Fire Petrie?
(From the FanPosts. Personally, I think firing Petrie would be A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. But lest this site become an echo chamber, let's hear dmj out. -- TZ)
I know all of you will think I'm overreacting with this post, and maybe I am. But I'm starting to think that we should at least consider this possibility after last night's events.
It is not that I'm especially angry over any particular player we acquired last night, though the Patrick Ewing Jr. pick was phenomenally terrible. What really bothers me, and what I believe is bothering a lot of other Kings fans, is Petrie's style of running the franchise--and I think this draft was a perfect example of it.
Simply put, Petrie let's things happen to him; he is too passive. He will never chase after a player, never try to acquire more picks, and will never trade down. Maybe there is something positive about that strategy, but I can't see it, especially not when your team is rebuilding.
The thing that really bothers me is that so many other teams around us in the lottery realize that you have to be active to rebuild and acted accordingly. The Blazers traded up to get Bayless and got the 27th pick, the Pacers traded to get the 17th pick and TJ Ford, the Nets picked up Yi, the Bobcats traded for the 20th pick, and the Bucks traded for Richard Jefferson. All these teams made moves to improve themselves, while the Kings just sat back and did nothing.
And Petrie have been doing nothing for the last couple of years, too. He has made one trade during that time, which amounted to Mike Bibby for cap room, and one free agent signing, which was the pointless and wasteful signing of Mikki Moore for the MLE. None of these moves have improved our team, and you could make the argument that Mikki Moore's signing actually hurt us by tying up cap room and playing time for younger players.
In fact, the last time I can remember Petrie making a good decision was in 2004, when he drafted Kevin. Of course, Kevin does demonstrate Petrie's undisputed strength: he can draft really well without high lottery picks. Maybe that is enough to warrant keeping him, especially when you consider how many god-awful GMs there are in the league today (see Kevin McHale).
But something has to change. The Kings have been dead in the water for 2 years now, and in all likelihood we will be no better off next year. How we should change I don't exactly know, but I feel confident that drafting with low lottery picks year after year is not going to reverse our team's fortunes, not by a longshot. Hopefully Petrie realizes this and becomes more aggressive in running this team.
(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)
0 recs |
90
comments
Comments
Personally...
I think we should jump to conclusions just yet. Lets ride it out and see where this goes. I think by using the 12th pick for a guy that sometimes wasn’t even drafted in the first round, Petrie went out on a limb with the pick and took a huge gamble in selecting someone no one’s even heard of before. I’m not really angry about the 12th selection, though.
What frustrated me are his 2nd rounders and Petrie’s signature draft idleness. Players were being sold off left and right for cash, San Antonio basically advertised that they wanted to trade off their pick, among so many other things. After not doing anything in the draft, he selects Singletary…another guy no one wanted, when there were plenty of bigger prospects, then he blew off our pick in picking Ewing Jr? Ewing Jr being a forward who averaged like 6 points and 4 rebounds per game throughout his whole college career, showing absolutely no improvement.
From what I hear, Jamont Gordon’s still available as a free agent, though. He was a guy who expected to go in the early to mid 2nd round, who didn’t get drafted. I do hope the Kings bring him to summer camp.
Anyway, I think Petrie put himself on a thin line and I personally think his job rides on if Thompson is a bust or not. If Thompson doesn’t show any real potential in the NBA and if we get stuck in the same mess we did last season and the season before that, sign me up to be the first one on the fire Petrie bandwagon.
by CloudyEyes on Jun 28, 2008 1:52 AM PDT 0 recs
just untrue
“Singletary…another guy no one wanted”
Wrong
by Kusian on
Jun 28, 2008 8:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I have no problem with Singletary myself
The Kings needed to attempt to address a backup PG because presumably they will address a starting PG hole with Free Agency or a trade this summer. What’s better than using a 2nd round pick?
I’m interested myself to see how well Singletary does in summer league. Maybe I’m alone, but I doubt 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
Jun 28, 2008 12:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Alright, I'll correct myself
Singletary was a guy almost no one wanted. I’m going by every mock draft I looked at having him in the late 2nd or not even in the draft and only Ball in Cup picking him for our second pick in the draft contest. Yeah, people can look back on it, rationalize it and say they suddenly like that pick because he’s a King now, but I’m going by pre-draft information.
by CloudyEyes on
Jun 28, 2008 1:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks for the name drop...
I like the pick. It’s already gotten me a t-shirt. Hopefully it will net the Kings a decent backup someday too.
by Ball in Cup on
Jun 28, 2008 5:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Remember
Mock Drafts aren’t “talent” lists . . . they’re projections as to which player each team will choose. Once the first player that doesn’t match a given Mock is taken, the rest of that mock is questionable at best, because there was thought put into who was available at each pick. There could still be some overlap, but just because someone is high on a mock doesn’t mean that they’re better than someone lower on that mock.
You name-dropped Jamont Gordon (whom I know nothing about) . . . but apparently half-to-all of the league didn’t think he was worth taking a flier on with a 2nd Round pick, so maybe he’s not as good/valuable/high-potential as mock creators thought.
Also remember that even the “talent” lists aren’t always right. GP has shown that he’s a better evaluator of talent than most of the other GM’s in the league . . . I think I’d at least listen to his reasoning if he disagreed with DraftExpress (as an example, I’m not throwing them under the bus – I like their site, actually) or Chad Ford.
FULL DISCLOSURE: The lack of action bothered me as well, but two years of rags after so many years of riches has not soured me on GP yet.
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 12:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I didn't want Singletary
And I posted earlier that the kings didn’t need to draft him as they could just as well invite him to summer league in a couple weeks when he goes undrafted. That may or may not have been true, but it DEFINATELY would have been true with Trixie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Ewing,_Jr. as he will be called from now on. Singletary was the “leader” on a team that went 5-11 in conference. Are you allowed to be called a leader when you don’t lead your team anywhere? I think that just makes you the best player on a bad team. And Trixie was sixth man of the year, which worked for Thunder Dan Marleje because he got the award for his work in THE NBA, not the Big East.
by Travis Mays Hayes on
Jun 30, 2008 3:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
For the Record
Draft Express had him being selected 14th in their final mock, Chad Ford had him in the late 20’s at times through his mock drafts, and NBA Draft.net had him 22nd if I remember correctly on their final mock draft. Frankly, there were people who had heard of Jason Thompson. They just weren’t the casual fan.
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
Jun 28, 2008 12:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The problem isn’t with Jason Thompson as a player; the problem is that Petrie didn’t move up to get Bayless or Augustin and didn’t move down to select Thompson and gain a player/pick. Now maybe he didn’t have the pieces to move up and maybe someone else was trying to get Thompson as well, but it seems more likely that Petrie just didn’t want to do anything, just like he has done in every other draft.
by dmj on Jun 28, 2008 2:12 AM PDT 0 recs
Well...
If you believe the reports, Golden State was going to pick Thompson at #14, which meant that the only team that GP could have traded down with was Portland at #13 (who also made a stronger offer for Bayless at #11). What else could he have done?
The only scenario I can come up with is GP drafting Rush at #12, and trading him to Portland for the #13 and something (Another 2nd Rounder? That would have been worth it if we could have gotten that Dorsey pick, I suppose) or hoping Indy takes a Rush, Sheldon, Douby package for Bayless & Diagu (if he even knew what was available to Portland) . . . but that all seems pretty far-fetched, no?
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 12:39 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Who's to say
he didn’t try? Nobody really knows that he might have offered things to teams and we just don’t really have a lot of assets.
Who other than Kmart would you possibly want from the Kings?
I do not envy his job what so ever right now. Maybe he will surprise us all with his grand 2010 plans. Maybe he won’t who knows anymore.
by kingsTV on Jun 28, 2008 2:34 AM PDT 0 recs
Can we at least say
that is 2010 comes and goes without the kings getting significantly better personel wise, we should fire petrie?
by Travis Mays Hayes on
Jun 30, 2008 3:13 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I already said
that he might have tried. But his career as a whole would seem to indicate that he almost never moves his draft pick.
As for our options, we have Salmons, Garcia, and Hawes, who all have some degree of trade value, we had 2 second rounders, and we could also have used a future pick from next year’s draft, which is looking weak.
All in all, I think we could have offered something similar in terms of quality to Portland’s offer of Jack and McRoberts. Sure Indiana might not have been interested, but my point wasn’t really limited to this year’s draft, either. My point was that Petrie never moves up or down in the draft.
by dmj on Jun 28, 2008 2:48 AM PDT 0 recs
No offense but please reply to individual's comments
It’s making it hard to figure out who you are responding to.
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
Jun 28, 2008 12:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hmm
I don’t think that not moving up or down in the draft is an offense worth firing Petrie over, considering that he has consistenly gotten value from the picks that he has kept.
by furious.d on Jun 28, 2008 3:24 AM PDT 0 recs
It's obvious
that we need a point guard, but why is everyone so sure that Petrie didn’t do exactly what he wanted to do? Maybe he found the player he wanted in Thompson, and was confidant he could get him with the 12th pick. Plus, if we had traded down, it’s very likely the Warriors would have taken JT at 14.
by babasin on Jun 28, 2008 6:09 AM PDT 0 recs
Wake Up Petrie Not Problem
Bayless and Augustine will be average at best. Arizona sucked and Augustine disappeared during big games. What is the difference between Augustine and Singletary? Not much, similar numbers. Only difference is one dude is 2 years younger.
Those who criticize Petrie need to wake up. He is taking a chance here. Last time he took a chance like this, Rock was traded to DC for a Stoner who could dunk. Stoner turned out to be a baller. That worked out OK.
by monkeyklawz on Jun 28, 2008 6:45 AM PDT 0 recs
Petrie
Was one of them rare donations. We gave up an aging and disgruntled player for one that was younger and one that needed a change of scenery. The Kings have made several excellent trades under Petrie such as the Peja for Artest, Corliss of DC, J-Will for Bibby and DC for Mobley.
Yes, I think we’re all a bit frustrated that acquiring Jerryd Bayless only required Brandon Rush and some fillers and that if we really wanted Jason, we probably could’ve traded for a later pick to about #20.
Anyways, I want to see what our PG situation is going to be. I’m not interested in bringing back Beno because I don’t think he can be the starting PG for a championship contender. I think if we’re going to get the PG this team needs, its got to be through trading.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on
Jun 28, 2008 7:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Just to be clear
I’m not advocating firing Petrie at this moment. I just am wondering if, given the concerns I raised in my first post, we shouldn’t at least start considering this possibility.
by dmj on Jun 28, 2008 7:23 AM PDT 0 recs
Considering the state of the franchise
And our position in the Western Conference, the conversation is worthy of being had.
Personally, Petrie wanted JT, so I assume JT will be a good player. I still assume Petrie has a vision for this team that will be fulfilled when he gets some cap room to make some moves.
When that changes…when I don’t feel comfortable in his ability to make a good deal or sign a good free agent, then I will feel that maybe he should be replaced. While the Douby pick gives me a bit of pause, you can’t ignore the rebound with Hawes, so in my mind Douby is still an anomaly.
Kevin Pritchard stole my daughter's lunch money.
by otis29 on
Jun 28, 2008 8:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Maybe he wanted JT but he would have taken Bayless if he was available?
I think that Petrie thinks he drafted a Buck Williams type player in JT but he would have taken either Bayless or Augustin if they were available. My issue with GP is that he really has the Kings in a bind right now. If Beno signs with a division rival like it is rumored, the Kings have no starting point guard. So…now GP is forced to either let Beno walk or give him the entire MLE, screwing himself for the free-agency period two years from now.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on
Jun 28, 2008 10:32 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That isn't Petrie's doing though
How did he know Beno Udrih would become available?
(I’ve criticized GP for alot of things. Not re-signing Beno Udrih is something he had little control over.)
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
Jun 28, 2008 12:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No way
It’s been said in many posts here on StR already, but so much of our reaction to the JT pick and the rest of the draft was the frustration of, for the 2nd year in a row, just barely missing out on a talent that we coveted as fans. Beyond that, we’re upset because Petrie does not conform to the opinions of Chad Ford and Jay Bilas?
"Rapport? You mean like, 'You run as fast as you can, and I'll throw it as far as I can'?"
-Jeff Kemp, 49ers quarterback, when asked about his rapport with wide receiver Jerry Rice
by Exhibit G on Jun 28, 2008 7:35 AM PDT 0 recs
Fire Petrie?
Who you gonna bring in instead? Musselman? Getting rid of Adelman was a maloof thing. If you could fire anybody i’d fire the maloofs instead. Im glad the maloofs have stepped off Petrie and let him do his thing, because i know for sure Thompson is a Petrie decision.
Lakers suck!
by Doubysmoker on Jun 28, 2008 8:05 AM PDT 0 recs
Petrie
Because you are judged by wins and losses, and because we live in a “what have you done for me lately” society, Petrie has certainly moved further away from the “Executive of the Year” line and closer to the firing line. But I still think that he is a long way from the firing line.
I’m going to attach Petrie’s body of work as Kings GM as a reference. If you take the time to review it you will notice that just like the KIngs under his guidance, he has had a lot more wins than losses. Just for grins, let’s put current genius Danny Ainge’s work here. And because he has been on the job as long as Petrie, let’s put Kevin McHale here.
Now, I am an unabashed an unashamed Petrie supporter, so I admit that I am far from objective here. On the other hand, I am reviewing the man’s last 13 years, not his last 13 minutes. And I think it’s laughable to suggest that the game has passed him by, so shouldn’t he be judged on his full body of work?
Furthermore, I sense that the frustration amongst Kings fans as it pertains to Petrie is that is too methodical, almost plodding in nature. But I would suggest that if you looked at all of the GM’s you would notice that he is on par or a little ahead of the curve when it comes to overall activity, which is saying something since contending teams usually tweak their rosters a lot less than non-contenders (see last year’s Miami Heat), and the Kings have been contenders for most of Petrie’s tenure.
The popular thing around here lately has been comparing Petrie to Kevin Pritchard. It’s probably not a fair comparison, as Pritchard’s owner has deeper pockets (and that doesn’t mean that I think that the Maloof’s should be buying draft picks but I need to try to stay on point here). It would be just as unfair to point out that Pritchard has never been to the playoffs, much less the western conference finals, since Pritchard has only one full season under his belt. No doubt, over the past year plus, Pritchard has been more active, and he managed to get rid of Zach Randolph when he still had a little perceived value left, which I think was his single biggest stroke of genius (having Isiah Thomas as a trade partner never hurts, either). He did have to take Steve Francis in trade, but Francis will be off the books after this season. It’s also nice as a GM to have the #1 pick in the draft in your 1st season, and to take over a team that has missed the playoffs for several seasons, enabling the team to stockpile lottery talent prior to your arrival.
To be clear, I’m not trying to bash Pritchard here, as he has done a marvelous job in a short period. But if it’s hard to build a winner in the NBA it has to be even more difficult to de-construct one. That is what Petrie is in the middle of right now and it is what Kevin Pritchard has yet to face. Yes, the contracts of Miller, Abdur-Rahim and Thomas are all of Petrie’s doing (Thomas via the Webber trade). But they all served their purpose at the time. Miller was going to play side by side with Webber for several years, the heir apparent to Vlade. How effective would Vlade have been without Webber? Webber’s injury forced Miller to go from being Robin to being Batman, and Brad Miller is not Batman. Abdur-Rahim was the power forward that we needed to fill the PF spot due to Webber’s injury, and lest we forget we were still a consecutive run playoff team at that time. Perhaps Petrie should have paid more attention to the talk of Abdur-Rahim’s balky knees, but we needed him and $6 million per sounded reasonable at the time. Kenny Thomas? I would have never thought that he would have devalued himself to the point where he was impossible to trade. I thought wrong.
So we are in our current situation because Geoff Petrie was doing what you hope he will do for us again – Make us a contender and keep us a contender. Petrie has been adding pieces the last few years, prudently using late 1st round picks on Martin and Garcia (and perhaps still the longshot Douby), and now he has added late lottery picks Hawes and Thompson. I think (and hope) that it is a pretty good foundation going forward, one that will allow us to add key free agents and give us some trade flexibilty once we have cleared our obese contracts.
One last thing. If you’re going to fire Petrie you better be ready to hire someone. I hear that Isiah Thomas and Billy King are available. My point is you don’t always realize what you have until it’s gone. It’s easy to say that Petrie should go, but who then do you bring in to improve the situation? You can change the GM but your current situation remains the same. I’ll stick with Petrie.
Wow…long freakin’ thread comment. Sorry about that. Let me condense it for those of you that read the last chapter of books first -
I respectfully disagree.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 28, 2008 8:24 AM PDT 9 recs
Well put.
Those in the fire Petrie camp (or close to it) remind me of those in the fire Adelman camp – name an available GM you would rather have, make a case for him, and then I’ll listen.
There’s something to be said for having realistic expectations, understanding you don’t get the full story as fans (ie: who knows how active Petrie really was or wanted to be), and not switching sides after every minor decision. And yes, 2nd round picks are VERY minor decisions.
by cabz on
Jun 28, 2008 9:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
excellent post
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on
Jun 28, 2008 9:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Great Post
GP is much more Billy Beane than Brian Sabean, for anyone who gets/cares about that analogy.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Fire Sabes! (I could name at least half-a-dozen available candidates to fire him, so that meets the criteria you mentioned – which is a damn good criteria for firing a decision-maker, btw).
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 12:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Billy Beane is overrated
End of my hating on Billy for today.
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
Jun 29, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The real question is
Was there someone (within our reach) that was worth trading up or down for? While Bayless looks to be a good player, he is far from the true PG this team needs. What would you have been willing to give up to get Bayless? I don’t think Augustine was within our reach, but assuming he was, again how much would you be willing to give up for a PG that many thought would drop to us because of his size? (Again remembering that you have to give up something that other teams want. No saying, “I’d have packaged the 12 with our two seconds.” Nobody takes that.) Would you have mortgaged next year’s number 1? Would you have given up somebody like Garcia that is a known commodity?
As far as trading down, many people feel GS would have taken Thompson with the 14. So you trade down from 12 to 13? What does that get you? I don’t think we’d have been offered anything. And if this was the King’s consensus pick, why take the chance of losing him at 14? What could you have gotten for dropping to 17? 18? that would be worth the risk.
As far as our second round picks, we took a point guard who according to the Bee article today is
“the only player in ACC history to total at least 2,000 points, 500 assists, 400 rebounds and 200 steals. “who just had his jersey retired by his college, and a player who was named the Big East Conference’s Sixth Man of the Year and who Fox Sports’ Mike Kahn calls
“a relentless defender and explosive athlete”
I’m not saying that I’m dancing and singing over these picks either, but considering where we are and where (and when) we need to get, I don’t think this draft is even remotely something that you would consider firing a guy who has historically proven to be one of the best GMs in the game.
It’s easy to get caught up in the media hype, but remember a lot of these are the same pundits who said the A’s wouldn’t compete for five years of BB made his off season trades. I’m interested to see what happens.
"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie
by SavageBeast on Jun 28, 2008 8:28 AM PDT 0 recs
there's another thing about Pritchard vs. Petrie
To this point, Petrie’s been able to approach people as a trading partner with no reputation for ever having fleeced anybody.
Petrie, on the other hand, earned the reputation of always getting the better end of the bargain, and as a result, people are reluctant to deal with him, because they don’t want to become fodder for the pundits. Petrie is a victim of his own success.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on Jun 28, 2008 9:40 AM PDT 0 recs
Well...
he could probably still swing a deal with Philly then.
by cabz on
Jun 28, 2008 10:13 AM PDT
up
0 recs
whoops, meant to say "Pritchard" has no rep for having fleeced anybody...
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on
Jun 28, 2008 10:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
This was just...
...a draft full of career back-ups outside of Rose and Beasley. What is the point in moving up 2 spots to get a different 8th man?
by Red Reign on Jun 28, 2008 9:56 AM PDT 0 recs
More like...
what’s the point of moving up two spots to select the same guy you would have taken at #12. I get the sense that JT was Petrie’s guy all along, and had Bayless dropped to us the reaction would have been even more brutal when we passed on him for JT.
by cabz on
Jun 28, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
up
0 recs
But...
....I don’t think Bayless is the answer for anything. I agree that he would have been the best available, but I just don’t see why a lot of people on here thought he was so great. He is a combo guard who I don’t think projects to be an elite NBA PG.
by Red Reign on
Jun 29, 2008 12:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
True...
I was speaking toward the reaction, but it isn’t a sentiment I agree with (after having a few days to think about JT vs. other options). I was one to say even before the draft that after watching Bayless get eaten up by Westbrook twice this past season, I’m definitely not sold on him (as a player in general, and even less so as a PG).
I may regret saying this, and I hope I don’t, but I would have taken JT over Bayless (in hindsight) as well.
by cabz on
Jun 29, 2008 5:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The long run
Petrie is doing a great job. Rebuilding takes time.. at least 3-5 years. It basically depends on the assets and here lies our problem. Our roster is bad both skill-wise and contract-wise.
- We have one good player (Martin) who ideally should be the 2nd best player on a team.
- We have a bunch of nice marginal starters (Miller, Cisco, Salmons, Moore).
- We have two players with questionable potential but worth keeping (Hawes, Thompson).
- We have two more that shouldn’t even play in the NBA (Douby, Shelden).
- We have Reef and K9 (woof!) who are bad and without expiring contracts (app. 14-15 mil per year wasted till 2010).
- And yes we still have Artest who I don’t even consider him to be a player. No loyalty, totally unpredictable.
I think Petrie’s target is the summer of 2010. Our goal till then should be to make a real star out of Martin, develop Hawes and Thompson, try to fix a good deep roster and manage to have enough cap room to sign a star in a couple of years.
Until then I don’t have any ambitions unless McHale decides to take Reef, K9 and Moore for Al Jeff.
by ZenBaller on Jun 28, 2008 10:15 AM PDT 0 recs
I'm not even close to calling for Petrie's head, but...
you don’t make a very convincing case for Petrie when you start off with a line like:
Our roster is bad both skill-wise and contract-wise.
If Petrie isn’t responsible for that, who is?
by cabz on
Jun 28, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
up
0 recs
2 reasons
My first line was “the long run” and that’s what I’m talking about. The reasons we have bad skills and contracts are 2:
1) We are in a rebuilding mode so it’s totally natural. We had to get rid of our good players because the circle had closed (Bye Bibby, Webber, Peja).
2) Unfortunately the Webber trade didn’t give us many expiring contracts and Reef/K9 proved to be busts for us. I don’t know if we had any other offers or what we could have taken instead of those players if we had waited one more year but that trade condemned the rebuilding plan until 2010. Petrie’s “fault” is that he made us wait some more but if we had no other offers then we can’t really blame him.
We have to accept that NBA teams are operating always in long term. Rebuilding mode takes place in 2 basic phases 1) To get rid of players and receive expiring contracts (accomplished till 2010) and 2) Find some good new players and build your new team (we’ll see that in 2-3 years).
Personally, I would like to see the Kings a bit lower in the standings so we can get better picks but.. so far, so good.
by ZenBaller on
Jun 28, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Well...
I understand that during a rebuilding phase you’re going to have a lack of talent on the roster, and at some point you’re probably going to have some bad contracts as well. To that end though, Petrie did trade Webber for longer contracts – had he held onto Webber and let him expire (or traded him as an expirer) we wouldn’t have one of our worst contracts, K9.
I’m not in the camp that’s calling for Petrie to be fired, but I don’t think it’s fair to excuse every poor move or contract as part of the ‘rebuilding phase’. I don’t expect him to be perfect, but if your going to point out that we lack skill and have some horrible contracts I think you also need to accept that Petrie is responsible (with a sprinkling of Magoof arm-twisting, to be fair).
by cabz on
Jun 28, 2008 1:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yes that’s true. He’s not perfect of course. Letting Webber’s contract expire would probably be better. Overall though he is a very good GM and really I don’t think anyone could expect Reef and K9 playing that bad! As a fantasy nerd, I still remember some crazy months back in Phila where K9 was averaging 15/10.
by ZenBaller on
Jun 28, 2008 3:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Trading for Longer Deals
I too am of the mind that I would rather have seen Webber’s contract expire than have to wait for K9’s to, but don’t forget to look at those deals in the context of the overall picture.
Without trading Webber (and Bibby last year) the Kings are paying the Luxury Tax with a non-contending team. I’m pretty sure that the Maloofs let GP know that this was not an option, and so he took the best offer available in both cases.
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 12:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think looking back at Petrie's moves
Most of them have been pretty good, but by far his worst, and it still haunts him to this day, is his inability to dump Webber for expiring contracts. That trade is still killing us, and will be up until 5-6 years after the trade was made. Basically, we took that 2001 Webber extention and made it kill us for 9 years.
by Travis Mays Hayes on
Jun 30, 2008 3:20 AM PDT
up
0 recs
To be fair
you can’t question the extension. A made free throw here, a knee that doesn’t blow out there and you’re possibly looking at 2-3 championships.
However, think of the Kings having Webber’s expiring contract on the books last year. Would that have netted us KG or Gasol? Maybe. On the other hand, would we have been able to afford to extend Martin? Webber’s contract would have added a net $11 million to last year’s cap (after deducting K9(woof!). Maybe it would have meant just letting Peja go at the end of the season a couple of years ago as opposed to trading for Artest. Who knows?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on
Jun 30, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I believe
It would have meant paying the Luxury tax for a couple of non-playoff years . . . so it’s probably more complicated than “not trading Peja”.
The Martin Extension is a good point, but since it didn’t kick in until this year, I think it would have been ok. Then again, maybe he’s the piece that went with Webber’s Expiring Contract to get us KG/Gasol . . . and then are we any better than Memphis or Minnesota?
by smgmatt on
Jun 30, 2008 9:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I might have expressed that wrong
I wasn’t questioning the Webber extention at all, I agree that he was a bigtime player at the time who needed to be paid if we were going to keep him. I am just questioning the moves that were made at the end of his stay here.
I’m not even sure there were better or other options available, and I know people didn’t like seeing the Kings decline slowly (myself included), but we should have either kept himi or traded him for a contract that ended before his. Getting rid of him and getting longer contracts back for him was a hard decision to understand.
by Travis Mays Hayes on
Jun 30, 2008 8:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
that's the cold reality
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on
Jun 28, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Pritchard...
A nice mover and shaker so far but lets wait for the playoff victories before we anoint him a genius. Portland lucked into the #1 pick last year, neither Roy or Aldridge were Pritchards’ picks so lets wait to see how all of this moving up and down and sideways bullshit works out.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 28, 2008 10:47 AM PDT 0 recs
cold reality?
Uh, who is responsible for contracts and skills…how about maloofs??! They will mow the lawn of webber and drool over artest. They forced Petrie to clean up their messes.
by monkeyklawz on Jun 28, 2008 10:48 AM PDT 0 recs
I have no doubt...
that the Maloofs are responsible for some of this mess, but you’re not going to convince me that Petrie hasn’t been responsible for MOST of the personnel moves.
by cabz on
Jun 28, 2008 10:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, I agree with cabz
You can’t be selective with what is and is not Petrie’s doing (with the possible exception of spending cash for draft picks). And besides, Webber’s signing was at least fair value until he blew out his knee? As flighty as Ron can be, he is (to this point) a helluva lot cheaper than the $64 million that New Orleans is paying Peja. Even E-Muss does not get hired without GP’s eventual nod of approval.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on
Jun 28, 2008 11:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Selective Decisions
I think that you can also be selective in the cases where trades probably happened due to Luxury Tax implications (such as Webber & Bibby – see my post above) . . . so I don’t entirely agree with your premise.
If the Maloofs aren’t willing to spend $3M on a draft pick, it could be reasonably assumed that they also would not pay Luxury Tax for a team that is not contending for a championship.
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 1:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
But
That is part of a GMs job, to do his work within the confines of a budget. There are plenty of successful franchises that want no part of the luxury tax.
Petrie seems ok with this, considering he continues to sign the extensions put before him.
Kevin Pritchard stole my daughter's lunch money.
by otis29 on
Jun 29, 2008 6:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Contending
The Maloofs were willing to pay the Tax when the Kings were Championship contenders, but when Webber’s knee changed all that, the Kings were suddenly “non-championship caliber” with a Luxury Tax roster.
I agree with what you’re saying in general, but I can also see how the “budget” that GP had to work with could suddenly have changed, which meant that he had to do something to get back down into his new allotted budget (which he did).
The Bibby trade might have been more on him (did he just wait too long to get better value?) but the fact that the Maloofs were apparently hot to trot for Artest might have pushed GP in a direction he wasn’t planning on going at the time (maybe he wanted Peja’s cap space instead, I don’t know).
I have less problem leaning Bibby’s trade on GP than I do Webber’s, but I think that remembering the context of both deals shines a more favorable light on both of these non-sexy deals.
For the record I was “happier” with the Bibby trade than the Webber one, but I think that’s because I knew what was trying to be accomplished with that one, whereas I expected a secondary deal after the Philly trade that just never came (thanks for nuthin’ K9).
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 10:29 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The Maloofs are responsible for financing. Petrie is responsible for making deals.
by CloudyEyes on
Jun 28, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
It's when these worlds collide...
...that compromises must be made.
by smgmatt on
Jun 29, 2008 1:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
A couple of things
Some of this whole mess of a roster is in tribute to try winning while re-tooling. That was the Maloof’s decision too. If you want to fire Petrie you might as well dump them also. If you want to talk about bad contracts, they approved them. If you want to talk about how terrible Quincy Douby is fine. You want to start lining up every GM in the league under the microscope over every mistake made? If you want to spend the day criticizing Petrie go ahead. In fact I will add my 2 cents to that end of the conversation.
- Not trading Artest at the deadline regardless of what Denver was offering is a gigantic mistake
- Allowing the Maloof’s to dictate contract negotiations, a quiet Petrie strength, with regards to Bibby and Webber, eventually dictated what amounted to a necessary firesale of both players
- Firing Rick Adelman, and not taking the time to interview candidates in an open field for their taking, with no-one else even looking for a coach!!!, and not making the Maloof’s realize that moving on from Adelman is fine, but not in the way they did so, is a dumb way to hire a coach
- If Petrie can’t tell the Family to go fuck themselves more often than not he will no longer be successful—It is true that GM’s work for the owners, but they need a certain amount of basketball autonomy to do their job, and the Maloofs, despite the lip service they do give on this topic, haven’t really given it in the most important of ways
- Petrie hasn’t failed in the draft, but he hasn’t been at the forerunner of taking a franchise into a turnaround to the approval of fans
Now, some of those fair, and some of that’s just the way it is. Every day I wish I could tell my boss to go fuck himself, but I need my job more than I need to mouth off. Petrie, while financially much better off than I, doesn’t need their crap to do his job well, but he’s also a strong part of this organization when he goes well. If anything his greatest mistakes wasn’t trading Bibby quickly, but then again the market for Bibby maybe wasn’t there. It’s possible there were worse options out there than Atlanta’s which is why he wouldn’t make the deal. Ron Artest is a different story. Of course that was a mistake. Sure Artest is a top tier talent, but he’s a top tier headcase. He’s unpredictable on the court, and isn’t relied upon to do things that consistently help the team excel. He doesn’t make the team better in area’s where they are weaker by attrition. Did Petrie even push to trade Artest despite the lower stakes that Denver offered? Nobody knows, but if he didn’t, that is a mistake. Not trading Artest remains the greatest single personnel mistake he’s made.
Sometimes staying pat is smart. The truth be told is that he wanted Thompson, and he probably felt that the Warriors would take him. If I were the Warriors, and I’m not, I would have wanted him too. The thing is that when you have a player you really want, and you had little options to move up and grab a player higher on the board you sought, then the reality of the situation is that you’re stuck. Every team wouldn’t deal with the guy because he’s a hard case. Does his ego get him in trouble? Absolutely it has. Did it keep him from making a draft day trade? Nope, I doubt it. The thing is that Petrie could have traded a future choice to get a lower 1st round pick like Charlotte did, but was it really worth it for him to do so?
I believe Petrie doesn’t want to put more than 2 rookies on a team any given year. He wants a chance to build a core with a group of young players, but he doesn’t want to put 5 of them on the team at one time. That’s not rebuilding; that’s mostly desperation. Just ask Dick Motta. I say Petrie did a wise thing trying to rebuilding this group a few pieces at a time. So if you’re filling this group with mostly young players what does that leave? If nothing else Kenny Thomas taking up space means some other scrub isn’t doing it. That’s fine with me in the interim. He isn’t taking anybody’s job even if his contract is hurting the team financially.
The bottom line is that Petrie isn’t perfect and has more than a few errors to his credit. I didn’t call the man Don Quixote cuz I thought I was being funny. Sometimes I feel he chases windmills. Sometimes I feel that chase makes sense. These past few years I haven’t felt the justification made sense.
I’m a Kings fan and for better or worse it is what it is. Paul Allen isn’t the owner, but guess what, the Maloof’s aren’t on welfare either. The bottom line is that Petrie has chosen to stay in this job. This job is tough, and there are no easy answers. Should he be fired for not moving up or down in the draft? That’s difficult to stay. Activity is nice, but sometimes moving to move accomplishes nothing and you lose something more important down the road. That’s where I’m at with not making a draft day trade.
As far as the total state of this roster is concerned that’s a work in progress too. When you’re stuck in neutral, and want to take a stop back you totally stop. Do the Kings want to have 3 years of step back progress like Portland? If you want to make that comparison, and there are those who may, but you might want to recognize how awful those years, and how little “casual” fans cared about the Blazers during those times as well. The real fans never left, but real fans never do. I venture to say that the bad times didn’t just kill the team there, but mostly the accumulation of poor attitude on both the franchise, and the players, led to what was, in general, an aberration for most Blazers fans. That being said the Kings are in a tough spot, but it’s not impossible. If the Kings don’t trade Artest, and they have nothing to lose except a few games and some opinions on what kind of value was available for him, what they have done is move the franchise in another direction, again, because the direction was necessary. If I had to choose one thing I would like to change, it would be that the team stop making so making changes on the fly. That’s the strangest part about this. For a team with such a deliberate and plodding leader, this team sure has changed directions during the season too many times the last few seasons. That would be a welcome change from my view.
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 Jun 28, 2008 1:10 PM PDT 2 recs
RE: The Maloofs
You make a great point about the Maloofs, and it made me want to say something along those lines about them.
I know I’ve probably pointed a lot of the blame aimed at GP towards the Maloofs, but I need to also point out that when the team was contending they were willing to pay the Luxury Tax to make that extra push. To everyone pining for Larry Allen instead of the Maloofs, remember that Robert Sarver wouldn’t even do that much, and may have single-handedly caused the Phoenix Suns to win the title of “Best Team in the last 5 years that didn’t win a championship”.
Looking at everything else out there, I’ll stick with GP and the Maloofs, thanks. Dance with t


