What kind of team are we building?

[hiero]

When you first open a jigsaw puzzle, all you see is a jumble of pieces. As time goes on, and you try the pieces to see which ones fit and which ones don't, the big picture begins to become clearer...

We've barely opened the box.

hey don't try and add thoughtful wise comments to this thread we both know it's going to deteriorate into a tyreke ballhogs why did we trade kmart thread.

it's pretty obvious what kind of a team we are. young, tough, and built around tyreke. just the way most people should want it.

 

[ovrush]

He's s SF/PF tweener dude... He dosent have the ball handling or passing needed at the 2.. or the quickness to guard smaller 2 guards in the league (see rip hamilton last night, Udoka was inserted pretty fast). He is just not the player we need beside evans. We need a playmaker/ball handler/shooter beside Reke. Donte might be able to play the 2 on occasion, but not all the time. he is a natural 3.

again ill disagree. He got lit up last night by Hamilton because he did a bad job working around screens and following a guy who is tremendously talented OFF ball. He guarded Kobe as well as anyone in the league can, including blocking a last second shot in the first OT meeting. He's easily athletic enough to stay in front of the shooting guards in the league. He just doesn't quite have the defensive polish to know how to play against a savvy offball player who excells in the midrange game.

As far as his handling goes, there are times with Beno and Tyreke on the floor when Donte brings the ball up the court. He is a very solid ball handler, perhaps even as good as Garcia. He's certainly as skilled from a dribbling/passing perspective as a large portion of NBA shooting guards. His decision making needs work, but that would be applicable no matter what position he plays.

I understand that right now Donte looks like a natural 3 but I think the exciting aspect of Donte is he has all the tools to play shooting guard with the size he has. The limitations to Donte playing shooting guard aren't physical, they're developmental, he needs to become a little more savvy on defense and offense. At power forward he will always be limited because he simply doen't have the frame to compete there against true full sized power forwards so the limitations are physical.

 

[ovrush]

I'm not crazy, just thinking out loud and wondering what the next steps might be for Petrie.

I was pretty happy last November and early December and then we crashed. Which looking back was probably to be expected since this team isn't anywhere near as ready as we were hoping.

I'm looking forward and just wondering how we will turn out when this team is finally "built".

If we didn't discuss this amongst ourselves, then why have a forum?

wondering how the team will turn out and thinking about the pieces we need moving forward is one thing. Saying that we'll always be a tyreke centered team and inferring we're destined to lose because of how a 20 year old rookie pg is playing 60 games into a season is something entirely different.

 

[ovrush]

But I'll take the Blazers example as what not to do, I always say the same, but that team was talented enough to have done a great job at playoffs. They won the Lakers in almost every game of the regular season. The problem was not what pieces lacked around Roy, the problem was the one-man based offense.Plain and simple. They have a lot of depth in the bench and when the PO arrived, they just ignored it all and went conservative and relied on Roy's shoulders. That's a thing to avoid. You can't come and play 5 matches against the same team with the same offensive schema, because you're predictable and you're always screwed. One-man based offenses team sucks at play-offs. You can build and build around a superstar that it won't never work. The only one-man based offense which may win a ring is this year's Cavs. If LeBron doesn't win the ring this year, I won't take any one-man based offense as what to do if you have a superstar and want to be contender. And that being fair, cause it's not the same a LeBron-based offense than any other superstar based offense, including Kobe.

Man this is weird having two discussions at once... feels weird posting after myself.

Anyways the Portland example is a bit off since last year was the first time a rebuilt Blazer team went to the playoffs. They were pretty much the youngest team in the playoffs. It takes a trip into the playoffs to get your feet wet as its a whole different game.

Also I couldn't disagree with you more about the playoffs. They are more suited to teams with stars than to teams that spread the ball around. The defense gets tighter, the transition offense goes away and scoring in general becomes much much tougher in a playoff atmosphere. When that happens you need to have a guy who can be individually dominant, who demands a double team and can beat that double team.

It seems strange saying you can build around superstars and it will never work given how many titles guys like MJ and Kobe have won. I'll agree with you that you can't have a team with 1 star and a bunch of average players, thats pretty obvious and its why the Kings are a bad team this year. But saying that you don't win titles by having a star centered team is ignoring a whole lot of basketball history. Heck it's ignoring our own history... it wasn't Derrick Fisher and Robert Horry and Rick Fox that beat the Kings in 2002 (game 6 aside). In fact I think we can say that of the top 10 players in that series probably 8 of them were Kings.

The Kings offense doesn't look bad right now because of Tyreke, it looks bad because its still full of those guys who won 17 games last year. Either they aren't good or they are really young and raw.

 

[Tetsujin]

And that is exactly my fear. That we'll have a great run with Evans, some really cool wow-moments to watch and nothing ultimately to show for it.

Because we sure have a lot to show for our glory years.

 

[hiero]

Because we sure have a lot to show for our glory years.

heaven forbid we get stuck with one of the most exciting teams in the world annually considered title contenders or to be going deep into the playoffs. that whole webber/vlade/bibby run was the worst. we don't want anymore good teams unless they win a championship

 

[Bricklayer]

Don't ever down play 'team play'. It's alright to be star driven. We don't have that other star right now, so we need to find him. One way is playing the ones we have but if you don't have him then we're 'patiently' waiting for him to be hired or developed. True stars need team play. Team play. Team play. Team play. We don't have the second star but we can hope to develop a little team play.

That's not what's meant by this intimation of "team play". Its the old fantasy around here, held by people who couldn't even tell you what color a basketball was until the Webb/Vlade years, that somehow that's the only way you play basketball (and despite that beloved team getting repeatedly boinked on the head by the non-team play Lakers and their two stars and a bunch of subservient scrubs approach to the game). Its also often pushed by Euro basketball fans where they actively suppress their star players for the sake of old school "purity" (I find the old school part there amusing given that we invented the game).

Perhaps the greatest team ever put together were the Jordan Bulls of the 90s. They were an utter machine. A well oiled machine with impeccable teamwork. But they weren't 'team play'. They were a collection of a couple of masters, and a whole bunch of servants. And it worked beautifully. Every piece knew its place, knew what was expected, and played its role.

Team play gets used as a very silly catchphrase standing in for equanamity. For 5 equals on the court where everybody shares the ball equally and sings kumballah. Its preached by children's coaches of all ages wanting to teach their kids good values through the cipher of sports. It has very little to do with winning, let alone winning at the highest level. You need teamwork, not equanamity. Players understanding their roles, and being well suited for them. And oh yes, talent.

If this team remains Reke and 11 whoevers it will never win a title. Not because of "team play". Because of talent. You put a second star next to Reke and there is no more "team play", in fact there is less. Two guys dominating the ball and the shots. But if history is any guide, and it always is, it also means a dramatic surge forward in wins and eventual title runs. "Team play" is what you resort to when you can't find the talents to execute that simiple formula. It almost never wins titles in the NBA, and their are too many moving parts, too many key cogs demanding salary and needeing to stay healthy for any knd of long term domiance. We are damned lucky to already have a talent that will let us take the simpler path.

 

[swisshh]

I brought this up somewhere else, but yes, 'we' are rebuilding in the midst of a rebuilding. That is bad no matter how you spin it. I think most the roster was set up for the 'team play' being referenced, but the franchise saw Tyreke as a such a potential star that they went with him over a PG. Now they have to restructure yet again.

The real problem is if they actually think Reke and the other parts fit.

 

[Tetsujin]

heaven forbid we get stuck with one of the most exciting teams in the world annually considered title contenders or to be going deep into the playoffs. that whole webber/vlade/bibby run was the worst. we don't want anymore good teams unless they win a championship

I was merely contending his point that we'd never gain anything from having a good team that never wins a championship.

 

[pshn80]

That's not what's meant by this intimation of "team play". Its the old fantasy around here, held by people who couldn't even tell you what color a basketball was until the Webb/Vlade years, that somehow that's the only way you play basketball (and despite that beloved team getting repeatedly boinked ont he head by the non-team play Lakers and their tow stars and a bunch of scrubs approach to the game). Its also often pushed by Euro basketball fans where they actively suppress their star players for the sake of odl school "purity" (I find the old school part there amusing given that we invented the game).

Perhaps the greatest team ever put together were the Jordan Bulls of the 90s. They were an utter machine. A well oiled machine with impeccable teamwork. But they weren't 'team play'. They were a collection of a couple of masters, and a whole bunch of servants. And it worked beautifully. Every piece knew its place, knew what was expected, and played its role.

Team play gets used as a very silly catchphrase standing in for equanamity. For 5 equals on the court where everybody shares the ball equally and sings kumballah. Its preached by children's coaches of all ages wanting to teach their kids good values through the cipher of sports. It has very little to do with winning, let alone winning at the highest level. You need teamwork, not equanamity. Players understanding their roles, and being well suited for them. And oh yes, talent.

If this team remains Reke and 11 whoevers it will never win a title. Not because of "team play". Because of talent. You put a second star next to Reke and there is no more "team play", in fact there is less. Two guys dominating the ball and the shots. But if history is any guide, and it always is, it also means a dramatic surge forward in wins and eventual title runs. "Team play" is what you resort to when you can't find the talents to execute that simiple formula. It almost never wins titles in the NBA, and their are too many moving parts, too many key cogs demanding salary and needeing to stay healthy for any knd of long term domiance. We are damned lucky to already have a talent that will let us take the simpler path.

Brick, I just can't buy your logic. These successful stars and teams you cite all have to have a highly developed ability to operate well as a team. Maybe I don't understand your meaning of team play.

 

[Bricklayer]

Brick, I just can't buy your logic. These successful stars and teams you cite all have to have a highly developed ability to operate well as a team. Maybe I don't understand your meaning of team play.

Its not my meaning at all. Its the one behind all these sorts of silly complaints.

I understand very well that some of the greatest "teams" and best teamwork the league has seen has involved star driven franchises with well constructed roleplayer support crews. But you don't get there in 4 months of your star's rookie season. It takes years of development and play together to reach that well oiled machine status.

You have a dominant youn g star, this is not a moment for grieving. It means you are eternally, for as long as he remains a star, within 1 or 2 moves of being major winners. You will always be close, and barring a completely incpompetent front office sooner or later you will have a team that can make some runs.

 

[KingsCitizen]

From what I see we are building a team with a roster full of scrappy players maybe something close to the Detroit Pistons of 2004.

Casspi = Prince : but Casspi has more celebrity status
Greene = Sheed (without the attitude), and not yet in his prime : he can shoot from the outside, bring it in and block some shots. But most are still on the potential level at this time.
Thompson = Campbell : his performance so far is that of a bench backup big
Landry = Williamson : I think the comparison is pretty close except that Corliss can move to SF easily. But for us to win championship, Landry must come from the bench and to bring energy. If he is a starter that means we clearly lack a good depth.
Evans = hybrid of Billups and Hunter that grew up 3 more inches : I included Hunter coz he hustles and plays good defense compared to billups. But Tyreke has to make those big shots just like the real Mr. Big Shot to bring us championships.
Hawes = Okur : Potential matchup for any big but not worth as a starter if somehow we can land a Big Ben like player to play C.
May = Darko : coz he will be a human championship cigar if this team will contest. lol.
Udrih = Mike James (without the attitude) : can bring instant offense from the bench but not a key decision maker to be a starter.

and so on....

what we clearly lack here to win that championship is Ben Wallace (a defensive big with terrifying look ) and Richard Hamilton (who was just shipped to Houston. lol)

Hopefully we won't waste our cap space and pick so we can bring a Big Ben and Rip or maybe Joe Johnson to Sac.

 

[Bricklayer]

From what I see we are building a team with a roster full of scrappy players maybe something close to the Detroit Pistons of 2004.

Casspi = Prince : but Casspi has more celebrity status
Greene = Sheed (without the attitude), and not yet in his prime : he can shoot from the outside, bring it in and block some shots. But most are still on the potential level at this time.
Thompson = Campbell : his performance so far is that of a bench backup big
Landry = Williamson : I think the comparison is pretty close except that Corliss can move to SF easily. But for us to win championship, Landry must come from the bench and to bring energy. If he is a starter that means we clearly lack a good depth.
Evans = hybrid of Billups and Hunter that grew up 3 more inches : I included Hunter coz he hustles and plays good defense compared to billups. But Tyreke has to make those big shots just like the real Mr. Big Shot to bring us championships.
Hawes = Okur : Potential matchup for any big but not worth as a starter if somehow we can land a Big Ben like player to play C.
May = Darko : coz he will be a human championship cigar if this team will contest. lol.
Udrih = Mike James (without the attitude) : can bring instant offense from the bench but not a key decision maker to be a starter.

and so on....

what we clearly lack here to win that championship is Ben Wallace (a defensive big with terrifying look ) and Richard Hamilton (who was just shipped to Houston. lol)

Hopefully we won't waste our cap space and pick so we can bring a Big Ben and Rip or maybe Joe Johnson to Sac.

We're clearly not building anything like that, and that is again a good thing. That was a fluke title if ever there was one.

But what we do have is a Kobe/Wade/LeBron wiaitng for his wingman, and that's an enormously strong position to be in. And yes BTW, that interior defender is going to go a long way toward setting this team free as well. We've got a star who plays major defense, and that's a huge step in the right directon. And we've been trying to add toughness and defense around him. We just need that keystone to the defense, and then a little seasoning, and the rest should take care of itself.

If you've been watching the NBA for any length of time, the path ahead is very clear + very promising.

 

[PT Cruiser 9ROC]

Brick, I just can't buy your logic. These successful stars and teams you cite all have to have a highly developed ability to operate well as a team. Maybe I don't understand your meaning of team play.

That is the logic. He's saying that the idea of team play being pushed forward here by some is that all 5 players on the court get equal standing in the offense. This notion is definitely not true, and a team built around 2 or more obviously superior players surrounded by role players can also operate as a non-dysfunctional (like that double negative there?) unit. That's what he's getting at. And I agree.

 

[K F Jay]

I hope we become a defensive team with low post scoring. I think we should be focusing on getting us a defensive big in the offseason. Landry could be the guy as our low post scorer we'll have the rest of the season to find out. We have all the other peices already.

Reke/Beno/Garcia provide 3 man rotation for a good mix of ball handling, passing, scoring and defense guarding the smaller 2s up to normal size 3s.
Casspi/Greene/McGuire/Nocioni provide a good mix of offense and defense guarding the bigger 2s to the smaller 4s without being overpowered on the other end.
Landry/Hawes/JT provide good to potential good low post scoring and mid range shooting with average to potential better than average defense. You can add Reke with good low post scoring and Hawes with potential 3pt scoring.
The defensive big i hope we get/Brockman/Dorsey provide a mix of defense and rebounding. Add JT, Casspi and Reke for rebounding.

*I left May out because i think he wont be with us after this year.

Overall a good mix of offense and defense. All they need is time to mesh together. The only problem is that that is a 13 man rotation (with Udoka since W plays him) plus add our #1 draft pick and whoever we sign if we do makes us overloaded with talent. Now try cutting that down to a 9 or 10 man rotation and see what you come up with.

 

[hiero]

That is the logic. He's saying that the idea of team play being pushed forward here by some is that all 5 players on the court get equal standing in the offense. This notion is definitely not true, and a team built around 2 or more obviously superior players surrounded by role players can also operate as a non-dysfunctional (like that double negative there?) unit. That's what he's getting at. And I agree.

Every team needs a star(superstar) who can take over games especially come playoff time and championship time. Wade did it, shaq did it, Kobe did it, Jordan did it. etc. did they win the championship by themselves? no way you need more than 1 good player usually 3 at least but when you have that one superstar who can take over games in the 4th quarter, get to the line at will, create open shots and opportunities for his teammates. When you have that guy you're just on another level as a team that can contend for the title every year. that doesn't mean you go to the finals every year or actually ever even win a championship(sigh..) but you have a much higher chance.

is our supporting cast there yet? almost, we need another star level player and a defensive big center alongwith maturing of reke casspi greene landry. you really can't judge a guy playing on a team with such a poor supporting cast and the competitiveness and chip on his shoulder tyreke has to win and I feel for him sometimes when he gets off some great passes and we can't convert. not that he's perfect but he's still 20 and learning rapidly. I think his game will get more well rounded as a passer and shooter.

one thing I love about tyreke is that when it comes to the 4th quarter he takes it up a notch and often times elevateshis teammates play. he can get to line at will in clutch time, loves taking big shots, has shown that he can shoot the three and will likely be a solid 3 pt shooter. I love that he wants to be the guy who wins it, that's lead to a lot of exciting games this year, bucks, lakers, cavs, etc

 

[Chupacabra]

I dont think Petrie even knows what kind of team hes building. The Kings are in the early stages of assembling talent and seeing what happens. Hopefully the front office puts together a defensive minded team. With the right mix of offensive ability a defensive minded team can be a perennial championship contender. With Evans leading the charge Id like to see this Kings team be reminiscent of the 1988-1990 Detroit Pistons team. One star, marginal offensive ability, a whole lot of defense.

 

[deekay2o9]

I think we are in the same position the Blazers were in few years ago. This is going to be Evans team with a a bunch of growing young players. Look out for us in a few years.

 

[deekay2o9]

We're clearly not building anything like that, and that is again a good thing. That was a fluke title if ever there was one.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but I have to ask. Why do you think it was a "fluke" title? They beat LA that year 3-1 for the title AND made it to the Finals again the next year. They were one game away from getting back to back titles.

 

[Warhawk]

Sorry for derailing the thread, but I have to ask. Why do you think it was a "fluke" title? They beat LA that year 3-1 for the title AND made it to the Finals again the next year. They were one game away from getting back to back titles.

Because as Brick has outlined before, they were one of the very few teams assembled that way to win it all.

 

[Bricklayer]

Sorry for derailing the thread, but I have to ask. Why do you think it was a "fluke" title? They beat LA that year 3-1 for the title AND made it to the Finals again the next year. They were one game away from getting back to back titles.

Stands glaringly out as the only time in the last...well I was going to say 30 years (thinking of the Seattle fluke in the late 70s, but DJ made the HOF, however unworthily), but maybe even longer. Maybe 40. Maybe 50. That a title winning team did not have any obvious HOF players on it. They ran into an aging injured and dysfunctional Lakers squad that was easily the West's weakest representative over a 10 years span by the time of the Finals. And they beat them, as they should have. But they wouldn't have stood a chance against the Lakers squads of 2 years before. That was also the year BTW that Peja came in second inthe MVP voting. Very flukey year where basically every great player in the league either got hurt or his team had a down year. It was a fluke. Good timing, basically a 3 month hot streak after they picked up Sheed, and they defied the odds. Not all of the odds mind you -- even a starless crew still displayed that the way you go about it is with defense defense defense. But they look nothing like the teams that came before or after them. Won one title, in a ridiculously weak conference only made it back one more time. It was fluke. And it would be very silly to intentionally pattern a team after a fluke. I don't think even Detroit would like to do that. They'd have loved to have had a first rate guy, but just did the best they could given that they did not. The stars aligned, they got a title, good for them (given that it was the Lakers). But its not how its done as a rule.

 

[Rookie]

Whish the fluke would be on our side sometime.

 

[Kingstime]

I dont think Petrie even knows what kind of team hes building. The Kings are in the early stages of assembling talent and seeing what happens. Hopefully the front office puts together a defensive minded team. With the right mix of offensive ability a defensive minded team can be a perennial championship contender. With Evans leading the charge Id like to see this Kings team be reminiscent of the 1988-1990 Detroit Pistons team. One star, marginal offensive ability, a whole lot of defense.

The Bad Boys were more than Isiah. Dumars as his sidekick was clutch as hell, MJ's self proclaimed toughest opponent and with the Microwave coming off the bench along with all the annoying defenders that was a hell of a team for that era.

Id love for Petrie to build a team similar in the mold of Bad Boys, Knicks of the 90s or even the defensive mindset of the Spurs of the of this decade. I think this past draft showed a sign of what GP is trying to do tough guys who work hard, scrap claw and fight for a W. We just need a veteran in a couple of the right places to keep the momentum going.

As for Reke's number 2 I really see it being Donte. He's too long and skilled to not be successful in this league. Plus you can see glimpses of his clutchness every now and then as he has gone on many personal 9-0 bursts this year. I can see those 2 doing damage at the 1 and 3 for YEARS to come, the team should be built under the assumption that these two are gonna mature together.


I def want to see what GP has in store for this offseason, PW desperately wants that big man and the big man will be in the top 5 range.

 

[Luv4Kings]

Is that Petrie??

 

[kidult]

There's more than one way to win a championship and its absolutely not fair to judge this team by that one. If you keep wanting that team or an facsimile back, you will be perpetually disappointed.

I loved that team. I felt they should have had the 2002 championship. Now they are a treasured memory and I look forward to whatever kind of team makes us a contender again. I'll wait and see what that looks like.

That's still hurting me everytime ...

 

[Mitch Richmond]

What Brick is trying to say (and I 100% agree) is that "teamwork" does not equal "team play".

"TeamworK" = everyone knowing their roles, and executing them to perfection. 90's Bulls are a great example, as well as the Lakers/Spurs this decade.

"Team play" = Everyone sharing and distributing the ball, all trying to score an equal amount of points and having no true dominant player. This has never really worked on the big stage in the NBA with the exception of the fluke 2004 title by Detroit.

 

[pshn80]

We just need a veteran in a couple of the right places to keep the momentum going.[/B]

I def want to see what GP has in store for this offseason, PW desperately wants that big man and the big man will be in the top 5 range.

Good post. And I particularly agree that we need some keeper veteran help who will play at any position but in the top nine rotation. We really miss that veteran presence right now. Of course, we are getting lots of minutes for our under three year crowd. If we had that now we would not IMO be having the 'Hawes" moment we are having now.

 

[Luv4Kings]

Its not my meaning at all. Its the one behind all these sorts of silly complaints.

I understand very well that some of the greatest "teams" and best teamwork the league has seen has involved star driven franchises with well constructed roleplayer support crews. But you don't get there in 4 months of your star's rookie season. It takes years of development and play together to reach that well oiled machine status.

You have a dominant youn g star, this is not a moment for grieving. It means you are eternally, for as long as he remains a star, within 1 or 2 moves of being major winners. You will always be close, and barring a completely incpompetent front office sooner or later you will have a team that can make some runs.

I'm sure you're not referring to "my" meaning of team play as silly.

I agree it takes years of development, which is why I'm looking forward as to what kind of team we are "building", not "have already built".

There are stars and there are stars. Certainly a Shaq team is different from an Iverson team, unless you have them both on the same team. A dominant center team like Shaq or Olajuwan runs differently than a guard-ball handler team like one with Iverson or Kobe.

Then there is the Detroit Pistons of a few years ago who won as a prototypical team.

Anyway, I've got to run so I'll have to finish my thoughts later.

But good comments in this thread. Lots to think about. Thanks, folks.

 

[hammystyle]

I wouldn't consider Wade and the Miami as they had Shaq in a good shape. MJs bulls started to be a real contendent precisely when MJ started to play team ball, and with people as Pippen by their side.

Wrong. They became title contenders as his running mates Horace Grant and Pippen went from being 22 year old talents to 25 year old studs in their prime. Each stage of their development brought them closer. Even though we didn't know it at the time, obviously Phil Jackson becoming the head coach was a tremendous upgrade too. His team got better and better as the Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics were in various stages of decline. But Jordan hardly changed a thing about his game. He got better of course, more efficient, more driven, more skilled, but the way he played was pretty much the same. Same shots, same passes etc.

Similar to Kobe. The storyline that Kobe was a better team player last year is baloney. Kobe's the exact same guy, maybe more mature and nicer. But he still gets his shots and does his thing. Its just now his frontcourt is Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, and Lamar Odom instead of Odom, Kwame Brown and Chris Mihm. That is the difference.

So Tyreke's "team game" will start to look better when his teammates get better.

 

[Luv4Kings]

I wouldn't consider Wade and the Miami as they had Shaq in a good shape. MJs bulls started to be a real contendent precisely when MJ started to play team ball, and with people as Pippen by their side.

But I'll take the Blazers example as what not to do, I always say the same, but that team was talented enough to have done a great job at playoffs. They won the Lakers in almost every game of the regular season. The problem was not what pieces lacked around Roy, the problem was the one-man based offense.Plain and simple. They have a lot of depth in the bench and when the PO arrived, they just ignored it all and went conservative and relied on Roy's shoulders. That's a thing to avoid. You can't come and play 5 matches against the same team with the same offensive schema, because you're predictable and you're always screwed. One-man based offenses team sucks at play-offs. You can build and build around a superstar that it won't never work. The only one-man based offense which may win a ring is this year's Cavs. If LeBron doesn't win the ring this year, I won't take any one-man based offense as what to do if you have a superstar and want to be contender. And that being fair, cause it's not the same a LeBron-based offense than any other superstar based offense, including Kobe.

And I'm not talking about not building around Tyreke. I'm only saying that a Tyreke-based offense may bring the Kings again to the map, but there's a lot more to do to be real titlecontenders. It's not even about building around Tyreke or not, because it's clear it's the obvious move and I think nobody it's saying teh opposite. It's about avoiding to put more emphasis in "around" than in "building". I don't know if I explain it clearly whit that one

I think you explained it very, very well. It's not finding support staff for Tyreke, it's finding 1 or 2 or even 3 strong players that can carry the team on any given night. That's the Lakers seasons with Kobe and without Shaq when the other best player was just Fisher. They win when Kobe is on, but as we witness in all playoff series, one player can't carry the entire team for 7 games, or even 4. The opposing defense can target them and no star player manages to have 4-7 top games in a row.

Currently I think we really need to target a strong center. A really dominant center. And I have no idea where that player will come from because once a team finds him (Dwight Howard) they'll never let him go.

Our only hope is to get extremely lucky in a draft.