Lipstick, Pigs & Your Sacramento Kings
by section214 on Oct 12, 2008 3:39 PM PDT
in Commentary
Email
Print 
The Spencer Hawes saga has been very interesting to me. On the one hand, we have a 20 year old kid with about 930 minutes to his NBA career (the equivalent of about 26 games if you were using 36 minutes per night). He is still growing into his body, and he is still learning the NBA game. On the other hand, he is an adult pulling down a wage of $2.2 million this year, he is outspoken in a confident/cocky sort of way, and he did finish last year with some promise.
Let's digest that for a moment. He finished last year in promising fashion, posting April numbers of 11 pts., 7 boards, a block and 2 assists per game. The consensus on Hawes was anywhere from cautious to unbridled optimism, with everyone applauding Geoff Petrie for another fine pick (by everyone, I mean everyone not enamored with Al Thornton - the same Al Thornton that would have been fourth on the depth chart behind Artest/Salmons/Garcia - the same Al Thornton that finished 109th in FG% - but I digress...).
So what has occurred since then? A ho-hum summer league, followed by one-truly-lousy-foul-plagued-game and one-very-promising-game-that-still-drew-concern-from-some-fans. The pessimists will tell you that Hawes should have dominated in summer league, and as a "veteran" he should have schooled Greg Oden. The optimists will tell you that (a) this is just summer league and preseason and (b) the kid is still learning. The verdict here would be easy - it's early. Ease up on the kid. Except for one thing that turns this conversation, and that is that his own teammates publicly jumped him. Mikki Moore, Beno Udrih and Kevin Martin all weighed in, all saying that Hawes needed to step up his game.
So, where are we with Spencer Hawes? Will he be a player for us, or are we just putting lipstick on a pig? I believe that there are a number of factors here.
First, while it is OK to accept Hawes for what he is, it is too early to determine what he may eventually become. He's 20 and he can still improve his low post game. He may never become Tim Duncan in the low post, but you can't rule out the possibility of him becoming a high/low player like Vlade Divac or Chris Webber (I'm not comparing talent here, just style of play). I still say that Hawes is more like Chris Kaman than Brad Miller, as I see Miller as a true high post only center. Hawes could become more (emphasis on could).
Next, there is nothing wrong with Hawes shooting from the perimeter if (a) he is capable of hitting those shots and (b) opposing teams are leaving him wide open. My initial concern with Hawes on the perimeter is that he does not pass or run the pick and roll. But then it occurred to me that the pick and roll can only be run when the opposing center is actually covering you (duh!), and to this point in Hawes' career that is not really happening. Hawes will need to take (and make) those perimeter shots when they are given to him, which will open up the passing lanes and make pick and rolls an option.
Third, don't punish him for the weakness at the 4. Let me put this way. While everyone has been comparing some of Jason Thompson's talents to Karl Malone, I would liken him to a young Chris Webber (again, in style, not talent). He runs the floor, can handle, and has range. If he were to develop some low post game, the style of Hawes/Thompson would replicate the style of Divac/Webber (albeit with a large disparity in collective passing ability). However, if a player does not develop at the 4, Hawes will be called upon to do more than he can, much in the same way that Brad Miller is called upon now.
The verdict: It's still too early to tell, but never too early to speculate and talk about. This is being a Kings fan in today's world. There will be less talk about playoffs and more talk about player development. There is nothing wrong with that. I still like Spencer Hawes. Of course, I still have money in the stock market (I think), so take that into consideration when reviewing my opinion.
And 1
Peaches Napear’s handling of this story further fortifies my opinion that Napes is not a journalist – he is a cheerleader under the employ of Maloof Sports & Entertainment. This is not entirely a bad thing. I mean, you wouldn’t expect Jerry Reynolds, Big Mike or any of the Royal Court Dancers to pile on Hawes, either. What bothers me (and has me separating Napear from the world of journalism) is that he railed against the media and fans for overreacting in regards to Hawes, but he did not address the comments from Moore, Udrih, Martin or Reggie Theus. Now, I will give Peaches credit where credit is due. I think that he is much better than the average play by play man. But as a radio show host he blows, and the fact that he thinks that his ratings prove otherwise in this one horse town is laughable. If it were not for the guests that 1140 manages to secure, there would be no need to tune into his show at all. It is important to be aware of this dynamic whenever you find yourself disagreeing with the writing’s of Amick/Voison/Cooper/McNeal/Gutierrez. While you may not always agree with them, you should always appreciate that their views are for the most part unbiased (this occasionally does not apply to Marty Mac). And while Peaches may be self centered, self serving, pompous and vapid, he does call a decent game. I guess my point is that as long as you don’t view Grant Napear as a source of news and information, he’s almost palatable.
And 1 more
I am almost convinced that the Kings should extend Shelden Williams. This is based on the fact that the Kings have no one else like him on the roster, a banger that will board. Just to have him around to lean on Hawes and Thompson at pracitce is reason enough to keep him. But can we pitch in and send him to Corliss Williamson finishing school? Dude has to become a little more efficient at the basket.
26 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent thoughts 214
I agree with most of them. (I couldn’t care less about Napier one way or another)
I Also think SWilliams should get one more year and more importantly, make him the first option at PF. 20 minutes. He is a pretty good defender and a VERY good rebounder, the hell with scoring – though I think more will come if he gets significant minutes, just a confidance issue at this point.
God knows we need to rebound, rebound, rebound! I don’t think Williams is so hopeless on offense that teams will leave him to double teams other guys (very often). A young team especially cannot give away extra possesions. He needs a little confdance at offense more than anythin else – though I doubt he’ll ever be more than a 12 pt guy. But I’ll take 12 and 9.
Just give Hawes at least a half season more before we begin pronouncing too many judgements. He’ll be up and down like most 2nd year guys and should start settling down to something like he can be with some more time. The guy can clearly shoooot!
I’ve had a good feeling about BobbyB since day one, since the day i heard Petrie signed him – with no logical explanation why. More minutes please.
Back on PF, I’d love to see someone make Mikki expendable (though I Like the guy!).
Rec’d
eternal skeptical optimist
A lot of excellent thoughts
I agree and share your opinion/synopsis with pretty much all of them. I disagree a bit about JT to Cwebb in style, but I also think there are many similarities there too so it’s entirely hard to disagree. When Cwebb was young he also was compared a bit to Karl Malone. So maybe this is a mistake 2nd coming.
I don’t know about Shelden Williams one way or the other. I don’t know if he’s worth more than 4 million a season, but I don’t know having him for an extra year beyond this season is not a bad idea. I would guess it depends on how much the Maloof’s/Petrie think they can get away with paying him, and is the reduction of a million worth the risk of losing him for good? That’s a guessing game there. I do not think it matters either way, but I do think there will be a glimpse seen on the franchise and the direction, not to mention it’s money management, it’s approaching as 2010 draws closer. I’m still a believer that going after Bosh is a mistake, as is Wade, and it’s next to impossible to draw a better offer than what the Clippers could offer for example. And that’s just one team that will probably have cap room in 2010.
Great piece Section. (Not that I expect anything less.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
?
’ – I don’t know having him for an extra year beyond this season is not a bad idea.’?
So do you think it is – or isn’t? I know its the political double speak season but . . .
This is keeping in mind our current roster. We have to decide in 15 days.
I agree though that projecting for Bosh or any other 30 + yr old player at this point is a mistake. I don’t trust Wade’s longevity probability. We have a good year to think about the possibilities. I prefer finding that guy who is emerging when the time comes and is in that 27 yr old range.
Any comparisons for JThompson with Anyone are premature. I havn’t seen nearly enough aginst NBA talent to even think of forming a lasting opinion.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Oct 12, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with that
My point is that I could go either way on Shelden. I don’t know if it will be a mistake (like I knew signing Moore was a mistake that could have been much much worse in retrospect), but I do know that it will likely provide a glimpse into what kinda game plan the franchise has for 2010 & beyond. That was the point. (I think if the option is picked up it’s likely only because they don’t want to have to re-sign him to a multi year deal before 2010 anyway and it’s easier just to pick up the option rather than haggle over a million bucks annually over the life of the next contract.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
OK
But he can rebound and play paint defense NOW.
If it was my choice and he continues as he’s looked so far and gets a little better on offense. I do it. Like you said, there’s another year to figure things out long term.
We need some steady solid players too, even if thats all they’ll ever be. He could still be that tough guy in this league that comes off the bench and and ‘enforces’ while the starters are sitting. $$ would have to be rethought soon if thats all he is (as I think) though.
Gotta have more rebounds and some paint D or it will get ugly early.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Oct 12, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
That's the trick I suppose
That’s what my entire 2 comments are about. It’s about do you want to pay him long term by not extending his contract, but with a lower yearly salary, or do you want to wait and pay him a longer salary after 2010 after other things are settled? That’s the question.
I could go either way. That’s all I’m saying.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
If I had to guess
I’d say they’ll pick up this next option and see how it goes this season. After this one they’ll have to make a final decision.
I think a long term extension at this point, with what he’s done so far, is out of the question – no matter the terms.
Give him some minutes and see how he does the dirty work. I love the rebounding, plenty of guys on this team who can score (I think).
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Oct 12, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Peaches
Hey all, I’m originally from Lodi but live in San Luis now. I was back home the other day and had the fortune to tune into to Napier’s show. He was talking about Josh Howard’s disrespecting of the national anthem and how it “sickened” him. He basically said Howard didn’t deserve a spot on an NBA roster. Me? I could care less what Howard said.
Then a fan called in and basically said “It’s a free country, and we don’t necessarily know that Howard is a bad guy”.. before he finishes his comment Grant hangs up on him and just goes on a huge rant about what a douche bag this guy is. It pissed me off so much that I turned him off.. could only stand him for about 5 minutes.
Although I do like it when he says “if you dont like that you dont like nba basketball!” haha.
I agree
with Napier on the Josh Howard issue. I could care less about his opinion one way or another though.
Reactions to Howard are going to be personal. I’d have fired/fined him though and/or sent him for a looong stint in the doghouse. This country has been pretty good to him.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Oct 12, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't really care..
about what Howard said. But I have no problem with those that dislike his comments. My problem was that Napier didn’t even let the guy talk…just hung up on him without giving him a chance.
Hypocrite
My problem with Napear here is that he would be defending Howard’s right if he were a King, or at least have Howard on the show to help him smooth things out with the fans. When it comes to Kings players, he’s cling Peaches.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Lots of speculation, but I will say this confidently:
Napear is a tool.
If not for Jerry Reynolds, who never fails to offer something truly insightful in terms of analysis, I’d turn the sound off and just listen to Gerould on the radio. I’ve lived in a lot of different places, and in terms of hometown play-by-play guys, Napear is near the bottom.
There are sportscasters with catch phrases, and then there is Napear, who has cliches. I do not expect a person doing his job to be completely unbiased, considering who pays his salary, but the man almost never makes an objective call. No matter how badly the Kings might play in the first half of a game, you are going to hear some variation of this:
“Boy, the Kings have to consider themselves lucky to only be down 12/up by 4 considering their poor rebounding/terrible FG percentage/small locker rooms/huge market losses due to the mortgage implosion/centrifuges in Iran…”
If he was good at his job, it’d be one thing, but everyone I know that’s done any work with him tells me he’s insufferable. I can’t wait til he leaves.
The rest of the post made really good sense, by the way, even the Shelden Williams part. There’s a player under all that physical promise.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 12, 2008 5:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with all of your sentiments regarding Peaches
But I lived in Chicago in ‘93-’94 and was subjected to two years of Johnny “Red” Kerr and whomever he was working with. My preference is to listen to Gary Gerould whenever possible, and I thought that Jason Ross did a nice job in the game that he worked last year. Koz leaves me flat as a play by play man, but he has proven to be a rather selfless host when working on HPL, and I like the synergy between him, Lever, Turner and Christensen.
At the end of the day, I rec you for your opening statement “Napear is a tool.”
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Katie C
does a great job. She is definately the cream of that crop and I told her so at a game last year.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Oct 12, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions
It's Kayte homez
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
Good point
Kayte is actually very good, and was a very nice addition to the gang last year. I thought Kara Lawson was quite good, also, but Kayte seems like a real natural at broadcasting. I enjoy the hell out of Koz, I freely admit. He’s got a genuine enthusiasm, and he’s the same guy off the air that he is when he’s on.
If Angela Tsai was a baseball player I would describe her thusly: Good look, no hit. Gawd, she sounds like she’s 11.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
I would rather that Gary Gerould & Jerry Reynolds
were the actual team as opposed to Grant & Jerry. But tha’ts me. Koz isn’t terrible at all, but I prefer Grant’s PBP to Koz’s personally. It really doesn’t matter though since I don’t live in Sac anymore.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
And 1 More More..
It’s good to see you have opened up to the fact that Shelden has some value on this team.
As far as his low post play, I wonder if the fact that Reggie is using him at Center where he is going up against guys 3 to 4 inches taller that he is hasn’t hurt him. What I like is his willingness to drive from the high post or base line and go hard the the rim. Which is one of the reasons that he leads the team in FT attempts.
When Shelden learns to run the pick & roll like Mikki, he can pick up some of the easy baskets that Mikki gets. And, as I’ve said in past posts, I also think that Hawes and JT will benefit from practicing against Williams. They need to practice trying to back him down from just outside their comfort range.
I also think that JT should start with Miller. Miller’s outside game will open up the lane for JT, & JT offensive rebounding will help with MIller’s high post offense. I also think that Shelden’s game compliments Hawes. Crashing the boards and great weak side help defense. But, both JT & Shelden need to perfect that 10 to 12 ft jumper, so they can punish any opponent who backs down to guard the paint.
I think Reggie has already made up his mind the pick up his option. Dont ask me why I think that, it’ just a gut feeling. Shelden’s getting a lot of his minutes in garbage time and Mikki is still starting. But, JT still looks ragged, so I think they need to keep and work all 3.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
I don't think REggie will end up making the final decision
That’s really Geoff Petrie’s to make, but I’m sure Reggie will get input as to how he see’s Shelden for the foreseeable future.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
Good stuff
Lots of good info there. I don’t necessarily have a problem with Hawes shooting from the perimeter, though I’d like to see him limit his shots to the 17-18 foot range combined wirh more work in the low post.
Shut up and Coach
Reason for High Post Offense
is to draw the opponents bigs away from the rim. So as you said, to be effective Hawes has to make some of the 15-18 footers. Then when they have to come out to guard him it will open up the paint for everyone, and he can use his quickness to drive to the rim.
And, you are absolutely right, he has to perfect that low post. He needs a high percentage scoring move down low. So, many close games are lost because teams either can’t get a stop or don’t have a go to guy that can get them consistent points in crunch time.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Not to be a jackass
But Carl knows what high post offense is. He doesn’t exactly need an explanation of how it works.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
You can't help yourself
Read more carefully and you will find that I agreed with both of Carl’s point. I did so in a way that now he knows that I to understand the high post offense.
If people are offended by my comments, I’d appreciate it if you would let them tell me. Your opinion on the matter doesn’t interest me.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
I know you agreed with him
I’m just saying the definition didn’t change your 2nd paragraph. So let me rephrase my first remark. While the first comment was directed to Carl probably, there was interesting points being made. Why I said what I did. If you don’t like me join the line. There a lot of others you need to get behind.
In what way did that explanation of the high post and Spencer Hawes have to do with the 2nd paragraph?
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
What's not to like
I must learn to end my jokes with a happy face ;) For a guy who takes as many shots at himself as you do, I thought you’d take my one liner with amusement.
Although, I welcome your contributions, this is not the first time that you have come to the defense of someone else. Please let the individual let me know when I step over the line. I’m not as familiar with everyone as you, and I need to hear from them first.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Wasn't sure that line was meant for amusement
But it is certainly funny.
The 2nd paragraph is a fair point. It’s not just that you were having a conversation with Carl, but there are more people who read it. It’s not that I thought the explanation of the high post offense with Hawes in it was necessary, I’m curious as to why you thought it was. Forget Carl for a moment, it was stated poorly on my part.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
