wonder if he said the same thing about Lebron when he went to the Cavs …. or Howard when he went to the Magic ….

And, umm, this is a shock why? He’s a Boston Celtic’s fan. He’s used to the hierarchy always getting their way. He doesn’t care about the 20 teams in the league. He has 10 he has any interest in mentioning, and another 5 with whom he doesn’t have outright hatred for.

In otherwords, this is standard Bill Simmons. Which means: Blah Blah Blah.

This is the only major pro sport that gives someone other than the worst team even a chance at the #1 pick. And now Simmons wants to better the odds for better teams? What major prospect has been ruined by being drafted by a bad team? Darko sure didn’t benefit from going to a better team. Are we to believe that Kwame Brown would have been any better had he been drafted by a “winner?”

And 1 – Simmons mentions Martin, Hawes and JT, with the balance being “overpaid stiffs.” That speaks directly to the only other four players under contract: Udrih, Garcia, Nocioni and K9(woof!). While no one will argue Thomas, I would note that Udrih, Garcia and Noc swing to the slightly overpaid, not grossly overpaid. I would also stop short of calling any of them “stiffs.” Udrih could probably help Orlando right now, Garcia would be a nice piece for any contender, and Nocioni is a proven vet.

Jesus H. Christ, Bill. You work for E.S.effin’ P.N. Shouldn’t we be able to rely on you for at least semi-cognizant thought, hold the hyperbole?

go die bill go die!! We’re you bashing on sacramento when they were playing in on of the best WCF series? When they boosted tv ratings?

at least as far as what he says about our team.

Sure, he doesn’t think ahead enough to realize that now that Petrie may finally be getting the chance to rebuild that the team will get better and we will be able to put a solid supporting cast around Griffin.

However… his assessment of our team is dead on. The Kings are one good player, a few youngsters with potential, and a bunch of overpaid stiffs. I’m sorry, but Cisco, Beno, Nocioni, and Thomas are overpaid. I know people may not like to here it but it’s true. Next year those four alone will cost the Kings $28.8 million dollars. Granted, it gets better the following year when Kenny’s gone and Noc’s contract lowers. But still, they are way overpaid. We gave over $30 million dollars to a backup PG that San Antonio didn’t want, Minnesota waived, and the Clippers wanted to pick up. Shouldn’t those have all been signs? Nocioni’s lowering contract is kind of nice but he’s still overpaid for his age and what he does, which in my opinion is the exact same thing Cisco does. They both bring a lot of energy and hustle, play decent defense, and can stroke the three. And we’re paying how much for them? If it were Cisco alone I wouldn’t be so worried. Also, I wont even talk about Kenny Thomas for obvious reasons.

I’m sorry folks, but Simmons is right about quite a few things. Yeah, he’s an unapologetic Boston homer whose sports column is based more on opinion then good facts, but it doesn’t take a genius to see that our team is terrible. And quite frankly, having read plenty of the man’s work (I’m reading his baseball book right now) the man actually does know quite a bit about basketball.

i seem to recall an entire major-market fan base in utter desolation after “their” number one pick went to the spurs (a very good team, mind you) back in ’97. instantly and directly refutes this argument.

I wonder how Simmons would have felt if this rule were in effect for the 2007 draft. The Celtics tanked trying to get Durant or Oden. But they only got the number 5 pick which they traded for Ray Allen. If I recall correctly Ray Allen’s presence made Kevin Garnett actually want to play for Boston – remember the Celts and Wolves had been in talks before but KG wanted nothing to do with Boston, so Ray Allen going there too definitely helped. Imagine if they hadn’t gotten a very high pick. Ray doesn’t go to the Celtics and neither does KG. Al Jefferson is still there developing alongside an unhappy and possibly traded Paul Pierce. And does anyone think some of those other youngsters develop so much without KG’s presence, like Kendrick Perkins and Rajon Rondo?

Hated it then, hate it now.

I’ve long been in favor of averaging the past 3 seasons 50% for current, 30% and 20% for prior….so a team that won 50-30-20 over the last 3 seasons (20 being current ) would be given a rating of 29 versus a team that went 20-30-50 who would get a 38. Teams would pick lowest to highest..no lottery.
Say the Cavs lost Lebron for a season and went 60-60-10 they would get a 40 and would not get a #1 and have Lebron back the next season…the Clippers would always pick high but tanking would be hard due to the weighting of the prior 2 seasons.

Simmons’ language and tone resemble a flaming forum troll. I find it very unprofessional for his job.

On the other hand, the Kings really look ugly. It’s not just the worst record, it’s that there’s no light at the end of the tunnel right now. Eventually, with the right FA moves/trades/draft picks, we’ll see the light, but now.. there’s no playoff light at all.

- Kevin Martin is a potential all star, but is he much better than Michael Redd?
- Hawes is good and he’s only 20. Will he be the next Okafor or the next Dalembert? I can’t see any higher than that and I think my view is realistic. If you see him better than that, I’d love to hear your opinion.
- Thompson’s ceiling? Ideal scenario: Around David West’s value? Worst Scenario: Haslem. Realistic scenario: A bit better than Scola?
- Garcia and Nocioni are not stiffs and are certainly not underpaid (Salmons was :( ).
- ’09 draft looks shallow.

All these factors are a fog in our tunnel. The year to come is the most pivotal of all in our rebuilding phase in terms of trades and FA signings next summer. With a couple of good moves we’ll be in a playoff hunt in 2 years at best. With a couple of bad moves, we’ll have more high picks, more Simmons’ trolling and a good team by 2015. It’s all a matter of patience.

I enjoy most of Simmons’ columns as he can be a pretty funny writer, but the arguements he makes here are absurd. To say that a league of “haves and have-nots” is good for the league begs the question, why have half of the franchises in the NBA? You might as well advocate splitting up the very best players among the most storied franchises in league history and have everyone else close up shop. Ridiculous…

Additionally, you have to wonder how his opinion would change if his favorite team wasn’t one of the “haves”. This is the problem when a national sports columnist has a strong, stated alligiance and bias for a team. Simmons seems to have forgotten what it is like to be a fan of a bad team and suffer through the lean years hoping for the good times. The Celtics historically are the best team in the NBA and have just won a title, the Patriots have been riding high for a while, and for all of the suffering the Red Sox fans have endured over the years, they did have some good times along the way even though they could never close the deal. Now, with a couple of World Series titles and baseball’s economic inequity, there is no end in sight to their dominance.

Bottom line – teams with bad management and cheap ownership will always be just that, bad. Even if a lousy organization gets lucky and lands a franchise player in the lottery, unless you put a solid team around that player, the team will struggle to win. Simmons lumps all bad teams together regardless of circumstance or team history and does so because his team has nearly always been good. The Kings are exactly the type of team that needs to get lucky in the lottery (aka Chicago of last year) – a team with one very solid player and a couple of good looking prospects. Add a franchise player to that and in a couple of years, you don’t have a loser anymore.

Came into the conversation a bit late, so rather than responding in each individual threads, let me throw my thoughts into one, long, general post.

I’m a fan of Bill Simmons, I’ll say that right away. I will also say that it is ignorant to claim that he doesn’t know much about basketball. To do so is to fall into the same trap of hyperbole arguments. The guy knows more about basketball than most sportswriters. The guy has a clear passion for the sport, and although his views are at times misguided, he is at least up front about his bias.

Simmons is a Boston fan. He grew up in the Boston Celtics heyday, and now lives in L.A. What part of that scenario makes you begin to think he will ever appreciate Sacramento? Historically he recalls them as a doormat, and now he’s surrounded by people who use Sacramento as a punchline. Does it excuse him from trying to present a well-informed opinion? No. But he’s an opinion columnist, and it is his opinion.

As for the lottery, I think he had good intentions. He wants to eliminate tanking. We’re all in favor of that. Is his system flawed? Yes. And it is a stupid, stupid assumption to say that the league would be better with “haves” and “have nots”. But we must discuss alternatives. Also, keep in mind the context. Gladwell mentions in the article that he was taking a couple of days to formulate his responses, and the Simmons’ next e-mail would come flying back almost immediately. For the article, consider it the same as what Simmons would say in a bar argument. No research, it’s just off-the-cuff.