any other system) broke down. In 2004, Webb was gimpy and when the TWolves successfully shut down our offensive system we were powerless to score and play the game we wanted to play. This year, the team was in dissaray, obviously we weren't going anywhere.
Unless we have faith that Bibby or Peja or Miller can emerge to be the go-to superstar that can carry the team, we cannot be a great team again. I had always thought/hoped that Bibby could be it, but this year's struggles showed that without a dominant post player, the opposition can focus on shutting down Bibby and he cannot carry the team by himself. Peja showed he could score a lot in 2004 when he was an MVP candidate or whatever, but that team was too one dimensional to be great. I'd like to think that we could take that team and add good athletic defenders at the 2 and 4, and either Peja Bibby or Miller would come into their own and we could be a great team again. But I think may be too naive.
We had a great mix of players, and the guy in Webb that you could count on when the Princeton system (or Triangle or any other system) broke down. In 2004, Webb was gimpy and when the TWolves successfully shut down our offensive system we were powerless to score and play the game we wanted to play. This year, the team was in dissaray, obviously we weren't going anywhere.
Unless we have faith that Bibby or Peja or Miller can emerge to be the go-to superstar that can carry the team, we cannot be a great team again. I had always thought/hoped that Bibby could be it, but this year's struggles showed that without a dominant post player, the opposition can focus on shutting down Bibby and he cannot carry the team by himself. Peja showed he could score a lot in 2004 when he was an MVP candidate or whatever, but that team was too one dimensional to be great. I'd like to think that we could take that team and add good athletic defenders at the 2 and 4, and either Peja Bibby or Miller would come into their own and we could be a great team again. But I think may be too naive.
Excellent post!
I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that you are entirely right about Peja, Bibby and Brad not being able to be the go-to-superstar that can carry the team. And I think Petrie knows it too. I have to believe he has a plan in mind to do something that will address that problem and our defensive woes. I have to believe that - or I have to face being a mediocre team and I DON'T want to do that. I would rather be at the bottom than simply in the middle...
But maybe that's just me.
I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that you are entirely right about Peja, Bibby and Brad not being able to be the go-to-superstar that can carry the team. And I think Petrie knows it too. I have to believe he has a plan in mind to do something that will address that problem and our defensive woes. I have to believe that - or I have to face being a mediocre team and I DON'T want to do that. I would rather be at the bottom than simply in the middle...
But maybe that's just me.
Personally I'd prefer a team that does not suck. And with those three(Bibby, Peja, Miller), we will probably won't ever finish at the bottom of the league. Those guys are all very good players, and that's proven.
So the question is, are we willing to risk losing our place as a good team by mixing up the core and trading some or all of it away.
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't mind if the Kings were a sucky team as long as we were doing our best to win on all levels, players, coaches, and personnel. If we have the all-suck team on the floor, but they're playing their hearts out, that'd still be an enjoyable game for me to watch.
If we gamble on an underachieving player from the east, or from europe, or from mars for that matter, I'm willing to watch it happen, and I would not feel too disgruntled as a fan, because we're trying to compete.
That's what it all comes down to. The desire to compete, the desire to win and have pride in your accomplishments. If we risk it all in the offseason and it doesn't pay off, at least we tried to compete. If we stood pat with what we knew wasn't a winning line-up, that would make me upset.
So the question is, are we willing to risk losing our place as a good team by mixing up the core and trading some or all of it away.
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't mind if the Kings were a sucky team as long as we were doing our best to win on all levels, players, coaches, and personnel. If we have the all-suck team on the floor, but they're playing their hearts out, that'd still be an enjoyable game for me to watch.
If we gamble on an underachieving player from the east, or from europe, or from mars for that matter, I'm willing to watch it happen, and I would not feel too disgruntled as a fan, because we're trying to compete.
That's what it all comes down to. The desire to compete, the desire to win and have pride in your accomplishments. If we risk it all in the offseason and it doesn't pay off, at least we tried to compete. If we stood pat with what we knew wasn't a winning line-up, that would make me upset.
It isn't a question of sucking, its a question of whether you are sucking with a plan and with hope. If you cashed in the whole team but brought back piles of exciting young talent that could be truly special in a few years, even though you'd lose a lot it would still be fun/exciting to watch your talented kids grow, hopefully into a great team. But obviously you NEVER want to be back in the position of just sucking with no real hope. Sucking because you're stupid and have no talentbase and no clear route to get better.
In any case I really doubt that's necessary right now as long as we have the guts to do something about our relative decline. It only becomes necessary if you sit on your hands and let the team wallow in mediocrity until all of the excitement, interest and spirit has been drained entirely out of the franchise and you need a dramatic renewal.
In any case I really doubt that's necessary right now as long as we have the guts to do something about our relative decline. It only becomes necessary if you sit on your hands and let the team wallow in mediocrity until all of the excitement, interest and spirit has been drained entirely out of the franchise and you need a dramatic renewal.
Last edited:
The one team that we can point to as evidence of the above is the Detroit Pistons of last year. Unfortunately for our Kings, that great Pistons team was not built around offense, but defense, and that is why it was successful against the Lakers. It could neutralize the two great players for the Lakers, relatively, as well as take away the majority of the opportunities that the lesser players were used to enjoying as a result of Shaq's and Kobe's greatness.
With Peja, Bibby and Miller as the Kings' core at the moment, this Kings team is never a team that will win with defense. Bibby is a subpar defender, Peja is a good one-on-one defender, but not a good help defender and not a good defensive rebounder, and Miller doesn't have the athleticism to truly compete on the defensive end in today's NBA or cover up for the shortcomings of some of his teammates' perimeter problems on defense (read: block or alter shots consistently).
Skinner can be a solid defensive PF, and Mo Evans can become a solid defensive SG, but two players out of five is not enough. That's why I'd like to see Petrie move one of the three core players for a player of comparable overall value who is a much better defensive player. Three good defensive players can help make up for the shortcomings of their two teammates, at least imho.
With Peja, Bibby and Miller as the Kings' core at the moment, this Kings team is never a team that will win with defense. Bibby is a subpar defender, Peja is a good one-on-one defender, but not a good help defender and not a good defensive rebounder, and Miller doesn't have the athleticism to truly compete on the defensive end in today's NBA or cover up for the shortcomings of some of his teammates' perimeter problems on defense (read: block or alter shots consistently).
Skinner can be a solid defensive PF, and Mo Evans can become a solid defensive SG, but two players out of five is not enough. That's why I'd like to see Petrie move one of the three core players for a player of comparable overall value who is a much better defensive player. Three good defensive players can help make up for the shortcomings of their two teammates, at least imho.