Let's rack the Sac...
"Hello Sactown, jhulz here from the basketball crazy island of the Philippines. Been a Kings fan since 1998. I was so happy with the way the new ownership is dealing the team with confidence and structured plan. My question is, with the current lineup the team has do you have insights on who the team should draft? Cause the last 2 drafts that the team has made was totally a disaster of sorts. Thanks and Long live the Kings, excited for the coming season."
I'm sure that you will get alternate theories in the thread, but I've been holding pretty firm to the notion that this draft pick should be made with virtually no acknowledgement of the current roster. This is a roster that has anything but a winning lineage over the past several years, and the two key players (Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins) have been around for the past three seasons. Only Jason Thompson is currently under contract for more than two seasons, and he is a moveable piece. So I say draft the guy that you like the most and then sort it out from there.
Now, I do agree that if it comes down to two players that the franchise likes equally, roster fit would be an appropriate tie breaker. My top seven has not changed much over the past few weeks. I still have them racked Noel, Porter, Oladipo, McLemore, McCollum, Burke and Len, in that order. Anthony Bennett could easily go before the Kings pick, which means that two of my seven would be available, along with Carter-Williams and Zeller. Watching Michael Malone's involvement at the workouts gives me a good feeling about whomever the Kings draft this year.
From kingsoftheboxscore: "Total hypothetical. Let's say Vivek decided he needed a brand new slate and announced that he was planning on changing the name of the Kings. Would you be pissed, excited or indifferent? And let's say it was definitely going to happen and they let the fans have a vote, what would you want the Sacramento basketball team to be named?"
I can't imagine anything but "Kings." My favorite past local name may have been the "Gold Miners" of the Canadian Football League, though that is kind of close to the 49ers. The "Capitals" is a good name for the World Team Tennis team. But if I had no choice and the Kings name was going to be no more and I had to pick a new name? "River Otters". Because (a) our rivers, (b) I love otters, and (c) I don't think that we have any river otters, so it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Let's head below the Mail Sac's Mason Dixon line and field one from polotown: "As you know, I am a fairly new NBA fan. I am truly confounded by one rule. Why does the possessing team get to advance the floor on a time-out? It is especially annoying when good defense manages to trap on the inbound play, the trapped player gets out of it by calling a TO, and then they advance the floor as a reward? I assume this rule was instituted to serve some purpose, but I truly don't understand why."
Well, to my best knowledge, here is the rule history...
- For an inbounds play for the last two minutes, the offensive team has the option of moving the ball to midcourt or taking it at the spot following a timeout. - Adopted 1976
- After a change of possession in the last two minutes of regulation or any overtime period, the offensive team can call a regular or 20-second timeout and advance the ball to midcourt. The team has the option of inbounding the ball in the frontcourt or backcourt. If it passes into the backcourt, the 10-second rule applies. Previously teams could advance the ball only by calling a regular timeout and had to inbound the ball into the frontcourt. - Adopted 2000 (10 second rule was changed to 8 seconds in 2001.)
I can't find a reason for it, but I'd have to think that the increased opportunity in last second shots had to play a role. Also, I believe that there was a time where you could not inbound the ball into the back court once you advanced it to the front court, but that has since changed.
Pick & Droll time. What should the criteria be for professional sports hall of fame induction?
The NFL relies solely on player performance. This enables a Lawrence Taylor (for example) to be enshrined, and an O.J. Simpson to retain his induction, while a baseball player with such a checkered past might not fare so well. Pete Rose immediately springs to mind. This is especially a hot topic as it pertains to baseball and PEDs.
Me? I'd like to see Rose in the hall of fame, with a plaque that notes that he is baseball's all-time hit leader and that he was banned from baseball for gambling. I'd like to see the outstanding players of the PED era recognized, as it is virtually impossible to legitimately determine who all was and was not juiced during this period. And if there is proof, put ‘em in and note it on the plaque. It's the story of baseball - tell it! And I'd like to see the baseball writers get over themselves and lighten up a bit (or a lot). Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford are two noted "cheaters" that are in the hall, but there is a romance to their cheatin' ways, so it's cool, right? Sorry, it makes no sense to me.
One thing that I like about the basketball hall of fame is that it is not restricted to the professional game. Ralph Sampson, for example, is an inductee on the steam of being a 3-time Naismith winner, a 2-time Wooden winner, a 3-time consensus 1st team All-American, as well as a 3-time NBA all star. Mel Daniels was enshrined last year for his ABA accomplishments. The 1966 Texas Western basketball team is enshrined. I'm a huge baseball fan, but it is the basketball hall that I would really like to visit, as it seems to be the most inclusive and most varied in the stories that are told.
Remember to send your questions or topic ideas to firstname.lastname@example.org. And as always, the ensuing thread is 100% jackable.