Building around a SUPERSTAR. Can the Kings do this?
This is my first "Fan Post" here, so be gentle.
Everyone knows that the most conventional and historically best way to build a championship contender is to build around a bonafide SUPERSTAR. One of those top 10-15 best players in the entire league.
My question is this: Can the Kings do this with any one of our core group of young players. I include our core group of young players as:
1) Tyreke Evans
2) Spencer Hawes
3) Jason Thompson
4) Donte Greene
5) Omri Casspi
Let's get started in evaluating the potential that each one of these players has and see if any of them have "SUPERSTAR" potential, the bona fide kind.
1) Tyreke Evans - This guy is the consensus pick amongst 'conventional wisdom' to become a bona fide superstar. He has the ability to CREATE for himself as well as teammates, perhaps not in the traditional sense. His strengths are attacking the basket, his physical size(both offensive and defensively he should have an advantage against smaller guards) and his ball handling skills. His weaknesses are shooting, shooting and shooting.
The good news: Shooting can be improved with time. It's the most easily correctable weakness, especially when you have Pete Carrill on your staff. Also, his ability to finish and take advantage of the opposition with his physical attributes won't go away.
The bad news: He's only 19 and probably years away from realizing his potential. For a franchise starving for success, this could be a long-term fix for us.
Conclusion: Evans definitely has superstar potential. He may be a good player, sooner-than-later and I'm a big fan, I think SUPERSTAR status is at least 4-5 years away for this kid. I don't see him being LeBron-eque or even Wade-esque in the sense that he brings team success to his franchise at a rather young age. But the kid WILL, IMO be at worst a perennial all-star caliber player by the time he's 24 years old.
Spencer Hawes - The ENIGMA. He has all the skill in the world. He even has some favorable physical attributes. The key is harnessing those skills and attributes to maximize himself as a player.
The Good: He's smart, crafty and better on defense than anyone gives him credit for. I think for Spencer the sky's the limit. The key is for him to elevate the CEREBRAL game. If he becomes half as crafty as Vlade was, then Hawes has All-Star written all over him.
The Bad: The same thing that may be his virtue, may also be his vice. Just because you CAN hit the three, doesn't mean you SHOULD hit the three. I think that statement is critical for Hawes, development as a player, and not just in the realm of shot selection.
Conclusion: I think THIS roster, may NEED him to hit the three to be successful overall, but what I mean is that Hawes needs to operate within a system. With Evans' lack of shooting ability, it may be necessary for Hawes to pull the opposing Center AWAY from the basket for Evans to be effective at getting to the rim. Hawes CAN be a star in this league, however, this year will determine if a team can be built AROUND him as a player.
Jason Thompson - What's not to like? The kid is skilled, athletic and hustles like Michael Smith of old. He's got two-way potential. When I say two-way potential, I mean he could go either way in terms of making an all-NBA team (probably 3rd team) on either offense or defense.
The good: He hustles, he's passionate and he's versatile. Thompson can play inside, he can play outside. He can play defense, he can play offense. He can play the PF position or the Center position effectively. He's VERSATILE. The key is to figure out, what is he BEST at, and what is he BEST at to COMPLEMENT this roster. I think he needs to focus on the defensive end. He has more potential defensively than Hawes does IMO. He's already got a fairly polished offensive game for a young big man. He can shoot, he gets lots of put-backs and tip-ins and he rebounds well(especially on the offensive side of the ball.
The bad: He out-paces the game. I think that's the MAJOR trait he needs to improve on. Pacing himself. This is the reason I think he makes silly fouls and gets himself out of the game. He needs to understand when he's beat and let it go. We can't have him sitting the bench in foul trouble each game. This is why I think his DEFENSE should be his focal point. His offense will come. He can hit the 18 footer, get a couple put back, hit some free throws, out-run his opponent on a fast-break finish, nail a shot with the clock winding down. He'll get his 15 points a game. But the CRITICAL aspect for Shock is to SHUT DOWN the opposition best BIG MAN. He can guard the shooter(Rasheed's, Mehmets', Dirk's, West's of the league) he has that ABILITY. He can also guard the post-men( Howards, Duncans's etc) he has that ABILITY. The question is, will he put it together.
In conclusion: Thompson has star ability, but I don't think he'll ever be an all-star in this league, but rather a SUPER SOLID big man who helps you win games.
Donte Greene - What trumps an engima? Whatever it is, that's Donte Greene. He OOZES potential. In fact, I wonder if it's border-line institutionalize-me if I say this, "Donte Greene has the MOST potential for superstardom of any one player on our roster". Is that a false statement? I dunno, but my opinion is that while he may have that potential, I also fear he's the least likely to realize that potential of anyone of our core.
The good - He's young. He fun. He's cocky. Pete Carrill is a coach over him.! He's got the POTENTIAL mind-set of a star. Similar to a Ron Artest without the CRAZY. If you move two steps from the 'insanity' that is Ron to the 'Sanity' realm of things, I think you have Donte' Greene's mindset. He's tall, athletic and can 'supposedly shoot;.
The Bad - He can 'supposedly shoot'(as I haven't seen it in the NBA, YET. Is as RAW as they come. And doesn't understand the game of basketball.....yet. I say yet, because I have faith that coach and Westphal will help this kid 'figure it out'.
Conclusion - Donte' may be the biggest CONUNDRUM of any one of our prospects, I think he has the ability to become a SUPERSTAR player. It's mostly cerebral, as I think the tools are there Phsycially, skillfully and emotionally. I think the emotional make-up of a player is what drives the good to greatness in the NBA, i.e Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson.
Omri Casspi - It's hard to say here. I know so little about him first-hand. So I'll leave it inconclusive. However, with what I have read, he seems to be a typical Petrie-find in a late first. Not a star, not a bust. He could be a VERY important piece to the puzzle, but not the center-stone of that puzzle. I could be wrong, and hope that I am towards the STAR 'spectrum'. But that's what I think. He could be a perfect complement to this roster as his play-making, rebounding and tenacity are sorely needed to complement this roster.
(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 |
86 comments
Comments
Evans has the best chance at becoming a superstar.
I still believe in Ryan Garko...........
by 49er16 on Sep 23, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would have still given you the rec
even if it wasn’t your first post. Nicely done.
Without a minute of real NBA playtime ‘Reke looks like the easy pick for future superstardom and can possibly be the the piece we need to rebuild the franchise around, but man, it’s early yet. I love JT and agree with you and TZ that he should focus on his defensive game as the vehicle to elevate his entire game and value to the team. I agree that JT probably isn’t an All Star but he at least has the drive to turn every bit of potential into ability and above average career stats.
Donté, Donté,Donté. I think it was either TZ or Section who labeled é the poster child for unrealized potential. As great of a coach as Pete Carrill is, even coachie can’t teach heart.
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
by Bluejohn on Sep 23, 2009 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You claiming Donté has no
héart? Not sure I get that one.
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 Sep 23, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya if you list Donte's weaknesses
I wouldn’t put “heart” on that list.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 23, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I should have been clearer
What I meant to say was that I don’t believe that he has that drive to be the absolute best that super stars have. I think with a little time and maturity and consistent training he can be be a better pro baller but I don’t see the “want to” in his personality that the superstars, All -Stars and elites have. I don’t believe it can be taught.
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
by Bluejohn on Sep 23, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can a kid
who has just completed his first NBA campaign after only one actually unspectacular year at Syracuse already have “unrealized potential”?
Lower their expectations and rise to met them
by left hand on Sep 23, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has to be Tyreke...
or we are screwed. Superstars are found in the top of draft — almost exclusively (particularly after every team started scouting the HS and foreign talent – thus nobody slips a Kobe or Dirk past the lottery). If it isn’t Tyreke, it better be our top choice next year.
by longtimelistenerfirsttimecaller on Sep 23, 2009 4:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Tyreke
He is the most likely to become a superstar. Donte Greene does, however, have the most potential, as Smills mentioned. He reminds me a lot of Anthony Randolph in that we can see his potential but we just hope he learns to harness it. Luckily for us we have a coach/front office that is better prepared to develop younger players than Anthony Randolph has in Oakland
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 23, 2009 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Anthony Randolph
will also not be an NBA superstar.
I dunno, maybe I’m missing something here. Maybe we’re talking apples and oranges, but by my definition “NBA superstar” means a star among stars; the creme de la creme. In other words, a player so eminent that he is counted among the top half dozen or so players in the league at any given time. So right now there’s LeBron, there’s Kobe, there’s uh, Dwight Howard. After that, perhaps Dwyane Wade, maaaaybe Chris Paul, and if you still wanna count Tim Duncan I wouldn’t argue the point, even though he’s not quite the player he was a season or two back. That’s it. That’s the entire list of current NBA superstars.
The next level below that, guys like Garnett, Nowitzki, Gasol, etc; . those are just regular, garden variety NBA stars.
Evans is the only name on this list who has a decent chance of reaching that kind of level; and he’s the only player on the Kings even remotely capable of attaining Superstar status.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to say Duncan is still an NBA superstar
Then I think you’d have to include Garnett and Nowitzki as well. Kevin Durant is probably going to be a superstar, and Anthony is on the brink as well.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 25, 2009 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan has Superstar Emeritus status
And actually so does Shaq (cough).
TD’s true superstar days are past, and Shaq’s are WAY past. There may be a few others in that group, i.e., still playing and were once borderline superstar material (e.g., Garnett, Iverson, McGrady). I may be being a bit generous there.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iverson was a superstar
He was Philadelphia for a few years and his MVP award and their success (he did take them to the NBA Finals) were well deserved. And it was mostly because of him.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 25, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
right.
I gave Duncan Emeritus status (thanks for that phrase, MLS). With that one exception I excluded anyone who’s a “gonna be” or “a used to be”.
If all those guys are “Superstars” then the term becomes next to meaningless.
We could make it pretty simple really. LeBron is the Gold Standard. If a player is say, 75% of LeBron in terms of physical skill and ability, game impact, and cultural interest and visibility, then I’ll grant them NBA Superstar status.
Otherwise they’ll have to just settle for regular old stardom.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not only is Evans
the ONLY one either likely or with the potential to become a Superstar (unless this is not as lofty an aspiration as I think it is), he is simply the one the team WILL build around. The only way that changes is through some drastic change/addition to the roster via trade or draft.
Neither Donte’ Greene nor any other current King, nor Anthony Randolph, will become a Superstar. Some will turn out to be really good, even All-Star quality. Superstar?
Lower their expectations and rise to met them
by left hand on Sep 23, 2009 5:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A note on JT
I think JT doesn’t know how to move his defender down low. He is quick and he often hustles and jukes his way into an open shot but he does so at the deficit of his balance, hoop vision, and shooting form and thus missed a lot of shots in close. He could use lessons in body contact, getting the defender to commit his feet and weight in one direction or another, making his defender lean on him, backing him up, knowing when to move quickly and knowing when to move forcefully. He should go take pummeling lessons from whoever is wrestling heavyweight for UCD.
Also, a note to SMills re: the picture next to your name. It is my impression that StR generally discourages overt political instigation. I think a hammer and sickle juxtaposed with an Obama campaign icon qualifies as such.
by BrooklynFan on Sep 23, 2009 5:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Spencer Hawes would approve.
of the avatar that is.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 23, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it's okay to have an Obama O as an avatar, but not Smills' version?
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 26, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You pose a fair question
and I admit, I have my blind spots and my sensitivities and both help form my thresholds. Would an Obama O avatar have crossed my threshold for political instigation? Obviously it has not nor would a McCain Palin one. A Hitler mustachioed Bush one would have, just as Smills’s has, due to their striking and forceful symbolism. I am however not StR’s PC police. I speak for myself as a community member as I expect all others to do. In reviewing my own statements on the topic (i.e. this one, the one you questioned, and the one farther down) I see that I should have been more explicit in stating that my opinions on the matter belong only to me.
by BrooklynFan on Sep 27, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely agree that Smills' avatar is worse than an Obama O
My problem is that I’ve often felt like people are much more tolerable of leftist politics here at StR, while getting up in arms at this. I don’t really think that’s fair. People shouldn’t just assume that everybody shares their politics, even if it may seem that way.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 27, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What matters in what Smills91 thinks about politics?
Whoever brought up the politics should let it go, this is a Kings blog.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 27, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People just don't get upset about politics unless someone disagrees with them.
If people don’t like it, they can flag it, and action will be taken. Keep the politics off StR, even if you think everybody agrees with you. That’s my point.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 27, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
“…Keep the politics off StR, even if you think everybody agrees with you.”
This makes sense, Jedi. Which is why if you were being consistent you would be against Sactown members wearing their politics on the sleeve of their avatars.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 27, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smills brought up the politics
Everyone else is reacting to his opinion. He’s walking around a basketball blog making a political statement through his avatar.
If he wasn’t making a political statement in a place where it’s totally irrelevant and divisive we wouldn’t be having this argument.
Obviously.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 27, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excuse me?
No I didn’t.
YOU hijacked my thread here.
by Smills91 on Sep 27, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If any have a chance - it'll show up soon
Does anyone know of a Star that pretty early on, the first few years, just about everyone could see that they would possibly be a Star?
I can’t think of one. A few guys that ended up very good, (KM for instance) marginal All-Stars yes,
but Star potential shows up very very early. So I think we’ll soon know.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Sep 23, 2009 5:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jermaine O'Neal? Tracy McGrady
Neither could quite carry a team on their own, but both were bona fide stars. Neither seemed to do much early on, if I recall correctly.
by LPKingsFan on Sep 25, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As you can see from your results...
…the question you pose is absurd.
Sorry, Smills, but even the most myopic, rose-tinted-glasses-wearing Kings homer can see that there is ZERO chance, none, nada, zilcho, that Spencer Hawes, JT, Donte’ Greene, or Omri freakin’ Casspi will somehow magically sprout wings and become NBA superstars! What is this the Sci-Fi channel?
I mean, Evans is also a longshot, but at least it’s within the realm of imagination. He does have considerable and rather unique athletic abilities, he’s extremely young, and (most important of all) he has done nothing yet to prove that it’s not possible.
Those other dudes though… development into solid NBA players, maybe an all-star appearance or two between the bunch of ‘em, that’s about the best we can hope for.
I’d say we’ve seen about 60%-75% of the ceiling potential of both Shock and Hawes. They will get better, that’s pretty for sure. But beyond that, what are we talking about here? Hawes is gonna be struck by lightning and evolve into the Second Coming of Bill Walton, and Jason Thompson gets bit by a radioactive spider and morphs into Kevin Garnett?
I think not.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 1:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The results is an evaluation
I’m not here saying they WILL become superstars, I’m here to evaluate the probability they will. I think Greene has superstar potential, but will unlikely reach it. I think Evans is likely to become a star. Thompson won’t IMO. Hawes will likely be an all-star a couple times or so in his prime. And I doubt Casspi comes close to that level.
The point is to evaluate our ROSTER and see, do we have someone with SS potential? And if so, will they reach that level. I thought I made that clear in my post, if not, I hope I did here in this post.
by Smills91 on Sep 25, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Results is?
Sorry. House grammar Nazi.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand, Smills
You’re here to evaluate the probability, but that’s the problem. Outside of Tyreke Evans the probability of any player currently on the Kings roster becoming an “NBA superstar” is zero, as your poll results clearly indicate.
You asked a silly question, now you’ve got a silly answer.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No...you're misunderstanding...
AGAIN.
The question is CAN the Kings build around a superstar here. I’m evaluating the talent we HAVE. You know, a bird in hand, evaluation of our young talent to see if we can build around a superstar. That’s it. I know you want to find fault here for ulterior motives.
by Smills91 on Sep 25, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, Smills, you're mistaken
If you look at what I wrote you’ll see that I criticized your poll question with my very first comment.
I didn’t realize you were trying to turn Sactown Royalty into your personal political rally until I noticed that Brooklyn Fan had griped about it, which is when I made my second comment.
But first, let’s talk about your question, which now you say is: “CAN the Kings build around a superstar here?”
I’m sorry, Smills, but for crying out loud what kind of question is that?! It’s basically a non sequitur. It has no meaning.
Answer: “Yes, the Kings could build around a superstar… if they had one!”
What’s the alternative answer? “NO, the Kings could NOT build around a superstar?”
The fact is, Smills, you created a poll where you allow for five possible answers but got almost 90% of the respondents agreeing on just one of them. That means you asked a more or less silly question about which there’s practically no disagreement. That’s what I criticized initially, and I had no “ulterior motive”.
Since then your deliberately provocative and insulting avatar was brought to my attention, and yes this then contributed to my suspicion that your thinking is muddled in general. If you actually believe the President of the United States is a communist, then I understand why you think there’s a chance in hell that Omri Casspi could be an NBA superstar.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 26, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
... and one more thing about that.
I do hope Ziller firmly requests that you drop the avatar. It has no place here.
This is a blog about the Sacramento Kings, Smills, not a soapbox for you to wave a flag. Interest in the Kings, frustration with the Kings, undying love of the Kings, that’s the stuff that brings us here together. It’s probably the only thing this motley crew agrees on, and you undermined that with your dumb bumper sticker.
Which maybe you can see is also bad for you because you hijacked your own freakin’ Fanpost and turned it to a large degree into a bitch-fest about politics instead of an in depth look at whether Donte’ Greene might be a Superstar (or whatever the hell it is you’re asking).
I can only assume that’s what you were looking for, in which case, FU.
And if it wasn’t, then get a clue, my boy. Polls show that the vast majority of people in this country and in this state, and in Sacramento, like Barack Obama and his ideas in general, and are very comfortable with him as President. Most people outside the Fox News No-Brain-Zone find Glen Beck not to be a sooth saying prophet, but rather some kind of raving, schitzo mouth-breather.
Fact: Barack Obama carried Sacramento County by a landslide. If you walk around here with an avatar foolishly intimating he’s a Communist, people will push back. You get that right? Certain kinds of avatars are inappropriate for this website, and right now you are shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 26, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't see anybody asking Otis of Phuture to change their avatars
If outward support of a political figure or campaign is acceptable, how is it fair to not allow opposition?
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 26, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did I miss something?
Phuture’s avatar is Brad Pitt. Otis’ is Tyreke Evans. What does that have to do with politics?
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It used to be a picture of Obama
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 26, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Used to be?
Hmm. In my book that means that it’s not a picture of Obama, so maybe get your facts straight before trying to make some kind of equivalency argument, Jedi.
Smills is the one who is politicizing the blog. If he doesn’t like the way the election went he can protest down at the Capitol building with the other 25 teabaggers, or vote in the next election or whatever, but this is a BASKETBALL blog.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 27, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a long time, Otis had an Obama O, and Phuture had the smoking Obama
I have my facts straight. You can ask Otis and Phuture yourself if you disagree.
My point is that nobody was up in arms over that. I fully admit that Smills’ avatar is much worse, but I simultaneously pose a question: why is it seemingly okay to make political statements that are popular, but the unpopular ones are not acceptable? They’re both equally off-topic and unwelcome on a Kings’ blog, in my opinion.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 27, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who cares what someones avatar is
I don’t. This is a sports blog. Only time I will care is if someone starts spouting politics, which nobody is. I can ignore avatars.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 26, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"This is a sports blog"
Precisely my argument against political avatars, which I (and others) see as an invitation to debate. But you’re right, we ought to just ignore them, even if they can be an irritating distraction. Unfortunately, not everyone does, in which case a ruckus (Kfan’s term) breaks out.
In other words, we’re all at fault. Those with political avatars, those of us who object to them, those who start political debates, and those of us who get sucked into said debates once they get going.
Forgive me Ziller for I have sinned.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 27, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's actually look at facts, which are verifiable by data, and not what you watch on the Daily Show or the Colbert Report
If you’re gonna open up this can of worms..
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9 (see trends).
Overall, 50% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Forty-nine (49%) disapprove.
Don’t like Rasmussen? Try Gallup.
Barack Obama’s Most Recent Weekly Approval Rating Average: 52%
Average for U.S. Presidents Since Franklin D. Roosevelt: 55%
Average for Elected Presidents’ Third Quarter: 64%
Both polls show something far from the “vast majority” nonsense that you’re trotting out.
This is a Kings blog, not a Sacramento blog. I agree that we should keep political discussion to a minimum. But in the times that stuff does pop up, don’t be surprised if some people don’t share your views.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 26, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
If this stuff pops up (like on an avatar for example) don’t be surprised is some people don’t share your views. Smills is the one with the “kick me” sign on his back.
And by the way, Jedi. You seem to overlook the fact that :
A) a majority of those in the polls you yourself site approve of Obama and:
B) a big chunk of those who don’t approve feel that way because Obama has been trying to appease the right wing and be “bipartisan” way too much. Just because someone is in the minority that doesn’t agree with Obama’s policies doesn’t mean they agree with you.
And the percentage who believe that Obama=hammer and sickle is probably about the same as the ones who think the earth is 6,000 years old.
in other words, less even than c): George Bush approval ratings at time of elections last year: 20%
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/11/unpopular.html
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 27, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
My point is just that, at this time, there are many people in this country that don’t like the direction it’s going in. Whether you think they’re justified or not in their reasoning is beside the point—not everybody likes the President, and it’s definitely not the first time. Also, Smills’ dislike of Obama doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a Republican, or a Glenn Beck follower.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 27, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I see...
I didn’t notice your cute little political statement logo until just now either. Now I get it. You’re a wingnut.
Yeah, right, Smills, I see where you’re coming from now. The President of the United States is a covert Leninist Fellow Traveler and Spencer Hawes will soon have a plaque in Springfield.
Whoo hoo!
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 1:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Glenn Beck his hero no doubt
Its amazing how a crazy (and I mean it – he’s both nuts and dangerous) can get people to listen to bile and hate.
From the left and right the idea is to rock the boat – not sink it.
(sorry, I said I wouldn’t talk politics here and I’ll shut up now.)
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Sep 25, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Politics is stupid
Its why I argue about sports instead.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 25, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We live in an age
Where political demagoguery has been embraced by the mainstream media because it’s diversionary and it sells.
And now back to our previously-scheduled comment thread.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its nothing new
Its always been this way. The characters change and so does the time, but people – they stay the same throught the years.
by kwill on Sep 25, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may not be new
But it’s a lot worse than it used to be. News and commentary used to be informed, in-depth and civil (think Walter Cronkite). It has since devolved into infotainment, propaganda, and mud wrestling. Frankly I don’t trust a damn thing I hear on the mainstream news (CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. etc.). All of the major media organizations are rife with conflicts of interests, and as a result their reporting is completely skewed, misdirected, and largely vacuous.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Ron Burgundy

“Go f*ck yourself, MLS.”
(Kidding, of course – just couldn’t resist.)
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 25, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No image, damn it!
Just a red “X” in a white box. And I didn’t see the movie. So I’m lagging badly here.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really really need to see that movie.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 25, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The trailers look alternately hilarious and agonizingly painful
Sort of a “Tom Brokaw meets Borat” kind of a thing.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did I mention politics
in my post?
by Smills91 on Sep 25, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tangent
You didn’t.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Missed it.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what, Smills?
I’m gonna guess by your handle that you were born in 1991.
If that’s the case I’m gonna cut you some slack about the clueless avatar because you if you’re 18 years old you basically don’t know jack about politics or the real world.
In any case, FYI it’s considered bad form to wear a political badge like that into Sactown.
Take the “President is a Commie” stuff to Free Republic or some other wingnutty blog and you’ll make loads of friends, or call in to that nitwit Jim Kozimor’s show (I assume they haven’t canceled it yet) and you guys will get along just dandy; but around here, it’s basically like hijacking your own post.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 25, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's right, Smills.
The President is a Socialist.
Big difference.
The draft lottery has reinforced my belief that there are not enough bad words in the English language.
by LeaguePassAddict on Sep 25, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he's a socialist
A Corporate Socialist.
Which explains why he is completely in the pocket of Wall Street bankers, military corporatists, and insurance/pharmaceutical giants. Just like the guy before him (and the guy before him, and the guy before him, and…). Welcome to the United Corporatocracy of America. They own the government, the media, and all the major levers of economic power.
But wait, isn’t this a sports blog?
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 25, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow.
Any word on the second gunman on the grassy knoll?
The draft lottery has reinforced my belief that there are not enough bad words in the English language.
by LeaguePassAddict on Sep 26, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't take a conspiracy theory
Just follow the money. Every so often, in a rare moment of candor, some or other Congressperson comes right out and says it. Most recently, Dick Durbin of Illinois: “The banks are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, and they frankly own the place.”
What do Bush’s and Obama’s Treasury Secretaries have in common? Both former CEOs of Goldman Sachs (i.e., one of the principal firms responsible for the current economic mess). Fundamental foreign policy differences between Bush and Obama? None. Change you can believe in? NOT!
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Geithner was never a member of the GS borg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner#Early_career
But as far as GS is concerned:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
by BrooklynFan on Sep 26, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're right. I'm thinking of Rubin.
And in any case they are all intimately intertwined. The point is that the revolving door of corporatists/banksters favors neither party. And they most certainly have a death grip on national economic policy. BTW, excellent article by Matt Taibbi. Rec’d.
But getting back to an earlier point, this is supposed to be a sports blog. Jumping into political topics is lose-lose. Maybe I shouldn;t have taken the bait, but I did. I certainly didn’t bring up this topic.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong
on all accounts.
Curious though? Why do you feel so threatened by a simple avatar?
by Smills91 on Sep 25, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you guys are all mistaken
Perhaps Smills is an Obama supporter who was born in the Soviet Union.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 25, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I will not to attack the integrity of your political statement
I will only reiterate why it is that we gather here as an online community.
Sactown is an ever growing online community where people share their opinions about all things related to Kings basketball in the most articulate manner one can. In order to uphold the integrity of this site, we do our best to avoid profanity, name calling, thoughtless remarks, opinion bashing when said opinion shows signs of critical thinking about Kings basketball and we avoid introducing non-sequitors—inflamatory or not. This is why you will not see articles on the San Francisco Giants or the Oakland Raiders, model cars or literary reviews, global warming or avatars representing anarchism, corporatism, socialism, democracy, or even any Tom Ziller campaign signs for U.S. Dictator even though some of us may have great interest in these topics. No, you will not see such things here because they deter from Sactown Royalty’s raison d’etre.
So as a fellow member of this site and out of respect for why we gather here, I simply ask you to refrain from making divisive political statements, such as displaying your Hammer and Sickle Obama icon.
by BrooklynFan on Sep 26, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Is Kusian following this?
Speaking of political avatars.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kusian's is fine if...
his avatar ever spends time as a silk screen across the chest of a t-shirt worn by Shawes.
Kusian: the gauntlet has been laid.
by BrooklynFan on Sep 26, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second that.
BrooklynFan is absolutely correct. This is a blog about the Kings. Take the political soapbox outside, Smills.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 26, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is hilarious! 8>p
Smills, this comment of your juxtaposed with your avatar just a few inches to it’s right is like walking into a room wearing a clown outfit and asking “why is everybody laughing, I didn’t make a joke!”
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 27, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice how his views aren't allowed, but you guys are free to spit this drivel
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 26, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I like that word: "drivel"
Walking around here carrying a sign that claims the President of the United States is a Communist is exactly that… drivel. And it’s deliberately provocative drivel at that.
If you think somebody can say something that that and not start an argument you’re naive.
As soon as the political avatars are gone we’ll get back to talking hoops.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 27, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the thing
If you feel that his avatar is really that bad (which is your right), flag the comment and explain yourself to the moderators. Your tirade against Glenn Beck and flat-Earth republicans puts you on the same level as Smills. You may disagree with his views, but your arguments are full of at least as much vitriol as his avatar. I fully support your right to be up in arms about his political statement—I just think you’re going about it in the wrong way.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Sep 27, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 2nd paragraph should be in the card that comes with the StR welcome basket
Rec’d.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 26, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is exactly why political avatars are inappropriate
They are a blaring invitation for an argument. Anyone with a political avatar (Smills, Kusian, others?), irrespective of their position, is essentially saying: “HERE ARE MY POLITICAL VIEWS! CARE TO ARGUE?” (Yes, the all caps are quite intentional.) It is a huge distraction from the topic(s) at hand, and it gets us all pissed off at each other, when we should be here to discuss basketball and the Kings, NOT our political views.
I try never to start these things. But I too get sucked in when others begin tossing political ideologies around. This is the wrong venue for it. It’s a lose-lose proposition; nobody is going to convert anyone on this site. An occasional political dig? Fine. Political grandstanding? Somewhere else.
So I move that we table the political debates, and that those of us with political avatars (right, left, up, down, whatever), ditch the political poster and come up with something fitting for this venue.
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 8:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm against losing seasons and therefore am enraged by your avatar
please remove it.
Kidding, I just felt left out because I chose not to engage in the ruckus above.
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 Sep 26, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some alternative avatars
Scoop ’em up, gang. Pick the one that best fits your personality!



SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 26, 2009 9:38 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I love a woman with a library
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Library?
All I see are a couple of bookends. My face being the book.
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 Sep 27, 2009 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if you absolutely, positively must have a political avatar -

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 26, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or if you prefer a tougher candidate

From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
P.S. Note to Smills91
I have nothing personal against you at all. I respect (and in fact, I defend) your right to have political opinions that are the different from mine. But do you see what happened here?
You put a lot of thought into your first post, and the result was intelligent and comprehensible. But meanwhile a political loudspeaker is blaring in the background, and that loudspeaker was a total distraction from your intended topic. It was an invitation to debate politics when that was not really your intent (I assume).
So again, I courteously urge all my colleagues to refrain from political avatars on this website. Let’s try to focus on our similarities, not our differences. After all, we are all Kings fans here. Can’t we all just get along?
From the people who brought you Reggie Musselnatt.
by My Losing Season on Sep 26, 2009 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why are you lecturing me?
Mucho Molar is the one that brought up the damn politics. I have every right to choose an avatar of my choice. I never mentioned politics once in any post until Mucho Molar continual harrassed me about a picture.
He’s the one that’s hijacked this thread.
In honesty, I’d like my first fanpost to get back to the topic on hand…BUILDING AROUND A SUPERSTAR, can the Kings do this?
by Smills91 on Sep 27, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we're done here
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 27, 2009 7:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















