I know, I know. Greek already talked about this. (Quite well too.) The problem I have is that this is A) too long and B) you can't embed youtube clips in comments. So, there it is.

There are a couple of things that I'd like to touch on before really delving into this topic wholesale. We do not sell this shit in nice small pieces of bullshit 8oz packages for proper consumption. No Peaches here.

Reading Greek's fanpost again, I realized how much I missed about what the original point was: That Grant Napear is a stupid cockroach of a peach. He is simply lower than your toejam, commute and vegemite combined.

But, like most things, do we really recognize what something is worth until we have an idea of what something's not worth?

Needless to say, the Doors clip was something I posted for a reason. For those who remember the godawful radio version where they cut most of the solo out of the middle of the song (which is, ironically, the entire worth of the song), is the reason I thought of the analogy between a radio edit and an original version of a song. Usually, a radio edit that doesn't make a difference to a song generally means (IMO) that the song is popular, but not very good in terms of musical quality. When people find ways to denounce or censor parts of a song (and the lyrics--which are usually what "outrages" people about Light My Fire--are not typically censored in the radio version: It's just the harmony of tremendous musicians plying their trade which doesn't really include Jim Morrison, but I digress), it's usually because that song is something they are afraid of. Light My Fire is a simple song, and the message is clear. Yet, what gets censored out is not anything anyone should be ashamed of. The part that is the most controversial is what always get played on the radio. Human beings like our drama. It makes us, uh, go.

(I admit this has nothing to do with the piece. Just one of my favorite early 80's songs. And, it might explain the vegemite reference.)

*******

To this end, I'd like to address what Greek said: Sacramento has a small market. Yes, this is no doubt true. It isn't even worth arguing about at this point. But, what's changed? Sac had a small media market in 2003 too, and this kinda crap wasn't going on. Was it? So, what changed? A competent media member of the Bee who had the ability to rationally, and with a sense of adult maturity you could go for the rest of your life and not see from Napear, emerged as the most powerful media voice regarding the Kings. We all know this is Sam Amick. This is why Napear screams so loud: He sees his pointless media fiefdom being subtlety attacked by not being important. When the loud obtuse redhead Long Island twit lovingly better known as Peaches screams about Amick rest assured, if nothing else, it's not about professional competency. It's about that Napear has never violated something he sees as a true imperative: You never talk about anything important regarding the Kings. Ever. Under any circumstance.

It's no secret that I widely copy the phrase TZ once used about Geoff Petrie: He operates under a strict omerta level of silence. If you do not operate under what Petrie values, you get frozen out and you do not get the story. The problem? The Kings can't just freeze the beat writer, 1 of 3 print journalists regularly covering the team, and you can't freeze them out because Amick and Jones have no interest in hiding what they discover from their sources (among other things). They are after all in the business of reporting what they know to the public. That is not a trait that Geoff Petrie admires or desires in a media outlet. He prefers obnoxious, obtuse, mouthy, pointless redheads running his mouth about nothing that matters and everything that doesn't.

It's the terror of knowing What this world is about Watching some good friends Screaming let me out! Pray tomorrow takes me higher higher higher Pressure on people People on streets Turned away from it all Like a blind man Sat on a fence but it don't work Keep coming up with love But it's so slashed and torn Why why why? Love love love love

That's pretty much the gist of it right there. I don't know if I could explain it better if I wanted to, but I'll try anyway.

We already know that Grant Napear, aka the Almighty Peachilcious, is silly and pointless. This is nothing new, but it aggravates us. So, let me suggest something else. Without Napear, you wouldn't be appreciate to what Sam Amick does for the Bee and Kings fans worldwide. Without Peaches obtuse inane ratty meanness, you wouldn't be able to define real information if you stumbled across it. (If nothing else, it makes you appreciate what Amick does do.) In order, these are generally the people whom I hold the amount of trust when it comes to Kings info:

1. Sam Amick
   
2. Jerry Reynolds
   
3. Tom Ziller

Can anyone really argue with the point that you've learned more about basketball and the Kings since Amick has become the beat writer? I surely can't. With regards to TZ, I'm not sure what it says about the media in the Sac market that TZ would rank 3rd in importance of coverage of the team when he doesn't work a beat in the traditional sense, and ultimately doesn't even reap anywhere near the monetary value in comparison to his contribution. I would side with the argument of both, but that's me.

Why JR 2? He works for the team, but he does an interesting job in highlighting important points about players that can't be overlooked. Amick, though, will always be King of information simply because Amick strives for accuracy. Even if Kings fans around the Central Valley and beyond can't appreciate the accuracy Amick has made a hallmark, one of the reason's that I read StR, still, is that I know the fans here can. That is as important as anything else. It's one thing to have information and report, but it's quite another to read, analyze and comprehend the information that has been gathered.

That having said, a rare group of words that Amick wrote emerged in his blog post should be repeated and fully analyzed:

The larger point is this: questioning anything relating to Evans results in these kinds of reactions in Kings Land. There has been frustration all season long from the Kings that the local paper wouldn't put the cart in front of the horse and wanted to - imagine this? - actually do our jobs and analyze the team. You always got the strong sense that they wanted us to be sure and always call him a point guard, to not talk so much about how he often struggles to keep the ball moving or why his teammates get benched for saying things similiar to what he publicly said or how his jumper has a long ways to go.

It's a silly exercise, really, because he has earned a good amount of hype in our pages while already showing with his play that he is a unique and dynamic talent in just six short months as a pro. And as Kings director of player personnel/TV color man Jerry Reynolds constantly and accurately reminds me, let's remember that he's without question one of the best 20 year olds to ever play this game at the NBA level. The scary part? There's plenty of room for improvement.

He is, as I've already mentioned, the leading-by-a-longshot Rookie of the Year and a young man who is on the verge of becoming just the fourth player in league history to average 20 points, five rebounds and five assists per game as a rookie. For those of you who somehow haven't seen that stat yet, that's a club that only Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson and LeBron James have access cards to.

Maybe it's just a matter of taste, but I would much rather take the measured and healthy approach to handling a young player as opposed to calling him great before he can legally go to a bar and waiting for him to live up to that unfair billing. I don't see that happening, though, and I suppose anyone who doesn't play that game will be treated accordingly. - Sam Amick

Yes. Very much this. But I digress.... (Also the apology on the long blockquote to Sam. I never like ripping any scribes words to that extent, but in this case I felt it was necessary. Again, many apologies to Sam.)

Amick touches on a touchy point: The Kings organization (starting with Geoff Petrie) does not like real talk about the team. For whatever reason, and I'm not sure if any of this has to do with the older parts of the front office or not, but I think essentially this is why Sam Amick has my respect. It's not the response to Napear (which this is, but it's done so well I can respect the art with the way the words are written) that I like; I don't think giving Napear any power is worth it. But, there comes a point where a low level chucklehead like Napear can ruin your job if you're Amick, and this was one of those times. Amick CLEARLY states why he lets it known that Tyreke Triple-Double was not likely one of the pure degree. And, in the post, Amick states where others do the same thing. It's really not that big of a deal to someone like me (I don't think Triple Doubles are that big of a deal because I think assists are a stupid stat), but to others who place importance in that kind of crap, I suppose it matters. How are Amick crap on that bit of ignorance? I mean, how dare Sam do his job! (Btw, I love the line about how keeping a response measured about a kid who can't even legally walk into a bar is wonderful. Sam, for lack of a better word, gets it.) The fact that Tyreke is mature for his age isn't necessarily about why other 20 year olds aren't as mature so much as it's amazing that any 20 year old could be as mature as Tyreke. Some of that is Reke's doing, and some of that is his brothers doing. (If that's part of the Blueprint, it's working well I might add.) Maturity is a major part of success in the NBA, and it's impossible to be successful in the NBA without said maturity when you're 20. Let me bring you back to a point that I really want to highlight with Sam's piece:

The larger point is this: questioning anything relating to Evans results in these kinds of reactions in Kings Land. There has been frustration all season long from the Kings that the local paper wouldn't put the cart in front of the horse and wanted to - imagine this? - actually do our jobs and analyze the team. You always got the strong sense that they wanted us to be sure and always call him a point guard, to not talk so much about how he often struggles to keep the ball moving or why his teammates get benched for saying things similiar to what he publicly said or how his jumper has a long ways to go.

To be fair to Sam, this is only true when you're the beat writer. If you're someone like, say, me, you don't get this kind of reaction. They might not like it (especially when you're right), or maybe one day attempt to argue your mis-steps as a way of discrediting you. (Of course, that's only assuming the Kings franchise has heard of me, which, I know they have, but don't care if they do or don't. Being noticed by a group of 50'ish-60'ish basketball men is not what this is about.) When Sam Amick says important stuff, though, it's important to note that the franchise cares. Why? I've long held the belief most Kings fans don't like to disapprove of anything whenever possible, or, for that matter, notice flaws in any players game. If Tyreke say, freezes out the best offensive player on the Kings against the Blazers when the Kings struggled to score points, then it's not going to be a popular sentiment. There will be people who scream: He's 20 give him a break. Yeah, thanks. I didn't know he was 20. I clearly need to remember that next time. < / sarcasm > What 20 has anything to do with freezing out a player is beyond me. Players who are older do it too, and part of the point is player fit.

The Kings desperately need other players to facillitate shots and offense for Tyreke until A) he improves at it (he will never be the ideal player to do this), and B) that players recognize that some games there will be times where he just doesn't do it. It's a 2 way street, and some of this just takes time and chemistry to work it's magic. As they say, time cures all ills. (Or, most of them anyway.) But, you say, old Kings teams didn't do that! And, to that end, I argue bullshit. Bobby Jackson and Chris Webber did it frequently. B-Jax & C-Webb froze out Peja Stojakovic often, and for no particular reason I could find. (Btw, I ain't arguing about this in the comments. I don't care if I've offended your opinion of your favorite player.) I don't think it was an issue of personalities: It was simply how both guys played. For Bobby to be most effective, he needed to jack up shots. (He got progressively worse during his Sacramento tenure. On both ends.) Webber and Stojakovic's game rarely fit together well, and when Doug Christie & Vlade Divac left the organization, Peja saw his game decline simply because he was less effective offensively without DC or Vlade finding him on a consistent basis. Peja was a guy who simply was what he was, and never could add that necessary post game to balance everything else he did well. Whether that was because his body wouldn't let him or the focus was not there (on either the coaching staff or Peja's) I do not know. Some things are destined to be mysteries I suppose. But, I digress.... Let me bring up another point in Sam's piece that's worth re-highlighting:

Maybe it's just a matter of taste, but I would much rather take the measured and healthy approach to handling a young player as opposed to calling him great before he can legally go to a bar and waiting for him to live up to that unfair billing. I don't see that happening, though, and I suppose anyone who doesn't play that game will be treated accordingly.

Yuh. If Sam doesn't say that the world revolves around Tyreke Evans (instead of Eric Maynor as anyone with a brain already knows), he's suddenly a sullen beat writer left out of the loop. (Yuh, that's what I think. Snicker, Snicker, Napear followers. Do us all a favor and piss on your head so we don't have to. For that matter, bash your brain in with a silver spoon.) Playing the game is not only expected, but mandatory. Again, because Sam doesn't have to play ball, he doesn't.

So my question to Sam: Why? You can't enjoy having the franchise consistently chide and deride your public credentials to do your job. You can't enjoy having the obtuse gnatty Peach attempt (key word: attempt) to obliterate your professional competency as often as possible. (And, for those that remember Reggie Theus gate, this is not the first time.)

Either way, consider this a 2000 word thank you for the professional, honest, competent and tremendous job that Sam Amick consistently does. Other than the pleasure of doing a good job, I'm always left to wonder why Amick carries on. Only a masochist would take this kind of crap.

Oh, and to wrap this up, I brought up the Doors, and Light My Fire, to highlight the song below. In my humble opinion (or not so humble) what made the Doors work was that Jim Morrison made the band famous because of his looks, singing, and charm. But what made the Doors the band was the harmony that Morrison, Robby Kreuger, Ray Manzarek and John Densmore had when playing. Rarely do you hear them not play together, or with a tune in mind. LA Woman may not be as famous as LA Woman with the general public, but the song remains the masterpiece of the quartet. Their opus if you will. It highlights exactly what they were, and weren't, as a group of 4 musicians. Even if it's not what the band is most famous for some 40 years after Morrison's death in Paris, it still remains the band's shining beacon of light.

For lack of a better description, this is exactly why I appreciate Sam Amick's contributions to the media as a whole, and to the Kings in this particular setting. Beat writers come & go, but Amick is the rarest of the rare. Few take it on all sides like Amick, and still manage to act gracious. (I doubt it's an act.) Amick has long epitomized what it takes to be a successful beat writer in a town that is often equally succulent and sullen in ways noone around the 916 will ever readily admit. In a media market that ran out the most successful writer (Mark Kreidler) the Bee had (whether it was only Bill Bradley's doing is something I question), Amick is the last of the mohicans. Maybe we should do something better than just appreciate his work: We should petition the US government to put Amick on the endangered species list. If for nothing else, it might stop Peaches character assassinations.