First and foremost, the Kings would be nowhere without Petrie in my opinion.  Before Petrie, the roster was a jumbled mess.  Random players, horrible coaches, poor draft picks.  After Petrie, the franchise had purpose and direction for the first time in the Sacramento era.  While the C-Webb Kings didn’t win a championship, that team made Sacramento hoops relevant in the NBA.  Say whatever you want about Petrie, but the man always has a plan and he doesn’t deviate from it. 

That being said, I wonder if Petrie’s record in talent evaluation has masked his weakness in contract negotiations.  As proof, his past draft picks, trades, and free agent deals/contract extensions:

FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICKS

1996: Peja. 

Players selected directly after Kings pick: Nash, Jermaine O’Neal, John Wallace

1997: Abdul-Wahad. 

After Kings pick: Croshere, Derek Anderson, Mo Taylor, Calvin Kato

1998: J-Will. 

After Kings pick: Larry Hughes, Dirk, Pierce, Bonzi

1999: No Pick

2000: Hedo

After Kings pick: Desmond Mason, Quentin Richardson, Jamal Magloire

2001: Gerald Wallace

After Kings pick: Dalembert, Tinsley, Tony Parker

2002: Dan Dickau

Last Pick in the first round.

2003: No Pick.

2004: Kmart

After Kings pick: Sasha Vujacic, Beno, David Harrison

2005: Cisco

After Kings pick: Luther Head, Johan Petro, Jason Maxiel, Kleiza

2006: Douby

After Kings pick: Balkman, Rondo, Marcus Williams

2007: Hawes

After Kings pick: Acie Law, Thaddeus Young, Julian Wright, Thornton

Yes, some of the names selected behind the Kings picks have been a bit more sexy (Nash, Dirk, Pierce)…but this list doesn’t take into account need.  1998 for example.  Kings needed a point guard.  They picked Williams.  Only pick that looks unforgivably bad right now is Douby.

Petrie “missed” on more picks than I thought but his hit rate is still around 50%...not bad considering the majority of these picks were towards the end of Round 1.

NOTABLE TRADES (filler players excluded)

• Richmond for Webber
• Corliss for Christie
• Abdul Wahad for Nick Anderson
• J-Will for Bibby
• Hedo, Pollard for Miller
• Webber for K9, Corliss, Skinner
• Christie for Mobley
• Peja for Artest
• Bobby Jackson for Bonzi
• Bibby for Sheldon and expirings

Petrie won nearly every trade.  Bibby and Webber went out on salary dumps…count those more against the Maloofs than Petrie.  Mobley, Bonzi, and Artest have been far from earth-shattering deals but each of them out-performed the player they were traded for.  The Webber acquisition, Christie, and Bibby deals were ridiculously one-sided.

NOTABLE FREE AGENCT CONTRACTS/EXTENSIONS

• Vlade…6 years/60MM
• Webber…7 years/123MM
• Christie…7 years/49MM
• Miller…7 years/68MM
• Bibby…7 years/81MM
• Bonzi…5 years/37MM (thank you Bonzi for saying no)
• Salmons…full MLE/5 years
• SAR…full MLE/5 years
• Mikki…full MLE/2 years + option
• Beno…full MLE/5 years
• Martin…5 years/50MM

Forgive me if some of my numbers are off.  Most of the above was done from memory.  But yikes.  The only deal on this list that looks solid is Martin…and that assumes he continues his upward trend.  I understand Petrie had to over-spend in the beginning to get players to consider Sacramento (see Vlade)…that’s part of the process in turning a doormat into a contender.  But I seem to remember at least three deals where the Kings were already established (Webber, Miller, Bonzi) and no one else was even close to the numbers Petrie offered.  The Christie, Bibby, Bonzi deals/offers were all deemed over-priced within one or two years of the agreement.  Injured or not, SAR has been a bust.  Mikki was fine last year but not worth the full MLE.  Jury is out on Salmons and Beno.  If Salmons becomes a starter in the future, I think he’ll be worth it.  If not, no.

I understand it’s much easier to pass judgment on these deals now as opposed to when they were signed.  But that’s what you pay your GM for, no?  To have vision.  To predict how players will perform down the road.  To pay them accordingly.  To manage the salary cap.  Whether it’s too much involvement from the Maloofs, the need to overpay because of location (Sac vs Miami/LA/Boston/etc), or his inability to properly read the market, Petrie has overpaid too often and the cap has been hurt because of it. 

This aspect of a GM’s job is far too often overlooked.  I’m not saying talent evaluation isn’t important because that’s huge.  But you wouldn’t rather have the $15MM cash instead of SAR, Mikki, and Salmons right now?  Those players haven’t added anything to the Kings other than moving them further back in the draft.  Personally, I'd rather have minimum salary players, a few years to take it on the chin, and the resulting high draft pick.

I’m not sure what the answer is.  But I know teams like the Spurs and Pistons have set the model.  They’re aggressive in negotiations and they don’t give in to an agent’s demands.  Sure, championships will help you accomplish that.  But they have consistently been able to sign their stars to below-market level deals (Duncan, Mano).  They stay away from long-term deals for role players (Salmons, Moore, SAR, Beno).  They let players go before the rest of the league sees what they see (Ben Wallace).  They maintain cap flexibility.  And now it seems like the Sonics and Blazers are adapting the same model.  Why not the Kings?  Why not Petrie?

I want to reiterate again that Petrie’s impact on the Kings has been HUGE…I just worry that he may be getting passed up by the likes of Buford, Presti, and Dumars.  And I worry that the Kings ultimate goal is to clear up cap space for 2010.  I would much rather see Petrie fleece some unsuspecting GM this off-season (I know it’s not exactly popular here but I would love to see Marion or Kirilenko in town…or both) than overspend for a fringe player in 2010.  We've already seen Petrie the Negotiator once this off-season...now I'd love to see Petrie the Talent Evaluator.