Third time a charm? What's Petrie's grade now?
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
I had to give him the A. His actions exceeded my hopes and expectations and I really am beginning to understand why he was so high on Nocioni. I look at our roster today - and going forward into TDOS - and I'm convinced Geoff Petrie went far above and beyond what we would have thought he might...
SacKings384
Starter
Meh... He cleared payroll but it left us with very little else. Not very many young promising prospects, no draft picks, etc. This payroll clear-out is only good if we get a good free-agent. We won't have very much money to pickup any good free agents with the new salary cap and our current cap. We'd be able to pick up a mid-level free agent, which won't come close to solving our woes. That is if you assume that this salary dump isn't just a sign of cost-cutting, and the money saved will never be spent.
Heuge
Starter
A "D".
We still have long contracts, longer after the these recent flurry of moves. We traded Salmons and next years expiring Miller contract for Noc, who will be here overpaid for 4 years. I fail to see how this trade could be a part of a package that would net any GM an A.
And, I have yet to hear anyone, though it doesnt really matter, outside of this website who thinks Petries recent moves were good.
We still have long contracts, longer after the these recent flurry of moves. We traded Salmons and next years expiring Miller contract for Noc, who will be here overpaid for 4 years. I fail to see how this trade could be a part of a package that would net any GM an A.
And, I have yet to hear anyone, though it doesnt really matter, outside of this website who thinks Petries recent moves were good.
Then you need to get out more...
If I recall, at least one reviewer - I think it might have been ESPN - ranked our moves in the good to very good category, and that's without the Gooden buyout. I don't recall seeing any other reviews of trade performances, so I'd be interested in knowing what negative evaluations you're referring to...
SacKings7
Starter
I upgraded my vote from C to B. I like Gooden and wish him the best, but I don't want anybody taking minutes from JT or Hawes right now. And sure, we got Nocioni's contract, but I've been thinking and I think it was a great move to maybe push for this offseason rather than 2010. And even if we strike out this offseason we don't HAVE to spend it anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
kingsnation
All-Star
I graded him a "C" simply because I still expected a small bit more. I'm not overly excited but I am happy with where the team is going.
gunks
Hall of Famer
Co-Sign.
If we end up with a good offseason signing then he gets a B. But thats an IF. I dont really want Boozer. Sessions I'd be down with but not at too much money. Who else is available? Marvin Williams? Eh.
I think we should have held on to Miller until he became the big expiring that might have gotten us a pick or a decent young player. And Salmons was desired by several teams...We could have gotten more for him then Noc.
I dunno...maybe I was expecting to much.
I'll upgrade the D to a C- just because he got us a little flexability. If we land someone who improves the roster in FA then the C- moves up to a solid B.
theclash4u5
Starter
I gave him a C. Salmons/Miller for Nocioni...really? If Noci expired in 2010, I would definately be giving Petrie an A++, but he's overpaid and way too inconsistent, IMO. Personally, I don't see what the new love is all about. So he hustles and plays hard...so would Greene if he had the minutes. Unfortunately, Noci takes away those minutes...
Anyways, I still think Petrie should have turned Noci into expirings, if he had the chance. If we found out that he truely tried to and was rejected by the other teams, I might upgrade this to a B, but if it was Petrie that turned down the offers....a D might be in his future.
But, unfortunately, we'll probably never know...just like we'll never know if there were better offers out there for Miller/Salmons. It would have been nice to get a prospect/draft pick, though.
Anyways, I still think Petrie should have turned Noci into expirings, if he had the chance. If we found out that he truely tried to and was rejected by the other teams, I might upgrade this to a B, but if it was Petrie that turned down the offers....a D might be in his future.
But, unfortunately, we'll probably never know...just like we'll never know if there were better offers out there for Miller/Salmons. It would have been nice to get a prospect/draft pick, though.
TaxMan
Starter
Not sure why the Gooden buy-out would change the grade for the deadline moves. Yes, it save the Maloofs some cash; but as far as direction of the team going forward is pretty much neutral. I suppose if you thought Petrie might actually resign Gooden in the off season (which he still could hypothetically do) or if you had concerns Gooden would steal minutes from Thompson/Hawes, then it's reassuring not to have him on the roster. Otherwise, net/net we're in the same spot in the off season with or without the buy-out.
That said, I thought Petrie did "what he had to do" at the deadline. It was addition by subtraction. Grade = C
That said, I thought Petrie did "what he had to do" at the deadline. It was addition by subtraction. Grade = C
Jechtsphere
Starter
I went with a B, he's doing well pushing us in the right direction.
HighTopKicks
Bench
The buyout doesn't change the cap space situation. We exchanged Noc for Salmons, so that we could expire Miller a year early. That hasn't changed because of the buyout, which only reduces the Maloofs loses by $2M.
The time to finally evaluate this trade will be when Noc is moved. If next summer then his contract saves us $12M, if in 2010, then his contract saves us $6M, and if 2011 he'll cost the entire cap space we gained by moving Miller.
For now I voted C: If Noc get move this summer than it's an A. If he doesn't get moved until 2010, then it's a C. If we have to keep him for 3 yrs then it's an F.
The time to finally evaluate this trade will be when Noc is moved. If next summer then his contract saves us $12M, if in 2010, then his contract saves us $6M, and if 2011 he'll cost the entire cap space we gained by moving Miller.
For now I voted C: If Noc get move this summer than it's an A. If he doesn't get moved until 2010, then it's a C. If we have to keep him for 3 yrs then it's an F.
I upgraded from an F the last time around to a D right now, though this deal doesn't have much to do with that. I liked the T-wolves deal that got us McCants to give a trial run at. I have always liked Ike Diogu as well, though he isn't getting any PT. Doing something was indeed better than doing nothing, so I can't give a complete thumbs down.
This doesn't change the fact that for the main deal we did involving Miller and Salmons we didn't get back any draft picks or viable young talent. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting some sort of bonanza of picks or young talent in return for them. I just think he could have done better and squeezed out at least a late 1st for Salmons and found a way for us not to take back a contract like Nocioni's.
This doesn't change the fact that for the main deal we did involving Miller and Salmons we didn't get back any draft picks or viable young talent. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting some sort of bonanza of picks or young talent in return for them. I just think he could have done better and squeezed out at least a late 1st for Salmons and found a way for us not to take back a contract like Nocioni's.
I cannot imagine myself giving Petrie an "A" for the reasons pointed above plus the fact we're probably still going to struggle to even reach the playoffs next year after 5 years from the glorious Webber era - unless of course I am an immediate relative of Petrie, or if Petrie will give me free tickets to Kings' games, then I'll give him a "B" or even an extra-generous "A" and just hide my face.
We have a declining GM who started making terrible decisions since 2003-2004. Just like players in decline - I think Petrie should retire.
Last edited:
Rockmeister
All-Star
I give him a D. Mandatory letter grade off for turning in late work.
nbrans
All-Star
The fact that people are pleasantly surprised that the FO did the right thing and shut down Drew Gooden in favor of youth is a measure of just how bad things have gotten in the past couple of years. Seems like our expectations have finally been reduced to zero when such a no-brainer move becomes cause for surprise and celebration.
My feeling about the deadline comes down to two things: 1) if reports are true and they had opportunities to move Nocioni for near-expiring contracts I think they were crazy not to hvae taken the opportunity, and 2) we'll see how this opportunity is utilized.
My grade is an A in the "saving Maloofs money" category and a D in "improving the future prospects of the team" category.
My feeling about the deadline comes down to two things: 1) if reports are true and they had opportunities to move Nocioni for near-expiring contracts I think they were crazy not to hvae taken the opportunity, and 2) we'll see how this opportunity is utilized.
My grade is an A in the "saving Maloofs money" category and a D in "improving the future prospects of the team" category.
Heuge
Starter
I completely agree wit everything written here, well said.
NoBonus
Starter
I think this is a solid "B". We are rebuilding... and trying to save $$. The Kings have saved a bunch of money and cleared out the bench for next year. This makes finding and growing prospects a real solid shot in the arm. Once the prospects come up, the team is a competitor again; then you make the trade for that one missing piece and the Kings are back in the hunt. Also, this team may have dumped a lot of talent, but now there is more of what I, as a fan, want to see right now: Hustle, excitement, and young player development.
Now, the Kings just need to find a good coach and the rebuild will be on the up-side.
Now, the Kings just need to find a good coach and the rebuild will be on the up-side.
sidney
Starter
It is not good to have 2 mid level+ guys playing the same position clogging the cap, neither of which are starters on a good team and losing the matchup most nights.
We JUST are getting finished with the KT/SAR PF nightmare.
Now we have Nocioni/Garcia eating up 12-13M/year for the next 4 years.
Fortunately both seem to be great team guys, but there is no question that is going to hurt us building a contender.
If the cap space this summer gets used for an impact player, I'd probably give this an A. If it doesn't no question this is a D/F
We JUST are getting finished with the KT/SAR PF nightmare.
Now we have Nocioni/Garcia eating up 12-13M/year for the next 4 years.
Fortunately both seem to be great team guys, but there is no question that is going to hurt us building a contender.
If the cap space this summer gets used for an impact player, I'd probably give this an A. If it doesn't no question this is a D/F
NoBonus
Starter
Garcia and Noc both technically play the same position, but I am guessing when the new coach arrives these changes will be made:
1. Noch will start over Garcia. I have noticed Garcia starting to dominate the ball and take ill-advised shots... bad sign.
2. Garcia will be back at sixth man (where he is proven) getting minutes behind Beno, Martin, and Noch.
So, it works well. I think it will really depend on who the Kings draft.
Ha. I gave him a C, but that's before I read this post. We're on the same page.
I wish there was an option for INC, because taking back Nocioni's contract could wind up being a setback for us, depending on other things. We'll see what happens.
sidney
Starter
It's like spending a lot of money on light fixtures before you build a house. Start with the house, then decorate.
In order to be a contender you need to have 2 key guys, one a superstar, or 3 key guys, all stars, to build around. The rest you can fill in around the edges. Committing 12-13M for 4 years to a SF combo where neither guy is top 10 at the position is a going to hurt assuming we can't unload Nocioni.
I like Garcia and Nocioni, but they aren't playing up to their contracts and we could just have easily signed a guy like Matt Barnes to fill that role and not noticed any change. Barnes makes 1.2M btw. Lots of wing guys out there floating around that are good bang for the buck values.
I'm going from C/Incomplete (could be worse) to C+.
We're still just doing what obviously needs to be done, that's C territory. The payoff could very well be an A, but that will be graded on its own.
We're still just doing what obviously needs to be done, that's C territory. The payoff could very well be an A, but that will be graded on its own.
I upgraded him from an Incomplete to a B (before deduction for lateness). But I see Geoff's job as being a mixture of (a) pleasing the Maloofs, and (b) making the team he is managing good. I think he's done quite well at the former, resulting in a pretty decent grade. If he'd dumped Nocioni's contract, he'd be up for an A or even A+ from the Maloofs.
From the fan perspective, he blew up the team, which isn't very challenging, and left us with Nocioni, whose contract is too big, but who'll probably be a very good role model for the kids. I assume that's why he was kept... he's not really what our roster needs, but he's a hard worker and team-minded. So I have to look at that as a move for the team's future, as little as I like his contract.
From the fan perspective, it's a pity that he couldn't get us more picks, or more promising youngsters, but I realize the market's bad. The only real grade killer, as a fan, is that it was years too late. Had it been done when it should have, we'd also have gotten a lot more trade value for our guys.
So, high grade for keeping the Maloofs happy, which is his #1 duty. As for building a good team, eh, not so much.
VF was wondering where the press had said that the trades weren't good for the Kings, and the very first thing I read on the subject fell into that category, so for the record, here it is, from Fox Sports.
From the fan perspective, he blew up the team, which isn't very challenging, and left us with Nocioni, whose contract is too big, but who'll probably be a very good role model for the kids. I assume that's why he was kept... he's not really what our roster needs, but he's a hard worker and team-minded. So I have to look at that as a move for the team's future, as little as I like his contract.
From the fan perspective, it's a pity that he couldn't get us more picks, or more promising youngsters, but I realize the market's bad. The only real grade killer, as a fan, is that it was years too late. Had it been done when it should have, we'd also have gotten a lot more trade value for our guys.
So, high grade for keeping the Maloofs happy, which is his #1 duty. As for building a good team, eh, not so much.
VF was wondering where the press had said that the trades weren't good for the Kings, and the very first thing I read on the subject fell into that category, so for the record, here it is, from Fox Sports.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9241484/Why-so-little-wheeling-and-dealing
Nighthawk1
Starter
I gave him a C, which is up from the D i gave him last time. he gets the upgraded grade only for showing we're going to stick with youth and not get into anymore contracts with injured/mediocre players. We might not like Noci's contract, but I think you can clearly tell the team is playing with a different hustle now. Whether it's infectious from Noci or just the fact the team feels they have a clear path they know we're on now I'm not sure... I chose both.
Reasons why this is a C instead of something higher mainly is due to the logjam at the 3 position. Hopefully Greene gets what minutes he can this year and doesn't get discouraged because I can definately see him being what we need at the 3 once he polishes himself
Reasons why this is a C instead of something higher mainly is due to the logjam at the 3 position. Hopefully Greene gets what minutes he can this year and doesn't get discouraged because I can definately see him being what we need at the 3 once he polishes himself
Heuge
Starter
Here's another article ranks trades from best to worse.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeEval-090220
It seems easier to find people outside of this website that thought these deals were bad, but again it isnt a real big deal.
My question is, when do we stop making excuses for Petrie? These move are either well overdue or very mediocre.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
