Your thoughts on the Kings rebuild...

I found it odd that Wesstphal called the roster "balanced" now. It was more balanced last year, despite some lack of shooting. Then again, we're talking Westphal here so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Right now the roster problems are: no reliable interior presence, STILL no PG, no vet leadership, and too many guys who want shots.

It also feels like the FO is quickly giving up on the tough, defensive mindset they were pushing just a year or two ago. Team management keeps changing the governing philosophy for team identity while never addressing the big holes in the team, so no matter what they try to do, they are not constructed to do it or not given enough time or leadership to follow through on the idea. Then they switch identities and just recycle the same all offense/noweretoughnow bull****.
 
I found it odd that Wesstphal called the roster "balanced" now. It was more balanced last year, despite some lack of shooting. Then again, we're talking Westphal here so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Right now the roster problems are: no reliable interior presence, STILL no PG, no vet leadership, and too many guys who want shots.

It also feels like the FO is quickly giving up on the tough, defensive mindset they were pushing just a year or two ago. Team management keeps changing the governing philosophy for team identity while never addressing the big holes in the team, so no matter what they try to do, they are not constructed to do it or not given enough time or leadership to follow through on the idea. Then they switch identities and just recycle the same all offense/noweretoughnow bull****.

What do you mean? The tough, defensive mindset was basically trading Spencer Hawes for Sam Dalembert. We can't resign Sam until there's a new CBA, so you can't grade the front office one way or another on that just yet. Other than that, we traded a small forward for a power forward, which isn't exactly abandoning any toughness movement. We traded a defensively challenged backup point guard for a more defensively capable swingman. I don't know what it is that you're complaining about.
 
I found it odd that Wesstphal called the roster "balanced" now. It was more balanced last year, despite some lack of shooting. Then again, we're talking Westphal here so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Right now the roster problems are: no reliable interior presence, STILL no PG, no vet leadership, and too many guys who want shots.

It also feels like the FO is quickly giving up on the tough, defensive mindset they were pushing just a year or two ago. Team management keeps changing the governing philosophy for team identity while never addressing the big holes in the team, so no matter what they try to do, they are not constructed to do it or not given enough time or leadership to follow through on the idea. Then they switch identities and just recycle the same all offense/noweretoughnow bull****.
Don't know what to make of you anymore. You don't even make sense at this point. Traded Beno for a sf who's much better defensively than any we had. We traded our worst defender, Omri, for a double double machine coming down the stretch of last season.

You are sounding more and more like a......




















 
I don't think there's any certainty that Jimmer can do the "ballhandling" that I describe above, at least not in his rookie year. First, he's a rookie point guard, and I don't give rookie point guards the benefit of the doubt as a rule because they typically don't perform very well early on. Certainly, there are exceptions (Rose, CP3 among them), but I don't see Jimmer in that class. Second, I don't see Jimmer as a press breaker or a great ball handler; that's not his primary talent by any means. Yes, he performed well in college as a ballhandler, but not great. But this isn't college. It's the NBA. If you aren't a "great" ballhandler in college I immediately have doubts about your ability to perform in that area as a rookie in the NBA. If I'm coaching against the Kings, and I have any quickness in my backcourt, I pick the Kings guards up in the backcourt and make them work to get it across the mid-line. Disrupt the initiation of the offense and you have a very good chance to disrupt the offense, period.

Jimmer is a damn fine ball handler. Dude's handles are completely underrated. And if this strategy you are proposing is supposed to work, then I bring you Mike Bibby for proof that it wont.
 
It also feels like the FO is quickly giving up on the tough, defensive mindset they were pushing just a year or two ago. Team management keeps changing the governing philosophy for team identity while never addressing the big holes in the team, so no matter what they try to do, they are not constructed to do it or not given enough time or leadership to follow through on the idea. Then they switch identities and just recycle the same all offense/noweretoughnow bull****.

Co-signed! This is my "off season so far" assessment as well. There are some mitigating circumstances (the Maloofs have had a lot more on their plate than basketball personnel decisions this year) but that doesn't make it any less frustrating as a fan. Trading Beno and Omri was the right idea in theory, both of them were going to see their roles evaporate if they stayed on the roster. But the guys we went out and acquired don't really strike me as inspired choices. More like a "let's throw a bunch of paint at the wall and see what sticks" philosophy. We're no closer to having a team identity than we were last year. (Unless you count "the team that loses every close game" as an identity)
 
First, the Maloofs may or may not have gotten involved again with another of their dumber than rocks crusades, this one for their confused newfound shooting fetish after watching the Finals. But even so, it takes a real determined stretch of imagination to try to claim that we have somehow altered the team's personality with the moves made so far this summer.

In essence we have traded:

Beno
the #7 pick
Omri
some unspecified future pick, likely in the mid teens

for

Jimmer
Salmons
Hickson

so let's just match up what we know:

Beno
-- good midrange shooter
-- more comfortable inside arc than outside
-- mostly a PG and more comfortable shooting off dribble than on the catch
-- poor defender

Jimmer
-- good long range shooter
-- comfortable both inside and outside the arc
-- might also be mostly a PG and more comfortable shooting off dribble than on the catch, maybe
-- poor defender

In other words, we replaced Beno with a guy who might be able to provide a little more true longrange shooting, but otherwise is similar. How much of a helpful upgrade he is shootingwise depends on how much more comfortable than Beno he is shooting on the catch when Reke or Cousins kicks it.

Omri
-- decent 3pt shooter, best from the corner where he hit 46% of his threes last year
-- scrappy boarder
-- not a ballhandler, rarely a passer
-- poor defender

Salmons
-- decent 3pt shooter, best from the corner where he hit 46% of his threes last year (source Bucks blog)
-- weak rebounder when at SF
-- good ballhander, can pass when wants to which is rarely
-- strong man defender

aside from overall proven quality, you have a player who can hit the same three that Omri did at about the same rate, but who swaps in strong defense and ballhandling for Omri's strength as a rebounder. If that's a change, its hardly likely to be a huge swing away form defense etc.

And then Hickson, who right now is just an added bonus PF who only averaged a double double the second half of last season. Scrappy defender? No. Also a talent that cost us very little. Whether he gets a comparison and an uh-oh the team's direction is changing or not depends on whether we lose Dalmebert without a similar replacement or not, and thus move Hickson into his minutes. Otherwise is all this whining and flat out fanciful invention because we picked up a single talented young PF for free? Or was it because we traded away 3 of our 4 worst defenders (Beno, Omri, Landry) in the past 6 months and replaced them with 2 of our 3 worst defenders (Jimmer, Hickson) today?
 
Last edited:
Otherwise is all this whining and flat out fanciful invention because we picked up a single talented young PF for free? Or was it because we traded away 3 of our 4 worst defenders (Beno, Omri, Landry) in the past 6 months and replaced them with 2 of our 3 worst defenders (Jimmer, Hickson) today?

Isn't that exactly the point though? We traded out Omri and Landry at least because they weren't working with this team. We also had to throw in another first round pick for Hickson which might be nothing, but it might also be rather significant. Beno was a key part of the team and while he did play very well this year overall, he wasn't helping the team on defense. So if all we've done is replace these guys with similar players than we haven't actually addressed any of our weaknesses. As one of the worst teams in the league for three years running, that's underwhelming. Is it wrong to question the commitment to defense when we've so far targeted and acquired two players who are noted for their poor defense? Do you see a clear identity developing around six players (Evans, Cousins, Thornton, Jimmer, Salmons, Hickson) who all want to dominate the ball?

But, you say, we haven't spent any of our cap space yet so we theoretically could still address those concerns. I suppose that's true. I don't rule that out. Thus far, I'm unimpressed. And you've certainly tried, but you can't talk me into the idea of liking the Salmons acquisition. He's an average player who seems to decline in production the less he sees the ball, which is not a good fit with this team.
 
Isn't that exactly the point though? We traded out Omri and Landry at least because they weren't working with this team. We also had to throw in another first round pick for Hickson which might be nothing, but it might also be rather significant. Beno was a key part of the team and while he did play very well this year overall, he wasn't helping the team on defense. So if all we've done is replace these guys with similar players than we haven't actually addressed any of our weaknesses. As one of the worst teams in the league for three years running, that's underwhelming. Is it wrong to question the commitment to defense when we've so far targeted and acquired two players who are noted for their poor defense? Do you see a clear identity developing around six players (Evans, Cousins, Thornton, Jimmer, Salmons, Hickson) who all want to dominate the ball?

But, you say, we haven't spent any of our cap space yet so we theoretically could still address those concerns. I suppose that's true. I don't rule that out. Thus far, I'm unimpressed. And you've certainly tried, but you can't talk me into the idea of liking the Salmons acquisition. He's an average player who seems to decline in production the less he sees the ball, which is not a good fit with this team.

since the end of the season we have:

-- added more long range shooting (presumably)
-- added 1 more defender than we had
-- added size

we have lost Beno's vet control of the game, and that's about it. Free agency results could change or skew everything, but the above is where we stand today, and its hardly some catastrophe or some magical swing away from defense. We have in fact gained defense since the end of the season.
 
Last edited:
Jimmer
-- good long range shooter
-- comfortable both inside and outside the arc
-- might also be mostly a PG and more comfortable shooting off dribble than on the catch, maybe
-- poor defender

In other words, we replaced Beno with a guy who might be able to provide a little more true longrange shooting, but otherwise is similar. How much of a helpful upgrade he is shootingwise depends on how much more comfortable than Beno he is shooting on the catch when Reke or Cousins kicks it.

I watched about 7 or 8 games of BYU this year, I would say that Jimmer is very good at shooting the ball off the dribble OR with the catch-&-shoot. It was not uncommon for him to pass the ball, run off 2 or 3 screens, and then catch and shoot as part of their offense. This is one of things that I think makes him very valuable as a shooter/scorer at the NBA level.
 
I don't think there's any certainty that Jimmer can do the "ballhandling" that I describe above, at least not in his rookie year. First, he's a rookie point guard, and I don't give rookie point guards the benefit of the doubt as a rule because they typically don't perform very well early on. Certainly, there are exceptions (Rose, CP3 among them), but I don't see Jimmer in that class. Second, I don't see Jimmer as a press breaker or a great ball handler; that's not his primary talent by any means. Yes, he performed well in college as a ballhandler, but not great. But this isn't college. It's the NBA. If you aren't a "great" ballhandler in college I immediately have doubts about your ability to perform in that area as a rookie in the NBA. If I'm coaching against the Kings, and I have any quickness in my backcourt, I pick the Kings guards up in the backcourt and make them work to get it across the mid-line. Disrupt the initiation of the offense and you have a very good chance to disrupt the offense, period.

Jimmer is an excellent ballhandler.. I have no idea where you keep getting this idea that he's some average ballhandler in college so he won't be able to handle the ball properly in the NBA. He was pressed constantly in college and is excellent at spliting doubles. You make these statement as it their fact, and that shows you really haven't put in the time watching him play. If you had, you wouldn't make those statements.

Yeah, he'll go through an adjustment period, but I don't think he'll have that much of a problem. He's not a 19 year old freshman. He has excellent basketball IQ, and the maturity to put it to good use. Frankly, I think he'll find playing in the NBA a little easier. At least until the league adjusts to him. He seldom knew what an open shot looked like last season. He was doubled, hounded and harassed every time he touched the ball. I seriously doubt he'll get that attention in the NBA. And if he does, he now has someone to pass the ball to.
 
I watched about 7 or 8 games of BYU this year, I would say that Jimmer is very good at shooting the ball off the dribble OR with the catch-&-shoot. It was not uncommon for him to pass the ball, run off 2 or 3 screens, and then catch and shoot as part of their offense. This is one of things that I think makes him very valuable as a shooter/scorer at the NBA level.

It doesn't matter where or how he shoots the ball. Spot up, off the dribble, whatever. He can score from anywhere and any which way. And, I'm not ready to call him a bad defender just yet. I'll take a wait and see attitude since he wasn't asked to play defense at BYU.
 
Glad to see this thread has inspired debate.

I'm quite happy with the rebuild at this point. Folks have focused in on Salmons, which is fine, but I'm of the mind that he's somewhat irrelevant to this discussion--he's not really a core rebulding piece. I see Salmons as a short-term (1-2 year) stop gap who provides the team with much of what they need at the SF position until a long-term upgrade is acquired. He's not the perfect fit by any means, but Salmons is a clear upgrade at SF. Also, his contract and age are made more palpatible when you consider the Kings' league lowest payroll and mean age of 23 or so ...

But back to the point: my thoughts on the rebuild. Lets consider the backcourt rotation of Fredette, Thornton, and Evans. I'm surprised that fans aren't hyped about this rotation because they may very well team up to form an offensive powerhouse. Petrie has done a very good job surrounding Evans with shooters who can play off the ball and create their own shots. Defenses will have to pick their poison: double Evans and leave Jimmer or Marcus open or single Evans and watch him drive to the rim.

I've also noticed some discussion about point guard play and it's important to specify exactly what we mean by "ball handlers" and "distrubuters." IMO, ballhandlers are able to break a press, get the ball across the timeline quickly, and initiate the offense. Your definition may differ, but let me define distrubuters next. Effective distrubuters tend to rack up assist numbers in the open and half court by drawing defenders and using their vision to find the open man. In regards to the Kings, I consider Fredette their ballhandler. The rub is that since he probably will not start, this may be an issue. But, in terms of the rebuilding discussion, I believe that Fredette will ultimately start over Thornton, who I envision as the perfect guard "sparkplug" a la Bobby Jackson, so this issue may be short-term. I'm sure that Fredette will also distrubute some, especially off pick and rolls, but I think that Evans will remain the primary halfcourt distrubuter, especially now that he has very good outside shooters to kick out to in Thornton and Fredette.

Now Backcourt defense is a different story. Evans has the phyiscal profile and "feel" to become a very good defender, but he must improve his conditioning, focus, and motivation. Thornton is scrappy defender with a strong body, but he lacks the foot speed to guard quicker PGs. Fredette will probably be the biggest defensive liability of the three. Thus, if the Kings roll with Fredette, Thornton, and Evans as their 3 guard rotation, they will need some legitimate team defenders and weak side shot blockers to compensate.

On to the SF position, a point of contention around these parts, so it seems. In regards to rebuilding, I consider this the weakest position. Again, this stance is mostly because I don't consider Salmons a rebuilding piece (the same goes for Garcia). That leaves the Kings with Greene and Honeycutt. This is a make-or-break year for Greene as his contract expires. As some have alluded to, he is probably destined for 10th players status on the ro-ro, but lengthy defenders who can guard big SFs and stretch PFs are important these days, so I see him as a kind of low cost specialist who wont complain--not so bad, all things considered. Honeycutt is intriguing but it's way too early to tell. I like his size, defensive potential, vision, and shot, but we will see how that translates to the NBA.

IMO the beauty of the SF spot for this team is that there's enough offensive fire power at the other positions for the starter to be a young defensive specialist/glue guy who can hit corner 3's. The Kings don't need much else, just a guy who can defend and keep defenses honest. Now these types are not necessarily easy to acquire--otherwise the Kings would already have one--but they are sure easier to find than the pieces already in place. In regards to Salmons, this is the only place I see him as relevant to the conversation: his bloated contact will be hard to move, so even if the Kings find a younger option that they like at SF, they must figure out how to move Salmons. It's not like this is a total imperative though, worse case scenario he can just brood on the bench a la Kenny Thomas--the Kings have lots of cash...

As to the front court, I'm pretty happy with the Hickson, Thompson, and Cousins rotation. Similar to the backcourt, there's plenty of offensive potential, especially with Cousins and Hickson. Both players are pretty raw however, so I'm a little concerned with chemistry, shooting percentage, and turnovers. You can also presume that they will get burnt defensively quite a bit. Nonetheless, many teams would kill to have a couple of young front court pieces with loads of potential on their roster. I would just be very careful with the development process and try to use Thompson as a role model as much as possible. Thompson seems like the consumate professional and his motor is truly admirable. For rebuilding purposes, acquiring a veteran big man that has "been there and done that," demanding some respect, should be a priority. If that continue to be Dalembert, fine, he seems like a leader who is willing to share, plus he brings much needed defense. Whiteside as a 5th big waiting in the wings is a real luxury and he may ultimately develop into that weakside shot blocker that the Kings covet, providing spot minutes at center when weaker defenders, like Fredette, are in.

Looking over my post, I'm definetly an optimistic Kings fan--always have been. But I'm really excited to see how these pieces fit, especially Fredette, Thornton, Evans, and Cousins. I'm still trying to figure out how Hickson fits on both side of the floor if he's made a starter, but I'm still thankful that the Kings managed to pick him up because of what he's accomplished AND his potential.

As an aside, I liked Casspi's potential but Hickson is an upgrade. Folks are making too much of the pick IMO, as it's HEAVILY protected. In fact, the Kings only lose the pick IF they make the playoffs next year. Now, if the Kings make the playoffs with a mean age of 23 or so, exactly how important is another draftee?

Sorry for the long post.

KOTJ
 
Last edited:
I think people are selling Casspi short on defense. I think he still needed to learn a lot more on the D end, but he never lacked for effort or tenacity. I see him as being a competent defender in time. Salmons could D up, but word is that he's lost a step and so much of his game relies on quickness. He also mentally checks out and disappears for games if not happy with touches or playtime. And as bad as Beno was on D, Jimmer will be worse from lack of experience. So you have downgraded defensively at that spot. You may have upgraded defensively at SF, but that depends on Salmons not losing quickness. What concerns me is that Jimmer sounded like what he had heard of the Kings or from the Kings made him think the team was a running. open court team. (If he watched tape, he'd see the team is actually horrible at running a break.)The way Westphal has talked this off-season about balance but with Hickson and smaller rosters concerns me. The twin towers lineup did a lot ofr the team last year, even as bad as the team was, not many other teams could match up with it.

The point that there is still no cohesive team still stands even if many don't have the reading comprehension to understand that point was there.
 
Last edited:
I think people are selling Casspi short on defense. I think he still needed to learn a lot more on the D end, but he never lacked for effort or tenacity. I see him as being a competent defender in time. Salmons could D up, but word is that he's lost a step and so much of his game relies on quickness. He also mentally checks out and disappears for games if not happy with touches or playtime. And as bad as Beno was on D, Jimmer will be worse from lack of experience. So you have downgraded defensively at that spot. You may have upgraded defensively at SF, but that depends on Salmons not losing quickness. What concerns me is that Jimmer sounded like what he had heard of the Kings or from the Kings made him think the team was a running. open court team. (If he watched tape, he'd see the team is actually horrible at running a break.)The way Westphal has talked this off-season about balance but with Hickson and smaller rosters concerns me. The twin towers lineup did a lot ofr the team last year, even as bad as the team was, not many other teams could match up with it.

The point that there is still no cohesive team still stands even if many don't have the reading comprehension to understand that point was there.

Casspi got burned WAY too many times last year for you to say that people are selling him short on that end.

Beno was atrocious on defense so for you to say that it is guaranteed that Jimmer will be worse without seeing him play is trolling and a complete speculation because NOBODY knows how Jimmer will do on an NBA court.

And cohesion is built by playing together, so as of right now the only team that can be said to have cohesion is the one that just brought home the bacon. An argument can be said that the Lakers, who got swept by the Mavs and looked all sorts of out of sorts, lack cohesion. So your argument makes no sense and all you are really trying to do is stir the pot.

If you call yourself a Kings fan, then there has to be some sort of optimism in some bone in your body because being a fan of a team means that you hope for the best for that team, regardless of how many defficiencies one might see. You have nothing but negativity in regards to the team and in fact make it sound like they will be worse than last years team, even though it is quite apparent this years team will have more talent and more potential.
 
What do you mean? The tough, defensive mindset was basically trading Spencer Hawes for Sam Dalembert.

I think he means in 09/10 we decided to go from sissy jump shooting team to tough hard nosed team with the firing of Theus. During that time we brought in the following players:

Andres Nocioni
Carl Landry
Omri Casspi
Jon Brockman
Rashad McCants

All of which had the "Tough" label and all of which are gone now.
 
I think he means in 09/10 we decided to go from sissy jump shooting team to tough hard nosed team with the firing of Theus. During that time we brought in the following players:

Andres Nocioni
Carl Landry
Omri Casspi
Jon Brockman
Rashad McCants

All of which had the "Tough" label and all of which are gone now.

and have been replaced by younger, infinitely more talented players who are also tough minded. The point being?
 
Jimmer is an excellent ballhandler.. I have no idea where you keep getting this idea that he's some average ballhandler in college so he won't be able to handle the ball properly in the NBA. He was pressed constantly in college and is excellent at spliting doubles. You make these statement as it their fact, and that shows you really haven't put in the time watching him play. If you had, you wouldn't make those statements.

Yeah, he'll go through an adjustment period, but I don't think he'll have that much of a problem. He's not a 19 year old freshman. He has excellent basketball IQ, and the maturity to put it to good use. Frankly, I think he'll find playing in the NBA a little easier. At least until the league adjusts to him. He seldom knew what an open shot looked like last season. He was doubled, hounded and harassed every time he touched the ball. I seriously doubt he'll get that attention in the NBA. And if he does, he now has someone to pass the ball to.

I saw him play and I don't think he's a great ball handler. But I don't use the word, "great" in a casual sense. He was a good college ballhandler; nothing spectacular. I hope you're right and he comes in and sets the NBA world on fire.
 
I think he means in 09/10 we decided to go from sissy jump shooting team to tough hard nosed team with the firing of Theus. During that time we brought in the following players:

Andres Nocioni
Carl Landry
Omri Casspi
Jon Brockman
Rashad McCants

All of which had the "Tough" label and all of which are gone now.

gone along with:

Spencer Hawes
Kevin Martin
Beno Udrih

which btw amounts to losing:
Andres Nocioni (scrappy, poor defender)
Carl Landry (scrappy?, poor rebounder and defender)
Omri Casspi (scrappy, poor defender)
Kevin Martin (soft, poor defender)
Spencer Hawes (soft, poor defender)
Beno Udrih (somewhat soft (but getting better), poor defeder)

Rashad McCants (tough, rep as poor defender although I was semi-impressed in his brief stay with us)
Jon Brockman (tough, but undersized defender)

outside of Brockman, who chose to go leave we added three near 7 footers: Samuel Dalembert, top defender and rebounder, DeMarcus Cousins big physical, poor defender, and Hassan Whiteside, great shotblocker, there is a great comon denominator in all those exits -- those guys could not defend. We've consistently been an awful defensive team for years now, and there has been a clear trend of the front office unloading our weakest defenders to try to fix it.
 
gone along with:

Spencer Hawes
Kevin Martin
Beno Udrih

which btw amounts to losing:
Andres Nocioni (scrappy, poor defender)
Carl Landry (scrappy?, poor rebounder and defender)
Omri Casspi (scrappy, poor defender)
Kevin Martin (soft, poor defender)
Spencer Hawes (soft, poor defender)
Beno Udrih (somewhat soft (but getting better), poor defeder)

Rashad McCants (tough, rep as poor defender although I was semi-impressed in his brief stay with us)
Jon Brockman (tough, but undersized defender)

outside of Brockman, who chose to go leave we added three near 7 footers: Samuel Dalembert, top defender and rebounder, DeMarcus Cousins big physical, poor defender, and Hassan Whiteside, great shotblocker, there is a great comon denominator in all those exits -- those guys could not defend. We've consistently been an awful defensive team for years now, and there has been a clear trend of the front office unloading our weakest defenders to try to fix it.

What he said.

There's no question that the net result of the moves we've made over the past two years or so has made us a tougher team, and hopefully we'll get better defensively as a result. It's crucially important that we keep Dalembert, but that's not entirely up to us.
 
outside of Brockman, who chose to go leave we added three near 7 footers: Samuel Dalembert, top defender and rebounder, DeMarcus Cousins big physical, poor defender, and Hassan Whiteside, great shotblocker, there is a great comon denominator in all those exits -- those guys could not defend. We've consistently been an awful defensive team for years now, and there has been a clear trend of the front office unloading our weakest defenders to try to fix it.

The original poster was complaing we were changing our theme again, which I would say we are. We have decided to go from "Tough" to "Black Hole". The players we have already brought in this year:

Jimmer
Salmons
Hickson

Certainly do not help our ball movement issues (Tied for 23rd in the league in Assists per game) and our not good defenders either. Yes in shape contract year Salmons is a better than average defender. Out of shape, unmotivated Salmons (Last Year on the Bucks) not so much. Also bringing in the guy who lead the league with -532 (Hickson) doesn't thrill me either.

Also to be fair you mention, Dalembert, Whiteside, & Cousins. One is a free agent, one has played 2 minutes in the NBA and one is an acknowledged bad defender. If we bring out a starting 5 of:
Cousins/Hickson/Salmons/Evans/Jimmer on opening night, I don't think anyone would call that a rebuild "success".

If we bring out:
Dalembert/Cousins/Veteran SF to be named Later/Thorton/Evans
Then I would be happy, but that seems highly unlikely due to the state of the Maloofs finances.
 
The original poster was complaing we were changing our theme again, which I would say we are. We have decided to go from "Tough" to "Black Hole". The players we have already brought in this year:

Jimmer
Salmons
Hickson

Certainly do not help our ball movement issues (Tied for 23rd in the league in Assists per game) and our not good defenders either. Yes in shape contract year Salmons is a better than average defender. Out of shape, unmotivated Salmons (Last Year on the Bucks) not so much. Also bringing in the guy who lead the league with -532 (Hickson) doesn't thrill me either.

Also to be fair you mention, Dalembert, Whiteside, & Cousins. One is a free agent, one has played 2 minutes in the NBA and one is an acknowledged bad defender. If we bring out a starting 5 of:
Cousins/Hickson/Salmons/Evans/Jimmer on opening night, I don't think anyone would call that a rebuild "success".

If we bring out:
Dalembert/Cousins/Veteran SF to be named Later/Thorton/Evans
Then I would be happy, but that seems highly unlikely due to the state of the Maloofs finances.

You can't talk about ball movement issues after citing Omri No Passpi, Andres Nocioni, Carl Landry and Rashad McCants bro!!! All of those guys were black holes. The only one I will give you is Brockness. And if you want to honestly say that Salmons is not a good defender then I question whether you even watch the KINGS play, as whenever Salmons went against Tyreke, he darn near shut him down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original poster was complaing we were changing our theme again, which I would say we are. We have decided to go from "Tough" to "Black Hole". The players we have already brought in this year:

Jimmer
Salmons
Hickson

Certainly do not help our ball movement issues (Tied for 23rd in the league in Assists per game) and our not good defenders either. Yes in shape contract year Salmons is a better than average defender. Out of shape, unmotivated Salmons (Last Year on the Bucks) not so much. Also bringing in the guy who lead the league with -532 (Hickson) doesn't thrill me either.

Also to be fair you mention, Dalembert, Whiteside, & Cousins. One is a free agent, one has played 2 minutes in the NBA and one is an acknowledged bad defender. If we bring out a starting 5 of:
Cousins/Hickson/Salmons/Evans/Jimmer on opening night, I don't think anyone would call that a rebuild "success".

If we bring out:
Dalembert/Cousins/Veteran SF to be named Later/Thorton/Evans
Then I would be happy, but that seems highly unlikely due to the state of the Maloofs finances.

Salmons is a much better defender than that. MUCH. Maloof finances are pure speculation. And whether they went on to become free agents or get hurt or not, acquiring massive size across the frontline is anything but changing a toughness/physicality tone. The only position where this team is not MUCH more physical than it was 2 years ago is at SF, which has been defined by the failure of any candidates, of whatever size, to step forward and seize the position.
 
When I have offered my comments above on the thread's question, "how do I think the rebuild is going so far?", it is based on several assumptions. First, that the Kings will sign Dalembert or an equivalent, big assumption but one I believe is their intention. Second, that the Kings will sign a player as a FA or in trade that is better and more costly than Hickson or Salmons. I assume this signing will be a Point Guard or a Small Forward because any other position doesn't seem probable unless we trade one of our top eight which includes Hickson and Salmons.

If my second assumption comes about, at either position, I think it changes things a lot, and for the good as certainly would be their intention. If its a PG it slows Fredette's development which has its good aspects and its bad. If it is at SF then Salmons role is signicantly reduced and a body or two have to go.

Two other elements have big impacts. Who, what kind of a player, is Dalembert replaced by? Secondly, with Jimmer or a new PG or both, how long is the team likely to go with a Evans/Thornton starting lineup? I'm not sure how I want to see it go but it the two different lineups will be a different game for the KIngs.

Of course if the CBA doesn't get signed, Petrie and Westphal retire, and the Maloofs bail out one way or the other..............................?
 
When I have offered my comments above on the thread's question, "how do I think the rebuild is going so far?", it is based on several assumptions. First, that the Kings will sign Dalembert or an equivalent, big assumption but one I believe is their intention. Second, that the Kings will sign a player as a FA or in trade that is better and more costly than Hickson or Salmons. I assume this signing will be a Point Guard or a Small Forward because any other position doesn't seem probable unless we trade one of our top eight which includes Hickson and Salmons.

If my second assumption comes about, at either position, I think it changes things a lot, and for the good as certainly would be their intention. If its a PG it slows Fredette's development which has its good aspects and its bad. If it is at SF then Salmons role is signicantly reduced and a body or two have to go.

Two other elements have big impacts. Who, what kind of a player, is Dalembert replaced by? Secondly, with Jimmer or a new PG or both, how long is the team likely to go with a Evans/Thornton starting lineup? I'm not sure how I want to see it go but it the two different lineups will be a different game for the KIngs.

Of course if the CBA doesn't get signed, Petrie and Westphal retire, and the Maloofs bail out one way or the other..............................?

I think there is almost zero chance we sign another starting level pg. My guess it's Thornton/Reke going into camp, but if Jimmer impresses, it'll be Jimmer/Reke starting sooner rather than later. Westy has already said the starting pg spot is up for grabs, and stopped just short of saying it would be Jimmer. Signing another starting caliber point makes no sense, after committing to Jimmer.

My guess is the big signing is Daly, Nene, or Chandler, or that is at least the Kings hope. I'd love to sign a Prince or AK47 also, and move Salmons to the bench, but my gut tells me that won't happen. Don't think Salmons would handle going to the bench well.

Also, who exactly do you think we'd sign a starting pg? There aren't any FA starting caliber pg's this summer. We'd have to trade for one. Have you looked at the FA list? If not I suggest you do, because there aren't any FA pg's on that list who could start for us. I posted the 2011 FA list a while ago, let me see if I can get an MOD to sticky it, so every can look. I don't like people suggesting to simply sign a starting pg, when there aren't any available.
 
Last edited:
I think we need a 7'6" shot blocker, too.

I asked who the pg would be and it was not answered. Still waiting.
 
I think we need a 7'6" shot blocker, too.

I asked who the pg would be and it was not answered. Still waiting.

There are no pg's to sign. No starters anyway. That's why I bumped the FA list. I'd like people to look at it before suggesting to simply go out and sign a starting pg.
 
I think there is almost zero chance we sign another starting level pg. My guess it's Thornton/Reke going into camp, but if Jimmer impresses, it'll be Jimmer/Reke starting sooner rather than later. Westy has already said the starting pg spot is up for grabs, and stopped just short of saying it would be Jimmer. Signing another starting caliber point makes no sense, after committing to Jimmer.

My guess is the big signing is Daly, Nene, or Chandler, or that is at least the Kings hope. I'd love to sign a Prince or AK47 also, and move Salmons to the bench, but my gut tells me that won't happen. Don't think Salmons would handle going to the bench well.

Also, who exactly do you think we'd sign a starting pg? There aren't any FA starting caliber pg's this summer. We'd have to trade for one. Have you looked at the FA list? If not I suggest you do, because there aren't any FA pg's on that list who could start for us. I posted the 2011 FA list a while ago, let me see if I can get an MOD to sticky it, so every can look. I don't like people suggesting to simply sign a starting pg, when there aren't any available.

Two things. One, the resigning of Dalembert or his replacement is not the commitment of 'salary cap' that the Kings have been talking about. That signing, whichever it is, does not affect salary because it simply as use of the money we are already paying Dalember. That transaction does not represent spending our accumulated salary cap. So, therefore, the strong commitment we have heard repeatedly from the Maloofs and FO personnel to spend the cap or a significant part of it does not include resigning Dalembert or his replacement.

Secondly, I'm not a person who ever tries to figure out who we get, who is a FA, who is in the league for us. That's not my thing. If the Kings are going to do what they said they well definitely do, which is to finally invest some of the cap money in a significant way, just how to do you think they are going to do that, regardless of who is on the FA list. Logic says it has to be at the PG or SF positions unless they move one of our top eight. I would appreciate you telling me who they can get to do the job. There are many ways to skin a cat. I'm not taking on the job of figuring it out. I pay Petrie for that.
 
Back
Top