What do we think of Petrie now?

[love_them_kings]

I find it interesting that people say last year's roster was better than the current one and bring up chemistry as one of the reasons. Don't people realise that chemistry was shot this time last year??????


Chemistry at this time last year was shot. We also can't make any sort of assesment on the chemistry of the current squad because the players have never played together.

Time will tell if this is the better squad than the one that started last year. One thing we can say is that this current squad is not as injury prone as the one from last year. You still have Peja and Miller who are injury prone but gone are Jackson and Webber. The key players we have signed up now generally don't miss many games so that one positive.

you're right, but I think a lot of times when people refer to "chemistry" they mean experience playing together as a team. While the team had off court chemistry issues last year, their on court chemistry, which is just their experience playing together, was still strong.

This team will take some time to get familiar with playing together, which is normal, because it's just a lot of new faces.

I'm hoping that this will be indeed a less injury prone team this year, but I'm not counting on it -- even non injury prone players seem to turn over a new leaf when they come to the Kings!

 

[ForlornKing]

I don't think any moves will be made next year.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... The point being made is that Petrie undoubtedly improved the team...

It's far from "undoubtable."

... Although Reef is far from being a "role player"

Certainly not very far. He's not a star, that's for sure; no playoff team will ever be built around Shareef Abdur-Rahim. And, especially in today's NBA, non-star = roleplayer. There's no in-between; you're either the star of the show, or the supporting cast.

... his acquisition along with the trades for Corliss, Kenny and Brian does say a lot about Petrie's cunning business moves...

If trading Chris Webber for a ham sandwich constitutes "cunning," then Petrie must not be as good as people think.

... I don't understand why you devalue this at all. We now have a starting PF who is arguably better than Webber right now...

You can argue it... but you'd be wrong.

... Maybe we don't have a dominant PF like Chris was when healthy, but the overall talent is hightened to near contention level...

Say what now?

... If you do a career head to head comparison between Bonzi and Cuttino, you'll see that the only stat that Mobley has an advantage is in points per game. Just don't forget that Wells' minutes were limited in Memphis and that affected is over productivity. If you look at his tenure in Portland, you'll see that Bonzi's overall stats were better than Mobley's...

Oh really? Because I've just finished comparing the five years that Wells played in Portland to the same five years for Mobley, and Mobley outperformed Wells in six out of nine statistical categories, so perhaps you can enlighten me on what you might be referring to when you say that Wells' overall stats were better:

		pts	fg%	3pt%	ft%	reb	ast	blk	stl	to

98-03	Wells	13.3	.479	.348	.703	4.7	2.55	.26	1.35	2.28
	Mobley	17.4	.434	.366	.843	3.9	2.58	.43	1.18	2.18

... But stats don't tell the whole story. Bonzi is a more complete player...

Maybe. But he hasn't proven it in the NBA.

He may not have the 3pt accuracy as Cuttino, but has a better post game, plays better defense, is taller and much stronger...

I'll agree with the first point. The last two are imminently debatable.

 

[bigbadred00]

Oh really? Because I've just finished comparing the five years that Wells played in Portland to the same five years for Mobley, and Mobley outperformed Wells in six out of nine statistical categories, so perhaps you can enlighten me on what you might be referring to when you say that Wells' overall stats were better:

You do realize Mobley played almost 10 minutes more per game over much of that period. You have to realize that is going to skew the results. Bonzi is bar far a better Rebounder than Mobley. He's actually a more efficent scorer as well when used well. 3-Pters is where Mobley has a significant edge on Bonzi.

 

[BibityBobtyBoom]

mobley played most of his career on the rockets when they sucked and it was just him and steve francis. Racking up stats and minutes all the time as where bonzi was stuck on over crowded lineups with the trailblazers and grizz.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You do realize Mobley played almost 10 minutes more per game over much of that period. You have to realize that is going to skew the results. Bonzi is bar far a better Rebounder than Mobley. He's actually a more efficent scorer as well when used well. 3-Pters is where Mobley has a significant edge on Bonzi.

Actually, those numbers hold up fairly well if you project them out to equivalent minutes; Three point shooting isn't the only place where Mobley outperforms Wells: Mobley is still a significantly better shooter from the line as well. And I'm not convinced that Wells could have equalled Mobley's scoring performance, even with ten more minutes on the court. Not only that, but Mobley is, by all accounts, a better shot blocker, despite being almost three inches shorter (Wells is closer to 6'6" than his "official" height of 6'5", while Mobley is closer to 6'3"). And let's not overlook the fact that Wells averaged more turnovers in ten fewer minutes.

So that's points, three-point field goal percentage, free throw percentage, blocks and turnovers. Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt on assists, which I am not personally prepared to do, Mobley still has the edge on five out of nine categories... And my only point in this entire argument is to make people realize that Wells isn't the "slam dunk" upgrade that some people are making it out to be. Will Wells work out better for the Kings than Mobley? As a Kings fan, I'd like to hope so, but I don't allow that hope to cloud me from seeing that Wells' potential to become a star has not yet manifested itself on the court in any consistent respect, and that he has not done anything, to this point in his career, that makes him a "no-brainer" improvement over the player we had before he got here.

 

[VF21]

...he [Wells] has not done anything, to this point in his career, that makes him a "no-brainer" improvement over the player we had before he got here.

You certainly cannot argue with that. I am encouraged, however, by the interview with him on the local news recently. He looked as though he truly understands just how valuable the "do over" is that he has received. Only time will tell...

 

[funkykingston]

It's a bit disingenuous for Kings fans to cry out about a lack of defense and then point to Mobley's offensive numbers in comparing the two players.

The Kings need toughness, rebounding, post play and some attitude. Those are the qualities that Wells brings to the team. No, he won't have Mobley's 3 point percentage or put up points comparable to Mobley's career average, but are those really big concerns?

Wells may not be a better player than Mobley (I'd argue that he has been, and was at times Portlands most important player early in his career) but on paper he certainly seems like a better fit.

At the very least I expect my television to be safe from me using my shoe as a projectile, as I doubt Bonzi will chuck up as many dumb shots as Mobley did last season.

The guy may shoot a decent percentage, but I stick by my assessment that he and Steve Francis constituted the backcourt with the lowest combined Bball IQ in NBA history.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It's a bit disingenuous for Kings fans to cry out about a lack of defense and then point to Mobley's offensive numbers in comparing the two players.

There's nothing disingenuous about it; Wells is a better defensive rebounder (already conceded) and gets more steals (also conceded), which are two fairly decent indicators of defense... but that doesn't justify so many people's unqualified belief that Wells is a sure-fire lock to be an upgrade; he isn't.

Wells could be great for the Kings if he lives up to his potential, but the history of the NBA is rife with players who could have been great if they'd only lived up to their potential, and nothing in Wells' NBA career lends itself to suggest that he's going to be the next star-level guy that slipped under everyone's radar. He might be the next breakout star who just needed to be in the right situation, like Chauncey Billups was. And, contrary to what preconceptions you may have of me, I will personally be pleased if this happens. But, he could also become the next guy who had star potential but was never able to make it work on the NBA level, ala Isaiah Rider. And, quite frankly, that wouldn't surprise me, either.

 

[Kings113]

Just something I thought I'd add. I was watching Wells in Suns/Grizz G2, and in his first stint in of like 7-8 minutes. He came in and got a block (clean good one), couple steals, 2 assists, couple boards. Aggressive drive from the perimeter with fake prior inside to the basket w/ 2 defenders around him, fouled and swishes both FTs, showed a bit of his post-play, made a nice high slash to the basket off of a steal, played some solid/good d. Second stint wasn't as much, only got the ball twice and scored once on a lane pass followed by a quick hard dunk, another block on a Nash pass to Johnson near basket, a board, drained two FTS, and a possession of solid d.

Wish we could get Lorenzen Wright. Send Corliss and 1 more player there for him. I know Petrie tried...

 

[Bricklayer]

Wish we could get Lorenzen Wright. Send Corliss and 1 more player there for him. I know Petrie tried...

Lorenzen's just a moderately tall body. Does nothing terribly well at this point. Ok rebounder, no longer much of a shotblocker, ok scorer. He and Mark Bount should open up the L & M Academy of Mediocriity.

The one nice thing with Wright is it would have been an ending contract, but as far as helping us much on the court? Much rather go with somebody more dynamic.

 

[bigbadred00]

Actually, those numbers hold up fairly well if you project them out to equivalent minutes; Three point shooting isn't the only place where Mobley outperforms Wells: Mobley is still a significantly better shooter from the line as well. And I'm not convinced that Wells could have equalled Mobley's scoring performance, even with ten more minutes on the court. Not only that, but Mobley is, by all accounts, a better shot blocker, despite being almost three inches shorter (Wells is closer to 6'6" than his "official" height of 6'5", while Mobley is closer to 6'3"). And let's not overlook the fact that Wells averaged more turnovers in ten fewer minutes.

So that's points, three-point field goal percentage, free throw percentage, blocks and turnovers. Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt on assists, which I am not personally prepared to do, Mobley still has the edge on five out of nine categories... And my only point in this entire argument is to make people realize that Wells isn't the "slam dunk" upgrade that some people are making it out to be. Will Wells work out better for the Kings than Mobley? As a Kings fan, I'd like to hope so, but I don't allow that hope to cloud me from seeing that Wells' potential to become a star has not yet manifested itself on the court in any consistent respect, and that he has not done anything, to this point in his career, that makes him a "no-brainer" improvement over the player we had before he got here.

Bogus. Your comparing 1999 season where Bonzi averaged 17 minutes a game and was a second year pro mostly off the bench. You should compare the 2000-2001 seasons through the 2002-2003 seasons where both played 25 minutes +. In Memphis he was underutilized coming off the bench on a team with too many SGs and SFs.

Stat Bonzi - Mobley
PT/48 23.89 21.25
Reb/48 8.56 4.96
Assists/48 4.73 3.28
Steals/48 2.34 1.58
Blocks/48 .425 .541
FG% .481 .432
3 PT FG% .34 .38
FT% .71 .84

Wow. Looks like Bonzi is better at a couple of more catagories. I never said Bonzi was a savior, but his stats are better in things we actually need like rebounding and steals. We do have a great 3 point shooter already on the team. We don't need another shooter, we already have 1 of the best in Peja, we need Christie ala 2001 season but that guy's hard to replace. But Bonzi does rebound, pass, and puts up more steals per 48 (not the greatest stat but it's better than comparing there total output when your looking at ~30 mpg vs 41 mpg).

 

[Kings113]

Lorenzen's just a moderately tall body. Does nothing terribly well at this point. Ok rebounder, no longer much of a shotblocker, ok scorer. He and Mark Bount should open up the L & M Academy of Mediocriity.

The one nice thing with Wright is it would have been an ending contract, but as far as helping us much on the court? Much rather go with somebody more dynamic.

I think he's pretty good overall. He wouldn't be my first or second choice, but would be high on the list. It's not like we really need or can get a total monster behind Brad, and would bring what is needed there. Especially if, god forbid something happens.

Kelvin Cato would be great, but don't think that's too realistic. He'd be my #1 choice.

PJ Brown or Dale Davis would be nice. Not like their age is that much of a problem, and wouldn't be starting.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Bogus. Your comparing 1999 season where Bonzi averaged 17 minutes a game and was a second year pro mostly off the bench...

So? Les Jespen Fan said "during his tenure in Portland," not "during his tenure in Portland when he met conditions X, Y and Z."

... You should compare the 2000-2001 seasons through the 2002-2003 seasons where both played 25 minutes +...

Why? I was not told to constrict the data field; I was told to compare them from the time that Wells was in Portland. If you narrow the data field enough, you can use stats to prove that any player is better than any other player, but I consider that a moot point because that's not how the argument was presented.

... I never said Bonzi was a savior, but his stats are better in things we actually need like rebounding and steals...

Well, seeing as how I've already conceded those two categories, twice, I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing by pointing it out again. It certainly doesn't make your argument any stronger to say that Wells gets more rebounds and steals when that's already been acknowledged.

... We don't need another shooter, ... we need Christie ala 2001 season but that guy's hard to replace...

And Wells is not going to be that guy.

 

[Jerryaki]

And Wells is not going to be that guy.

but we know for sure mobley was not that guy. so i say bring on wells and hope for the best.

 

[coolhandluke]

It's a bit disingenuous for Kings fans to cry out about a lack of defense and then point to Mobley's offensive numbers in comparing the two players.

The Kings need toughness, rebounding, post play and some attitude. Those are the qualities that Wells brings to the team. No, he won't have Mobley's 3 point percentage or put up points comparable to Mobley's career average, but are those really big concerns?

Wells may not be a better player than Mobley (I'd argue that he has been, and was at times Portlands most important player early in his career) but on paper he certainly seems like a better fit.

At the very least I expect my television to be safe from me using my shoe as a projectile, as I doubt Bonzi will chuck up as many dumb shots as Mobley did last season.

The guy may shoot a decent percentage, but I stick by my assessment that he and Steve Francis constituted the backcourt with the lowest combined Bball IQ in NBA history.

Right on (especially the last sentence). I couldn't have said it better. Good move by Petrie once again.

 

[ONEZERO]

Bonzi will be the better fit out of the two no matter what the stats say.

 

[bigbadred00]

So? Les Jespen Fan said "during his tenure in Portland," not "during his tenure in Portland when he met conditions X, Y and Z."

Why? I was not told to constrict the data field; I was told to compare them from the time that Wells was in Portland. If you narrow the data field enough, you can use stats to prove that any player is better than any other player, but I consider that a moot point because that's not how the argument was presented.

Well, seeing as how I've already conceded those two categories, twice, I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing by pointing it out again. It certainly doesn't make your argument any stronger to say that Wells gets more rebounds and steals when that's already been acknowledged.

And Wells is not going to be that guy.

let's think about it this way. your including bonzi's stats when he was a second year player off the bench, and only playing 18 mpg in comparison to being Mobley's second year while he's playing 31 mpg. i constricted to stats that actually have meaning, meaning stats where both players played significant minutes, bonzi came in playing minimal minutes for what reason I have no idea. it's like saying Jermaine O'neal isn't that great because between 96-99 he averaged around 4 ppg. it's only valid to compare similar statistics.

the point is Bonzi is more of what we NEED than Mobley is. Mobley I like him but I hate to say it is an undersized shooter who doesn't pass well nor rebound well, which happen to be 2 of our larger needs. we already have enough shooters on the team, in fact we might still have too many. the catagories you point out that mobley is great in are in fact things we already have. we already have a bunch of great ft shooters, we have good 3 point shooters. as you said earlier, he outperformed wells in these catagories, i proved that per minute, bonzi actually outproduced mobley in 2 of those catagories switching favor 5 for bonzi if that really matters. mobley played on a team without depth and was a work horse while same can't be said of bonzi who in portland had a glut at his position, similarly in memphis.

another plus for bonzi is he is a better defender, and slightly taller which can't hurt. he also can play with his back to the basket, a facet the team hasn't been equipped with lately.

 

[Les Jepsen Fan]

So? Les Jespen Fan said "during his tenure in Portland," not "during his tenure in Portland when he met conditions X, Y and Z."

But when you posted stats in his first five year tenure and compared it to Mobleys during that same time you are not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Those averages of Wells stats included his rookie year and his 2 following years as a back up to Steve Smith. Mobley was a certified starter from 98 - 03 averaging way more minutes than Wells. If you compare apples to apples, their stats when they were both starters from 2001 - 2002 and 2002 - 2003, you'll see that Wells was the better player:

Avgerages Mobley/Wells
Minutes: 41/31.4
PPG: 19.6/16.35
RPG: 4.35/5.65
APG: 3.00/3.05
SPG: 1.32/1.47
BPG: .45/.29
TO: 2.26/2.72

The only distinct advantage that Cat has here is points per game. He had 0.16 more BPG and o.46 more turnovers per game. Let's not forget however that Mobley averaged 10 MORE MINUTES!!! What's even more telling about these stats is who they played with during this time frame. It was only the Cat and Francis show in Houston with a bunch of scrubs, whereas, Wells produced for a championship caliber team.

I don't get it why you say Wells hasn't proved it yet in the NBA. What has Mobley done? Wells actually has proven it more than Mobley in his career. Wells was on a Portland team that should've won the NBA title hadn't been for a late 4th Quarter rally by the Lakers. Wells was a part of two Conference finals teams. Mobley only made the playoffs once in Houston when he was playing with Hakeem and Barkley and even then they didn't make it out of the first round. Mobley's done squat.

 

[Kings113]

Yeah, Bonzi with the Blazers was really good from what I've read/seen. Want to see more too.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't get it why you say Wells hasn't proved it yet in the NBA...

Because he hasn't. Wells has never played significant minutes on a high-quality team. And the one year in Portland that he did legitimately put up good numbers, the Trailblazers were swept in the first round, so he obviously didn't make that big an impact... Wells hasn't proven anything; I fail to see what makes Wells holding down the bench on a good team qualitatively better than Mobley getting minutes on a poor team.

... What has Mobley done... Mobley only made the playoffs once in Houston when he was playing with Hakeem and Barkley and even then they didn't make it out of the first round. Mobley's done squat.

First of all, Mobley made the playoffs twice in Houston.

Secondly, both you and bigbadred00 have me all wrong; I don't like Mobley OR Wells, so for the two of you to defend signing Wells as if I'm trying to make the case that we should have kept Mobley makes no sense to me... I'm mostly just perturbed by the perception by a vocal minority of people who seem to think that Wells is "definintely" the missing piece, and he's just not that good. And nothing that he's done in his NBA career justifies the belief that he's ever going to be that good... He might become a star level player, and he might not. Like I said before, he might be the next Chauncey Billups, and he might be the next Isaiah Rider.

People around here are trying to make this signing more than it actually is; Wells doesn't exactly have the reputation of a lockdown defender, and Mobley's a porous defender in the first place, so for people to gas this guy up by saying that he's a defensive upgrade over Mobley is a little meaningless to me. I mean, we could sign a folding chair as a defensive upgrade over Bibby, but that's not going to make signing the chair a great acquisition.



Cliff notes: Both these guys are overrated, and I'm not feeling the excitement over getting rid of one overrated SG in favor of another overrated SG.

 

[tyrant]

Because he hasn't. Wells has never played significant minutes on a high-quality team. And the one year in Portland that he did legitimately put up good numbers, the Trailblazers were swept in the first round, so he obviously didn't make that big an impact... Wells hasn't proven anything; I fail to see what makes Wells holding down the bench on a good team qualitatively better than Mobley getting minutes on a poor team.

First of all, Mobley made the playoffs twice in Houston.

Secondly, both you and bigbadred00 have me all wrong; I don't like Mobley OR Wells, so for the two of you to defend signing Wells as if I'm trying to make the case that we should have kept Mobley makes no sense to me... I'm mostly just perturbed by the perception by a vocal minority of people who seem to think that Wells is "definintely" the missing piece, and he's just not that good. And nothing that he's done in his NBA career justifies the belief that he's ever going to be that good... He might become a star level player, and he might not. Like I said before, he might be the next Chauncey Billups, and he might be the next Isaiah Rider.

People around here are trying to make this signing more than it actually is; Wells doesn't exactly have the reputation of a lockdown defender, and Mobley's a porous defender in the first place, so for people to gas this guy up by saying that he's a defensive upgrade over Mobley is a little meaningless to me. I mean, we could sign a folding chair as a defensive upgrade over Bibby, but that's not going to make signing the chair a great acquisition.



Cliff notes: Both these guys are overrated, and I'm not feeling the excitement over getting rid of one overrated SG in favor of another overrated SG.

but wouldn't you agree that both bonzi and cuttino are more offensively efficient than doug christie? bonzi not being as big of a ball hogg than mobley, i think he'll fit our system a little better!

 

[Bricklayer]

but wouldn't you agree that both bonzi and cuttino are more offensively efficient than doug christie? bonzi not being as big of a ball hogg than mobley, i think he'll fit our system a little better!

I'm not sure where this Bonzi as not a ballhog thing came about. I like Bonzi (his play at least), but he is very much a guy who looks for his shot, wants his shot, complains if he does not get his shot. Don't know if that necessarily makes him a ballhog, but this is an aggressive shoot first give me the damn ball sort of player.

 

[bigbadred00]

Because he hasn't. Wells has never played significant minutes on a high-quality team. And the one year in Portland that he did legitimately put up good numbers, the Trailblazers were swept in the first round, so he obviously didn't make that big an impact... Wells hasn't proven anything; I fail to see what makes Wells holding down the bench on a good team qualitatively better than Mobley getting minutes on a poor team.

First of all, Mobley made the playoffs twice in Houston.

Secondly, both you and bigbadred00 have me all wrong; I don't like Mobley OR Wells, so for the two of you to defend signing Wells as if I'm trying to make the case that we should have kept Mobley makes no sense to me... I'm mostly just perturbed by the perception by a vocal minority of people who seem to think that Wells is "definintely" the missing piece, and he's just not that good. And nothing that he's done in his NBA career justifies the belief that he's ever going to be that good... He might become a star level player, and he might not. Like I said before, he might be the next Chauncey Billups, and he might be the next Isaiah Rider.

People around here are trying to make this signing more than it actually is; Wells doesn't exactly have the reputation of a lockdown defender, and Mobley's a porous defender in the first place, so for people to gas this guy up by saying that he's a defensive upgrade over Mobley is a little meaningless to me. I mean, we could sign a folding chair as a defensive upgrade over Bibby, but that's not going to make signing the chair a great acquisition.



Cliff notes: Both these guys are overrated, and I'm not feeling the excitement over getting rid of one overrated SG in favor of another overrated SG.

I can agree with your findings. Thing is do we need a star level player.I guess some people are assuming we need a Bonzi to be that type of player, I believe, he won't fit that mold nor needs to fit that mold. I think that Bonzi will be better utilized as a good shooting guard option who can board and play some D. And yes, some D is better than no D, it's not great, but it's definitely an improvement for us.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

but wouldn't you agree that both bonzi and cuttino are more offensively efficient than doug christie?

No, not really. In fact, comparing their numbers during the bulk of Christie's tenure with the Kings, Christie is ahead on two often overlooked categories which are highly indicative of offensive efficiency: Assists per Turnover, and Points per Shot. Figures that are not, in fact, dependant on minutes to accurately gague. Comparing the three during the same span of time reveals the following:

	Ast:TO
2000-04	Christie	2.19
	Mobley		1.23
	Wells		1.08

	Points:Shot
2000-04	Christie	1.28
	Mobley		1.20
	Wells		1.19

 

[tyrant]

No, not really. In fact, comparing their numbers during the bulk of Christie's tenure with the Kings, Christie is ahead on two often overlooked categories which are highly indicative of offensive efficiency: Assists per Turnover, and Points per Shot. Figures that are not, in fact, dependant on minutes to accurately gague. Comparing the three during the same span of time reveals the following:

	Ast:TO
2000-04	Christie	2.19
	Mobley		1.23
	Wells		1.08
 
	Points:Shot
2000-04	Christie	1.28
	Mobley		1.20
	Wells		1.19

why don't you post points plus rebounds?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

why don't you post points plus rebounds?

Because your question was:

but wouldn't you agree that both bonzi and cuttino are more offensively efficient than doug christie?

... and rebounds are not a particularly accurate indication of offensive efficiency.

 

[thesanityannex]

No, not really. In fact, comparing their numbers during the bulk of Christie's tenure with the Kings, Christie is ahead on two often overlooked categories which are highly indicative of offensive efficiency: Assists per Turnover, and Points per Shot. Figures that are not, in fact, dependant on minutes to accurately gague. Comparing the three during the same span of time reveals the following:

	Ast:TO
2000-04	Christie	2.19
	Mobley		1.23
	Wells		1.08
 
	Points:Shot
2000-04	Christie	1.28
	Mobley		1.20
	Wells		1.19

Christie didn't have the same responsibilities as Mobley/Wells did those years......to score. Of course his assists were higher, and his shots were usually cuts to the basket for an EASY lay up. And look at Christie's number of shots, how can you compare the shots a game.

 

[Bricklayer]

Christie didn't have the same responsibilities as Mobley/Wells did those years......to score. Of course his assists were higher, and his shots were usually cuts to the basket for an EASY lay up. And look at Christie's number of shots, how can you compare the shots a game.

The question was who was more efficient -- and Doug was. Doesn't mean he was BETTER offensively. But he was more efficient. Another note, both Cat and Bonzi are better scorers than Doug ever was, even in his Toronto days. But that is not all there is to offense (as last year's MVP demonstrtes). The gap narrows somewhat on that side of the floor when you factor in Doug's ability to make OTHERS better with his passing. Wonder how many points Peja owes directly to Doug and his top of the key lasers?

 

[Les Jepsen Fan]

... I'm mostly just perturbed by the perception by a vocal minority of people who seem to think that Wells is "definintely" the missing piece, and he's just not that good. And nothing that he's done in his NBA career justifies the belief that he's ever going to be that good... He might become a star level player, and he might not. Like I said before, he might be the next Chauncey Billups, and he might be the next Isaiah Rider.QUOTE]

I've watched Bonzi destroy the Kings when he was in Portland. This was during Doug's prime years. Doug could slow down any player but Bonzi. I watched Bonzi slash to the hoop, shoot a 3, steal the ball for a transition dunk and lock down his defender thinking I wonder what it would be like if he were a King. Many thought he was an allstar in the making. When he was traded to Memphis, I thought "that's it..he's exactly what they need." I always wondered why it never panned out there.

Now he's a King with something to prove. I fully expect him to regain the form he had back in his Portland days where he still contributed while sharing the ball with Damon and Sheed. To think he's never going to be that good is very pessimistic. He was that good, that is until his attitude overran his play on the court. Here's hoping he still is.