Contraction$

You’ve completely missed entire points, taken others out of context, and in addition to these things, wrote a fucking novel about your misinterpretations. I’ll get to it when I can. In the mean time, try not to be such a fucking asshole and assuming that I’m wrong because you’re too god damn narrow minded to realize that you’re not getting what I’m saying. Stop being so childish.

"Rory, please. You’re not helping yourself here. You’re bringing up a lot of difficult suppositions that don’t really have to do with one another."

Shocker, you start a winding debate with me, and we end up with several lines of thought that are no longer related. Just can’t understand how that might happen Mr. Guru.

"Well gee, maybe GP should call you over every situation to see how your gut feels. I mean, if that’s all it takes to keep GP from making a dumb move like not taking Rondo or Boozer, than why not?"

Yeah, and me blindly following along is the right thing for me to do? Where are you going with this? You just said that you have been unhappy with moves he made yourself, and yet you attack me for disagreeing with him. Is it because you don’t disagree with him in these places? Somehow you are always right? Maybe you think he should call and ask for your obviously expert opinion. You’re foolish to attack me for disagreeing with a guy. You can disagree with my opinion, but attacking my willingness to dissent is stupid.

"Well except for the fact that the Kings might have not gotten Rondo and who knows how Boozer would have turned out given that he would have to play behind Webber & Divac for at least several years. (Because, after all, Webber was only 1 year into his 7 year deal. Nobody anticipated his knee being messed up. But you being the clairavoyant soul that you are, you knew this would happen in your gut right?)"

Clearly, if the Kings had chosen Rondo rather than Douby(which is what I really wanted at the time), they would have had Douby. Don’t be stupid. The Suns trade is just a second chance. And Boozer would’ve provided excellent depth for the front court, which the team was lacking. The 2001-2002 Kings featured Webber and Vlade backed up by Pollard(of whom I am a big fan), Lawrence Funderburke, and Jabari Smith. Their need for depth in the front court was obvious. They went on to draft and trade Dan Dickau for nothing, leaving Boozer to be selected 6th in the second round. In that 01-02 season, Funderburke played 12.9 minutes per game as the fourth big, averaging 4.7 points and 3.5 rebounds. In Boozer’s third and final season with the Blue Devils, Boozer played 28.5 minutes per game, averaging 18.2 points and 8.7 rebounds on 66.5% shooting. He was ready to contribute. The Kings let Jabari walk(not a problem) and signed Keon Clark as a free agent(I liked Clark as well). In Boozer’s first season, he played 25.3 minutes, averaging 10.0 and 7.5 rebounds with 53.6% shooting. That same year, his only one with the Kings before they traded him to relieve his salary, he played 22.3 minutes with 6.7 ppg and 5.6 rpg on 50.1% shooting. Boozer was ready. However, even if they wanted Clark(and they didn’t know they were going to sign him until after they passed on Boozer unless they cheated), Boozer easily could’ve taken Funderburke’s roster spot, as he only played 8.5 mpg that season. No, I had no idea that Webber would blow his knee, but I did know that it’s good to have a good option off the bench, as well as a piece for the future to keep the franchise moving. And no, I wouldn’t want Rondo over Evans, but that’s irrelevant to the point of what they should’ve done at the time. Because the Kings clearly weren’t thinking about Tyreke Evans when they chose Douby. I’m convinced they were thinking at all when it came on the heels of drafting Martin and Garcia, and we still didn’t have a guy that felt like stopping dribble penetration.

"Things tend to happen the way they happen for whatever reason."

Which is how the Clippers happen. I’d appreciate it if we continue to avoid those kinds of straights(and before you go off, I’m not suggesting that the Kings have done anything on the level of the Clippers as a franchise).
"I don’t think going after an established superstar is the right answer for any team, and that’s part of my basic philosophy on how to build a team. You don’t build assets to trade for those players; you pick those players so they make your team better."

Yes, the Kings have two great(we hope) pieces in Evans and Cousins, and some solid young talent around them. Just like the Celtics had great pieces to start with before making their trades, as you said. One team in the last decade has won a title on the back of all home grown players. The Spurs, who lucked into Tim Duncan, and made two phenomenal late draft picks in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli. That’s rarely a blueprint for a championship, even though you prefer it. The first Lakers dynasty built off of Kobe, the acquired Shaq, and good filler. The Pistons won after assembling Billups, Hamilton, and Rasheed Wallace, mixed with parts of their own organization. The Heat won with their own star in Wade, along with the acquired Shaq. The Celtics won when they were able to put Pierce, Rondo and Perkins with Allen and Garnett. They went from terrible to great. The Lakers acquired Gasol in a fleecing of the Grizzlies, and immediately became the preeminent powerhouse. They started with Kobe, added Bynum in the draft when they sucked, got Odom in the Shaq trade, and capped turned an only decent team into a juggernaut by trading for the already established star, Pau Gasol.

"No you see, the Kings were not in the position to acquire the 2008 & 2010 1st round picks from Phoenix? Why? They didn’t have a TPE to acquire Kurt Thomas’ salary to save Phoenix luxury tax in the 2007-08 season. (Which is why Phx did it. It saved them 8.5 million in salary AND luxury tax.)"

No, the Kings weren’t in position at the time to pick up those two picks. How about the ’06 and ’07 picks? What trade exception did Portland use to get those? Oh, fuck. They didn’t use any at all. They absorbed absolutely no salary except the incoming player, and simply paid for the pick, which counts as exactly $0 dollars against the cap. Maybe the Maloofs couldn’t afford to pay the cash to acquire those picks, but that’s because they were trapped into bad contracts that resulted in a losing team losing money, therefore limiting their financial flexibility and spending power. These are the situations that I disagree with. Having mediocre talent limiting your flexibility over a long period of time.

"Again, know what the fuck you talking about here. But I’m not finished. Not only did you not know how Presti acquired Thomas & the 2 1st rounders, you added this little nugget of stupidity:
"that it’s unwise to limit your flexibility by giving five years to Garcia and Beno for that much money, along with the other terrible contracts of the past few years."
 I’ve already schooled you on the lack of ability to take a Thomas contract. There was also one other issue: Doing that would have cost the Maloofs luxury tax, and there was no way in hell they would have done that. Maybe you take issue with that, but remember it’s not like the Rockets are paying luxury tax either with Morey. (They are as of right now after re-signing Scola. Last year they were also over the tax before the T-Mac trade. That put them under.)

At any rate, Beno & Cisco’s contracts didn’t cost the Kings from acquiring Thomas…"

First, you’re a completely arrogant asshole. I know exactly what I’m talking about, and that is maintaining roster flexibility, especially when you’re a shit team, and it pertains to middling and worse players. Second, not once, ever, at any point in time did I say, suggest, insinuate, that Garcia and Udrih’s contracts are behind the team having not made those moves. I was pointing to the fact that even though we were a losing team, we were still laden by contracts that kept us from taking advantage of opportunities to pick up talent by relieving temporary salary for other teams. Know what the fuck you’re talking about. Are you so incapable of abstract thought that you can’t make connections between historical current situations? Know your history and learn from it, or you will repeat your mistakes. How’s that for a nugget of stupidity oh great teacher?

"Except when your gut kicks in right? Then he has to listen to you I guess? Or is that only when he misses an All-Star and you’re reviewing his draft history 5 years down the line? Hindsight is 20/20, and your criticisms don’t even look that good."

Yeah, Petrie definitely has to listen to me, just as he has to listen to you when you disagree with him, as you’ve admitted you do. In addition to being an asshole, you’re a hypocrite. Your talents are vast.

" "I wasn’t a fan of how long the team tried to tread water while obviously declining through the mid 00’s, and I’m very happy with the past two drafts, as well as some of his recent trades, such as Landry and Dalembert."
"You liked Landry, but you wanted to keep Kevin Martin? Or you merely wanted the cap dollars used by trading his contract away better? Like on who? Steve Blake? Mike Miller? JJ Redick? Really? You want to tie up dollars for role players who are making similar dollars to Beno & Cisco? And you’re complaining about flexibility!!!!!""

Never said anything about wanting to keep Martin. Really not sure where you get some of this. I like Martin. It would’ve been nice to keep him, but I thought we upgraded the team and helped our future finances by trading him for Landry. What I said, was that I liked Houston’s side of the deal. That instead of taking McGrady just to cut him, we should have taken Jeffries, Hill, and the draft picks. Jeffries only has this year remaining on his contract, so he would either be gone or used as a trade chip this deadline. And we’ve already discussed the value of having young, talented players and future draft picks, no need to go there again.

And I definitely didn’t suggest that the Kings should spend their money on similar contracts for Blake, Miller, or Reddick. That’s what teams that are ready to win a championship should think about doing, and exactly the kind of thing I’ve been saying the Kings shouldn’t do for the last few days. I would suggest the Kings meet the salary minimum by signing players to one year contracts to not get in the way of our developing young players, so that when the opportunity presents itself, we can land premium talent with our young assets, expiring deals, and cap space.

" "Don’t see how having those guys signed to the contracts they are allows for anything that we couldn’t do without them."
Well, of course you don’t. I’m not accusing you of understanding Geoff Petrie."

More like don’t understand what you meant when you said that those guys and their contracts "gives the Kings a chance to make measured moves in accordance with Geoff Petrie’s idea’s." You said that, not Petrie. Or are you mistaking yourself for the GM now?

" "Them (Cisco & Beno) having expiring contracts this season would be far more beneficial to the team than their current deals."

Really? How so? So the Kings can take back a lot of money in a contract to help a team trying to shed salary? Isn’t that the opposite of having flexibility?
So really what you want is the Kings to play like the Knicks or Heat played this summer right? You want them to spend money and have flexibility. Nevermind the Knicks traded Jordan Hill, a swap of a 1st round picks with Houston in 2011 and their unprotected pick to get that flexibility. (But wait, the Kings should have gotten in on that right? Because, after all, the Kings needed Jordan Hill and that right to swap? And a potentially low 2012 1st round pick? I’d like to see how this plays out before judging that deal myself.)"

No, I want the Kings to never get into the ridiculous situation they were in where they had to give away nearly all of their young and future assets in order to drop salary. That team was terribly managed. I want the Kings to maintain flexibility when it comes to the guys on the squad that are fillers, and keep their budding young players, as well as their future draft picks. Jordan Hill is scheduled to make all of 2.7 million dollars this season, before two team option years that escalate to only 3.6 million. That’s very flexible. And so are future draft picks. They are assets, not hindrances.

"The Heat won’t have flexibility until Wade/James/Bosh retires. Do you think Pat Riley gives a shit? Of course not! He has 3 stars to build around. Flexibility doesn’t mean squat diddly shit when you got stars and can find role players to surround them with. But this is all a red herring. Of course you didn’t talk about this so it gives you plausible deniability to say I didn’t talk about it. So, go ahead: Talk about it. Plausible deniability works well when you’re stealing another country’s valuables. It don’t mean shit talking about the Kings."

Nope, I don’t think Pat Riley gives a shit. And I wouldn’t either if I had a trio of players like that. But you know what, the Heat had to have ultimate flexibility to have the incredible summer they had. The Kings will never have a summer like that. Won’t ever happen. We aren’t a superstar free agent pull. The Lakers, if you feel like talking about that, have no salary flexibility either. Does that make you happy for me to say? Because these teams have reached the pinnacle of roster building, it’s impossible to have real financial and roster flexibility at that point. But see, that’s just the point. They have their stars. We don’t. We have a couple of hopefuls. One who has already proven quite a bit, but still isn’t a superstar. You’re point is completely off base.

"Either way, I don’t think the Kings are hurt by being where they are at with Beno/Cisco’s contracts. You can have a bunch of expiring contracts, but filling your roster with cheap minimum salary talent isn’t necessarily the best way to win in the NBA. In fact, it’s never proved to be a winning formula."

Of course it isn’t. It’s a terrible idea if your goal is to win in that particular season. But that’s what rebuilding is. You have to have the self control to sacrifice a few wins in what will ultimately be a losing season or three, in order to be in position to pounce when opportunity strikes.

"Look, I get you disagree with me, but the fact here is not about whether Garcia or Udrih’s contract are hurting the team at this point. That’s the way you think of it, which is fine, but that’s not a reasonable way to look at it. The fact is that the Kings don’t have a ton of committed salary to either Udrih or Garcia."

Not a ton, but 39.1 million over the next three years, or about 13 million a season. And you don’t know what’s going to happen over the next three seasons, but you can be reasonably sure that they aren’t going to be improving a whole lot. It’s considerable risk, both in terms of possible opportunities lost, and in the fact that they may not live up to their contract value, to go along with minimal upside potential. Guys like them are always going to be available, year in and year out. There’s no need to commit to them in the middle of a rebuild.

"Try Corey Maggette: How valuable is he at that money? There are lots of players in the NBA right now who don’t provide, IN MY OPINION, either great contract value OR great value to the Kings on the court when paired with Tyreke Evans in the backcourt. When an upgrade, and I mean an actual upgrade that is better than either Beno or Cisco, I’ll be happy to state how, where & why I think that upgrade is coming. But saying that these contracts are albatrosses with 6 players on rookie contracts, another 3 or 4 on minimum salary contracts, Carl Landry on a cheap 2nd contract, and Sammy Dalembert whose contract is expiring this season are albatrosses? Me thinks you don’t know one thing about NBA salaries and how they are doled out. (Like Dalembert was considered grossly overpaid until this year when he was an expiring contract.)"

Me thinks you know nothing about me, and have completely overlooked what I’ve been trying to say. I certainly never said they were albatrosses or even terrible contracts. I said I thought they were bad contracts because of the length of the commitment. Period. And Corey Maggette is a significantly better player than either of these guys. Perhaps he wouldn’t fit in with the Kings. In fact, he probably wouldn’t. However, when you’re paying a guy, you have to determine what he’s worth based on what you can replace him with. You have to pay a premium price for premium talent in any sport, and virtually any profession. And the price of marginal value increases the farther you get from average. While you can get guys that are lightly worse than average for significantly less than average. Between the two, you spend the same, but potentially have a better grouping of talent.

Shane Battier would be a great fit with Tyreke Evans, and he is certainly immensely more valuable than his numbers indicate. He is a tremendous defender, and he spaces the floor for those around him, along with being a team player. Garcia is a team player, he spaces the floor for the players around him, but he isn’t in the same stratosphere as battier as a defender. I had always thought that Garcia was going to develop into our stopper(he just seemed like the type of guy), but he never did. And for what it’s worth, I like Garcia’s contract and situation better than Beno’s. it’s for less, and I believe he’s a better fit for the team. In Beno, I disagree that he’s a particularly good fit. Sure, he got along well, but he doesn’t really space the floor, he isn’t playmaking oriented, and he’s a terrible defender on anybody that can move like a point guard, and is too short to defend the two. The only thing I really see in his favor is that he doesn’t get in the way of Evans being who he needs to be, and he can shoulder some of the ball handling responsibilities. I like Udrih, and would find him to be very valuable coming off the bench on a smaller contract.

"The idea that numbers hold great weight on players value is a bunch of crap. Always has been and always will be."

There are lots of players that provide value that doesn’t show up on a stat sheet. Bruce Bowen used to be one of them. But they show obvious value in their other ways, such as when you look at the stat sheet of the guy he is guarding. Or they provide an attitude or toughness or fearlessness(Robert Horry). But these are still the fillers on championship and playoff caliber teams. They aren’t your biggest contracts on a bottom of the barrel rebuilding team. Because they’re totally replaceable.

"The fact here is that few players are less likely to bust their ass if they don’t feel they are getting paid their worth."

Maybe that’s true, but if I were getting paid millions to play basketball, I’d hardly feel underpaid, even if I were a league average player. Especially since I signed the contract and there’s nothing I could do about it until my deal expires. I know I’m not everybody.

"That’s kind of why I don’t agree about your philosophy (if that’s what it is) Rory. It seems to me you’ve ignored the very important human and psychology elements that come with running a NBA team. It’s not all peaches and cream with these guys every day, and one way you can say you’re taking care of a guy is by paying them. It’s not perfect, but I’d much rather the Kings pay Cisco and Beno a bit over what they are worth than have them be good values for lesser years and constantly go through "well what happens if this guy signs for more arguments every year". It gets rather old quick. I like stability, and with a team that has exactly 4 players remaining from the 2008-09 roster (Greene, Thompson, Cisco & Beno), a young team needs stability to grow itself. It doesn’t need older veterans who are only concerned about their next payday and ruining the chemistry and/or ball movement to get that next contract. That kills a lot of teams already."

You’re right, these guys do have brittle egos a lot of the time. I just don’t know that you need to cater to the egos of veterans when they probably aren’t going to be a part of the team when it comes time to win. I personally would rather fill the team with young, eager players that have the potential to make improvements, and don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes time for them to complain about minutes or salary. I see your point about stability, and it is important for a team to maintain some. Personally I think the best way to do that is with the coach though. It engenders loyalty and trust in the system. I also like for guys to grow into their games together, just not at the expense of better players.

"You may disagree with GP’s reasoning on a lot of things, but I’m willing to bet a lot of money that I don’t have that you’ve completely ignored the human and psychology element of the game."

You’re right. I have ignored the human and psychology element at this stage. I believe that the psychology of our future players is important because it shapes the habits and style that they will play with for their careers. I don’t, however, agree that the psychology of players that aren’t important for our extended future is particularly important. The only risk I see is them having negative influences on the younger players, but catering to them doesn’t really do anything different. I just shows the incoming players that it’s ok to be a diva. When the time comes that the team is ready to be winners, that’s when veterans become important. Because when we’re losing, they don’t need to be on the floor.

I don’t know how this whole thing got so personal between us(though I’m sure if I read back I’d see the key points), but it was never my intention for this to become anything more than a friendly debate. I stand by my statement in the closing paragraph from my first post, which has remained my central argument, "long term commitments to mediocre talent impedes the team’s ability to take advantage of good opportunities."