Key Off-Season Decisions

[SacKingZZZ]

Yes, Mike was...because for a looooong time, it was clear that we would be over the tax this year with his salary on the books.

Yeah, AFTER they signed Mikki Moore. So no, not for a loooong time. If that was the case we basically traded Mike Bibby for Mikki Moore.

[SacKingZZZ]

The key thing you are forgetting about Moore's contract is that it was 3 years and is not guaranteed for the final year. Petrie can cut him after next season and, you know what, he will give the team the same "flexibility" that an expiring contract will.

Which is something I have brought up in the past myself. I do think that the Mikki Moore signing resembles the Ostertag signing of a few years ago, where his contract was structured to where he would be a valuable expiring the next year but this is different. We have two bigs that get crunched, and we haven't even seen what adding a guy like Reef into the situation is going to do. We'll see what Geoff does, he still has a chance to start heading full steam ahead in a direction.

[SacKingZZZ]

Is that why our team was over .500 with Ron Artest in the lineup?

Which still isn't good enough to get in the playoffs. And with our team being so old, where is the improvement going to come from? Is that the goal? To be a .500 team?

No, but you think you have to look at it that way, and that's just the problem. Seattle doesn't go out and sign Ruben Patterson because Durant and Green are both infinitely better players, and both are ready to contribute basically right now. The same goes for Portland with Aldridge (although, I don't understand why they haven't traded away Pryzbilla for the future, or why they signed Steve Blake! I mean they have to develop Jack and Sergio, right?!).

No, no, no, the Sonics and Blazers already have a young foundation in place, which is why they can afford to sign veterans to fill around the outside. We don't have a young core; our main players this year were Ron, Brad and Kevin, which not only just isn't competitive, but doesn't have much room for improvement either. How can we expect to build something when our foundation is so flawed?

But even if this argument really did hold wait, the fact remains that just because they are rebuilding one way, it doesn't mean that it's the right way to do it.

So what's the other way to rebuild, and who's done it that's gone on to be a contender?

Well I would say going from a 33 win season to a 38 win season while having your top guys injured much of the season is a good sign of progress. And frankly your characterization of the "MLE guys" is just off. Moore and SAR are hardly the albatrosses that are hanging around the neck of the team. Moore's contract is not guaranteed for the final season...which happens to be the year that Petrie has stated many times as being the year he wants flexibility. Moore can possibly be a good role player down the road. But if next year shows that it's not really worth it to keep him around, he'll get cut. As for SAR, he has always been a strong contributor when healthy. But the question now is if he is even healthy enough to continue to play the game. If he can't come back from the surgery he had this year, then look for Petrie to pressure him to retire (or request waivers based on career-ending injuries).

You've got to be kidding me, that's not progress. How many games would we have won if we weren't? 41? 43? Not only is that not good enough for the playoffs, but you've already tapped out the potential of that team. So continuing to blindly wallow in mediocrity with such a crappy foundation is short-sighted and stupid.

And I think that Petrie knows this. I don't think Bibby was traded for luxury tax purposes; we wouldn't be in the luxury tax territory if we didn't sign Mikki or if we don't resign Beno. If the idea is to keep the most talent on the roster as possible without going into luxury tax, we would have kept Bibby and let Beno go.

And if Artest's future was so secure early on, then why was he nearly traded at the deadline for Kleiza and a 1st? Isn't that the "youth/picks" that you seem so averse to? Maybe you should re-evaluate what Petrie is thinking.

Oh, and for the record, the last team that Petrie built? We traded our "star" for a risky youth (Richmond for Webber). We stockpiled expiring contracts, got far enough under the cap to sign Vlade. And, we got a high enough lotto pick to select Jason Williams (7th). Isn't this the triumvirate that you seem so scared of?

Yep.

[SacKingZZZ]

Which still isn't good enough to get in the playoffs. And with our team being so old, where is the improvement going to come from? Is that the goal? To be a .500 team?

No, the goal is to be as successful as possible every year. And aside from the fact that we have plenty of young guys who can improve (our only guys that play that are close to "old" or Brad and Mikki--Ron is in his prime, and John is approaching his). Everybody else could still improve every year to help the team win. Am I saying that I really think we'll be a playoff team next year? Probably not. But we'll be a pretty good team that will hopefully start to put more fans in the seats, and raise our own players' values.

No, no, no, the Sonics and Blazers already have a young foundation in place, which is why they can afford to sign veterans to fill around the outside. We don't have a young core; our main players this year were Ron, Brad and Kevin, which not only just isn't competitive, but doesn't have much room for improvement either. How can we expect to build something when our foundation is so flawed?

But they don't have to be our main foundation in say, two years, when the young guys that we do have are improved enough to take over.

And also, the argument still stands--Portland doesn't know who their starting PG will be in the future, and according to yours and SacKingzzz's logic, they are delaying the progress of their young PGs by signing Blake.

Also, I'm not saying to necessarily keep this roster together no matter what, just to only make trades that are fair for us. If we can get what Petrie considers to be a good rebuilding package, then fine. But I think you guys are wrong to say "Petrie should trade our vets for expirings and picks regardless". Trading to trade hurts our team's over all value.

So what's the other way to rebuild, and who's done it that's gone on to be a contender?

Detroit, Phoenix to a certain extent (Amare was their only draft pick, except Marion, but he hardly counts for that specific Phoenix team), Boston in a way, Lakers (different situation, since they had Kobe, but still), the Warriors to a certain extent (not a contender at this point though, obviously). Don't get me wrong, there are always some draft picks, but they usually just make up a huge part of the team.

You've got to be kidding me, that's not progress. How many games would we have won if we weren't? 41? 43? Not only is that not good enough for the playoffs, but you've already tapped out the potential of that team. So continuing to blindly wallow in mediocrity with such a crappy foundation is short-sighted and stupid.

It's not "blindly wallowing in mediocrity", it's "not willingly falling from mediocrity to just flat out sucking". Nobody is against trading to make the team better. If Geoff thinks he sees the next JO in the league somewhere (i.e. an assumed bust who could still break out), I have no problem with him trading Ron for that. What I do have a problem with is essentially just trying to get rid of players that are helping your team just to try to get somebody younger.

And I think that Petrie knows this. I don't think Bibby was traded for luxury tax purposes; we wouldn't be in the luxury tax territory if we didn't sign Mikki or if we don't resign Beno. If the idea is to keep the most talent on the roster as possible without going into luxury tax, we would have kept Bibby and let Beno go.

I'd argue that this team is better with Beno and Mikki than we are with Mike.

Regardless though, you're wrong. If you include Kevin's salary next year (which I suspect you didn't since no websites that I know of, have), we're already at $63million. Mike's salary would've brought that up to about $74mil if I'm not mistaken. Taking away Mikki's salary doesn't even come close to making up the difference.

And if Artest's future was so secure early on, then why was he nearly traded at the deadline for Kleiza and a 1st? Isn't that the "youth/picks" that you seem so averse to? Maybe you should re-evaluate what Petrie is thinking.

I already answered this.

Yeah, I think we assumed that Ron would probably want to leave us for a more winning situation, and so Geoff put out feelers to try to get what he could. I think the team was always interested in keeping Ron, but they just got the impression that he wasn't interested in staying.

Oh, and for the record, the last team that Petrie built? We traded our "star" for a risky youth (Richmond for Webber). We stockpiled expiring contracts, got far enough under the cap to sign Vlade. And, we got a high enough lotto pick to select Jason Williams (7th). Isn't this the triumvirate that you seem so scared of?

I'd be fine trading our star for a risky youth that Petrie [b]specifically likes. What I wouldn't be okay with is just blindly trading our star for youth that's good because it's youth.

And really, what expirings are you praying for? Ron is already expiring, trying to trade Kenny or SAR for expirings at this point wouldn't be worth what we would have to give up. The only person we could really trade for expirings at this point would be Brad, but that still wouldn't get us enough cap space to do anything next summer in the way of FA. What we will have next summer is potentially, I think close to $30million in expirings to offer up in potential trades from the beginning of summer up to the trade deadline. Worst case scenario is that we can't make any trades and we just get a nice helping of cap space.

And I mean really, do you think our team's future is shot because we got the #12 pick instead of the #7 pick?[/b]

[/quote]

I certainly don't. But the fact of the matter is that odds are the superstars more often than not go higher than 12. Much higher. We may have very well lucked out last year and this year because last years was deeper than normal (in fact one of the deepest in years) and this one may be as well. Hopefully so.

My gripe is I just don't want to go into another season with the same uncertainty we've had for the last 3+ years. It's cool to say that you can't be too set in what you're doing because something may come along to change that but not having ANY direction is grounds for failure on any level of business.

[pillwenney]

-= original quote snipped =-



I certainly don't. But the fact of the matter is that odds are the superstars more often than not go higher than 12. Much higher. We may have very well lucked out last year and this year because last years was deeper than normal (in fact one of the deepest in years) and this one may be as well. Hopefully so.

My gripe is I just don't want to go into another season with the same uncertainty we've had for the last 3+ years. It's cool to say that you can't be too set in what you're doing because something may come along to change that but not having ANY direction is grounds for failure on any level of business.

Yeah, but it really depends on the draft. Would it have made a difference in the 06 draft? Definitely because that draft was basically 7 players deep. This year though, it really doesn't make much of a difference at all. And I mean when you look into the past, it's not as if nobody great players have been picked around this spot. Pierce, Dirk, T-Mac, JO, Kobe, Bynum, Redd, Jefferson (both of them), West, Amare, Nash, Parker, Boozer, Kirilenko, Arenas, and Butler were all drafted at 9 or lower. This is a relatively deep draft and we've got a great GM.

An I completley disagree about the second part. We have a direction. It's trying to win as much as we can now while developing other players. This isn't just a two-way road we're looking at here. Staying where we are gives us the flexibility to look for the best possible scenario to increase our teams' total value, which is ultimately what will lead to greater success.

[BMiller52]

-= original quote snipped =-



Which is something I have brought up in the past myself. I do think that the Mikki Moore signing resembles the Ostertag signing of a few years ago, where his contract was structured to where he would be a valuable expiring the next year but this is different. We have two bigs that get crunched, and we haven't even seen what adding a guy like Reef into the situation is going to do. We'll see what Geoff does, he still has a chance to start heading full steam ahead in a direction.

Reef is never going to be added into the situation IMO. I'll be extremely surprised if he plays another game for us and if he doesn't retire within the next year or 2. The guy has pretty much no cartiledge left in his knees. Hopefully we can get out of that contract.

[deNIEd]

Well, with Phoenix getting dismantled by the Spurs, how much does that change our direction?

It's 100% clear that a run and gun offense focused team can't win
We couldn't do it.
Dallas couldn't do it.
Phoenix couldn't do it.
GSW couldn't do it.

[deNIEd]

Yes, stockpiling talent and trying to win now is a good idea,
but that talent has to be turned into something else before it expires.

Look at Miller.
How many years does he have left in him? 3? 4 at the most.
If we don't trade him, but instead let him expire, is that not simply letting his talent go to nothing.

Look at Bonzi, Mobley. (Mainly mobley)

Say Miller is worth 5 dollars now. With a trade, the most we can get is 3 dollars. But if we let him run out his contract, he's now worth 0. Isn't 3 better than 5?

A team should always have the most amount of talent possible, but that talent has to be changed at times.


Also, we have to have a clear 100% plan of what we are going to do. This general theory of win now, wait till we have money plan just isn't going to work. Look at this year, all the amazing teams out there...how many truly have a shot at the title?
I say 3. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics.
With Hornets, Pistons, Suns following them.

A team with talent, but not the perfect pieces is good for nothing. Look at Dallas or look at Denver.

[Wolfay]

Well, with Phoenix getting dismantled by the Spurs, how much does that change our direction?

It's 100% clear that a run and gun offense focused team can't win
We couldn't do it.
Dallas couldn't do it.
Phoenix couldn't do it.
GSW couldn't do it.

I have to contest that one. If it weren't for critical injuries, some debatable calls by a few referees and a couple of choke jobs, we could've had a couple of championships easily. Bad luck had a much larger hand in our misfortune than anything else.

I'd argue everything else that has been said up to this point, but I find it rather pointless to argue with people who refuse to think and use their heads. I'll just say I agree with KIE and other like-minded people.

[SacKingZZZ]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah, but it really depends on the draft. Would it have made a difference in the 06 draft? Definitely because that draft was basically 7 players deep. This year though, it really doesn't make much of a difference at all. And I mean when you look into the past, it's not as if nobody great players have been picked around this spot. Pierce, Dirk, T-Mac, JO, Kobe, Bynum, Redd, Jefferson (both of them), West, Amare, Nash, Parker, Boozer, Kirilenko, Arenas, and Butler were all drafted at 9 or lower. This is a relatively deep draft and we've got a great GM.

An I completley disagree about the second part. We have a direction. It's trying to win as much as we can now while developing other players. This isn't just a two-way road we're looking at here. Staying where we are gives us the flexibility to look for the best possible scenario to increase our teams' total value, which is ultimately what will lead to greater success.

I won't go into again but in "trying to win" we are slowing down the development of our young players. There is no arguing about it. Spencer Hawes, Ron Artest, Mother Teresa, it doesn't matter, they will all tell you the same thing. Now if we can find that perfect mix then cool! So far we haven't and unless changes are made I doubt we do. Now with that said they don't have to be wholesale changes but the seperate issue is moving forward with the parts that will most likely be here for some time to come. The main issue being Ron Artest. If the Maloofs and Petrie haven't decided one way or the other about what to do with Artest then that's a problem.

And for the bolded part, how so? If we don't play our young players then they won't gain "value", if we don't trade our vets (or at least a few that are "in the way" or have a questionable futures) who have more value then all we really do is STAY THE SAME. Now there may still be reason to argue the potential of this current squad, but even beyond injuries, I don't think this team has a chance of EVER becoming a contender with Artest/Miller/Martin as a foundation.

Another thing I'd like to bring up is the draft. I think the way the NBA has changed the draft with the age restrictions and all it's going to be harder and harder to find that "superstar" sleeper. Why? Well, Kobe Bryant was a high schooler. Now they'll be in college so what, and/or who they are will be known pretty much by all. The benefit is that there will be less straight out of high school horror stories and the odds of obtaining a better overall player will go up but I predict less and less mid-lotto miracles in the next couple of years. Not that there were that many to begin with anyway. I'd rather take my chance with the 1st-4th pick for 2-3 years than the 12th-14th thank you very much.

I also keep hearing about how the Petrie built the last team. Nowadays I don't see too many talents at the level of a young CWebb waiting to be traded for what we have to offer (other than maybe our young pieces, which I brought up earlier). We are going to have to find our own superstar through the draft or by some other means. Trading for a bonafide stud isn't going to happen this go around. If that's what Petrie is waiting for, I'd bet that he won't be catching lightening twice. At least not in the same manner.

[SacKingZZZ]

Yes, stockpiling talent and trying to win now is a good idea,
but that talent has to be turned into something else before it expires.

Look at Miller.
How many years does he have left in him? 3? 4 at the most.
If we don't trade him, but instead let him expire, is that not simply letting his talent go to nothing.

Look at Bonzi, Mobley. (Mainly mobley)

Say Miller is worth 5 dollars now. With a trade, the most we can get is 3 dollars. But if we let him run out his contract, he's now worth 0. Isn't 3 better than 5?
A team should always have the most amount of talent possible, but that talent has to be changed at times.


Also, we have to have a clear 100% plan of what we are going to do. This general theory of win now, wait till we have money plan just isn't going to work. Look at this year, all the amazing teams out there...how many truly have a shot at the title?
I say 3. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics.
With Hornets, Pistons, Suns following them.

A team with talent, but not the perfect pieces is good for nothing. Look at Dallas or look at Denver.

Yes very good points. And relating it back to the development issue, just think of all the benefits we got out of playing Corliss Williams at C during the Musselman era. Granted we weren't as far along youth wise then but still.

[SacKingZZZ]

-= original quote snipped =-



I have to contest that one. If it weren't for critical injuries, some debatable calls by a few referees and a couple of choke jobs, we could've had a couple of championships easily. Bad luck had a much larger hand in our misfortune than anything else.

I'd argue everything else that has been said up to this point, but I find it rather pointless to argue with people who refuse to think and use their heads. I'll just say I agree with KIE and other like-minded people.

Without question the Kings deserved that title. Just think about it, if that halfcourt heave by Samaki Walker had been waived off like it should have we'd most likely have a championship.

[Cruel_Ruin]

No, the goal is to be as successful as possible every year. And aside from the fact that we have plenty of young guys who can improve (our only guys that play that are close to "old" or Brad and Mikki--Ron is in his prime, and John is approaching his). Everybody else could still improve every year to help the team win. Am I saying that I really think we'll be a playoff team next year? Probably not. But we'll be a pretty good team that will hopefully start to put more fans in the seats, and raise our own players' values.

See, I think the goal of the franchise should be as competitive as possible in the long run. As in, should eventually be good enough to compete for a championship. This team just doesn't have it in them. Brad and Mikki are both, as you admitted, old and tapped out. Ron is in the middle of his prime; he's not going to improve by leaps and bounds over the summer. Same with John, he's only a month younger than Ron. That's 60% of the starting lineup right there, our entire frontcourt. No matter which roleplayers you put around them, this is as far as a team built around Ron/Kevin/Brad takes you.

But they don't have to be our main foundation in say, two years, when the young guys that we do have are improved enough to take over.

And also, the argument still stands--Portland doesn't know who their starting PG will be in the future, and according to yours and SacKingzzz's logic, they are delaying the progress of their young PGs by signing Blake.

Also, I'm not saying to necessarily keep this roster together no matter what, just to only make trades that are fair for us. If we can get what Petrie considers to be a good rebuilding package, then fine. But I think you guys are wrong to say "Petrie should trade our vets for expirings and picks regardless". Trading to trade hurts our team's over all value.

Why would we want to recreate a younger version of this foundation anyways? It's not going anywhere. Sure, Hawes may take over for Brad. Ok, Kevin gets better. But our best player clearly is Ron Artest, who not only do we not have a young replacement for, but also isn't good enough to lead a team anywhere. He's just not that player.

Portland can afford to sign veteran PGs because their young core of Roy/Aldridge/Oden is in place. We, however, have no such young core. All we have to go off of is Martin and a few end of season minutes from Hawes. Garcia is nice, Beno is solid, Douby has shown flashes, but they're all ultimately roleplayers. Roleplayers are easily replaced. Franchise cornerstones are not, and we don't have one yet. Where do we get one? THE DRAFT.

I do agree with the last point to make only trades that are fair to us. I don't think Kleiza/1st is good value for Ron. I'm not advocating to sell the farm for pennies on the dollar. My argument is that our veterans eventually have to be traded and we'll take a dive one year. Petrie's draft record speaks for itself, that'll be all he needs to pick up the final piece to our young core, and THEN we can talk about progress and the upwards trend.

Detroit, Phoenix to a certain extent (Amare was their only draft pick, except Marion, but he hardly counts for that specific Phoenix team), Boston in a way, Lakers (different situation, since they had Kobe, but still), the Warriors to a certain extent (not a contender at this point though, obviously). Don't get me wrong, there are always some draft picks, but they usually just make up a huge part of the team.

Phoenix was able to sign Nash using capspace; they drafted Amare. Capspace + picks, sound familiar? Everyone else are roleplayers, including Marion.

Lakers had a top 20 player of all time left over from their last run who was just entering his prime. Hardly a comparable situation, but they did manage to nab Gasol for Kwame, who they got for Butler, who they got by trading Shaq for youth.

The Warriors were just a blip of Nellieball existence, they hardly matter in the grand scheme of things. Especially now that their fans are getting tired of the gimmick.

Detroit truly is a unique situation. They managed to pull a top 5 PG out of thin air, and surrounded him with a lot of talent. Regardless, they are an exception to the rule, though I think they are vastly overrated, especially since their ECF runs were, well, in the East.

It's not "blindly wallowing in mediocrity", it's "not willingly falling from mediocrity to just flat out sucking". Nobody is against trading to make the team better. If Geoff thinks he sees the next JO in the league somewhere (i.e. an assumed bust who could still break out), I have no problem with him trading Ron for that. What I do have a problem with is essentially just trying to get rid of players that are helping your team just to try to get somebody younger.

See, the rarity of that scenario just implies bad planning. What are the chances of us magically finding a diamond in the rough that is actually good enough to get us to relevancy? That should be the question management asks themselves. Gathering high draft picks, while not foolproof, is easily the best way to get such a player. Easily. It seems like you're advocating sitting on our hands waiting for a miracle to happen. Fortune favors the bold, just look at Portland.

I'd argue that this team is better with Beno and Mikki than we are with Mike.

Regardless though, you're wrong. If you include Kevin's salary next year (which I suspect you didn't since no websites that I know of, have), we're already at $63million. Mike's salary would've brought that up to about $74mil if I'm not mistaken. Taking away Mikki's salary doesn't even come close to making up the difference.

Fair enough, though if Petrie is aggregating talent like you say he is, then I think that he would have found a way to keep Bibby. Signing Mikki Moore just isn't a move a team afraid of the luxury tax would do.

Yeah, I think we assumed that Ron would probably want to leave us for a more winning situation, and so Geoff put out feelers to try to get what he could. I think the team was always interested in keeping Ron, but they just got the impression that he wasn't interested in staying.

Or he was waiting to see if his value could go up? All indications were that Geoff was the one making the phone calls up until the deadline, and asked specifically for what he wanted.

I'd be fine trading our star for a risky youth that Petrie specifically likes. What I wouldn't be okay with is just blindly trading our star for youth that's good because it's youth.

If it's going to help in the long run then it's going to help in the long run. Losing sometimes hurts in the short run and helps in the long run. It's the nature of the NBA. Any trade for Ron at this point is going to make us lose more games in the short run; thinking that we'll get youth AND win right away is wishful thinking at best.

And really, what expirings are you praying for? Ron is already expiring, trying to trade Kenny or SAR for expirings at this point wouldn't be worth what we would have to give up. The only person we could really trade for expirings at this point would be Brad, but that still wouldn't get us enough cap space to do anything next summer in the way of FA. What we will have next summer is potentially, I think close to $30million in expirings to offer up in potential trades from the beginning of summer up to the trade deadline. Worst case scenario is that we can't make any trades and we just get a nice helping of cap space.

And I mean really, do you think our team's future is shot because we got the #12 pick instead of the #7 pick?

You're thinking too much in specifics here; I'm just saying conceptually to rebuild you get under the salary cap, take a flyer on some youth, and get a high draft pick. I understand we won't be under the cap until 2010. That's no reason to delay a rebuild. This is the right summer to start deconstructing the team. Ron and Brad have significant value that could net us something nice. John showed flashes, and a contender might take a flyer on him, but if we keep him it's alright because he's cheap. SAR and Kenny may be untradeable at this point, and I'd prefer to keep Mikki because he's a good teammate and is expiring anyways. [/quote]

[Cruel_Ruin]

-= original quote snipped =-



(picture)

I'm guessing that's a visual metaphor for your logic.

I'd argue everything else that has been said up to this point, but I find it rather pointless to argue with people who refuse to think and use their heads. I'll just say I agree with KIE and other like-minded people.

I'd say that'd be you and your ilk. But don't let us stop you. Go on believing in your delusional fantasy world where the his holiness Ron Artest is leading the Kings to the NBA Championship while riding a golden unicorn.

[KingInExile]

Yes, stockpiling talent and trying to win now is a good idea,
but that talent has to be turned into something else before it expires.

Look at Miller.
How many years does he have left in him? 3? 4 at the most.
If we don't trade him, but instead let him expire, is that not simply letting his talent go to nothing.

Look at Bonzi, Mobley. (Mainly mobley)

Say Miller is worth 5 dollars now. With a trade, the most we can get is 3 dollars. But if we let him run out his contract, he's now worth 0. Isn't 3 better than 5?

A team should always have the most amount of talent possible, but that talent has to be changed at times.


Also, we have to have a clear 100% plan of what we are going to do. This general theory of win now, wait till we have money plan just isn't going to work. Look at this year, all the amazing teams out there...how many truly have a shot at the title?
I say 3. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics.
With Hornets, Pistons, Suns following them.

A team with talent, but not the perfect pieces is good for nothing. Look at Dallas or look at Denver.

Uhh...Petrie DOES have a "clear, 100%" plan of what he is going to do. That plan is to position the team financially to have the ability to have a lot of free agent flexibility in 2009. You know this, everyone knows this. You just don't have the patience to accept the fact that change doesn't happen overnight. You want to snap your fingers and magically have a #1 draft pick and a star player land on the roster. Sorry, buckey, the real world don't work that way.

You are right in one respect, moving Miller's contract for expiring deals will be critical to helping the team improve in the future. That may be a priority of the summer, however I think we could get more out of him by waiting until next year's deadline. Also, the longer he can be around to mentor Hawes, the better it is for the team in the long run.

[KingInExile]

-= original quote snipped =-



I won't go into again but in "trying to win" we are slowing down the development of our young players. There is no arguing about it. Spencer Hawes, Ron Artest, Mother Teresa, it doesn't matter, they will all tell you the same thing. Now if we can find that perfect mix then cool! So far we haven't and unless changes are made I doubt we do. Now with that said they don't have to be wholesale changes but the seperate issue is moving forward with the parts that will most likely be here for some time to come. The main issue being Ron Artest. If the Maloofs and Petrie haven't decided one way or the other about what to do with Artest then that's a problem.

I guess it's time for the morning reminder. Remaining competitive has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of young players to develop. The Kings spent the season trying to win every game they could, yet Spencer and Garcia both showed improvement throughout the course of the season. How could they have done that if, as you say, "trying to win" stunts development of youth? Your argument is not supported by reality.

And for the bolded part, how so? If we don't play our young players then they won't gain "value", if we don't trade our vets (or at least a few that are "in the way" or have a questionable futures) who have more value then all we really do is STAY THE SAME.

Young player MUST earn playing time by working their asses off in practice and making the most out of the limited opportunities they get on the floor. Playing time is not an entitlement...it is an honor they have to earn. Spencer worked his ass off, made the most of the minutes he was given and eventually earned a consistent spot in the rotation. Douby (from what I can assume) worked hard in practice, but he never consistently made the most out of the minutes he got. Unfortunately Shelden came in at a time when the cards were stacked against him for him to be able to earn minutes...not a lot of practice time and the big-man rotation was pretty well set. This summer will be critical for him. He needs to go into this summer with a solid development plan, needs to work his ass off in in summer league and he needs to get himself ready to earn a spot in camp this fall. Nobody is closing the door on the young guys. They just need to earn the right to step through that door.

Now there may still be reason to argue the potential of this current squad, but even beyond injuries, I don't think this team has a chance of EVER becoming a contender with Artest/Miller/Martin as a foundation.

I agree that this team is not a contender with Artest/Miller/Martin as the foundation. First off, Martin is not a "foundation" player you develop your team around. He is an excellent role player and will be a great guy to keep on the team...but he is not (should not be) the focal point that you build around. As for Miller, he's past his prime and needs to be moved for salary flexibility next summer. Artest is the only guy who can be a foundation player. Would I like to have someone else as the center-piece? Sure I would. But for the guys currently here, Artest is the only one you can build around.

[Wolfay]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'd say that'd be you and your ilk. But don't let us stop you. Go on believing in your delusional fantasy world where the his holiness Ron Artest is leading the Kings to the NBA Championship while riding a golden unicorn.

I never said Ron Artest was the man to lead us to glory. I just wanted to defend him against poorly justified criticism when all the guy does is play his heart out every night. I prefer we keep him, but not as a center piece. There isn't a better all-around player in this league.

You guys need to stop exaggerating.

[pillwenney]

-= original quote snipped =-



I won't go into again but in "trying to win" we are slowing down the development of our young players. There is no arguing about it. Spencer Hawes, Ron Artest, Mother Teresa, it doesn't matter, they will all tell you the same thing. Now if we can find that perfect mix then cool! So far we haven't and unless changes are made I doubt we do. Now with that said they don't have to be wholesale changes but the seperate issue is moving forward with the parts that will most likely be here for some time to come. The main issue being Ron Artest. If the Maloofs and Petrie haven't decided one way or the other about what to do with Artest then that's a problem.

And for the bolded part, how so? If we don't play our young players then they won't gain "value", if we don't trade our vets (or at least a few that are "in the way" or have a questionable futures) who have more value then all we really do is STAY THE SAME. Now there may still be reason to argue the potential of this current squad, but even beyond injuries, I don't think this team has a chance of EVER becoming a contender with Artest/Miller/Martin as a foundation.

Another thing I'd like to bring up is the draft. I think the way the NBA has changed the draft with the age restrictions and all it's going to be harder and harder to find that "superstar" sleeper. Why? Well, Kobe Bryant was a high schooler. Now they'll be in college so what, and/or who they are will be known pretty much by all. The benefit is that there will be less straight out of high school horror stories and the odds of obtaining a better overall player will go up but I predict less and less mid-lotto miracles in the next couple of years. Not that there were that many to begin with anyway. I'd rather take my chance with the 1st-4th pick for 2-3 years than the 12th-14th thank you very much.

I also keep hearing about how the Petrie built the last team. Nowadays I don't see too many talents at the level of a young CWebb waiting to be traded for what we have to offer (other than maybe our young pieces, which I brought up earlier). We are going to have to find our own superstar through the draft or by some other means. Trading for a bonafide stud isn't going to happen this go around. If that's what Petrie is waiting for, I'd bet that he won't be catching lightening twice. At least not in the same manner.

So it's not a good thing for our young players to contribute to a team that wins? It's not good for them to actually possibly contribute to some games in crunch time against really good teams? Personally, for Spencer's sake, I'd rather have him playing 20-25 min/game on a 40+ win team than playing 36 min/game on a 30 win team. And actually, thinking about it, I already did argue some of these points. Like Shelden, for instance, the most important improvements he can make right now are really largely the kind of things a guy can pick up and learn in practice. Unfortunately, during the second half of the season, the team wasn't practicing as much, so to a certain degree, he had to fly by the seat of his pants--which is going to be extremely difficult for any young player. But I don't think throwing him to the wolves is going to help him all that much. Our young guys are making plenty mistakes right now, and they have enough things that they know they need to improve on. Playing them more would just lead to them making the same mistakes more.
As for Ron, I basically agree that they should know what they want. But I think part of the issue this year will again be what Ron wants. I think the main reason his agent is having him not exercise his contract option this year is that there is pretty much no market for him at all. But there will be a market in 09, and so I think the chances of him leaving are much greater. I think Geoff may see that as well, so he may try to get something for him at the deadline again.

Winning helps the value of everybody that is contributing to your team--by a pretty solid amount. Like with Ron, there's a big difference between between being the main guy on a crappy team and being the main guy on a good team--a huge difference. And to a lesser extent, the same logic applies to Brad. And yes, it helps everybody in that way. And making the playoffs is important, but I mean, if you look at the Warriors, I don't think anybody thinks that they're not a playoff-caliber team (besides probably Smills ). The fact that they're a good team helps out the value of everyone that contributes.
And in nowhere did I try to argue that we can contend with an Artest/Martin/Miller core. That has never been my point. My point is that trying to win as much as we can now will help everyone's value, and that just because a core won't contend, it doesn't mean you should just try to get rid of them as soon as you possibly can.

Sure there's going to be a better chance to get a good player with the higher picks. But there's also a better chance to trade for a good player when you have a good team, so there's a trade off there. And the fact remains that with this draft specifically, and the last draft, the talent level of our spot isn't really much different from the talent level at 6, or even 3/4/5 arguably. And we have a GM with a great drafting record. And the fact remains that if this team were to trade Artest and Miller for "rebuilding" packages that we would probably still be, at best, the 6th or 7th worst team in the league. Looking at this year specifically, I'd much rather be where we are than in that position.

And maybe we won't get our C-Webb at the deadline of next year (which is when we would get him), but I mean....Ray, KG, Gasol, Kidd, Shaq, and Marion have all been traded in just the last year! And before that, in the past guys like AI, Kidd another 2 times, Sheed, JO, Brand, Ray Allen again, Shaq again, Camby, Baron, and T-Mac have all been traded. So really, I'd say there's a good chance that somebody will be available. But if not, then we'll probably have to look into FA for help.

[SactownHrtBrks8]

I think bring Beno back is only important if we don't draft a PG

Ron Ron is our best player, we defiantly need t ofigure that out before we even look at Beno

[pillwenney]

See, I think the goal of the franchise should be as competitive as possible in the long run. As in, should eventually be good enough to compete for a championship. This team just doesn't have it in them. Brad and Mikki are both, as you admitted, old and tapped out. Ron is in the middle of his prime; he's not going to improve by leaps and bounds over the summer. Same with John, he's only a month younger than Ron. That's 60% of the starting lineup right there, our entire frontcourt. No matter which roleplayers you put around them, this is as far as a team built around Ron/Kevin/Brad takes you.

Sure that should be the goal, but there are several different ways of doing that. Again, I'm not saying that this team, as is, can compete for a championship. But they can be competitive and that is good for the franchise in many ways. Let's say that if this team stays healthy, they can have a 44 win season. In all likelihood that won't result in a playoff birth next year, but teams will respect us and our players, and fan support will increase. Spencer will get enough time to work on what he needs to work on, and the rest of our guys may be able to earn spots in the rotation.

Why would we want to recreate a younger version of this foundation anyways? It's not going anywhere. Sure, Hawes may take over for Brad. Ok, Kevin gets better. But our best player clearly is Ron Artest, who not only do we not have a young replacement for, but also isn't good enough to lead a team anywhere. He's just not that player.

No, you can't build a contender around Ron. But does that mean that you shouldn't want him on your team? And I'm not saying that like, I want to draft a young Mikki or something. I'm really not totally sure about what you're arguing here. I'm just saying that our young guys can take over when they earn their starting spots. I think having to earn it will certainly help in their development as well. Not to mention that I'd rather have Spencer going up against Brad every day in practice then some crappy backup.

Portland can afford to sign veteran PGs because their young core of Roy/Aldridge/Oden is in place. We, however, have no such young core. All we have to go off of is Martin and a few end of season minutes from Hawes. Garcia is nice, Beno is solid, Douby has shown flashes, but they're all ultimately roleplayers. Roleplayers are easily replaced. Franchise cornerstones are not, and we don't have one yet. Where do we get one? THE DRAFT.

All right. It seems that you and SacKingZZZ are arguing different points, which is fair enough. I was just saying that worry about developing future role players and clearing out vets to do so is kinda silly.

But I would consider Spencer a part of our young core. Heck, if Oden is part of Portland's without having played a single NBA minute, than Spencer is certainly part of ours. We'll also have our draft pick this year, the potential to trade for people next year with our expirings.

I do agree with the last point to make only trades that are fair to us. I don't think Kleiza/1st is good value for Ron. I'm not advocating to sell the farm for pennies on the dollar. My argument is that our veterans eventually have to be traded and we'll take a dive one year. Petrie's draft record speaks for itself, that'll be all he needs to pick up the final piece to our young core, and THEN we can talk about progress and the upwards trend.

But if we can't get good value for them, then what's really the point? You say that our veterans eventually have to be traded as if a good, helpful trade will just fall into our laps. I remember one time when it seemed that Geoff approached a trade with the attitude of "I just have to trade this guy regardless of whether or not I get a good return". Because of that, we still have Kenny Thomas on the end of our bench making about 10 times what he is worth.

And anyway, like I said before, I think this team without Brad and Ron is probably like a 30ish win team right now. Definitely bad, but definitely not "guaranteed top 5 pick" bad. That would probably leave us at 6th or 7th in the lotto usually.

Phoenix was able to sign Nash using capspace; they drafted Amare. Capspace + picks, sound familiar? Everyone else are roleplayers, including Marion.

I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm anti-capspace or something. I just know that we won't be able to clear any significant cap space until our veteran bigs expire, so looking for expirings for say, Brad's contract really won't help us sign a big name FA (before you look at the salaries and tell me I'm wrong, remember to add in Kevin's extension, perhaps a re-signed Beno, and our draft pick this year).
And part of my point with Amare is that he was the #9 pick. And after doing some research on this, I've found a pretty incredible fact--he is the only lotto pick that they have kept (they selected and traded Deng in '04) since 1988! And my point more over was that they got him with the #9 pick--they didn't have to tank really, and they got their guy.

Lakers had a top 20 player of all time left over from their last run who was just entering his prime. Hardly a comparable situation, but they did manage to nab Gasol for Kwame, who they got for Butler, who they got by trading Shaq for youth.

Yeah, and I mentioned that it was a different situation. Although connected the Shaq trade with the Gasol trade is a pretty bigass stretch. My point was also though that they got Bynum at the #10 spot without having to really tank. They took their one kind of down year and got a future great center out of it.

Detroit truly is a unique situation. They managed to pull a top 5 PG out of thin air, and surrounded him with a lot of talent. Regardless, they are an exception to the rule, though I think they are vastly overrated, especially since their ECF runs were, well, in the East.

Yeah, they made a brilliant signing with Chauncey, because they saw potential where others had given up--like with the JO to Indy trade. If Geoff sees another opportunity out there for a guy like that, I wouldn't be surprised to see him jump at it. Still though, other than Chauncey, all of their big time players were acquired via trade.
Oh, and I'd kill to have an overrated team with a ring.

See, the rarity of that scenario just implies bad planning. What are the chances of us magically finding a diamond in the rough that is actually good enough to get us to relevancy? That should be the question management asks themselves. Gathering high draft picks, while not foolproof, is easily the best way to get such a player. Easily. It seems like you're advocating sitting on our hands waiting for a miracle to happen. Fortune favors the bold, just look at Portland.

The chances aren't great, but they're not horrible either, especially since we have a GM who has essentially drafted 3 or 4 guys outside of the lottery who will probably have been all-stars by the end of their careers (Peja, Hedo, Wallace and Kevin).
But more importantly, you talk about "gathering high draft picks" as if we can just snap our fingers and make that happen. The only guy (who we'd be likely willing to trade) that might get us a high pick would be Ron, but even that's a big question mark. That's part of how the draft works--teams that suck and/or are young don't really have a need for a Ron Artest.

Fair enough, though if Petrie is aggregating talent like you say he is, then I think that he would have found a way to keep Bibby. Signing Mikki Moore just isn't a move a team afraid of the luxury tax would do.

Well we clearly did have a need for Mikki this year. I mean without him, our starting PF would have either been a 19-year-old or a frog. But regardless, with Mike still around we still would've been far over the tax. Having Mikki wouldn't have changed that. We were going to have to clear off somebody's salary. Like, maybe if we didn't sign Mikki, we could have traded Ron instead, but that hardly would've improved things. I think Geoff knew all along that he would have to look to move Mike's contract.

Or he was waiting to see if his value could go up? All indications were that Geoff was the one making the phone calls up until the deadline, and asked specifically for what he wanted.

He was waiting so long that he just let the deadline pass? Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

If it's going to help in the long run then it's going to help in the long run. Losing sometimes hurts in the short run and helps in the long run. It's the nature of the NBA. Any trade for Ron at this point is going to make us lose more games in the short run; thinking that we'll get youth AND win right away is wishful thinking at best.

Of course we won't, and I wasn't thinking that. I was thinking that "expirings/youth" isn't good enough because "youth" is too general. Like I said, if it's for a specific young player that is available that Geoff likes, then I would support it. I think that that is partially why Geoff doesn't usually look to trade for picks outside of draft day. He doesn't like "youth", he likes specific young players. That's what I'm getting at.

You're thinking too much in specifics here; I'm just saying conceptually to rebuild you get under the salary cap, take a flyer on some youth, and get a high draft pick. I understand we won't be under the cap until 2010. That's no reason to delay a rebuild. This is the right summer to start deconstructing the team. Ron and Brad have significant value that could net us something nice. John showed flashes, and a contender might take a flyer on him, but if we keep him it's alright because he's cheap. SAR and Kenny may be untradeable at this point, and I'd prefer to keep Mikki because he's a good teammate and is expiring anyways.

Yeah, but I just don't see the point in talking about cap space if we know it's probably not coming next summer. Clearing off those salaries really doesn't do much of anything in the way of helping us rebuild.
Sure there's reason to delay a "rebuild" (by your definition). If we can't get sufficient value, then I'd consider that a very solid reason. You said yourself that you wouldn't have done Ron for expirings/Kleiza/1st, so what makes you think that something better will appear for us? I mean if it does, I'll be glad, but assuming that it will is really far-fetched.