Kings @ Lakers 12/12/08

[pillwenney]

I think that as a reasoning is completely inconsistent and noncommittal. That's the problem with this franchise the last few years, they wouldn't think passed the next 15 minutes, and if they did it was only about how that next 15 would effect the 1 after that. It's time to dedicate to SOMETHING, interchangeable combinations regardless of intent is nothing more than a breeding ground for short term failure, long term failure, and overall inconsistency.

Show me the wins and I'll show you a coach that stands a chance in arguing about "winning combinations". 1 out of 10 don't count for much.

You just don't seem to want to comprehend the concept of trying to win while rebuilding. Rebuilding does not mean that you play 82 preseason games, it means that you try to win every game you can because that's the entire point of the game. If the intent isn't to win, that trickles down to everybody and has an effect on everybody. The commitment is to make the young guys earn their playing time while trying to win. The two kinda go hand in hand. If the idea is to play the best players, then the young guys need to become the best players. It's working for them so far.

And you're acting like teams need to have the same 5 guys in every time they are at the end of a close game. No team works that way. Sure most teams will have at least a couple of the main established guys in at the end every time, but Jason is far from being that.

[SacKingZZZ]

You just don't seem to want to comprehend the concept of trying to win while rebuilding. Rebuilding does not mean that you play 82 preseason games, it means that you try to win every game you can because that's the entire point of the game. If the intent isn't to win, that trickles down to everybody and has an effect on everybody. The commitment is to make the young guys earn their playing time while trying to win. The two kinda go hand in hand. If the idea is to play the best players, then the young guys need to become the best players. It's working for them so far.

And you're acting like teams need to have the same 5 guys in every time they are at the end of a close game. No team works that way. Sure most teams will have at least a couple of the main established guys in at the end every time, but Jason is far from being that.

And you don't seem to comprehend that no matter who you play they are going to try and win, I don't understand the deal with you bringing that up constantly, it's a given!

And teams DO PLAY A SET ROTATION. In fact most WINNING TEAMS do. No, not always at the end of game, but I see no point in putting a rotation together based on short term performance alone.

[pillwenney]

And you don't seem to comprehend that no matter who you play they are going to try and win, I don't understand the deal with you bringing that up constantly, it's a given!

And teams DO PLAY A SET ROTATION. In fact most WINNING TEAMS do. No, not always at the end of game, but I see no point in putting a rotation together based on short term performance alone.

Yes, but trying to win includes putting together what the coach sees as the most competitive lineup--not necessarily the youngest.

Yes, winning teams have a set rotation when they have proven guys who all have earned permanent spots in the rotation (i.e. if you know what a player is going to give you nightly, you can set them up in that role). Part of being a team in transition is trying to figure out what the rotation is. It's not because the team isn't prioritizing winning, it's because it hasn't yet found anything that could consistently be considered the most successful combination. Everybody has been too inconsistent.

[SacKingZZZ]

Yes, but trying to win includes putting together what the coach sees as the most competitive lineup--not necessarily the youngest.

Yes, winning teams have a set rotation when they have proven guys who all have earned permanent spots in the rotation (i.e. if you know what a player is going to give you nightly, you can set them up in that role). Part of being a team in transition is trying to figure out what the rotation is. It's not because the team isn't prioritizing winning, it's because it hasn't yet found anything that could consistently be considered the most successful combination. Everybody has been too inconsistent.

And part of being a rebuilding team is focusing on the development of players so they can learn to become consistent. Inconsistent playing time breeds inconsistent play, and if the last month or two doesn't prove that to you I don't know what will. And young guys are going to be inconsistent, but once again, most teams give them enough rope. Will see how Natt approaches this situation. Even Better how Petrie eases the burden.

[pillwenney]

And part of being a rebuilding team is focusing on the development of players so they can learn to become consistent. Inconsistent playing time breeds inconsistent play, and if the last month or two doesn't prove that to you I don't know what will. And young guys are going to be inconsistent, but once again, most teams give them enough rope. Will see how Natt approaches this situation. Even Better how Petrie eases the burden.

No, the point is to win. To prioritize "development" is to lower winning on the list of priorities. This means that young guys won't get starters minutes every game, but that's okay because that's juts not that necessary.

[SacKingZZZ]

No, the point is to win. To prioritize "development" is to lower winning on the list of priorities. This means that young guys won't get starters minutes every game, but that's okay because that's juts not that necessary.

When winning consistently, or in a worthwhile manner, isn't possible it's lowered by default. Like I said all those "moral" victories are cool but it's time to grab onto something real and long term. Development isn't about trying to lose, or even putting yourself in a position to lose really. You see losing is going to happen anyway if you are considered a "rebuilding" team. If we are going to lose anyway, I'd rather at least come out of it having young players that are discovering themselves, and getting better so one day the losing won't be a consistent pattern.

[pillwenney]

When winning consistently, or in a worthwhile manner, isn't possible it's lowered by default. Like I said all those "moral" victories are cool but it's time to grab onto something real and long term. Development isn't about trying to lose, or even putting yourself in a position to lose really. You see losing is going to happen anyway if you are considered a "rebuilding" team. If we are going to lose anyway, I'd rather at least come out of it having young players that are discovering themselves, and getting better so one day the losing won't be a consistent pattern.

We are grabbing onto something real and long term. Not playing young players as many minutes as humanly possible doesn't mean the team isn't rebuilding.

And on a game-by-game basis, the "if we're going to lose anyway" mentality doesn't fly. If a game is winnable, you try to win it with the players you've got. Period. Your definition of rebuilding doesn't necessarily mean the team is trying to lose, but it does show a complete indifference to wins and losses.

[SacKingZZZ]

We are grabbing onto something real and long term. Not playing young players as many minutes as humanly possible doesn't mean the team isn't rebuilding.

And on a game-by-game basis, the "if we're going to lose anyway" mentality doesn't fly. If a game is winnable, you try to win it with the players you've got. Period. Your definition of rebuilding doesn't necessarily mean the team is trying to lose, but it does show a complete indifference to wins and losses.

Not quite, but you can't control whether you win or lose. You can control whether you try to win or lose but that is up to the players. It's up to the coach to DEVELOP these young players and from what Kenny Natt has said so far, it sounds like he understands that.

[pillwenney]

Not quite, but you can't control whether you win or lose. You can control whether you try to win or lose but that is up to the players. It's up to the coach to DEVELOP these young players and from what Kenny Natt has said so far, it sounds like he understands that.

From what Geoff Petrie said, the goal of the team is to "compete while mixing in the young players". He said that almost verbatim today. It's up to the coach to win. Developing the young players is a by-product of trying to win, instead of playing a full season of preseason games.

[SacKingZZZ]

Not quite, but you can't control whether you win or lose. You can control whether you try to win or lose but that is up to the players. It's up to the coach to DEVELOP these young players and from what Kenny Natt has said so far, it sounds like he understands that.

From what Geoff Petrie said, the goal of the team is to "compete while mixing in the young players". He said that almost verbatim today. It's up to the coach to win. Developing the young players is a by-product of trying to win, instead of playing a full season of preseason games.

Uh, duh? And sure development can be a by-product of trying to win, but if they aren't physically involved in some way it won't be.

[pillwenney]

Uh, duh? And sure development can be a by-product of trying to win, but if they aren't physically involved in some way it won't be.

The problem I see is that your definition of "physically involved" means "playing as many minutes as their bodies will allow and if that's not happening then the vets are 'stealing' minutes".

[SacKingZZZ]

The problem I see is that your definition of "physically involved" means "playing as many minutes as their bodies will allow and if that's not happening then the vets are 'stealing' minutes".

Not really, and I have already said this so I'll say it again I guess. Let's see if I can get you to understand this time. It's about playing CONSISTENT minutes. They aren't nor do they need to play starters minutes, hey once and awhile it's cool, but I don't want to see those 3-5 minute pointless stretches. I also don't want to see the rotation as bloated as it is, 12 man rotations are stupid, just totally stupid. Kenny Natt in the interview before the game last night alluded to the "rotation problems" as well. There are typically enough productive minutes for 3 guys to rotate at the PF/C with maybe another 1 or 2 that can play both F spots. The G spot and the SF spot are pretty bloated too but once again, we are kind of saved by the injury bug temporarily, but when Kevin Martin comes back it will be felt. With that said it's Petrie's job to ease the burden a little.

[pillwenney]

Not really, and I have already said this so I'll say it again I guess. Let's see if I can get you to understand this time. It's about playing CONSISTENT minutes. They aren't nor do they need to play starters minutes, hey once and awhile it's cool, but I don't want to see those 3-5 minute pointless stretches. I also don't want to see the rotation as bloated as it is, 12 man rotations are stupid, just totally stupid. Kenny Natt in the interview before the game last night alluded to the "rotation problems" as well. There are typically enough productive minutes for 3 guys to rotate at the PF/C with maybe another 1 or 2 that can play both F spots. The G spot and the SF spot are pretty bloated too but once again, we are kind of saved by the injury bug temporarily, but when Kevin Martin comes back it will be felt. With that said it's Petrie's job to ease the burden a little.

Well then maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. This whole argument stemmed from the idea that Jason and Spencer should be getting playing time together to establish chemistry right now. That's mostly what I was arguing against. But even then really, if a guy gets in for 3-5 minutes and stinks it up, he should be yanked, assuming a more capable option could go in. That goes for everyone regardless of age.

[SacKingZZZ]

Well then maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. This whole argument stemmed from the idea that Jason and Spencer should be getting playing time together to establish chemistry right now. That's mostly what I was arguing against. But even then really, if a guy gets in for 3-5 minutes and stinks it up, he should be yanked, assuming a more capable option could go in. That goes for everyone regardless of age.

If it becomes a standard thing then maybe but you have to give them enough rope as I said before. As far as Jason and Spencer playing together, I actually think it should happen and a lot more than it's happened up until now. Not so they can establish chemistry per se, but so they can learn how to play together and get a basic understanding of one another (which they supposedly work together in practice quite a bit), and even better so that Petrie and co. can see how they may look together in time.

[pillwenney]

If it becomes a standard thing then maybe but you have to give them enough rope as I said before. As far as Jason and Spencer playing together, I actually think it should happen and a lot more than it's happened up until now. Not so they can establish chemistry per se, but so they can learn how to play together and get a basic understanding of one another (which they supposedly work together in practice quite a bit), and even better so that Petrie and co. can see how they may look together in time.

But they have to mature as players before that can happen. There's no point in forcing them together when neither is anywhere near their primes. I'm not saying that they shouldn't play together or that there aren't some benefits of playing them together (other than the fact that it may often be our most competitive combination), but it's just not that important right now. I mean Spencer probably won't enter his prime for about 7 years. 7 YEARS! They'll have plenty of time to develop chemistry. Right now they just need to focus on their own improvements they have to make.

[SacKingZZZ]

But they have to mature as players before that can happen. There's no point in forcing them together when neither is anywhere near their primes. I'm not saying that they shouldn't play together or that there aren't some benefits of playing them together (other than the fact that it may often be our most competitive combination), but it's just not that important right now. I mean Spencer probably won't enter his prime for about 7 years. 7 YEARS! They'll have plenty of time to develop chemistry. Right now they just need to focus on their own improvements they have to make.

Plenty of teams have players that play with eachother well before their primes. And players get to their "prime" by getting to play those previous years and since Spencer is already so skilled I think he'll be ready in the next couple of years to step up. We aren't talking about some guy that was drafted because he has long arms and now the only part is to just teach him what a basketball is. I said Spencer was ready to play last year and he is ready to play now. Ready to lead a championship team? No, but he is clearly ready to at least take over as the starting C now. So much so that word is coming out that the Kings brass feels the same way, besides, what do we have to lose?

Both Jason and Spencer are what they are, hopefully they improve and become more wise as time goes on of course, but it's not like the seeds of what they will become aren't already well planted by now.