Sactown Royalty: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: On Bobby in the Box Score Bar-right-arrows

Some have been tempted to compare [Rudy] Fernandez to San Antonio's Manu Ginobili, but Blazers guard Sergio Rodriguez has always said Fernandez reminds him more of Sacramento's Kevin Martin. Szczerbiak said he disagrees with the Ginobili comparison, but likes Rodriguez's take on Martin.

Jason Quick of The Oregonian. This might be the first time I've seen a comparison to Martin made in big media.

Link about 1 month ago Tom_toon_tiny Ziller Comment 94 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Hard to be against any compliment of Kmart

That was definitely complimentary, and for those interested, learned a little about Rudy Fernandez too. The Blazers are stacked if Koponen, Bayless and Fernandez develop like many teams believe he will. (This is of course ignoring that they also have Roy, Oden and Aldridge.)

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 Jul 16, 2008 10:55 AM PDT   0 recs

God

the Blazers are looking better and better, I’m starting to hate them more and more.

by what_the_crap on Jul 16, 2008 11:11 AM PDT   0 recs

That team will be so good.

by Ziller on Jul 16, 2008 11:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The only position

that they don’t have a possible future-all-star at is the three – and they have more than enough trade assets to acquire that player.

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jul 16, 2008 12:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You don't need 5 all-stars on the roster

I do think they will use the SF as the role playing defensive part of their roster like a Travis Outlaw type. He’s wouldn’t be the 2nd best player on the KIngs roster (obviously), but he would definitely make an impact for the Blazers as a role playing defensive edged SF which is what Outlaw does best.

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 Jul 16, 2008 12:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

hornets

have Paul, Peja, West, Chandler are theoretical all-stars (Chandler is pretty close – Team USA good). I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t mind sticking a Joe Johnson or a Michael Redd at the sg spot.
Kobe, Odom, Gasol, Bynum are four all-stars – and we know they wouldn’t mind Kidd filling that pg spot.
Nash, Shaq, Hill, Amare…. they definitely wouldn’t mind Joe Johnson (if he was willing).
I don’t think you need a role player – I think five all stars playing their role is just fine enough.

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jul 16, 2008 9:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

How many of those groups won a ring?

(Other than Kobe and the Lakers missing Bynum, how many got to the Finals yet?) What’s my point? You chose 3 too new historically examples to draw off of.

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 Jul 17, 2008 11:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well played

but, how many teams with all-star level talents at all five positions have failed? hard to say, I can’t think of many teams that have had all that talent to begin with . The too new historically is a key detail, as I could have provided the 86 Celtics as an example, but I think the importance of it being a watered-down 32 team league changes the conversation.

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jul 17, 2008 8:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah that is true the 86 Celtics are a fine example

Using the 60’s Celtics works, and the 72 Lakers had 4 legitmate All-Stars on that team without Elgin Baylor who had retired in the off-season before. The 80’s Lakers tended to have 3 or 4 all-stars all decade, and had a host of talented role players who did their part (cooper,rambis).

Point is that having alot of talent is nice, but it isn’t everything towards winning rings. If Portland has any reason to win rings, it’s that they have a balanced team with 5 guys whose talent, while maybe not done conventionally, fits together appropriately.

(I’m not mad Portland got Bayless. I’m mad that Indy didn’t charge more to get 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 Jul 17, 2008 9:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Bynum is an ALL-Star?

Whaaaat? Since when?

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 18, 2008 10:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

bynums name was mentioned as a possible candidate

before he went down.

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jul 18, 2008 12:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

possible smoshible

Better trade some of those young pieces Sooon (next year or so) to put a team together.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 3:43 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

And I'm sorry

Is there a ‘future all-star’ PG in there somewhere I’ve missed? And, Greg Oden hasn’t played a game yet where he hasn’t broken his knee. Hard to see why everyone is so sure he’s a sure thing. (he May Be but. . . hyperbole, hysteria)

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 3:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Straw Man

How can you equate “possible future all-star” with “sure thing”?

As for the PG, maybe it’s the one they just got, that everyone around here was so excited about getting 5 minutes before the Kings picked Jason Thompson.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 5:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

smgmatt's on fire

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Jul 16, 2008 9:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Zanesville

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jul 16, 2008 1:07 PM PDT to parent up   1 recs

Rudy

He scores a 92.5 on my system so he could easily become as good as Kevin Martin. Either way, Portland is looking like the next Lakers. A team that will be good for a LOOONNG time

He can shoot, and he looks great in a suit. Hey, everybody - It's REGGIE TIME!

by dalt99 on Jul 16, 2008 1:12 PM PDT   0 recs

It's the old adage Dalt

There’s spending money and there’s spending money wisely. Assuming these guys really pan out for the Blazers they definitely qualify as the latter. Paul Allen’s money doesn’t hurt them 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 Jul 16, 2008 1:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He can't get playing time

On a young team? As good as KMart?

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 3:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

how was he supposed to get playing time if it's his 1st year?

I assure you he’ll get his playing time this year. and having watched rudy in europe and world championships i think that is a very good comparison.

by cwebb on Jul 17, 2008 7:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Portland has done nothing

And accomplished nothing. They have stocked up on players who may or may not develop into a team. Oden still hasn’t played his first game as an NBA rookie and speculation on how that will go is just that.

i would remind once agai that all those young picks the Clippers and Hawks stocked up on mostly fought each other or LEFT once thier rookie contracts came up so they could ‘be thier own men’ and that Chicago is basically rebuilding again.

You need a combination of young and veteran players to win in this league.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 1:15 PM PDT   0 recs

Excellent points

But I think the Kings “young” players are no longer rookies, and don’t need to be surrounded by veterans. I think it’s time to keep the team in a young direction to take advantage of the current group of players.

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 Jul 16, 2008 1:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Also

You need a team made up of superstars, solid players and role players. If all these rookies look at themselves as superstars, it’s hard to get them to settle into one of the latter roles. That’s one reason they end up leaving or wanting to be traded.

He can shoot, and he looks great in a suit. Hey, everybody - It's REGGIE TIME!

by dalt99 on Jul 16, 2008 1:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's wha Lie said Dalt

You just said it more astultely accurately and succinctly (is that even a word?).

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 Jul 16, 2008 1:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on Jul 18, 2008 12:09 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Michael Jordan

And Michael Jordan didn’t win a championship until his seventh year in the league. The Clippers and Hawks never had players with the promise of the ones on the Blazers right now.

by Carl on Jul 16, 2008 1:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Look Back

Go to the “wayback’ machine and see what was said as the Clippers, hawks, Bulls were all stocking up on those young picks and what was said about how bright thier future (ect) and then replace those team names with ‘Portland’.

I’m not saying thats going to happen, just saying there’s a lot of history that lots of young players/picks mean nothing.

As for dalt99, well winning MAKES superstars and as to teams that have won championships I’d suggest that Detroit has none really and the Spurs have mostly won on defence and team chemistry – the Right pieces in the Right places. (Duncan the only true Superstar and not a ‘flashy’ one at that)

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 1:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmm

Atlanta has been pretty universally trashed for a lot of their draft picks . . . I don’t really see the comparison there, at least not in the negative light you suggest. Atlanta made the playoffs last year, and Portland had a similar record.

Chicago had a bad season last year, but has a good core of players. Will they contend for a championship? I don’t know, but they’re in a pretty good position (talent-wise) for the future. Chicago almost hurts your point though, because they tried bringing in a vet when they signed Ben Wallace and it blew up in their face. They probably would have been better off keeping Chandler instead.

The Clippers are another team, which to the best of my limited knowledge, was only praised when they made it into the second round of the playoffs, and almost went to the Conference Finals. Injuries destroyed them, but they were built on youth (Livingston, Kaman?) & veterans (Brand, Casell), as you suggest. Again, a terrible analogy to what Portland is doing.

If your best argument against Portland is that they haven’t won anything, then that seems like a pretty weak (and painfully obvious) argument. It’s one thing to point that out to overzealous Portland fans running off at the mouth, but to throw that out every time someone acknowledges what they’ve done (in a positive light) just isn’t necessary.

Oh, and if you’re going to make a point about teams not needing a Superstar, you might not want to choose a team with a player who may be the best at his position (depending on the semantics of where you consider his position) of all time. Just sayin’.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 2:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Portland won 41 games a year ago Atlanta won 36

That’s real similar if you ask me.

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 Jul 16, 2008 2:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks

I really should have looked up the actual win totals instead of just throwing that out there.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 3:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think it's the individuals, not just the picks

Which Clippers picks did people think would be stars? I know they’ve had a ton of them, but I don’t recall many of them ever actually producing or becoming especially talented. Brandon Roy and Lemarcus Aldridge are already star-level players. You add Greg Oden to that mix, who a lot of people think is the best big man in years, and you’ve got the makings of a very, very good team.

It’s not about the fact that they have a bunch of lottery picks. It’s that they have a bunch of guys that look like very good basketball players. I don’t think the Clippers or Hawks could ever say that. If Oden stays healthy this season, the Blazers make the playoffs. That’s more than those Clippers or Hawks teams ever accomplished.

by Carl on Jul 16, 2008 4:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to spit on a wet duck but

Best/Championship teams of the last 20 years:

THE MODEL – San Antonio: Built on Very veteran pieces
Celtics (2008): tested, hungry veterans
Miami; (well not that great a team but) added two veteran pieces, a starter and a key reserve
Pistons: Generally very good veterans – no real Stars
The Kings (lets say it) Almost no drafted players on that team, only 1 a starter

The 90’s

Da Bulls: Veterans veterans veterans added around MJ, any other drafted players in the starting lineup? Uhm just Horace Grant I think.

Duh Bad Boys: (guess)

Ect Ect

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 2:10 PM PDT   0 recs

I'll bite

San Antonio:
Duncan was drafted and won a title in his 2nd year.
Parker was drafted and won a championship in his 2nd year.
Ginobli was drafted and won a championship in his 1st year.

These were drafted players winning titles when they were young, and the core of the team that won 3 times in 5 years.

Boston:
Garnett was traded for Al Jefferson (who was drafted & other young assets.
Allen was traded for a Top 5 draft pick and Salary Cap space.
Pierce was drafted and almost led Boston to the NBA Finals in his 4th year.

Miami:
Shaq was traded for young assets (10th overall pick Butler & FA signing Odom)
Wade was drafted... Year 1-Eastern Semi’s, Year 2-Eastern Finals, Year 3-NBA Championship

I could go on, but that should be good enough. If you want to call San Antonio “THE MODEL” . . . then the model must be building a team through the draft (with a #1 overall pick, no less).

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 2:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I get your point/points

But aside from SA, none of those teams had more than one or two starters who were drafted – my point exactly. Ginobli was about 26 when he was drafted. Duncan was playing with veterans then, Parker was playing with veterans and -

SA won dispite a lot of criticism Parker got as a second year guy and I still think he’s only a ‘star’ because they’ve won those rings.

MY point has been; All those teams were built only very partially on the draft and all had several true vetereans in the starting line-up.

Its Hard to put together a championship team and hoping for the lottery every year (a little luck like SA got with Duncan though – sheeeeesh) I’m not saying the draft is totally useless but it

Doesn’t get it done by itself by a longshot.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 2:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Going around the point

You say…

Its Hard to put together a championship team and hoping for the lottery every year

And yet all of the examples I gave (other than Ginobli & Parker) were “Lottery Picks”! Al Jefferson is the lowest pick at 15, and he was the centerpiece to Minny in the KG trade. Allen was traded for a 5th(?) pick, Shaq for a 10th & Odom. Without these “Lottery Picks”, there are no big trades for you to hang your hat on in this discussion.

That’s the point I was trying to get across.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 2:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed

Successful team-building begins with smart drafting. This is not to say that the draft alone is always enough, but I think you’re fighting a losing battle here, LttG.

You can say that it was just luck than the Spurs happened to get Duncan. But I’m pretty sure that the Blazers defied the odds to get the number 1 pick and take Oden. True, Oden is still unproven, but there are similarities. And, as smgmatt has pointed out, even if the young players don’t always directly relate to success, they do often end up as crucial trade pieces towards future success. Sheldon Williams didn’t turn out to be a key contributor for the Hawks directly, but he was part of the trade that landed them Bibby when Atlanta wanted a veteran. That move led the Hawks to take the eventual-champion Celtics to a 7th game in the playoffs.

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Jul 16, 2008 4:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Even better examples of "draft bust" value

Kwame Brown, one of the biggest draft busts in years, helped two different teams in trade. The Wizards got Caron Butler for him, and the Lakers got Pau Gasol.

Another popular bust, Darko Milicic, netted the Pistons Rodney Stuckey when he was shipped out . . . sure he’s no Melo/Bosh/Wade (the 3 drafted after Darko), but the Pistons still got something for him in the end.

See, even the busts can be worth something.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 5:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My sentance was a mess

I meant:
‘Its Hard to put together a championship team, and hoping for luck in the lottery every year – doesn’t get it done by itself by a longshot.’

The middle part was a somewhat confused digression.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 5:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There's no reason the Blazers can't add veterans at some point

Assuming they need them. But the foundation is already there.

by Carl on Jul 16, 2008 4:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No reason - true

could, should, might.

My point was and is that many many teams that stocked up on picks have not made the other right moves at the right times.

And just drafted players won’t get it done.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 5:09 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Again - look at San Antonio

The one other cog in San Antonio was David Robinson. Yet another drafted player. The Spurs have won four championships with their main cogs being all drafted players. The rest of the guys were added/shifted along the way.

I agree with you, that the Blazers will certainly need to make moves along the way. But I believe the players are there now for that team to make serious strides toward a championship.

by Carl on Jul 16, 2008 6:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not just another drafted player, another #1

David Robinson – 1st Overall Pick, 1987
Tim Duncan – 1st Overall Pick, 1997

Fun fact: The #1 pick in 2007 . . . Greg Oden.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 8:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Way to Connect the dots Sherlock Holmes :)

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 Jul 17, 2008 11:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Elementary

My dear Watson . . . elementary.

by smgmatt on Jul 17, 2008 11:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I have to say it.

I’m sorry. I’m a snarky English teacher, grammar nazi, and probably whatever other names you can think of. My correction is completely off-topic and in no way takes away from your point, but it bothers me enough to mention it. It’s properly abbreviated “etc.” from the original et cetera.

SORRY! Please continue.

A lonely Kings fan in a sea of gold and purple...

by Jaycee on Jul 16, 2008 4:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dammit JC

You darn snarky English teacher grammar nazi, “etc.”, “etc.”

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 Jul 16, 2008 4:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You beat me to it.

If you were a little slower, I would have been the grammar cop.

I’m an editor, and “ect” is one of my all-time pet peeves.

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on Jul 18, 2008 12:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Mine is "irregardless"

If regard = regard, and regardless = do not regard, then irregardless = not to not to regard…which would mean regard!

Now I’m pissed…

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jul 18, 2008 1:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

regardless of the meaning of irregardless

is the meaning of regard, which defines regardless which illegitmizes irregardless – but would irregard be as regardless as irregardless, or is your regard for meaning inherent regardless of a regard for diction, as it regards to meaning? If you regard the irregardless which we considered regardless, then in regarding the irregardless we should be regardless.

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jul 18, 2008 5:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

damnit, screwed up

last bit should be: ...If you regard the irregard as regarding the irregardless which we considered regardless, then in rega….

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jul 18, 2008 5:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well

For all intensive purposes you’re post write their shows why I could care less what your going to post, or what there going to post over they’re. ect.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jul 18, 2008 6:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My head just exploded.

Beautiful!

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on Jul 19, 2008 8:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Nice

You hit all of my favorites biggest pet peeves, expecially the there/their/they’re trifecta.

by smgmatt on Jul 20, 2008 6:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

A man is nothing if he doesn't do anything for his people

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 Jul 21, 2008 5:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Draft: Clippers, Bulls, Hawks

Clippers The 10 year rebuilding plan through draft:
DRAFTED

Yrolslav Korolev (12)
Chris Kaman (6)
Chris Wilcox (8)
Shaun Livingston (4)
Marvin Ely (12)
Tyson chandler (2)
Darius Miles (3)
Keyon Dooling (10)
Quentin Richardson (18)
Lamar Odem (4)
Micheal olawakandi (ouch! 1)

Some good players, some stinkers. Most of them gone, many of them still waiting for thier ‘potential’ to bloom.

Chicago

Jaokim Noah (9) [looks like a bonehead who’ll never score]
LaMarcus Aldridge (2)
Ben Gorden (3)
Kirk heinrich (7)
Jay Wiliams (2) Who?
Eddy Curry (4)
Marcus Frazier (4) who?
Jamal crawford (8)
Elton brand (1)

repeat what I said about the Clips

Hawks

Acie law (11)
Sheldon williams (5)
Marvin Williams (2)
Josh Childress (6)
Josh Smith (17)
Pau Gasol (3)
DerMarr Johnson (6) who?
[For those who want two or three 1st rd picks here’s thier 2000 draft]
Jason Terry (10)
Cal Bowdler (17) who?
Dion Glover (20) huh?

Some good players – mostly gone or trying to get out,

Thats what building from the draft can be like, a parade of high picks not panning out or leaving when they start to finally get good.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 16, 2008 2:41 PM PDT   0 recs

Eh...

It’s a gamble, but about half (or even a bit over that) of the picks listed have become starters on their respective teams. I’d say it’s a pretty good gamble, just because of the fact that you could potentially land a superstar.

Looking at what Atlanta drafted…had Pau Gasol and Terry stayed in the mix with Atlanta, along with Josh Smith and Childress, they’d be in contention for a championship today.

by CloudyEyes on Jul 16, 2008 3:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the key to a championship team..

Is to have a bunch of role players (who are drafted usually around 10 to 15) and that “it” talent, usually drafted 1st to 4th. If a team doesn’t have that player, they’ll need to trade for him. Lets look at SA…Duncan was the first pick and the cornerstone to the Spurs’ success. Celtics…Pierce. Miami…Wade. ..and Kobe was one of those rare superstars drafted later in the draft. (but I’ll never call him a cornerstone to build around. Shaq is gone and Kobe’s gone ring-less, even being surrounded by all-star talent last year.)

...But you see what I mean? I think if the Kings can’t get one of those kind of players, they’ll need to sign him. No, Boozer, Odom, and Marion aren’t key pieces. The only thing we’ll get from signing those guys is a slashed salary and not enough to sign a superstar in 2010…maybe enough for another $10 mil/year role player, though.

We need to save all our salary and sign LeBron, Wade, or any of those other superstars to a max out contract, so that we'll have that "it" factor.

by CloudyEyes on Jul 16, 2008 3:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Seriously?

How many “cornerstone” players are in the NBA? Less than 10? There are 30 teams, and the Kings aren’t the only team that will have cap space in 2010. What are the odds that Sacramento lands “LeBron, Wade, or any of those other superstars”?

New York (x2) & Miami will have cap space, and those are much more desirable places for young millionaires to live than Sacramento, unfortunately.

by smgmatt on Jul 16, 2008 3:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah

it’s kind of hard to compare living in Natomas, Granite Bay, etc. with South Beach or Manhattan. For that matter, being on the GSW would be a hell of a lot more fun, off the court.

by misterbrister on Jul 17, 2008 6:19 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Obviously

Nowhere in Sacramento compares to Sacramento or Manhattan, but it’s silly to compare our ridiculously boring suburbs to the heart of big cities. Bay Area suburbs are just as boring as Natomas, Folsom, Elk Grove, etc. If the players choose to live in boring suburbs (Chris Webber) they’ve got no reason to complain.

Sacramento’s Central City, on the other hand, has become more interesting and fun by leaps and bounds. There are a great number of bars, restaurants, clubs and theaters in Downtown and Midtown Sacramento. Go to the next Second Saturday on August 9 and check it out. Good stuff.

by Carl on Jul 17, 2008 10:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Couple of points

I don’t think anyone is comparing “suburbs” . . . and choosing to live in the suburbs doesn’t mean that you can’t go out for a “night on the town” as it were. The difference between Bay Area suburbs and Sacramento suburbs (aside from price, which isn’t a deal breaker for NBA players) is that they are much closer to a major metropolis.

Sacramento may be improving (Second Saturday’s popularity may cause it’s own demise, unfortunately), but it’s still not in the same conversation as New York or even San Francisco.

I’m just sayin’.

by smgmatt on Jul 17, 2008 10:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well sure
I don’t think anyone is comparing "suburbs" . . . and choosing to live in the suburbs doesn’t mean that you can’t go out for a "night on the town" as it were.
it’s kind of hard to compare living in Natomas, Granite Bay, etc. with South Beach or Manhattan.
Sacramento may be improving (Second Saturday’s popularity may cause it’s own demise, unfortunately), but it’s still not in the same conversation as New York or even San Francisco.

Obviously I’m not comparing Sacramento to two of the best cities in the world, and I said so (with a typo) in my original message. The comparisons to South Beach, New York or San Francisco are silly. It’s a complete apples to oranges comparison. It’s like saying a Mustang sucks because it’s not a Ferrari.

I’m just tired of people who either don’t know anything about Sacramento or who spend all their time in the suburbs bad mouthing the city. And Second Saturday is too popular, so no one ever goes there any more? Not following that logic.

I won’t argue with your original point. Young millionaires would rather live in New York, LA (yuck) or Miami. But Sacramento is a good city and is getting better every day.

by Carl on Jul 17, 2008 11:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Getting better?

It was always great. You just had to know where and what was good about it. Sacramento was always great. It’s just now more people see it as a “big city”.

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 Jul 17, 2008 11:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My bad

I think I misstated myself in that I was agreeing with you, and I guess I didn’t add quite as much to your point as I thought I did.

In regards to Second Saturday, the local neighborhood has been starting to complain about the number of people there, and the City almost pulled the permits for the business there because of it. I wasn’t implying that people would stop going because it was too popular, but rather that it may not be around much longer after it reaches critical mass.

As an example of this happening before, see the K-Street Farmer’s Market and its demise.

by smgmatt on Jul 17, 2008 11:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Whiners

I actually don’t remember why the Farmer’s Market was pulled (and now we’re WAY off topic). What was the deal there?

The people living in the Downtown core should expect traffic and noise. That’s just part of the deal. If they want a boring, suburban life, they should come out here to Natomas, where people are so afraid to leave their houses that they literally drive their cars four houses down to the mailbox.

If the complaint is that people are being noisy/rowdy too late, that’s a law enforcement problem and should be dealt with as such, not an issue where the city should punish everyone for the actions of a few people.

by Carl on Jul 17, 2008 1:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I mean
If they want a boring, suburban life, they should come out here to Natomas, where people are so afraid to leave their houses that they literally drive their cars four houses down to the mailbox.

To clarify, I mean people are afraid of walking, not crime. OK, I’ve dragged this conversation WAY too far off topic. My bad.

by Carl on Jul 17, 2008 1:35 PM PDT to parent up