From the Chron  via FreeDarko, after game 2 (I'm certain everyone has already seen this, but from this comes later argumentation):

"You said it, man. That's it," McGrady said. "If we win that game (Monday) night — despite me scoring only one point in the fourth quarter — if we win that game, oh, I had an awesome game, an unbelievable game. If we win, I made my teammates better, I rebounded, I played defense. That would have been the story line. But because we lost ...

"I can't do nothing about it."

And today, the Rockets win, beating the oft-noted-how-good-they-are-at-home Jazz (with the ball poetic Skip to my Lou returning to the point giving the Rockets an offense that consists of more than centering on the Star).  The result: T-Mac in the headlines (quick summary of all the press: T-Mac, he so good! his penis, so tasty!), and even on ESPN Daily Dime:

HOUSTON'S BEST:
Part II - T-Mac: So much for all of that Tracy McGrady fourth-quarter slump talk. He fired in seven of his 27 points in the final period as the Rockets avoided falling into a 3-0 hole in the series.

and, attatched to a vicious photo:

If it is so tough to win in Utah, someone forgot to tell Tracy McGrady who posted 27 points, seven assists and five rebounds in Houston's 94-92 win Thursday.

Now, 7 points as aversed to 1 point isn't that amazing. It's even less impressive when considering what happened in crunch time (note to reader: I did not watch the two games, as a result of weird scheduling and a cracked phone screen). From the game recap:

Kyle Korver hit a 3-pointer, McGrady was called for an offensive foul and Okur hit another 3 to draw the Jazz within 93-92 with 37 seconds left. McGrady missed at the other end and the Jazz had a chance to win, but Landry blocked Williams' shot from the lane and the rebound went to Luis Scola, who was fouled and went 1-for-2 from the line with 0.2 seconds left.

Hmmm, doesn't seem like very clutch to me. Excuse the ignorance of that statement - I love T-Macs game - it is a mock voice of what should have been in the media. We, the viewing proletariat, know that we cannot expect T-Mac to carry a team for an entire game. I rather see him as the cornerstone to a great team, but the media forces him to be in the same position of Lebron and Kobe - the team, not just part of the team. So, when his team wins, he's given the same superstardom. However, an offensive foul followed by a miss does not a clutch scorer make.

Yet, today he is venerated. Weird: McGrady's words are prophetic ("if we win"). The media? What role are they serving: the devil, the angel, the scripture?

 What is the result of this inclarity: a pendulum of emotion, as profit is attempted to be made on a game and the presentation of the game to the plebs unaware of Senate debates (the media gets the information, then formulates it to a vantage point that will sell, not giving the reader the choice to pick the items of sale). Strangely, we have our own discussions (the blogosphere harkens), and we can point these out and uplift (the internet a tool that cuts at the power the Senate owns - education and information; if New Yorkers can read the Houston Chronicle, then everyone can draw their own conclusions rather than listen to Sportscenter). Traditional media is scuffled now, seeing its power basis being lost, so they push themselves even more strongly, trying to assert as much of what they have while they have it (minimize the storylines, focus on the emotional extreme, and avoid nuance because nuance allows interpretation, and with interpretation comes a quest for more information - a quest to the the very internet information they seek to hide). So what is happening? The media seeks to stupidify the masses to stupify their basis.

What would that be, then, metaphorically speaking, if in the religion of basketball the player seeks to reinvent the truth (he the prophet), the media is a conspiring elite intent on controlling this for their own profits (King Henry?), then would the bloggers be Calvinists? Hot with fury nailing redeclarations on the doors of those offending?

It would be easier to ignore, if the deemed prophet didn't announce his own self-sacrifice just prior to the realization of dissatisfaction with the status quo, from the very same article in which he announces his prophecy:

 "It's my fault we missed free throws. It's my fault we lost both games. Blame me. It's my fault we fouled to tie the game up. That's my fault. It's my fault they get easy layups. It's my fault we're not executing well on the offensive end. It's my fault a couple people in the stands ordered Heinekens and they got Budweiser. It's my fault. I'm sorry."

 Ha. God is dead, Neitzsche said, but he didn't realize that it was mock suicide. Now the confrontation between moralists and strategists must occur, and we see our frontlines waging. When the controllable traditional media loses viewers to those expressing independent thought, the dollar bottom lines will push the issue forward. Whether it is in Amick v Theus or Cuban v Every bloggger or Dolan v Anyone, the free dissemination of information is is creating dissension, and soon destruction.

The colosseums roar.

According to ESPN's Chad Ford (via Insider):

Believe it or not, Ron Artest's name has come up in San Antonio. Some believe that given the team's system, he can be controlled and would give them more toughness on the wing, where Bruce Bowen is slowing down. Bringing in Artest may sound far-fetched given the Spurs' emphasis on character and chemistry, but remember that Stephen Jackson was the starting shooting guard for one of the Spurs' recent title teams. If the need is powerful enough, San Antonio will do what it takes to win.

Brent Barry is a big, fat expiring. I'm not sure what the Spurs would give up, though. What do you guys think?

Alright, this originally started as me replying to moproblemz, at which point my reply ballooned disproportionately from what I originally started. So, we've got pookeyguru's vision. This is mine - it alters primarily in two regards: a) we trade Artest to Denver instead of Golden State (because I don't think we can get BWright now nor flip K9 on them), and b) Miller's trade happens in the off-season rather than before the deadline (because I don't see Joe Dumars making a panic decision now, and it gives me a reason to write a long-winded post).

Before this begins, the obligatory Bibby comment:  I've reached my peace with the Bibby trade. Best of luck to the guy, I honestly hope he leads the Hawks to the playoffs, and maybe the second round. At the end of the season, I want the Hawks feeling like it was a ridiculously good deal for them. Then over the summer Shelden will morph into the ogre that his outer-shell has been hiding, and he becomes an 8 pts, 15 rbnd, 5 block, 3 steal in under-30-mins-a-game monster, and Petrie will cackle gloriously. Even if Shelden doesn't develop - whatever, both sides had to move on. Here's hoping we find ourselves Carlos Boozer (or even Glen Davis) with that 2nd round pick.

Now, to the analysis. moproblemz brought up this point:

Also something else you eluded to, via Amick, Lue can be moved again to slightly bolster [the Kleiza/Najera] trade.  Busy week for Petrie that is for sure.

Can Lue really be flipped right-away like that? He can, he just can't be traded with anyone. Do the Nuggets really want him? I'm going to assume more than JR, for conversation's sake. It'd be difficult, b/c of his trade-alone clause... but:

Lue for Kleiza and JR Smith check
And Artest for Atkins and Najera? Terrible - we don't want Atkins for that long.
or Artest for Najera, Von Wafer and Carter check?

Well, that'll ride up our player depth astronomically. And the Nuggets only have 13, so a 5-for-2 isn't feasible for them, really.

But this is:
Lue for JR and Von Wafer (or Carter) check.
And Artest for Kleiza and Najera.

I like that deal. 4-2 would put the Nuggets at 11, and they'll be looking to pick up another PF anyway (Rod Benson?). The Nuggets in essence give up JR to keep their pick (a wise move on their part, if you ask me).

JR Smith  is expiring, but the Kings can resign or use a sign-and-trade for in the off-season; I don't think his value'll be too high then, considering that he's failed for two teams. He could be a great backup for K-Mart, and think he'll respond well under Theus.
JR, Kleiza + cap space = good deal for Artest, and the Nuggets don't give up their picks. Petrie wins, they win, everybody is happy, trade goes through.

We'll be ridiculously loaded at the wings, but I think playing K-Mart and Salmons whilst switching in JR and Kleiza would make a great 2-3 punch at all points in the game for those positions, at any point you'd have a guy who can take it to the whole and a guy who can shoot. Well-balanced bball. Now, as for how exactly we'd play all those wings:

We've got 48 minutes to share at 3 positions (+/- 15-20 mins at the four for Salmons+Kleiza, together - not each), spread across 7 guys (Beno,Douby, Cisco, Kleiza, KMart, Salmons, JR).  Clearly two guys are going to lose out, big. That'll probably be JR, Cisco or Douby, unless one of these guys can become a 15-mins-a-game-at-high-intensity guy (unlikely - JR craves playing time, and we've been dying to give it to Douby and Cisco). Between Cisco and Douby, Cisco is the only one that'll have any sort of value on the market, and JR can just not be resigned. So, Douby'll be the easiest to keep or waive.
Plus Douby+Dahntay=Money right now, so maybe Douby+JR=MoMoney? Again, too much limited minutes to really decide, but there are many possibilities amongst these guys.
So, long-term it's not a problem once you've decided. The problem is short-term allocation of playing time during the remainder of the year in order to determine which players will be the keepers. Maybe you play K-Mart, Kleiza and Salmons less to help determine that (drop Kev and John to below thirty-a-game, with Linas under-25 - which is almost what he plays now) . That leaves you with about 70-75 minutes-a-game (48 from the PG, assume 15-20 mins of PF play from Salmons and Kleiza, and 7 minutes left over from Salmons-Martin-Kleiza) to play Beno (25), JR(20), Cisco(15), and Douby(15). Also, we'd begin to phase out players that weren't making the cut as the season progresses, so playing time would build up for the players that need the development time.

Other ways to tackle playing-time crunch/make a decision on who to keep: Or maybe Theus develops a new type of gameplan that goes twelve-deep and is composed solely of running your opponent up-and-down till death. Or maybe we just give up on Douby, JR and/or Cisco (not my preffered), and package them away over the summer for cap space or a draft pick in the near-to-distant future. To tell you the truth, if Douby doesn't develop so that he can play the PG position, he'll just have to be the one to go, sad to say.  Or maybe we get outbid for Beno and JR, and thus have to keep Cisco and Douby.

Somehow, you have to settle by next season that you are playing 5 players in the three wing positions (excluding rookies).

But 7 wings ain't such a bad thing, really? Cause that'll leave 5 spots for the 4s and 5s - which include Miller, Mikki, Shawes, Najera, Shelden and Justin (btw, we need a nickname for these two - ASAP, elst we might have confusing posts). We are not going to play deeper than that. K-9 and Shreef should never record another minute played for this team, that's clear - and it'll stay that way till they become expiring contracts (unless Shreef gets healthy, then we'll ship him out for some expirings).

Now, who of the 6 bigs gets cut down? Alternate Mikki and Najera off the inactive list is my solution, and give Justin Williams lots of playing time immediately (more than Shelden). If he shows himself to be worth something in game situations, then you reduce his minutes and develop Shawes and Shelden more extensively. If he fails, waive him, and bring in Najera, with Mikki as a low-minute alternate. Or maybe just waive Najera, as he is much cheaper to get rid of then Mikki, though this might be more than Petrie can stomach. Or maybe trade Najera to Cleaveland for Newble and Devin Brown and some random pick for our troubles, as a sort of "sorry-for-losing-out-on-the-Bibby-sweepstakes." Orlando works in this scenario, or to San Antonio for Brent Barry and a pick, if the Spurs are interested.

(also - I'm sad Dahntay had to get waived. When I went to the New Jersey game, I just kept waiting for him to go airborn. There's something exciting in the anticipation of a dunk waiting to break free. But I really don't think he was going to be able to do anything in the long-run for this team, really.)

For every other player not mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs, waive him. Hopefully he'll find a spot somewhere, or gets some nice pay in Europe, but I'm not exactly emotionally attatched.

We'll have a roster of under fifteen after the dust settles. I recommend keeping Brad till the off-season - he'll aid greatly in the development of our three young bigs. In the off-season, trade him to Detroit, who will be looking for something after losing game 7 to the Celtics in the playoffs - so much so that maybe they give up a pick?
Or maybe the Hawks, when they realize Bibby really needs a passing big man (not sure this deal can actually happen).
Or maybe the Magic, who'll need him to create floor space and get players involved (a frequent criticism for them). I'm not expecting anything in return, just cap relief (Cook-Reddick-Battie get's the job done - and Reddick is a decent pick-up, truthfully).

So, basically the Kings have created a ton of cap space at this point, that they will thenceforth use only to resign their own players.

A year-and-a-half after trading Miller, the Kings'll find yourself with Battie+K-9 or Shreef+K9=$10mill expiring. On the roster, Kings should have 4-5 wings, and 3-4 bigs (depending on draft-choices and re-signings), use the expiring bloat to acquire a piece to fill the weak spot in the line-up. Kev-Mart, Shawes, and Salmons are the only guarantees* in the line-up at that time, but Cisco, Douby, Kleiza, JR, the Sinohydrosaurus** are all potential role-players, and I assume we draft one stud this year, and an all-star next year, and two more role players between the two years.

So, at this point, the Kings have a small core of established players, a large amount of fringe talent, and a couple useless expiring contracts.

I can't give really good details about the key move we'll make then at this point (predicting the future of the NBA well enough for that date is nigh-impossible), but I'm envisioning many of the guys looking for big extensions next season as being available in three seasons, when the team they signed with falls miserably out of contention and they starting asking for a way out. This way, we use our expirings+excessive-young-fringe-talent to trade for the marquee piece that sends us on our way. The cap space we've built up over the years is intended solely to resign some of our picks to logical contracts. No free agents are picked up, unless Petrie comes across a steal, or adds roster-filler.

This is a key point in my plan: the Kings DO NOT engage in free-agent bidding wars. We'd have three all-star caliber players in our roster from in-house development (a lofty assumption I'm making about K-Mart, Shawes and the high pick Petrie gets next year when the Kings suck it up - note that I said all-star caliber, not necessarily all-star... though for freaks sake, Manu wasn't an All-Star this year).

Those homegrown players + the marquee talent we steal from whomever for expirings and some of our youth (combinations of Douby, Cisco, Kleiza, JR, picks we've made, future picks) = a championship contender.

Once this is completed: Begin Championship-Contention.  At this point, the kings will be bordering the luxury-tax, and will pay it for the next four or so seasons after as they go deep into the playoffs**.

This Diary was an attempt to outline how we get to that point, beginning post-Bibby trade. I've tried to be as detailed as I can where I could have, but as understandable, I fail at the specifics farther into the future. The key-points are to acquire as much young talent as possible, and to not bother trying to move untradeables at the expense of the value in those trades. Keep the untradeables untill they expire, or use their expiring value as trade-bait. Cap Space is never directly used to pick up a big-time free agent; rather the Kigns will position themselves to over-pay for a name-brand player with young talent rather than outright signing.

This is massive, and it's 6:30 am, and it needs some more development and well-rested thinking. But, I'd love to hear your initial responses and points-against, as this is the basic premise. I'll fill in details and make corrections, but this is my goal. Is it feasible? Whaddya think?

Thanks for reading.

*Guaranteed as in definitely'll have them contracted till then. I assume Shawes develops and Petrie resigns him, because Petrie doesn't make bad draft choices, especially when that pick is #10.

* Shelden-Justin. It was the best I could come up with.

* Or so I hope.

Hey everyone,

This is something I've been wondering about, been concerned about, and since everyone here is talking future over present (except coolcat, much to everyone else's chagrin), I wanted to bring up the topic of the best means to rebuild.

Many have argued for blowing-it-up and starting over via the good ol' draft. Thankfully, we've got a guy who can pick 'em (Petrie), so we don't have to worry so much about picks being wasted on Shelden Williams or Sebastian Telfair (book is still out on Shawes, naysayers, but I'm voting positive on him anyway).

Now, utilizing the cheap talent of drafts, the team can collect cap space and make a splash in the free agent market, correct? Then with cornerpieces from the draft and free agency, the team can make a legitimate title run. This is what I believe is the general preference for the gameplan to rebuilding the kings.

Well, this could be a problem: It's hard to sign yourself a free agent.

Here's why: we'll be looking at signing young talent, who can grow with the team a little whilst providing that veteran leadership. Well, that young talent is usually attatched to some heavy restrictions or Bird rights (unless they're second round stars Boozer and Arenas), as well as partial loyalty to the team that raised them from college boy to NBA man.

Look at the Heat's attempts to grab Mo Williams. They made an offer, hell Mo liked it alot, liked the Heat, was interested in playing for them, and then what happened? Bucks bought him back, much to the disappointment of the Heat - but Mo got his. The same thing happened to Charlie Bell, and he didn't even want to go back.

So, the Kings will need a helluva lot of cap space to get those key pieces from outside. Can we agree on this point?

Well, then that means we would need to draft guys that can contribute rather quickly. Because if we've got alot of young talent worth their weight in NBA salary, then eventually we're going to have to extend those rookie contracts (hence, higher picks are better because we lock 'em up for longer). So, we'll have to suck it up (in the NBA) and get high picks, or we'll have to suck it up (in the gut) and pay lots of money for our talent (much the same way we do for our homeboy Speedracer).

Well, there's a tricky balance there. We need young talent to stay cheap, develop them and clear cap space to sign some marquee free agents, keep our useful talent on the roster via extensions, and do this all within a reasonable budget lest the Maloofs consider selling low.

Now, I stole this from here . Consider this question:

"Pop Quiz: In the past 10 years, 47 NBA all-stars were drafted and 43 all-stars were obtained via trade.

How many all-stars were acquired via free-agency as a result of clearing salary cap space?"

C'mon, think this through. It's gotta be something along the lines of those traded, right? How about 40? No... ok, 20? No.... ten?!?!

Nine is the answer (prior to this season, who knows what the heck is going to happen in the next 2 months to change the above numbers). Even in recent history, it was talent (and draft picks) used to acquire the big names: Iverson, Garnett, Ray Allen, Z Randolph.

That puts a damper on our plans. Seems we should more be in the business of acquiring cheap, young talent than pure cap space.

And the "big" names acquired recently from another team via free agency? Most that come to mind are overpaid: 'Shard Lew (which was basically a trade from Grant Hills expiring to his long deal), Ben Wallace (Chicago "gave up" young talent in Tyson Chandler), Kapono, Matt Carol, Mo Williams, Nazr Mohammed. The teams that tried to broker legitimate deals all failed: Cleaveland with Varejo, GState with Petrius and Barnes, CHicago with Gordon and Deng, Atlanta with Josh, Phila with Iguadola. The only legitimate deal that comes to mind is Gerald Wallace. Now, this could just be my own perceptions modifying my memories to suplant its own arguments, but the more I think of it, the less likely it seems that the Kings will be able to pull out ahead in a free-agent battle within the next two years (without Ron and Bibby, but assuming we still got Brad, Shreek and woof!).

Three years, say we get rid of all those contracts? Well, by then most of our team is depleted. John aint young anymore, Douby will be who-knows-what, Dahntay and Justin will be in Europe (sorry, but at the playing time they get, that future is invetable), Shawes will be looking for a contract extension, Cisco would have gotten his, and we'd have at least four rookies sitting around. How much cap space could we have? Do we just rely on luck, and hope that our rookies have most of the positions filled, and all we need is that last piece (and thus can afford to overpay on only one individual)? Or do we hope we've got enough appetizers that we can collect all-stars-on-the-cheap to make a solid run?

All these points come together to form this final point: If we've neglected the talent aspect of our rebuilding, then we might be risking alot for the franchise.

Hence why, I think, Petrie is obsessed with getting value and not just cap space. We need picks and youth in order to build serious players (either growing them or trading them). Cap Space is over-valued in this community. Not dramatically so, mind you, but if we're going to give up a piece, we need to get something cheap and useful back that we can keep. Most seem interested in just dumping players (that's what I mean by neglecting the talent aspect of rebuilding).
 Because one-piece-a-year-from-the-draft isn't enough to rebuild a contender. Stockpiling young, cheap talent to either develop or trade into useful pieces does work. So, I say, maybe we should dispel with all the giving-away-for-cap-space talk about our big contracts (unless their names are Kenny Thomas). I also think that considering the amount of talent it takes to win a championship (Lakers, Suns, Spurs, Mavericks, Celtics, Pistons all have at least three crazy-sick players), the expectation that we'll be able to sign all the talent we'd need if we just have cap space is also false, considering how little guys switch teams solely via free agency (and how expensive they are when they do).

Now, let the responses begin. Whaddya guys think? Do you agree with the reasoning? More importantly, how do you disagree and why?

UPDATE: Trying to format things pretty, a la pookeys recommendations.

It's going to be my first time seeing the Kings, I'll post a recap afterwards.

Nets vs. Kings. Heeeeeeeeeck.... yeah.

The drama? Mikki Moore returns to the meadowlands; no love lost, but can hate be gained? Ron Artest is getting knocked for his gameply - does he step up, or continue being selfish? can Brad Miller dominate when the other team has no good bigs? can Douby ever make his mark? Salmons starts... does Garcia spark the bench? does Spencer Hawes get off the bench? Will Justin Williams ever play?  Does KT chalk up a DNP - CD?

Who wins the dunk contest: Dahntay or Vince? Does Jason Kidd suffer a migraine? Does Magloire look like an all-star on our bigs? What will Sean Williams do? Bostjan Nachbar, anyone? ...anyone? Any chance Richard Jefferson drops 50?

Will Jay-Z show? More importantly, will Beyonce show? Will the Kings offense show up? Will I get booted out of the stadium for over-zealousness?

Uber-excitement of untold levels coming from this side of the country. Sorry, this not meant to take over the real game preview, but I'm leaving soon and I was worried I'll miss the real preview.

Any chance Udrih takes one to the old team?
Show a little something something to show up Pop-a-snitch (slightly censored nickname)?

I'm definitely going to be looking at the box score tonight to compare point guards... maybe Beno plays defense tonight, tries to shut down Tony (though we might play Ron-Ron on him).

Poll

Who wins the battle of the point guards?

• Tony Parker dominates.
• Beno Udrih drops bombs.
• Mike Bibby - he gets to be in the stands oggling Eva.
• Douby!
• Orien Gr... oh, yeah.

  35 votes | Results