The Clock is Ticking for Kevin Martin, Kings
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 22, 2008 10:48 PM PST
114 comments
We have had a lot of discussions about Kevin Martin and the pros and cons of various Kings players and what it takes to build a champion. I came across this article a while back and have been meaning to post it for discussion:
The Superstar Theory: Revisited and Supercharged, Part 1
In the article written for nbadraft.net, Robert McChesney offers a formula for determining who are the best players in NBA history and how it is almost impossible to win any NBA championship without one.
He also credits Danny Ainge for doing what it took to build the Celtics into a powerhouse. He writes: "What did Ainge understand? What did Ainge do? He understood that the basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar. There are only a few in the game at any time so they are almost impossible to get. But he went and got one."
A little later, he adds: "The importance of having a player-for-the-ages in his prime to winning an NBA title, or even contending, is astonishing."
He then develops a list of the best NBA players since the MVP award was introduced in 1956 and awards votes based on how players did in the MVP voting, how many all-NBA teams they made and who made the All-Defense teams. He divides the total points earned by seasons played and comes up with an average points per season that he uses to rank players with.
His top five: Tim Duncan, Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
He also lists current players, since this is not a longevity contest but is based on points per season. Top ranked active players after Duncan are Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Garnett, all in what he calls the Gold Medal Superstar group. Fourteen other active players are on the list, or 19 of the top 80 since 1952. Other current players in order: Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, Jason Kidd, Allen Iversen, Chris Paul, Ben Wallace, Dwayne Wade, Grant Hill, Amare Stoudemire, Dwight Howard, Jermine O’Neal, Gilbert Arenas and Chauncey Billups.
Chris Webber is No. 62 on the list.
He makes some other key points in Part 1:
* “If a player fails to make this list by age 25 or 26, it is unlikely they will ever be a superstar.” Kevin Martin turns 26 on Feb. 1. Tick. Tick. Tick.
* The list of superstars is “rarefied air, and this is where you must go if you want to find the key to winning championships.”
* “There were only five times in the past 29 seasons that the NBA champion was not led by a player named Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan or O’Neal.”
The main point of Part 2: “These players, especially the 21 gold medal superstars at the very top, were the best players on every single NBA championship team since 1956-57, and on all but three of the 52 runner-ups.”
Some nuggets from Part 3:
* “Note that seven of the eight NBA semi-finalists in 2008 were led by players on the above list; the one exception, Utah, was led by Deron Williams who almost certainly will be on this list in a year or two.”
* “Forty-seven players since 1956 have made first-team all-NBA by the age of 25, and fully 44 of them are on this list of the 80 greatest players.”
* “All of the gold medal superstars made first-team all-NBA by 25.”
* “In short, if a player goes first-team all-NBA by 25, he is an almost certain superstar. And he has to go first-team all NBA by 25 to be a gold medal superstar. The earlier a player makes all-NBA first-team, the more likely he is to shoot up to gold medal status. It does not take a long time to see who dominant players are.”
* “More than one-half of the gold medal superstars were drafted number 1 overall, as were nearly ¼ of all superstars. Some fifty percent of superstars were top three picks. If the chances of getting a superstar are slim in the top three of the draft, and they are, they virtually do not exist as one goes deeper into the first round.”
* “Six times gold medal superstars have been traded in their primes, and in all six cases the gold medal superstars led their new teams to a title.”
How many superstars or future superstars are on the Kings roster? Is Kevin Martin a superstar (someone on this board actually thinks he’s in the same league as Brandon Roy - that's a hoot)? How do we position ourselves to dump enough of the mules we have to get a superstar?
The article pretty much concludes that tanking and drafting high are the way to go, unless you can find a way to swindle Kevin McHale or someone of his stature.
Does Geoff Petrie have another Chris Webber trade in him, but for someone better than Webber? I’m skeptical. Thank goodness he is doing a great job of playing the tank card.
(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)
5 recs |
114 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Wait...
Is the above for real? Or is it one of those spam posts where the phrase gold metal superstars turns into a link for a Korean fetish site?
by rbiegler on Dec 22, 2008 11:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ohh man we are in trouble
Kevin Martin is not a gold medal superstar
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 22, 2008 11:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
at this point - with Kevin Martin out 20 games and counting - is he different then Monta Ellis?
30 games suspended and rehabbing ankle for Crash Ellis, Game injured ankle out for KMart. The etiologies are different but the results the same. And no, Ellis is not gold medal material either.
by betweentheeyes on Dec 23, 2008 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
An interesting read
I’m not well-versed enough to know if this is merely some eloquently laid-out cherry-picking of statistics, but it’s an interesting read. The point about Martin is not altogether easy to dismiss. He’s a great player, but is he elite? And if not in the next year or two, when?
I hope the guy spends his whole career here, and raises reckless, high-leaping children who end up taking Sac State to an NCAA title in 20 years or so. But can the Kings contend with Martin as the team’s best player? It’s a fair question, however uncomfortable it may be to ponder.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Dec 23, 2008 12:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe Martin can do it by himself
As much as I enjoy having the guy in our team. Will he become a superstar? I can honestly say: who cares? Is he a piece of the puzzle? I sure believe so. We need more players of his caliber (at the least) to start contending and that’s when we look at the future with either the development of the pieces we already have or the acqusition of those players either through trade, free agency, or draft.
Most teams need a superstar to contend, I personally don’t need an article telling me that because it’s pretty obvious if you watch basketball (with the 04 Pistons being the exception of course).
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 23, 2008 12:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even then Eduardo
Billups was on that list.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 2:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know he was
And I believe so was Ben Wallace. I could maybe give Billups the benefit of the doubt butIdon’t think Ben Wallace is a superstar (gold medal superstar I guess he is)
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 23, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good call Eduardo
I totally missed that. And, yeah you’re totally right.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
and skeptical on Billups as well.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
I think Ben is down there scrapping for a bronze or silver. And no doubt his recent play is impacting that status.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's always been overrated
In my opinion. that happens to good players on very good teams
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think order matters
in my opinion, i think you need to grab that superstar first, then worry about putting pieces around him. kevin martin is an amazing player….he is not a “superstar” yet, but this year was supposed to be the year where he showed if he would be. sadly, injury has hampered that chance so far. nevertheless, if the gist of the article is correct (in that we need a superstar to contend), it becomes interesting to look at the next few opportunities to acquire a superstar…
1) one route is via trade. i don’t think the kings have the ability to trade for a superstar; the only possible way would be if we shipped martin and, probably, at least one of our young bigs. i doubt this will happen (unless lebron gets a hankering for sactown and the cleveland front office gets extremely hammered).
2) another route is free agency. in this case, the next two summers are what matters right now. it is relatively far off and everyone knows a crap-ton of awesome players (including some fabled "superstars") will become available, so suffice it to say that we have a chance to grab one of these unicorn players. of course, we will be competing with every other team that is thinking the exact same thing….
3) one more route is through the draft. chances are looking good that the kings will end up with a horrendous record, landing a nice draft pick. we could use that pick to grab the much-hyped rubio, or maybe an ncaa standout in stephen curry, or anyyone else who makes a name for themselves as a potential NBA superstar. unique to the draft-opportunity (and unlike trades or free agency) is that the kings will perform their drafting action fairly independent of any outside forces. where other teams can affect trades and (obviously) bidding on free agents, the kings front office alone controls their draft choice.
where does all this leave us? in my humble, optimistic opinion, i hopefully believe we are somewhere between superstar opportunities 2 & 3….merely because nothing is certain at this point. nothing is certain because we may have drafted a superstar in hawes or thompson, and we may grab a superstar through free agency. hopefully at least one of these will become true…in which case, like eduardo said, it won’t matter too much if martin is that superstar.
by sactoreg on Dec 23, 2008 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Another point with regards to Shock & Hawes is
Let’s say one becomes a superstar; it’s very likely the other will become a solid rotation player.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 7:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
You are right: it may or may not matter to the Kings whether Kevin Martin becomes a “gold medal superstar.”
No team is going to have 12 of those, but if you follow the reasoning of the writer and agree with it – and it’s hard not to – than we have to find at least one.
And if Kevin Martin isn’t it, then we need to find someone who is at some point, probably through the draft, and either accept the fact that Kevin can be a key piece of the puzzle anyway or not be afraid to deal him at some point as part of a package for someone of a higher caliber.
When you are 7-22 and headed towards the lottery, there are no untouchables.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this is what i've been thinking...
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on Dec 23, 2008 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Click the links
I just laid out the highlights from three very long posts. I didn’t try to “cherry pick” anything, but read the stuff and you can be the judge of that.
If you are a fan of basketball, you’ll find the articles pretty thought provoking and relevant to the kinds of things we discuss here every day: namely, what can the Kings do to become a better team, particularly in the future.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 7:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Thanks for the FanPost. Well organized, well reasoned. No problems with the FanPost.
But the article is a rehash of the same ol’ theory that no one contests: you need stars to win titles. I’m not sure any of us expect Kevin to become a “gold medal superstar,” but he’s certainly a potential damn good, top 20 player. And you need those, too. You can have a “gold medal superstar” and win 30 games. Your other players need to be good, too. And Martin can be an extremely good co-star.
The current vogue is the three star principle — you need three “stars” to contend, and your top three players go a long way to decide your fate. Sacramento has one star right now, and he isn’t healthy. (I’m using 20+ PER to judge stardom. It’s rough and inexact, but so is this comment.) Hawes or Thompson could get there — it’d be luck or a Petrie coup if both made it. Free agency, this lottery pick, trade … we need at least one and possibly two more stars to have a shot with Martin.
by Ziller on Dec 23, 2008 7:35 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not exactly a rehash
And you hit the difference on the head: “you need stars to win titles.” The author disagrees, basically saying you need to land one of the best guys ever to suit up to have a chance at a crown. I think that’s the debate in a nutshell.
There are lots of stars, but very few superstars.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 7:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rehash
This is semantics, but people have been saying this forever, that only superstars can win it all. That’s what, to them, made Detroit’s title such a shock. (Of course, Wallace had been a defensive superstar and Billups wasn’t far from superstardom himself.) Of course a team with Kobe or LeBron will have a better shot at a title. You know what I’m saying?
by Ziller on Dec 23, 2008 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still think the Kings were a greater shock to the "cosmic" system than Detroit was
Detroit only won one title, and made a strong play at a 2nd title (against San Antonio’s worst title team I might add). Yet, I believe, the Kings were far better than either of those Detroit teams. And I don’t think I"m alone in that. (I think the 61 wins the Kings got in 01 02 was one of the more underrated things any “team” has done in the last 25 years. That team had the worst schedule in the NBA.)
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually to expand on the worst schedule angle
Other than the Lakers 8 game road trip last season, I can never remember a road trip like the KIngs had that was 6 games in 8 days, and 9-11 can’t be blamed for it either. It was set up that way from the start. Still believe the Kings had the worst schedule of any team that year, and they caught teams hot all year long. And they still won 61 games.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Olympics
In 2004, the USA had Tim Duncan, LeBron, Iverson and Carmello Anthony (4 superstars or “gold medal superstars”) and they lost to Argentina. Having gold medal stars is not the issue, it’s that the team gells and has great role players to go with them. Whether Martin, Spencer or Thompson (or Greene) becomes a superstar is not as important as can the Kings build a team around the superstars they have/get.
"Oh, boy! This website is very good. Hey, let's talk about the Raiders!" - "Peaches" Napier
by dalt99 on Dec 23, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I recall
LeBron sat on the bench for that team.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't clear
Sorry, ccrdotcom, I was referring to the article itself, not what you posted in here as far as the author possibly using the info that best made the case he was trying to make. It’s a good post.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Dec 23, 2008 7:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One other part I'd like to highlight from Part 3
"Current NBA players who are 25 or under and who have already made second or third all-NBA teams are Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams and Chris Bosh. We can probably add Yao Ming to the group, because although he is 27, he is a big, not to mention he has made four all-NBA teams already.
So, in addition to the current gold and silver superstars who will be winding down in two years – Bryant, Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki, Nash, Iverson and McGrady —that gives us a working list for emerging NBA superstars circa 2010-2018 of:
Superstars
Gold: LeBron James
Gold/Silver: Chris Paul
Gold/Silver: Amare Stoudemire
Gold/Silver: Dwight Howard
Gold/Silver: Dwyane Wade
Possible Gold/Silver/Bronze: Deron Williams
Possible Silver/Bronze: Yao Ming
Possible Bronze: Gilbert Arenas
Possible Bronze: Carmelo Anthony
Possible Bronze: Chris Bosh
The first seven names is where the championship teams will come from, and from the two or three players we might add to the top of this list over the next few years. The other 20-25 teams in the league will just be going through the motions for all intents and purposes. (Emphasis mine).
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 7:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Add Brandon Roy
I think you can add Brandon Roy to this list, and then it becomes a question of how good some of the other high draft picks from recent years become. Rose? Beasley? Mayo?
For the Kings standpoint, getting our guy in that next draft, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be that strong, becomes very important.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 7:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Chicken or the egg
Do superstars breed titles? Or do titles breed superstars?
If the Kings hit a free throw or two in 2002, if Webber doesn’t blow out his knee the following year, and the Kings win a couple of titles, does he rank higher than 62nd on the list?
If Garnett never gets traded to Boston and never wins a title, would he rank lower on the list? Does Pierce vault up the list because of last season?
That said, I don’t think that the Kings win a title with Kevin Martin as their best player. I think the Kings feel the same way.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 23, 2008 7:53 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Right
Not a ton of MVPs from non-contending teams. And team record has a HUGE influence on All-NBA/All-Star/All-Defense votes.
Again, it’s a neat way to look at things. But we can actually measure team productivity. We can calculate his strengths and weaknesses. Ditto for Hawes and Thompson. There’s deeper information to delve into beyond, “We ain’t going to win unless we trade for Chris Paul.”
by Ziller on Dec 23, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even then TZ
A guy like Moses Malone won MVP after his team made the finals, but had an improved record. (Of course the Fo Fo Fo Sixers had one of the best records—In fact the best record that year—and Moses won another MVP award.)
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 8:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
I read a similar article on si.com the other day and to make the point, Isiah Thomas had to be upped to gold medal superstar status to make the Bad Boys fit the mold. Zeke was clearly a large step below Magic, Bird and Jordan and that Bad Boys team was more of a great team than a team with a player who simply dominated the competition.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on Dec 23, 2008 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But a helluva GM...
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 23, 2008 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No Argument there
Jack McCloskey is an often forgotten Great GM. Oh, wait, you’re talking about Zeke. Nevermind.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no doubt we need another star player at least
and it should be a big man. The inside-outside paired stars have had more and easier success getting over top for obvious reasons.
For those howling to address PG I’d remind all once again that neither LA nor Boston have a ‘great’ PG…..
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 10:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
When you have quality ball handlers like Allen, Garnett
Odom and Bryant, an over the top PG isn’t nearly as necessary. That’s what this team is missing; it’s not necessarly what any team needs to have to win rings.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some of that is experience and Trust
Trust. Players of a certain caliber have it with each other. It makes the decision to pass easier, the pass itself more decisive….
The Old kings had that trust in Spades.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Add an inside player that KM and Salmons Trust
believe in – and you might have the makings of a big 3.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The complimentary pieces could fall together quickly
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do we trade the "future" for a real future?
This may be a ridiculous example, and it probably doesn’t pencil out even though the Trade Machine says it works.
What I am more interested in is the basic concept of packaging our young players for a superstar. What are you willing to give up to get something of true value that we can build a team around?
While it is nice to dream about dumping the players we don’t see as part of our future such as Brad Miller, the reality may be that we have to give up the guys we’d like to keep and stockpile to really be a major factor in this league.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 10:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
A balancing act
Trade everyone for Kobe, and you wind up with a cranky superstar with no one around him. What made it work in Boston (for example), was their ability to trade a young very good player (Jefferson) and draft picks to obtain Garnett and Allen. They were able to retain Pierce, without whom they would not have won a championship.
So, let’s say that you determined that Chris Bosh was a superstar. What would you trade to get him? I’d say almost anything, but it can’t be everything.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 23, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You trade everything
And you’re worse off than the Raps in the Ot fah season. (04 for you people who don’t understand.)
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
You have to keep Martin, Salmons and one of the young bigs to be better than Bosh’s current home. So you’d have picks, the second big and Donte Greene to send out.
by Ziller on Dec 23, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And to be clear ...
I don’t think that’s enough. Jefferson in 06-07 was far better along than Hawes or Thompson. Basically, Martin is the equivalent to Jefferson. And you can’t lose Martin to get Bosh, because you won’t compete.
And I really don’t think that after Carter the Raps trade Bosh and blow up the team.
by Ziller on Dec 23, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm strange in believing this
But I think the idea of Salmons as a long term keeper is an unwise idea, and I think that’s putting it kindly.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And what caliber of player
would that bring back?
What can you get for for our No. 1 next year (lottery?), Houston’s No. 1, Spencer or JT and Greene. Face it, the real value is in the lottery pick. The rest is a crapshoot, unless you find someone as enamored with Spencer as some here are.
So you are asking a team to trade a superstar for a draft pick that MAY become a superstar and some young talent. I don’t think you are going to get a lot of takers.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Toronto is a mess - going nowhere
but how ready are they to cash in Bosh??
He’d have to demand it I think.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he should
and no way the Raptors willingly let him go. Their plan for the next 2 years is to do everything in their power to be able to resign him in ’10. They are not doing that great of a job right now but they are not htting the panic button anytime soon
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 23, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure about that
everyone in Toronto is mulling over that big red button right now.
A Bosh demand seals it.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For Sake of Argument
Let’s say you keep Salmons from that list and the trade still works.
So you end up with a lineup of:
PG-Beno
SG-Kobe
SF-Salmons
C-Miller
PF-Moore
plus you have a lot of roster spots to fill.
Is that team 7-22 at this point?
It’s not a strong contender, but maybe it is on the right track and you start adding pieces to puzzle.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 4:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
What you end up with is a superstar with some other pieces that are left over (Miller, Moore, Beno, etc.), some of who are expiring. If you do it after the season, you have a superstar and a lottery pick and eventually some cash to go after superstar No. 2 in 2010.
I just used Kobe because I couldn’t get a Dwight Howard trade to pass the trade machine.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And again
You can work other trades where you get more bodies coming back.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to spell that out
Kings get Kobe Bryant.
Lakers get Kevin Martin, John Salmons, Francisco Garcia, Spencer Hawes, Jason Thompson, Donte Greene, Bobby Brown and Quincy Douby.
Just to be clear, Douby was a throw-in to make the Trade Machine work.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 10:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
There is no way that trade would happen
Even if the Kings & Lakers decided on doing it tomorrow.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If I understand the point of this exercise...
It is to demonstrate that having an elite player is a requirement for winning championships in the NBA. The question is what do with this revelation? How do you get one of these players on your team? There seem to be some obvious options:
The Draft
Some simple math, there’s 3 All NBA teams the initial author gives points for, which obviously means 15 players are in the league accumulating points. There is some room for another player or two getting points in his system, but at any given time 15-20 players count for the author’s purposes. In addition, the author is suggesting you really need the cream of the crop, even of this elite group. Given these constraints, figure 10 or so of these players are in the league any given time. Then assume these stars play at least 10 years in the league, and you come to the conclusion about 1 superstar comes into the league each year. Some years more, some less, but for argument’s sake 1 per year.
Given this, we know of course that drafting is an inexact science. Any given year’s superstar(s) won’t neccessarily be the #1 pick, and if we analyzed it, it would be obvious the pick is usually high, but not always #1. Presuming you have a top 5 pick, given the constraints in a normal year, you have less than a 1 in 5 chance to land a superstar through the pick.
Changing the math around a little, if you have a top five pick every year for five year’s straight (you suck terribly for five years in a row), you still have a 32% chance of not drafting a superstar if are average at scouting.
Clearly, aquiring draft picks is valuable, especially high ones, but having them is no guarantee a superstar will follow.
Free Agents
Clear the deck of the crap contracts and sign a star. It may work for New York or other marquee franchises, but for obvious reasons this is a tough sell for Sacramento; possible, but unlikely.
Trades
Surprisingly, superstars get traded. So what do you have to have to acquire one? The usual ingredients are: good young players, draft picks & expiring contracts. We haven’t had a lot of those lately, but I think you can make a case we’re developing them. If Sacramento is going to get a star, this is the most likely avenue.
So are we going in the right direction?
Let’s see…
Accumulating draft picks……check, a top 5 pick or two would be nice
Developing young talent…….Kevin, Hawes, JT, Donte, Bobby Brown, check
Dumping Bad contracts, clearing cap room……..we’re working on it
The Kings are doing what they can do to give us the maximum chance to attract the player coolcat wants, its just going to take patience while we develop the assets.
The only questionable decision GP has made as far as personnel is concerned lately is the Beno contract. If Beno doesn’t get better, that’s going to hurt this team going forward. Its not a huge hit, but it is a negative consequence if Beno doesn’t pan out.
The more you guys work the trade machine, the happier I am GP is our GM.
by ForThree on Dec 23, 2008 1:06 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Interesting stuff 4 3
Which is why I rec’d your comment. But beyond that I have me some questiony thingyz (or two, three, four, etc etc) also.
Why would the kIngs go the route of the Celtics? Not only did they lose several of the years they had Al Jefferson, they also lost badly several of those years, particularly the last year. It was not like that group had come together, or for that matter, had any sign that the future was particularly bright. Paul Pierce also made it clear that he wouldn’t take any more of the losing, and as Bill Simmons has noted, Wyc Grousbeck’s favorite Celtic player (at least before the KG trade) was Pierce. It’s why he had a Pierce jersey hanging in his office. But, with all that said, why would the Kings go the Celtics route? It’s not like the Kings are likely to get the top overall pick; unless they get lucky, and even then, there isn’t a player the Kings badly need (like a Derrick Rose), and even worse, they aren’t tanking the season. As I’ve said multiple times, this is a mediocre team having a rotten season. And even then, despite all that, the Wolves, and Thunder, with less injuries, particularly to the top of the rotation, are in even worse shape. That might say something about where the Kings ultimately are at as a franchise, considering how dysfunctional management/ownership has been the last several years.
A 2nd question is: Do the Kings have a future pairing of players that can compete for something greater than just a playoff spot? (Obviously that’s the first step.) Perhaps they do. Perhaps they don’t. I hardly think less than 2 months is time to judge this group, especially when so much of this team lacks a perimeter offense, and much of that stems from Kevin Martin and John Salmons. (I think the team made a poor choice in Beno Udrih for the future @ PG for this team. I still do. That’s not to say I think Beno’s season last year was a fluke, because I don’t think it is. I just don’t think he fits in too well with this team without Martin, and even then, it’s a tight fit that doesn’t have this high upside we can all hope for. It’s just not going to work. But Beno is still movable if he isn’t beaten down in the interim.) So my question is: What kind of player do the Kings need to have to compete for a playoff spot in 2010 from the 2009 NBA draft? There are all kinds of opinions on this; but mine is, you take the best available non redundant player available (if that makes any sense).
Last Question: Who in the 2009 draft makes you think is irreplacable to this team for the next 4 years & beyond?
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thabeeeeet!
You have a chance at a potential monster in the middle – you take it.
1) He’ll be as good as Oden at D, better shot blocker,
2) he has more offensive potential (Oden hasn’t shown much)
3) He’s 7’ 3" and lkely to put on some more pds. If you can shut down the middle on other teams you’ve limited thier options.
4) That gives you 3 young bigs, some other team is sure to covet one or more of them in thier rebuilding process. Trade value to spare
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I must of not been very clear
I don’t think the model the Kings should follow is the Celtics, or if they were to do that its years away. The Kings have two choices:
1) Get lucky and draft a superstar – you get draft choices to roll the dice as many times as possible, and you count a little that Petrie plays with loaded dice more often than not. I don’t advocate tanking. Of course this is a viable method of finding a start, but it isn’t a reliable one.
This is “a” plan, but it can’t be the “only” plan, because it is unreliable and let’s management off the hook for performance while you wait.
2) The Pistons model. This is what we have to do. You keeping developing players and hope they gel into more than the sum of their parts. For the sake of argument…
Hawes and JT turn into a top 10 frontline
Kevin gets 28ppg and becomes a cold blooded killer
somehow you find a guy to run the show, make shots, not have an ego and defend.
You have picks, expiring contracts, then you add another 20ppg guy that makes shots in the 4th quarter via trade and that team is pretty good.
For your 2nd question…its way too early to tell. Probably the answer is no, without some good fortune. Even if you optomistically project our current roster forward, its short special players.
For the 2009 draft, I’m not qualified to know, I don’t follow college basketball closely enough. I do know its not always who you think. That’s why you get picks and count on Petrie.
My main point is this…you need to take this historical information and apply it to what we do today. In my opinion, GP is maximising his chances of getting a star with the moves he’s made recently. It takes time and luck, enjoy the ride, but I like where we are going.
The more you guys work the trade machine, the happier I am GP is our GM.
by ForThree on Dec 23, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No you were clear
I was just asking those questions cuz I wanted your opinion.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now to my actual response
It’s not that Shawes & JT will be a top 10 frontline. I think Shawes, JT, and Extra E got that chance to be a top 5 NBA front line, similar to the way Vlade/Webb/Peja were. But, then again, I’m being optimistic. But, even with that said, there are some special things about each player. Shawes ability to play inside/outside, and to block some shots, JT’s energy, hands and athleticism/mobility/size, and Donte’s ability to move around the court and play inside/outside at one point. I think the tandem of skills and abilities is there, as long as the backcourt can bring it. I think the Kings got one piece in that: Martin, and who is the other piece? (Mike Conley baby!) But, in all essence, I think it’s time I make a piece and put all these things together. It’s really clear to me, though, that this team is struggling because of internal strife and veterans to take the pressure off the young players.
I see all star caliber players in all of Shawes, JT and Greene. Do I think that’s being optimistic? Yes, but I also think this team’s poor performance has more or less to do with this team being in poor transistion, and Brad Miller not being the player the Kings had hoped he would be for a transistion such as the Kings are undergoing. It’s really shot to hell everything this team was put together as, and when you throw in Garcia and Martin’s injuries, who also happen to be the best 2 perimeter threats the Kings have, it pretty much all got shot to hell. We are still waiting a healthy roster, and I believe, even though Theus is gone, Natt will hammer the aggressive tact more as this team gets healthier. (And, for the last time, I think Martin’s ankle injury was far more way serious than a sprain.)
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
On KM, Clearly the MRI's are missing something
a bone spur, a tear, something
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was all for keeping Miller and some other vets
I think I’ve changed my mind – we should stock up on young players starting, well, soon. We want players with potential, not just young for being young. Another 1st rounder would be nice too – but only if you intend to make a trade at the deadline or on draft day.
A trade seems inevitable soon. If you were GP, how far would you go to shake things up?
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not necessarily about the superstars
but also about the pieces fitting together. Don’t forget the ‘04 Lakers: four future hall of famers there and still got beat by the balanced Pistons. Look at that from both sides, the Pistons won because they embodied the word ’team’ but also, the Lakers lost because they couldn’t get it together and Shaq and Kobe were in the middle of their alpha male fight. We could have all the superstars we could get but that never guarantees a championship. I actually think last year’s Celts got lucky because they got superstars that complemented each other really well and one of them is a crazy maniac that will always hold every player responsible for their mistakes. It was a big gamble by Ainge and it worked. Imagine if one of the bg 3 would have gone down with an injury, no way they win it all. It’s not only about having superstars. its also making sure they fit and there’s also some luck involved in terms of injuries, the coach, and the role players. Having a star gives a chance to win it all but doesn’t automatically give you those rings.
As For Three mentioned, the best way may be to go the Pistons way. That formula actually fits what GP probably sees as the future of the Kings, that’s how the Vlade and C-Webb team was constructed. You could argue that C-Webb was the star but the other players were as important during different parts of the run. I agree with Pookie about developing the players and remaining optimistic that between Hawes, JT, and Greene we have at least one more star to pair up with Speed. Now we just need to be patient and trust that GP will be able to complete the puzzle.
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 23, 2008 2:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that
and asked that question recently.
The "superstar’ model or the Pistons model?
I’m all in favor of the Pistons model – but you need a LOT of complimentary pieces. The lack of wins with just one player out now shows that we are not close to the skill depth necessary for the pistons model. The low post being the most glaring deficiency IMO. Lack of perimeter scoring threats (KM solves this?) is also a real problem. And Team D, don’t forget, that model requires excellent team D.
Most shouted down my Pistons model proposal by the way.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
But the Pistons weren’t really a championship contender right away. It took them 3 years before they actually got there. And they were making the Eastern Conference finals even then. So, in a sense, this team needs to become a playoff team before they even worry about becoming a championship level squad.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
but we’re not even winning games – and with just one guy out,
our best guy, but still….
Just one more significant piece in the line-up however can change the whole dynamic. I think that piece is a low-post threat (and some perimeter scoring which KM will do and Donte’ will grow to provide).
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's where we disagree
That’s exactly where we disagree.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Team categories
• Lottery contenders
• Sub-.500
• Playoffs
• Top Contenders
• Champs
No doubt with Martin, we SHOULD be a better team than we are now. That alone could take us from the lottery group to the sub-playoff group. But we need an upgrade from there to make the playoffs and a stiff upgrade to have any shot at a ring. And then it will take a lot of luck.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 23, 2008 3:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree with that
Shocked as I am by it.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How is that different
from my ‘just one more significant piece to change the whole dynamic’?
and still you claim that you don’t go out of your way just to take the contrary position….
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because he didn't specify exactly what this team is missing
The reason I disagree with it, and read closely, and use your lips to understand this if you can’t quite get it the first time, is that until this team is fully healthy, it’s a bit hard to figure out EXACTLY what this team does need as far as a personnel upgrade. Or at least that’s where I stand.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see
so you disagree with my ‘one more significant piece’
but agree with coolcats
‘an upgrade from there’
right …. I get it now! – thats where you stand
whatch what you’re stepping in – or steeped in.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
excuse me ' a stiff upgrade to have any shot'
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Dec 23, 2008 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks once again for taking the time to misread everything I wrote
And mis interpret it while your’e at it. If you weren’t such a lazy butthead, i might be offended. But, you’re a lazy butthead, and as such, that isn’t offensive.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: His top 5: Tim Duncan, Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Very interesting, but just out of curiosity, where the hell is Wilt freakin’ Chamberlain on this guy’s list?!
Seriously, and not to highjack, but what kind of list of the top all-time players in NBA history leaves off (arguably, but only barely so) the greatest, most dominant player to ever step on the court?
I won’t go into his prodigious and legendary achievements that pretty much dwarf those of any other player, but suffice to mention that:
Wilt Chamberlain was named MVP four times. (And believe it or not, that doesn’t even include the season he averaged over 50 points a game!) He was MVP runner-up three more times.
Chamberlain didn’t just make 1st team NBA All-Star as a rookie, he was the MVP of the league as a rookie. He was an NBA All-Star 13 times.
etc. etc.
Just wonderin’…
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Dec 23, 2008 6:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wilt was in the top 10 like (I thought he was 5th?)
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Take that back
Wilt was 5th on the list.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ARgh I meant 6th
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 23, 2008 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boston is not the model
we or most any team should be following. NBA GM’s are no different than Hollywood movie producers. Based on the success of Twilight, (which I haven’t seen) movie studios are rushing to produce “chic flics” most of which will flop. After the Celtics 07-08 success, GM’s around the association are drooling over the possibility of putting together a team of “three amigos” who will take their teams to the promised land. Just because it worked once ala “Twilight” doesn’t mean it will work again. It also relieves the GM of the hard work of putting together a winning team and not just a winning team but one which will go deep into the playoffs, compete for a championship.
It’s a historical fact that to win it all you need a player who has been named a first round all NBA 1st team within the last four years or named to all NBA 1st team defender. That’s a fact. However, KG was a superstar during his whole tenure in Minnesota but they never did anything of note.
As eduardo and others have noted “IT TAKES A TEAM”. I think Kevin is an elite player who is probably the third best player on a championship team. Nevertheless he is one piece of the puzzle. I agree with pook that 2 months (ESPECIALLY WITH THE INJURIES WE’VE HAD) is way to short of a time to evaluate what we have with é, Shock and Hawes but like pook and many here I am optimistic that in fact we may have something special in these three young players.
If nothing happens with our vets at the end of the 09-10 seasons we will be free of brad, K9 (woof), bjax, MMoore, QD and Sheldon (this season) and possibly John Salmons. Now I don’t think this will happen but my point is this. The players we mostly want to see go are going to be gone in the worst case pretty soon and in the best case very soon. I don’t believe the Kings are tanking but it doesn’t matter because the way this team is playing the results are the same.
We should be in a pretty good position to get a top 3 lottery pick, the best we’ve had in years. Will we get it? Maybe burt regardless we have our best chance in years to draft a player who has a chance to be a superstar.
Putting together a championship team is a hard thing to do (understatement of the year) and it’s done player by player and as the team gets better it’s going to be easier to trade for a super elite player if they think they can come in and compete for a win. As CCRDC stated above we are almost certainly going to see one or some of the players we love traded.
At the beginning of the season we were all pretty cool with the concept of rebuilding. Now, not so much. Rebuilding is hard, it’s ugly, it’s not much fun, it makes you question your allegiance to the team, it makes you want to throw up and tear your hair out but……….it’s necessary.
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
by Bluejohn on Dec 23, 2008 6:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
another example of the "Boston Model" is the '06 Miami Heat
They gambled it all, got a thought-to-be-washed up Shaq, a respected but has been HOF Coach (Riley), a rising superstar (gold medal certified edition) DWayne Wade and they met a (sorry to say, 2001 Sacramento Kings like) Dallas Maverick talent laden team that was chilling champagne before they slipped and fell up while up 2-0 in the NBA Finals. Never should have happened. Never. Ever. The next year – a fast ride down which continued until this years’ inspiring 15-12 as of tonight. They lost a ton but still have a championship banner in the rafters. Would I give up three or four seasons of dirt to grab gold? Heck yes.
by betweentheeyes on Dec 23, 2008 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen.
It takes a team. I heard on ESPN ( so I don’t know if it’s true..but they said no Celtics player is in any one top 20 in stats. It’s a team thing.
by avishai on Dec 23, 2008 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly . . . but the point is still valid.
A quick check shows the following:
KG is 17th in Boards, and 18th in FG.
Rondo is 8th in Assists, 3rd in Steals, and 13th in FG.
Perkins is 9th in Blocks and 4th in FG%.
I did not see Pierce/Allen in the Top 20 of any major category as of today, but they are both averaging over 18 points per game.
by smgmatt on Dec 24, 2008 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a lot of categories
And we both know how greatly important it is to have shooters vs scorers on a roster. There are guys who can jack up shots in this league, and there are guys who do it efficiently, and there are guys who have difficulty even creating their own shot. So, in a sense, what the actual “stats” say about the Celtics is irrelevent because their team is not solely about numbers. But when you’ve only lost 2 games, there is a very good chance some of your players (predictably your best players) are going to get quality #’s across the board.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Recent MVP Voting: The Current Superstars
For the hell of it, I tracked down the top 10 of the last three seasons of MVP voting and awarded 10 points for the winner, 9 points for second, etc.
20 players got votes. I then listed the top 7 as GOLD, the second seven as SILVER and the last six as BRONZE in similar fashion to what Robert McChesney did.
Here are the results:
GOLD
Kobe Bryant 25
LeBron James 22
Steve Nash 21
Dirk Nowitzki 18
Tim Duncan 14
Kevin Garnett 10
Chris Paul 9
SILVER
Tracy McGrady 8
Dwight Howard 6
Chauncey Billups 6
Amare Stoudamire 5
Dwayne Wade 5
Chris Bosh 4
Elton Brand 4
BRONZE
Gilbert Arenas 3
Carlos Boozer 2
Tony Parker 2
Manu Ginobili 1
Alan Iverson 1
Shawn Marion 1
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 7:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Possible MVP nominees for this year
Based on the fact that MVPs come from teams that win 50 games, here’s some names from teams that are playing at that clip:
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
LeBron James
Joe Johnson
Dwight Howard
Chris Paul
David West
Yao Ming
Tracy McGrady
Tim Duncan
Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups
Carmelo Anthony
Brandon Roy
Kobe Bryant
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 8:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Although
It’s kind of looking like LeBron’s year.
Some of these guys also like Kenny Natt’s chances of hanging with the team beyond this season.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One more
This guy’s Top 10 has a surprise at the bottom of the list.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're surprised by Devin Harris being there?
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A little bit
Not that he doesn’t deserve some serious kudos. That’s why I was hoping the Kings would get him last year. That’s the kind of point guard we need; fast, athletic, can get to the hole, etc.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
CC I get why you like HarrisI
I’m just not sure the KIngs ever had a chance of getting him.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact
I know they didn’t.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Face it, you’re guessing. But since Petrie is more or less asleep at the switch 99% of the time, you have a very good chance of being right.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
That statement, and as much as I am willing to believe Petrie needs to be criticized, doesn’t make sense. You can’t acquire a player if the other team wasn’t interested in any of your players. You’re telling me the Mavericks were interested in Bibby? Is that what you’re saying? Like usual, you’re up to your nonsense.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am telling you
All trade speculation is just that, speculation. We had Josh Howard coming here at one point, didn’t we? Whether the Mavericks were ever interested in Bibby, Artest, Miller, Salmons or any other of our players, I don’t have a clue. And either do you, although it’s fun to speculate. Call it what you will.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay that's fine
I agree up to a point that it’s speculation. That’s why I don’t label it as such when I post trade proposal’s. I call them idea’s, because that’s exactly what they are. The KIngs could have talked to Dallas sure; that’s part of the game. But any serious talks? Please, cmon, don’t insult my intelligence. I still feel the team was lucky that Atlanta was desperate to go after a guy like Bibby. (It’s also worked out that Bibby has played well in Atlanta too. That means when Geoff isn’t raping teams, perhaps more teams will want to deal with him in the future. I don’t really think that’s it perse, but some teams have gotten screwed in the past—like Memphis—and that could make them gunshy to do other deals in the future.)
CC, you are snorting/smoking/cahorting a lot of shit if you think the Kings ever could have gotten into the Devin Harris sweepstakes. And, btw, there’s a difference between what I know & what I can prove.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Kings can get into almost any sweepstakes
if they are willing to put together the right package. There are many ways to play The Price is Right.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah sure
I know that. For Devin Harris? The price would have been wrong.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who would you rather have?
Devin Harris or Kevin Martin?
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Martin
Because it cost the Kings the 26th pick to get him. Harris was the 5th pick in 2004 remember?
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Irrelevant
Who’s the better player right now?
If the trade worked, would you straight Martin for Devin Harris straight up?
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A better question
Who would you rather have for the next five years?
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Martin
But, again, you like playing Devil’s advocate, and I think it’s an exercise in futility. It’s easy to say today whom I’d rather have, but the truth is, I’d rather have Martin. Harris has a system catering to his abilities, which are pretty special as is, and not only that, Martin is the type of player who can play on many kinds of teams. He’s an unusual player similar to Harris, but the difference is, Harris generating All-Star buzz, and Kevin’s been hurt. But it’s not like Devin Harris has never had an injury either.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And no
I didn’t remember that Harris was a No. 5.
Score one for Pookey.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They were all in the same draft
Harris, Martin, Jefferson, Howard, Smith. Other than Dwight Howard, I think Devin Harris and Kevin Martin are the 2 prizes left. And the Kings already have one. I don’t think the Kings should be frustrated that Devin Harris is having a quality season. Be happy for Nets fans (the 5 left on Earth). And leave it at that.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some other 2004 draft babies
Gordon (No. 3), Deng (No. 7), Iguodala (no. 9) and Josh Smith (No. 17).
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 25, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn good draft
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 25, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and one of the points I was trying to make
It’s not like Harris is just opening up eyes out on the West Coast. He’s got a lot of people on notice, and erivera7—a new frontpage poster there— of 3QC listed him as the East’s starter in the All-Star game. If that ain’t positive juice CC, I don’t know what is. But that doesn’t mean the Kings ever had a shot at Harris.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we'll never know
but why does it matter or not whether Dallas wanted Bibby? There are 11 other guys on our team, and at least half of them if not more have been talked about as trade bait at one time or another. If the answer is because Harris is a point guard and they would need one coming back, that PG could have come from a third team.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It took Jason Kidd
to extracate Harris from the Mavs. We had nothing to match that.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 24, 2008 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
It took Devin Harris and more to extricate Jason Kidd from the Nets. Dallas was the one that was drooling to do the deal.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Same thing
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 24, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think CC is missing the point
In order to make his. Which is unfortunate, because he’s nowhere near that stupid.
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 24, 2008 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact
We had a couple of interesting conversations here about Mr. Harris earier this year.
"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 24, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Martin will never become a superstar, no matter our hopes. If he become a stable Michael Redd kind of player with no injuries, I’ll be very happy.
by ZenBaller on Dec 27, 2008 3:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That is still a high quality player
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
by pookeyguru on Dec 27, 2008 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
