Kings sign Sessions

[Kings2013]

I do not get how anyone could not like this signing. The Kings needed to add another ball-handler. They did not spend that much. His contract would be easily movable if necessary and is not really a long-term deal. It also gives them more flexibility to make a move. if the two young shooting guards are not playing well, they can also play Sessions with Collison.

It's not just about the signing, it's about the strain and potential to go down a road a certain previous ownership and GM went down. I don't know how people can't see a field of rakes and a huge pair of clown shoes as a potential hazard.

This has been the Kings front office for how many years now?:



Still willing to give them more time but they are running out before they are basically forcing themselves into another rebuild. I just don't have full faith in there being some kind of plan other than senseless stacking but maybe they are totally aware of what they are doing and the fact that their are 15 people running the show, some of which that don't exactly have the greatest team building track record, is just a complete coincidence.

If this is what it is then Malone better know what he's doing because he's got a tough job and he is the only one that can make it work. Making it work unfortunately involves crushing trade value if the FO doesn't fix it.

I am not in agreement that you do not add players because you worry that it will hurt your other players trade value. If Stauskis and McLemore cannot play better than Sessions, then they should not play. The front office obviously have more faith in those players developing and earning their minutes more than you do. Both of those guys are in the perfect situation to runaway with the starting SG position. Competition cannot do anything but help them.

Right. Players aren't earmarked minutes, they earn them IMO

Personally I think the primary importance is to build winning momentum as a team in order to retain our core, so they don't want out. I don't know why we didn't trade for Afflalo/assets or other vets which would have been my preference, hopefully the FO is right about what they see in Nik.

[SacKingZZZ]

I do not get how anyone could not like this signing. The Kings needed to add another ball-handler. They did not spend that much. His contract would be easily movable if necessary and is not really a long-term deal. It also gives them more flexibility to make a move. if the two young shooting guards are not playing well, they can also play Sessions with Collison.

It's not just about the signing, it's about the strain and potential to go down a road a certain previous ownership and GM went down. I don't know how people can't see a field of rakes and a huge pair of clown shoes as a potential hazard.

This has been the Kings front office for how many years now?:



Still willing to give them more time but they are running out before they are basically forcing themselves into another rebuild. I just don't have full faith in there being some kind of plan other than senseless stacking but maybe they are totally aware of what they are doing and the fact that their are 15 people running the show, some of which that don't exactly have the greatest team building track record, is just a complete coincidence.

If this is what it is then Malone better know what he's doing because he's got a tough job and he is the only one that can make it work. Making it work unfortunately involves crushing trade value if the FO doesn't fix it.

I am not in agreement that you do not add players because you worry that it will hurt your other players trade value. If Stauskis and McLemore cannot play better than Sessions, then they should not play. The front office obviously have more faith in those players developing and earning their minutes more than you do. Both of those guys are in the perfect situation to runaway with the starting SG position. Competition cannot do anything but help them.

And if you are comparing the relative readiness of a rookie and a veteran than that is not a great in it's own right. My point is, either try to win now or develop. Young players that are picked in the lotto don't usually have to look over their shoulders like that and most teams in the lotto are more worried about seeing the player play and yes, accumulate possible value at the very least. As it is the back court is too stacked, just like the front court was with TRob. Said it then, I'll say it now, the same possibilities exist. They aren't guaranteed to happen at this point but regardless, somebody, whether it's the guy you used a 7th pick on, the 8th pick on, the MLE on, or the bi-annual exception on is getting wasted and will lose value, PERIOD. That can't even be debated unless you see a way in which they can all be used effectively and not go through stints of being left out.

[SacKingZZZ]

It's not just about the signing, it's about the strain and potential to go down a road a certain previous ownership and GM went down. I don't know how people can't see a field of rakes and a huge pair of clown shoes as a potential hazard.

This has been the Kings front office for how many years now?:



Still willing to give them more time but they are running out before they are basically forcing themselves into another rebuild. I just don't have full faith in there being some kind of plan other than senseless stacking but maybe they are totally aware of what they are doing and the fact that their are 15 people running the show, some of which that don't exactly have the greatest team building track record, is just a complete coincidence.

If this is what it is then Malone better know what he's doing because he's got a tough job and he is the only one that can make it work. Making it work unfortunately involves crushing trade value if the FO doesn't fix it.

I am not in agreement that you do not add players because you worry that it will hurt your other players trade value. If Stauskis and McLemore cannot play better than Sessions, then they should not play. The front office obviously have more faith in those players developing and earning their minutes more than you do. Both of those guys are in the perfect situation to runaway with the starting SG position. Competition cannot do anything but help them.

Right. Players aren't earmarked minutes, they earn them IMO

Personally I think the primary importance is to build winning momentum as a team in order to retain our core, so they don't want out. I don't know why we didn't trade for Afflalo/assets or other vets which would have been my preference, hopefully the FO is right about what they see in Nik.

Yeah, just liked we've seen and heard for years, even before this staff and with it that such and such is doing so great in practice, yet you never see them play? The reason is no coach in the world can effectively use 12 guys a night. Can't happen and when coaches try it, more often than not they are soon to be fired because they lose their team from top to bottom. The only coaches that could semi-pull it off were Fratello and Hubie Brown. Even they eventually lost their teams.

[SacKingZZZ]

It's not just about the signing, it's about the strain and potential to go down a road a certain previous ownership and GM went down. I don't know how people can't see a field of rakes and a huge pair of clown shoes as a potential hazard.

This has been the Kings front office for how many years now?:



Still willing to give them more time but they are running out before they are basically forcing themselves into another rebuild. I just don't have full faith in there being some kind of plan other than senseless stacking but maybe they are totally aware of what they are doing and the fact that their are 15 people running the show, some of which that don't exactly have the greatest team building track record, is just a complete coincidence.

If this is what it is then Malone better know what he's doing because he's got a tough job and he is the only one that can make it work. Making it work unfortunately involves crushing trade value if the FO doesn't fix it.

I am not in agreement that you do not add players because you worry that it will hurt your other players trade value. If Stauskis and McLemore cannot play better than Sessions, then they should not play. The front office obviously have more faith in those players developing and earning their minutes more than you do. Both of those guys are in the perfect situation to runaway with the starting SG position. Competition cannot do anything but help them.

Right. Players aren't earmarked minutes, they earn them IMO

Personally I think the primary importance is to build winning momentum as a team in order to retain our core, so they don't want out. I don't know why we didn't trade for Afflalo/assets or other vets which would have been my preference, hopefully the FO is right about what they see in Nik.

Yeah, just liked we've seen and heard for years, even before this staff and with it that such and such is doing so great in practice, yet you never see them play? The reason is no coach in the world can effectively use 12 guys a night. Can't happen and when coaches try it, more often than not they are soon to be fired because they lose their team from top to bottom. The only coaches that could semi-pull it off were Fratello and Hubie Brown. Even they eventually lost their teams.

That's basically my point, why not go all in to win? I mean if Nik Stauskas, although I like him and he does fit in many ways regardless, is the difference between this team contending at any point or not it will be the single biggest surprise in the game of basketball in the last 15 years. I just hope they put him in a position to one day be that if he can, and no, watching over your back at the bench after every mistake isn't a productive situation for any young player.

[Kings2013]

I am not in agreement that you do not add players because you worry that it will hurt your other players trade value. If Stauskis and McLemore cannot play better than Sessions, then they should not play. The front office obviously have more faith in those players developing and earning their minutes more than you do. Both of those guys are in the perfect situation to runaway with the starting SG position. Competition cannot do anything but help them.

Right. Players aren't earmarked minutes, they earn them IMO

Personally I think the primary importance is to build winning momentum as a team in order to retain our core, so they don't want out. I don't know why we didn't trade for Afflalo/assets or other vets which would have been my preference, hopefully the FO is right about what they see in Nik.

Yeah, just liked we've seen and heard for years, even before this staff and with it that such and such is doing so great in practice, yet you never see them play? The reason is no coach in the world can effectively use 12 guys a night. Can't happen and when coaches try it, more often than not they are soon to be fired because they lose their team from top to bottom. The only coaches that could semi-pull it off were Fratello and Hubie Brown. Even they eventually lost their teams.

That's basically my point, why not go all in to win? I mean if Nik Stauskas, although I like him and he does fit in many ways regardless, is the difference between this team contending at any point or not it will be the single biggest surprise in the game of basketball in the last 15 years. I just hope they put him in a position to one day be that if he can, and no, watching over your back at the bench after every mistake isn't a productive situation for any young player.

Everyone watches over their shoulders unless the team the player plays on is indifferent to winning. I don't see many young players that are given the keys to debilitate the team and play before they are ready except for the tanking teams or the teams caught off guard with personnel issues like we were at SG last year. I hope Nik earns his position through merit and if he isn't good can at least hold his own so it isn't an issue letting him get experience

[beb0p]

And if you are comparing the relative readiness of a rookie and a veteran than that is not a great in it's own right. My point is, either try to win now or develop. Young players that are picked in the lotto don't usually have to look over their shoulders like that and most teams in the lotto are more worried about seeing the player play and yes, accumulate possible value at the very least. As it is the back court is too stacked, just like the front court was with TRob. Said it then, I'll say it now, the same possibilities exist. They aren't guaranteed to happen at this point but regardless, somebody, whether it's the guy you used a 7th pick on, the 8th pick on, the MLE on, or the bi-annual exception on is getting wasted and will lose value, PERIOD. That can't even be debated unless you see a way in which they can all be used effectively and not go through stints of being left out.

First of all TRob didn't flame out in Sacramento because he got lost in a crowded front court. He simply isn't that good. Period. He also failed to crack the rotation everywhere he went in the NBA. So let's not make excuses for him.

Second, you are too worried about some fringe NBA players losing their value. I honestly don't know why as a fan you'd care, but I'd say you should just let their agents worry about that. You know what, if Session, Casspi, Evans, Landry, heck even Collison loses their value. So be it. Somebody on every single team is losing value - be it Dejuan Blair or Mike Miller or Kirilenko; somebody on every team is getting the short end of the stick and that just speak to the talent that this league possesses where even good players can get beat out in the rotation. It's a normal part of the NBA.

Third, do you really think that no preferential treatment is being given to BMac and Staukas? Do you really think that if those guys are killing it on the floor somehow Malone will sit them in favor of some bench veterans?

Lastly, we are transitioning from a selfish me-first, defenseless, can't-shoot team to a passing team that can defend and shoot from deep. This is been the plan since day one; and the guys that they let go are either selfish (Reke, Salmons) can't defend (Vasquez), or both (IT). The guys that they get all can either shoot or pass or plays hard. They have not gotten a big time defensive player yet but not for a lack of trying.

This I think will eventually be the rotation:

PG - Collison
SG - Staukas
SF - Gay
PF - Thompson
C - Cousins

Bench
G - Session
G/F - BMac
F - Landry
F - Casspi/Evans (depending on matchup)

Will not play much:
DWill, Outlaw, Hollins, Mooreland, McCallum

.

[SacKingZZZ]

Right. Players aren't earmarked minutes, they earn them IMO

Personally I think the primary importance is to build winning momentum as a team in order to retain our core, so they don't want out. I don't know why we didn't trade for Afflalo/assets or other vets which would have been my preference, hopefully the FO is right about what they see in Nik.

Yeah, just liked we've seen and heard for years, even before this staff and with it that such and such is doing so great in practice, yet you never see them play? The reason is no coach in the world can effectively use 12 guys a night. Can't happen and when coaches try it, more often than not they are soon to be fired because they lose their team from top to bottom. The only coaches that could semi-pull it off were Fratello and Hubie Brown. Even they eventually lost their teams.

That's basically my point, why not go all in to win? I mean if Nik Stauskas, although I like him and he does fit in many ways regardless, is the difference between this team contending at any point or not it will be the single biggest surprise in the game of basketball in the last 15 years. I just hope they put him in a position to one day be that if he can, and no, watching over your back at the bench after every mistake isn't a productive situation for any young player.

Everyone watches over their shoulders unless the team the player plays on is indifferent to winning. I don't see many young players that are given the keys to debilitate the team and play before they are ready except for the tanking teams or the teams caught off guard with personnel issues like we were at SG last year. I hope Nik earns his position through merit and if he isn't good can at least hold his own so it isn't an issue letting him get experience

Which most teams drafting that high in the lotto are, tanking/rebuilding/developing, whatever spin you want to put on it, that's what they usually are. Hence the potential issues here, right?

[SacKingZZZ]

And if you are comparing the relative readiness of a rookie and a veteran than that is not a great in it's own right. My point is, either try to win now or develop. Young players that are picked in the lotto don't usually have to look over their shoulders like that and most teams in the lotto are more worried about seeing the player play and yes, accumulate possible value at the very least. As it is the back court is too stacked, just like the front court was with TRob. Said it then, I'll say it now, the same possibilities exist. They aren't guaranteed to happen at this point but regardless, somebody, whether it's the guy you used a 7th pick on, the 8th pick on, the MLE on, or the bi-annual exception on is getting wasted and will lose value, PERIOD. That can't even be debated unless you see a way in which they can all be used effectively and not go through stints of being left out.

First of all TRob didn't flame out in Sacramento because he got lost in a crowded front court. He simply isn't that good. Period. He also failed to crack the rotation everywhere he went in the NBA. So let's not make excuses for him.

Second, you are too worried about some fringe NBA players losing their value. I honestly don't know why as a fan you'd care, but I'd say you should just let their agents worry about that. You know what, if Session, Casspi, Evans, Landry, heck even Collison loses their value. So be it. Somebody on every single team is losing value - be it Dejuan Blair or Mike Miller or Kirilenko; somebody on every team is getting the short end of the stick and that just speak to the talent that this league possesses where even good players can get beat out in the rotation. It's a normal part of the NBA.

Third, do you really think that no preferential treatment is being given to BMac and Staukas? Do you really think that if those guys are killing it on the floor somehow Malone will sit them in favor of some bench veterans?

Lastly, we are transitioning from a selfish me-first, defenseless, can't-shoot team to a passing team that can defend and shoot from deep. This is been the plan since day one; and the guys that they let go are either selfish (Reke, Salmons) can't defend (Vasquez), or both (IT). The guys that they get all can either shoot or pass or plays hard. They have not gotten a big time defensive player yet but not for a lack of trying.

This I think will eventually be the rotation:

PG - Collison
SG - Staukas
SF - Gay
PF - Thompson
C - Cousins

Bench
G - Session
G/F - BMac
F - Landry
F - Casspi/Evans (depending on matchup)

Will not play much:
DWill, Outlaw, Hollins, Mooreland, McCallum

.

He isn't that good, OK, but what do you think his value would have been if he hadn't had to fight for minutes with the "vets" next to him? I mean, in the end, how much did those vets really help the Kings? I seem to remember another trip to the lotto. Another year hovering at around the same basic area except it also involved a complete waste of a top 5 pick in the interim. And failed to crack the rotation? He's actually turned into a decent rotation player putting up per 36's at around 15 and 15, which if he were drafted in the 20's he's probably a solid pick, in the top 5 not so much. Playing him 36 minutes a game may not have helped the team much because he didn't fit the day he was drafted to the day he left but hypothetically if he did play starters minutes and put up close to his per stats, what do you think his value would have been then?

And we're transitioning to that? Who do you think helps you more with that, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and Chuck Hayes, or Derrick Williams and Carl Landry/JT? It's one thing to say this is what we want to be and then not make the moves, when they are available, that will help you be that. From a GM standpoint this front office deserves all the head scratching pointed their direction, and this is certainly up to Malone to make it work and so far it's the same story as last year, it will have to be him that gets a roster not necessarily attuned to performing the way they supposedly want to, to perform in that manner. Darren Collison is pretty much the only addition, besides Moreland who will probably see nothing but D-league minutes, that adds a new element defensively to this team.

But if Malone can turn that roster you just posted into a defensive team that can make the playoffs then he better be coach of the year hands down. I think it's possible if they play the right way for them to make a huge jump, but that doesn't change the fact that they've whiffed on personnel moves and still don't seem to have a precise idea of what they are doing to get where they want to go. At least this team has two legit stars now, It's been a long, long time for the Kings.

[beb0p]

He isn't that good, OK, but what do you think his value would have been if he hadn't had to fight for minutes with the "vets" next to him? I mean, in the end, how much did those vets really help the Kings? I seem to remember another trip to the lotto. Another year hovering at around the same basic area except it also involved a complete waste of a top 5 pick in the interim. And failed to crack the rotation? He's actually turned into a decent rotation player putting up per 36's at around 15 and 15, which if he were drafted in the 20's he's probably a solid pick, in the top 5 not so much. Playing him 36 minutes a game may not have helped the team much because he didn't fit the day he was drafted to the day he left but hypothetically if he did play starters minutes and put up close to his per stats, what do you think his value would have been then?

And we're transitioning to that? Who do you think helps you more with that, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and Chuck Hayes, or Derrick Williams and Carl Landry/JT? It's one thing to say this is what we want to be and then not make the moves, when they are available, that will help you be that. From a GM standpoint this front office deserves all the head scratching pointed their direction, and this is certainly up to Malone to make it work and so far it's the same story as last year, it will have to be him that gets a roster not necessarily attuned to performing the way they supposedly want to, to perform in that manner. Darren Collison is pretty much the only addition, besides Moreland who will probably see nothing but D-league minutes, that adds a new element defensively to this team.

But if Malone can turn that roster you just posted into a defensive team that can make the playoffs then he better be coach of the year hands down. I think it's possible if they play the right way for them to make a huge jump, but that doesn't change the fact that they've whiffed on personnel moves and still don't seem to have a precise idea of what they are doing to get where they want to go. At least this team has two legit stars now, It's been a long, long time for the Kings.

People aren't dumb you know. You are not going to mask a mediocre player by giving him more mins than he deserves. What'd have happened if TRob had been given 30+ mins in his rookie season? He'd probably put up about 9 pts and 9 Rebs with bad shooting %. People will pick on his lack of size, lack of a jumper, inability to finish inside, but good work ethic. He'd be exactly what he is now - a decent backup PF.

Btw, TRob played the most mins/gm in Sacramento. Yet you complain that he wasn't getting enough. He only plays 12 mins/gm in Portland but yet you consider him in the rotation.

I never said the Kings will make playoff. In fact, I highly doubt they will; but the point is they are heading in the direction that they said they will be heading. I don't understand why people scratch their heads - the FO is doing exactly what they said they're going to do from Day one.

You take away IT's non-defense and replace him with Collison's (decent) defense. That's a defensive upgrade right there. Add in Session (instead of Jimmer), Casspi (instead of Outlaw) and the Kings did improve on defense, alas only a little bit. Now, in terms of shooting they've added three guys who can shoot (Collison, Casspi, and Staukas) and two guys who can pass (Collison and Session). That's defense, shooting, and passing; three things the FO said they are working to improve.
.

[SacKingZZZ]

He isn't that good, OK, but what do you think his value would have been if he hadn't had to fight for minutes with the "vets" next to him? I mean, in the end, how much did those vets really help the Kings? I seem to remember another trip to the lotto. Another year hovering at around the same basic area except it also involved a complete waste of a top 5 pick in the interim. And failed to crack the rotation? He's actually turned into a decent rotation player putting up per 36's at around 15 and 15, which if he were drafted in the 20's he's probably a solid pick, in the top 5 not so much. Playing him 36 minutes a game may not have helped the team much because he didn't fit the day he was drafted to the day he left but hypothetically if he did play starters minutes and put up close to his per stats, what do you think his value would have been then?

And we're transitioning to that? Who do you think helps you more with that, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and Chuck Hayes, or Derrick Williams and Carl Landry/JT? It's one thing to say this is what we want to be and then not make the moves, when they are available, that will help you be that. From a GM standpoint this front office deserves all the head scratching pointed their direction, and this is certainly up to Malone to make it work and so far it's the same story as last year, it will have to be him that gets a roster not necessarily attuned to performing the way they supposedly want to, to perform in that manner. Darren Collison is pretty much the only addition, besides Moreland who will probably see nothing but D-league minutes, that adds a new element defensively to this team.

But if Malone can turn that roster you just posted into a defensive team that can make the playoffs then he better be coach of the year hands down. I think it's possible if they play the right way for them to make a huge jump, but that doesn't change the fact that they've whiffed on personnel moves and still don't seem to have a precise idea of what they are doing to get where they want to go. At least this team has two legit stars now, It's been a long, long time for the Kings.

People aren't dumb you know. You are not going to mask a mediocre player by giving him more mins than he deserves. What'd have happened if TRob had been given 30+ mins in his rookie season? He'd probably put up about 9 pts and 9 Rebs with bad shooting %. People will pick on his lack of size, lack of a jumper, inability to finish inside, but good work ethic. He'd be exactly what he is now - a decent backup PF.

Btw, TRob played the most mins/gm in Sacramento. Yet you complain that he wasn't getting enough. He only plays 12 mins/gm in Portland but yet you consider him in the rotation.

I never said the Kings will make playoff. In fact, I highly doubt they will; but the point is they are heading in the direction that they said they will be heading. I don't understand why people scratch their heads - the FO is doing exactly what they said they're going to do from Day one.

You take away IT's non-defense and replace him with Collison's (decent) defense. That's a defensive upgrade right there. Add in Session (instead of Jimmer), Casspi (instead of Outlaw) and the Kings did improve on defense, alas only a little bit. Now, in terms of shooting they've added three guys who can shoot (Collison, Casspi, and Staukas) and two guys who can pass (Collison and Session). That's defense, shooting, and passing; three things the FO said they are working to improve.
.

It's not masking, it's exposing the positives. And I'm not talking about generating some kind of superstar value, although you never know. It's like Derrick Williams when he had the chance to shine in Minnesota, started hearing his name more and more. The Wolves as it were decided to hang on to him and then plant him right back on the bench when Love came back thinking it would all work out. Thornton is another good example of getting time and shining in New Orleans. It happens all the time in the NBA and there is always some team willing to overpay or trade something for them. Much better than dumping them or just letting them walk if you aren't winning anyway.

You don't understand? Well, unfortunately you are in the minority there. Some of the things they scratch about are wrong, like Rudy Gay and Darren Collison, but then for every one of those you have a Carl Landry here, a Nik Stauskas at 8 and/or moving up to 6 to get him there, and it fuzzes things up a bit. The scariest thing about it is, unless things work out, or they change their ways, while the starting point was much different when the teams started to rebuild around the same time the Kings have essentially been following the same path of teams like the Wolves and the Pistons. Those are all the reasons why you better hope for less head scratchers because those teams are of the lot that have had all the experts scratching for years as well.

And it goes both ways here. You say that rookies if they are a detriment should be benched, and if that's the case, many of the things you list that they've added are all end of the bench sub 10th man material. Maybe they won't be in the end, but the possibility exists. You can't add the skills you need to the END of the bench and expect results let alone a 180 degree turn around. What they can do for your team will be entirely determined by their role and game time opportunities.

And going back to Sessions, I know what he adds, and they are basically the same things that IT was cast off for. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they saw 60% of what IT is for less than half the price so in that sense it's a good bargain, but I still fail to see the bigger picture with that one. It's like with Landry, relative to his abilities he's for sure in the right ball park salary wise, but going for value when you can't guarantee a role worthy of the price tag is what gets teams in the most major problems possible. And that philosophy goes the same for teams that know what they are doing with their lottery picks. Use 'em or lose 'em.

I personally think this franchise would be better off studying some other subjects. Time to take a break from the math and crack a history book instead.

[Kings2013]

Yeah, just liked we've seen and heard for years, even before this staff and with it that such and such is doing so great in practice, yet you never see them play? The reason is no coach in the world can effectively use 12 guys a night. Can't happen and when coaches try it, more often than not they are soon to be fired because they lose their team from top to bottom. The only coaches that could semi-pull it off were Fratello and Hubie Brown. Even they eventually lost their teams.

That's basically my point, why not go all in to win? I mean if Nik Stauskas, although I like him and he does fit in many ways regardless, is the difference between this team contending at any point or not it will be the single biggest surprise in the game of basketball in the last 15 years. I just hope they put him in a position to one day be that if he can, and no, watching over your back at the bench after every mistake isn't a productive situation for any young player.

Everyone watches over their shoulders unless the team the player plays on is indifferent to winning. I don't see many young players that are given the keys to debilitate the team and play before they are ready except for the tanking teams or the teams caught off guard with personnel issues like we were at SG last year. I hope Nik earns his position through merit and if he isn't good can at least hold his own so it isn't an issue letting him get experience

Which most teams drafting that high in the lotto are, tanking/rebuilding/developing, whatever spin you want to put on it, that's what they usually are. Hence the potential issues here, right?

Not really because I personally believe rookies and other young payers can develop by incrementally earn their roles on a teams trying to win. Why do they need to be given carte blanche to minutes and roles? If Nik isn't good enough to eventually earn his role during the length of his contract IMO he isn't an impact player anyway.

[beb0p]

It's not masking, it's exposing the positives. And I'm not talking about generating some kind of superstar value, although you never know. It's like Derrick Williams when he had the chance to shine in Minnesota, started hearing his name more and more. The Wolves as it were decided to hang on to him and then plant him right back on the bench when Love came back thinking it would all work out. Thornton is another good example of getting time and shining in New Orleans. It happens all the time in the NBA and there is always some team willing to overpay or trade something for them. Much better than dumping them or just letting them walk if you aren't winning anyway.

You don't understand? Well, unfortunately you are in the minority there. Some of the things they scratch about are wrong, like Rudy Gay and Darren Collison, but then for every one of those you have a Carl Landry here, a Nik Stauskas at 8 and/or moving up to 6 to get him there, and it fuzzes things up a bit. The scariest thing about it is, unless things work out, or they change their ways, while the starting point was much different when the teams started to rebuild around the same time the Kings have essentially been following the same path of teams like the Wolves and the Pistons. Those are all the reasons why you better hope for less head scratchers because those teams are of the lot that have had all the experts scratching for years as well.

And it goes both ways here. You say that rookies if they are a detriment should be benched, and if that's the case, many of the things you list that they've added are all end of the bench sub 10th man material. Maybe they won't be in the end, but the possibility exists. You can't add the skills you need to the END of the bench and expect results let alone a 180 degree turn around. What they can do for your team will be entirely determined by their role and game time opportunities.

And going back to Sessions, I know what he adds, and they are basically the same things that IT was cast off for. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they saw 60% of what IT is for less than half the price so in that sense it's a good bargain, but I still fail to see the bigger picture with that one. It's like with Landry, relative to his abilities he's for sure in the right ball park salary wise, but going for value when you can't guarantee a role worthy of the price tag is what gets teams in the most major problems possible. And that philosophy goes the same for teams that know what they are doing with their lottery picks. Use 'em or lose 'em.

I personally think this franchise would be better off studying some other subjects. Time to take a break from the math and crack a history book instead.

The thing is, with an average mediocre player, you can try to expose the positive all you want but the negatives are always going to be there. Jonny Flynn didn't flame out of the league for a lack of mins. He got minutes and he shown that he can't finish and he can't run a team. Donte Greene got mins, look where he is now. Michael Beasley got mins. DJ Augustin got mins. Anthony Randolph got mins. Austin Daye got mins. So on and so forth. Don't blame TRob's mediocrity on a lack of mins, he is a mediocre player (who is still young so he can still improve, in theory) and he is not going to suddenly look like Kennith Faried just because he got playing time.

Nik Staukas is a phenomenon prospect who is a steal for the Kings. Even before the draft, I was hoping the Kings take him because this kid is just oozing with talent. I'm not saying he is better than Wiggins (though he could very well turn out to be) but he can turn out to be a franchise-changing player like a Klay Thompson or a Joe Dumar. He can be that good. This pick is a no-brainer. There are going to be a few teams that look back on this draft years from now and wished they had taken Staukas.

As for Landry, what people don't get is that he has developed into one of the best screeners in the NBA during his time with the Warriors. A skill that none of the Kings' bigs possess at the time he was signed. Having a guy like Landry fits into the FO's vision of better 3-pt shooting. After the season starts, just watch how Landry work to free up Staukas/Casspi/Collison/BMac for wide open looks. Of course, we already know he can score. As a starting PF (great idea Petrie) he is obviously not up to par, but as a sixth man he is right up there with the best of them. This is a not a bad signing, Landry just needs to get healthy.

Collison, Session, Staukas, and Casspi are all figured to be in the rotation (Casspi is probably the most shaky though). So I don't understand why you say the FO added skill that are only found in end of benchers.

.

[SacKingZZZ]

Everyone watches over their shoulders unless the team the player plays on is indifferent to winning. I don't see many young players that are given the keys to debilitate the team and play before they are ready except for the tanking teams or the teams caught off guard with personnel issues like we were at SG last year. I hope Nik earns his position through merit and if he isn't good can at least hold his own so it isn't an issue letting him get experience

Which most teams drafting that high in the lotto are, tanking/rebuilding/developing, whatever spin you want to put on it, that's what they usually are. Hence the potential issues here, right?

Not really because I personally believe rookies and other young payers can develop by incrementally earn their roles on a teams trying to win. Why do they need to be given carte blanche to minutes and roles? If Nik isn't good enough to eventually earn his role during the length of his contract IMO he isn't an impact player anyway.

Of course they can, I'm not remotely arguing that, I'm arguing whether or not that is the wisest thing to do with TOP 10 PICKS. Selecting a raw prospect late in the draft or even better in the 2nd round and waiting is per usual, doing that with top 10 picks back to back at the same position then continuing to stack at the same basic positions is not typically an effective way to build your team, i.e. David Kahn's Minnesota Timberwolves. Hey speaking of which, wasn't Kahn seen at the rally after the team was sold? Hmm... makes you wonder. Because of all that it makes it more likely that Malones usage will be of even greater importance. In that case for a team trying to win maybe it was a better choice to find a better value player or a feasible trade that would have helped more in the next 3 years rather than incremental improvement. I'm not so worried about Stauskas right now, I think he fits in a role player capacity at least but when is enough enough?

[SacKingZZZ]

The thing is, with an average mediocre player, you can try to expose the positive all you want but the negatives are always going to be there. Jonny Flynn didn't flame out of the league for a lack of mins. He got minutes and he shown that he can't finish and he can't run a team. Donte Greene got mins, look where he is now. Michael Beasley got mins. DJ Augustin got mins. Anthony Randolph got mins. Austin Daye got mins. So on and so forth. Don't blame TRob's mediocrity on a lack of mins, he is a mediocre player (who is still young so he can still improve, in theory) and he is not going to suddenly look like Kennith Faried just because he got playing time.

Nik Staukas is a phenomenon prospect who is a steal for the Kings. Even before the draft, I was hoping the Kings take him because this kid is just oozing with talent. I'm not saying he is better than Wiggins (though he could very well turn out to be) but he can turn out to be a franchise-changing player like a Klay Thompson or a Joe Dumar. He can be that good. This pick is a no-brainer. There are going to be a few teams that look back on this draft years from now and wished they had taken Staukas.

As for Landry, what people don't get is that he has developed into one of the best screeners in the NBA during his time with the Warriors. A skill that none of the Kings' bigs possess at the time he was signed. Having a guy like Landry fits into the FO's vision of better 3-pt shooting. After the season starts, just watch how Landry work to free up Staukas/Casspi/Collison/BMac for wide open looks. Of course, we already know he can score. As a starting PF (great idea Petrie) he is obviously not up to par, but as a sixth man he is right up there with the best of them. This is a not a bad signing, Landry just needs to get healthy.

Collison, Session, Staukas, and Casspi are all figured to be in the rotation (Casspi is probably the most shaky though). So I don't understand why you say the FO added skill that are only found in end of benchers.

.

But if they show a propensity to be productive it changes things. If we are comparing TRob he just played a support role for a team that for a while held one of the best records in the NBA last year, AND he produced in the minutes he was given. You can name every bust in history, there are many, and I'm not saying TRob shouldn't be considered one them but the main difference here is most of them DID get the chance to flame out and that's exactly my point. I'm talking merely for the sake of opportunity and an ability to establish some value. It's not like it could have worked any worse in the end for TRob with the Kings. It's just like Hickson, I think I heard that he just "sucked" so many times that I started to think people didn't even believe that. Bada boom he goes to another team where he gets time to play and he returns to form as a "serviceable player". Situation plays a big role for most players, do we really need to see it again, and again in order for them to realize that?

And Stauskas better earn that spot if that's what it takes, but hopefully this staff knows the pitfalls that will come with it. I just can't see a justifiable reason for drafting a Thomas Robinson, keeping a JJ Hickson, and then re-signing a Jason Thompson. Or having a Jason Thompson and using your MLE to sign Carl Landry without losing a third wheel somewhere along the line. Or drafting to consecutive picks at the same position on players who are pretty much relegated to the one position without clearing the log jam in relation to their respective opportunity. It is a fact, and undeniable, even if Stauskas "wins" the position, which I hope he does, what is the end result for Ben McLemore? And vice versa.

I'm not arguing each individual player and their skills, understand what I'm saying, when a team is so over stuffed with the same types of players all fighting for the same minutes, because there are only so many, someone and in this case their value in particular will suffer. If Landry succeeds it will come at the failure of someone else. If Stauskas does it's the same thing. If they try to fit them all in, the ENTIRE team suffers. Teams with balance work, this team is still far from balanced. Not that it can't work because, just as I acknowledged with the teams of past, the team has talent and even if some players get left out, when you have talent you have the potential to compete on a nightly basis. Hopefully that happens, but I hope even more so that this front office has a plan to create a more balanced team without the effects of just benching the unnecessary parts. The more time that goes by, and the more they don't get their first option deal done (Iggy, Smith) etc. they seem to turn a 180 on themselves and just get whatever they can (Landry, Hollins, Sessions). And I don't mind any of their 2nd options as talents, but if you are building a team immediate fit has to be of utmost priority.

As for the end of the bench comment, most teams run an 8-9 man rotation. Work it out for yourself and see where some of those players may factor in. In McCallums case, I think he's one of the best "fit" players on the team, where is he on your depth chart?

[Kings2013]

Which most teams drafting that high in the lotto are, tanking/rebuilding/developing, whatever spin you want to put on it, that's what they usually are. Hence the potential issues here, right?

Not really because I personally believe rookies and other young payers can develop by incrementally earn their roles on a teams trying to win. Why do they need to be given carte blanche to minutes and roles? If Nik isn't good enough to eventually earn his role during the length of his contract IMO he isn't an impact player anyway.

Of course they can, I'm not remotely arguing that, I'm arguing whether or not that is the wisest thing to do with TOP 10 PICKS. Selecting a raw prospect late in the draft or even better in the 2nd round and waiting is per usual, doing that with top 10 picks back to back at the same position then continuing to stack at the same basic positions is not typically an effective way to build your team, i.e. David Kahn's Minnesota Timberwolves. Hey speaking of which, wasn't Kahn seen at the rally after the team was sold? Hmm... makes you wonder. Because of all that it makes it more likely that Malones usage will be of even greater importance. In that case for a team trying to win maybe it was a better choice to find a better value player or a feasible trade that would have helped more in the next 3 years rather than incremental improvement. I'm not so worried about Stauskas right now, I think he fits in a role player capacity at least but when is enough enough?

That's what I would have preferred but I guess it was either

1. No suitable trades or other solutions. How many solid SGs were available for 7 + small assets? Maybe we wanted more than Afflalo for the #7 and there was no middle ground. Just might not have been a trade that would have acquired us a top 15 SG that made sense for both sides?

2. They really liked Nik. I'm hoping this is why we are where we are

Either way, I am going to be very skeptical of this position. I feel we are competitive in all other positions to a degree and we are ready to bring it on a nightly basis. If this SG position keeps holding us back, and again I am not confident in either Nik or Ben personally, I will not be a happy poster on the issue throughout the season

[SacKingZZZ]

Not really because I personally believe rookies and other young payers can develop by incrementally earn their roles on a teams trying to win. Why do they need to be given carte blanche to minutes and roles? If Nik isn't good enough to eventually earn his role during the length of his contract IMO he isn't an impact player anyway.

Of course they can, I'm not remotely arguing that, I'm arguing whether or not that is the wisest thing to do with TOP 10 PICKS. Selecting a raw prospect late in the draft or even better in the 2nd round and waiting is per usual, doing that with top 10 picks back to back at the same position then continuing to stack at the same basic positions is not typically an effective way to build your team, i.e. David Kahn's Minnesota Timberwolves. Hey speaking of which, wasn't Kahn seen at the rally after the team was sold? Hmm... makes you wonder. Because of all that it makes it more likely that Malones usage will be of even greater importance. In that case for a team trying to win maybe it was a better choice to find a better value player or a feasible trade that would have helped more in the next 3 years rather than incremental improvement. I'm not so worried about Stauskas right now, I think he fits in a role player capacity at least but when is enough enough?

That's what I would have preferred but I guess it was either

1. No suitable trades or other solutions. How many solid SGs were available for 7 + small assets? Maybe we wanted more than Afflalo for the #7 and there was no middle ground. Just might not have been a trade that would have acquired us a top 15 SG that made sense for both sides?

2. They really liked Nik. I'm hoping this is why we are where we are

Either way, I am going to be very skeptical of this position. I feel we are competitive in all other positions to a degree and we are ready to bring it on a nightly basis. If this SG position keeps holding us back, and again I am not confident in either Nik or Ben personally, I will not be a happy poster on the issue throughout the season

I still think that for this team to go anywhere, and I mean to even be competitive with good teams it's all on how they play. I just really would have liked to see some of the guess work circumvented by bringing in players that are capable in the areas they need improvement in. It's not the complete answer but man it sure would help right off the bat.

My hope for the SG position is as follows: I hope one of Stauskas or Ben clearly wins the position and the Kings get some value for the other. The answer to the question of them working together was supposed to be that Nik can play some PG. Uh, yeah that certainly can't happen now so what does he do, play SF? I've been watching some of the Clippers replays with Collison and I get the feeling this team is probably going to play very small at times, like the US team. The Clipps played Collison almost exclusively at SG at times. Might work and might be the way to go about it if they are OK with cutting some of the bigs out of the rotation and instead maximizing the usage of the bulk of their true talent. Don't think they'll win any rings with it, but you never know.

[beb0p]

But if they show a propensity to be productive it changes things. If we are comparing TRob he just played a support role for a team that for a while held one of the best records in the NBA last year, AND he produced in the minutes he was given. You can name every bust in history, there are many, and I'm not saying TRob shouldn't be considered one them but the main difference here is most of them DID get the chance to flame out and that's exactly my point. I'm talking merely for the sake of opportunity and an ability to establish some value. It's not like it could have worked any worse in the end for TRob with the Kings. It's just like Hickson, I think I heard that he just "sucked" so many times that I started to think people didn't even believe that. Bada boom he goes to another team where he gets time to play and he returns to form as a "serviceable player". Situation plays a big role for most players, do we really need to see it again, and again in order for them to realize that?

And Stauskas better earn that spot if that's what it takes, but hopefully this staff knows the pitfalls that will come with it. I just can't see a justifiable reason for drafting a Thomas Robinson, keeping a JJ Hickson, and then re-signing a Jason Thompson. Or having a Jason Thompson and using your MLE to sign Carl Landry without losing a third wheel somewhere along the line. Or drafting to consecutive picks at the same position on players who are pretty much relegated to the one position without clearing the log jam in relation to their respective opportunity. It is a fact, and undeniable, even if Stauskas "wins" the position, which I hope he does, what is the end result for Ben McLemore? And vice versa.

I'm not arguing each individual player and their skills, understand what I'm saying, when a team is so over stuffed with the same types of players all fighting for the same minutes, because there are only so many, someone and in this case their value in particular will suffer. If Landry succeeds it will come at the failure of someone else. If Stauskas does it's the same thing. If they try to fit them all in, the ENTIRE team suffers. Teams with balance work, this team is still far from balanced. Not that it can't work because, just as I acknowledged with the teams of past, the team has talent and even if some players get left out, when you have talent you have the potential to compete on a nightly basis. Hopefully that happens, but I hope even more so that this front office has a plan to create a more balanced team without the effects of just benching the unnecessary parts. The more time that goes by, and the more they don't get their first option deal done (Iggy, Smith) etc. they seem to turn a 180 on themselves and just get whatever they can (Landry, Hollins, Sessions). And I don't mind any of their 2nd options as talents, but if you are building a team immediate fit has to be of utmost priority.

As for the end of the bench comment, most teams run an 8-9 man rotation. Work it out for yourself and see where some of those players may factor in. In McCallums case, I think he's one of the best "fit" players on the team, where is he on your depth chart?

I agree that it couldn't have worked out any worse for TRob or the Kings, but the problem is with the player not the minutes, imo. If given minutes, TRob will probably put up average numbers but I highly doubt he can fetch much return in a trade. It's not like teams are dying to trade for an average PF. I don't think the Kings would have gotten more than Patrick Patterson regardless of how many minutes you played TRob. We traded a serviceable PF (TRob) for another serviceable PF (Patterson). The trade in itself is actually pretty even, imo.

Hickson was a special case, accordingly to reports he was disgruntled from the start and didn't put in maximum effort. I don't think a different system can "save" TRob, just as I don't think it was the system that save Hickson as much as he just decided to play hard after he landed in Portland.

If Landry succeeds and Hollins/Mooreland/Evans fail; who cares? I'm happy. I still don't see why you are so hung up on the entire team succeeding. Somebody is going to get left on the bench, that's just how it is in basketball. Is this team balanced? No. I'm hopeful we will get there.

As for McCallum, he is not ready for the big time. Besides, he is probably nothing more than a career third string PG, I don't get why you are so concern about the fringe NBA players.
.

[SacKingZZZ]

But if they show a propensity to be productive it changes things. If we are comparing TRob he just played a support role for a team that for a while held one of the best records in the NBA last year, AND he produced in the minutes he was given. You can name every bust in history, there are many, and I'm not saying TRob shouldn't be considered one them but the main difference here is most of them DID get the chance to flame out and that's exactly my point. I'm talking merely for the sake of opportunity and an ability to establish some value. It's not like it could have worked any worse in the end for TRob with the Kings. It's just like Hickson, I think I heard that he just "sucked" so many times that I started to think people didn't even believe that. Bada boom he goes to another team where he gets time to play and he returns to form as a "serviceable player". Situation plays a big role for most players, do we really need to see it again, and again in order for them to realize that?

And Stauskas better earn that spot if that's what it takes, but hopefully this staff knows the pitfalls that will come with it. I just can't see a justifiable reason for drafting a Thomas Robinson, keeping a JJ Hickson, and then re-signing a Jason Thompson. Or having a Jason Thompson and using your MLE to sign Carl Landry without losing a third wheel somewhere along the line. Or drafting to consecutive picks at the same position on players who are pretty much relegated to the one position without clearing the log jam in relation to their respective opportunity. It is a fact, and undeniable, even if Stauskas "wins" the position, which I hope he does, what is the end result for Ben McLemore? And vice versa.

I'm not arguing each individual player and their skills, understand what I'm saying, when a team is so over stuffed with the same types of players all fighting for the same minutes, because there are only so many, someone and in this case their value in particular will suffer. If Landry succeeds it will come at the failure of someone else. If Stauskas does it's the same thing. If they try to fit them all in, the ENTIRE team suffers. Teams with balance work, this team is still far from balanced. Not that it can't work because, just as I acknowledged with the teams of past, the team has talent and even if some players get left out, when you have talent you have the potential to compete on a nightly basis. Hopefully that happens, but I hope even more so that this front office has a plan to create a more balanced team without the effects of just benching the unnecessary parts. The more time that goes by, and the more they don't get their first option deal done (Iggy, Smith) etc. they seem to turn a 180 on themselves and just get whatever they can (Landry, Hollins, Sessions). And I don't mind any of their 2nd options as talents, but if you are building a team immediate fit has to be of utmost priority.

As for the end of the bench comment, most teams run an 8-9 man rotation. Work it out for yourself and see where some of those players may factor in. In McCallums case, I think he's one of the best "fit" players on the team, where is he on your depth chart?

I agree that it couldn't have worked out any worse for TRob or the Kings, but the problem is with the player not the minutes, imo. If given minutes, TRob will probably put up average numbers but I highly doubt he can fetch much return in a trade. It's not like teams are dying to trade for an average PF. I don't think the Kings would have gotten more than Patrick Patterson regardless of how many minutes you played TRob. We traded a serviceable PF (TRob) for another serviceable PF (Patterson). The trade in itself is actually pretty even, imo.

Hickson was a special case, accordingly to reports he was disgruntled from the start and didn't put in maximum effort. I don't think a different system can "save" TRob, just as I don't think it was the system that save Hickson as much as he just decided to play hard after he landed in Portland.

If Landry succeeds and Hollins/Mooreland/Evans fail; who cares? I'm happy. I still don't see why you are so hung up on the entire team succeeding. Somebody is going to get left on the bench, that's just how it is in basketball. Is this team balanced? No. I'm hopeful we will get there.

As for McCallum, he is not ready for the big time. Besides, he is probably nothing more than a career third string PG, I don't get why you are so concern about the fringe NBA players.
.

That's why, and this last draft could be used as an example of it, if you have a high lotto pick and no guaranteed usage or spot for that player you better either make room for them or move them on draft night. If one of those two things doesn't happen you have just most likely cut off the option of value in a trade from your list of possibilities.

Of course Hickson was disgruntled, he was brought into a team expecting him to be every bit the role player that he isn't. He's like Jason Thompson or Carl Landry, they are all of the production variety and when not allowed to produce they utterly fail time and time again. Unfortunately some of those same things are still happening. There was reported interest in Iman Shumpert last year and the goal now appears to be to turn Ben McLemore into their Iman Shumpert when even in college he never looked like that kind of player. He could end up OK in that area but on the flip side that might even be below his potential level. I'm not going to say he can't do anything because he's shown capable of improvement in big strides already so you never know. Overall I just don't get the idea of wishing an apple into an orange when there are plenty of oranges out there to be had.

I'm hung up about players are least appearing to succeed because this team likely has to trade itself out of many of the personnel issues they have right now. They had two runs at legit cap space but that options is closing fast and adding a Landry here, a Darren Collison there, and a Sessions there impacts that greatly. We'll have to see what Rudy does and what the cap looks like moving forward but as I've said for the last few years, as time goes by you have to start re-signing that young talent and as that goes so do your options in how to augment your team moving forward. My precise point is that in order for this team to become balanced the players that they are looking to move (Jason Thompson), or are potentially movable (Ben McLemore) have to succeed. Then goes the other unfortunate part, because they don't typically bring the things your team needs on the floor it minimizes the potential that your team will be successful in the interim. The option right now is to swing for the fences and find a turd to polish, just like Rudy Gay. That's why I was disappointed they didn't get the Smith deal done because I've looked over the rosters a hundred times, I just don't see many options besides Smith that will be available for what they have let alone someone that can play PF and block shots.

I'm concerned about players like McCallum because he was one of the few players that looked liked he fit into the mold of how this team wants to play. I said it before about Thornton for two years and even Cousins acknowledged it in an interview not too long ago, he was the only player capable or at least willing to play OFF OF Cousins and play within some context of team offense. He's another guy that people were only looking at his production and how he "sucked" yet I was actually watching WHAT he was doing when he got time. In the end he didn't play well but Cousins knew what he was doing even if most fans didn't see it. There was potential there for help for Cousins and another option for him offensively. McCallum did some of those same things last year. I think he can be a Derek Fisher type of role player and that's what will help this team right now. Sessions isn't known for that, so we'll see how well he works WITH Cousins because that's all that should matter right now if they are trying to win.

[Darren_Errman]

I like it.

Ray Mac is not NBA contributor right now. Let's not fool ourselves.

Every good team needs that veteran off the bench who can run the team, dribble, make plays, and put up points.

Spurs have Patty Mills. Clips have Jamal Craw. GS had Jarrett Jack during their run. OKC has Reggie Jackson. Houston had Lin.

We didn't have anyone similar to those guys. The fact that he's dirt cheap doesn't hurt.

[City of Trees]

So long winded are some of u

Sent from my SM-G900T using RealGM Forums mobile app