Preposterous, I know. But, upon close inspection (by my standards), It actually seems like a pretty darn good idea for the Kings to make a run at signing free agent Lamar Odom. Here's the case against him: He'll turn 30 at the beginning of the season, he may or may not have a pathological addiction to candy, he has been accused of disappearing at times, the Kings aren't good enough yet to take a risk on a crowning piece like Odom. What follows is the argument in favor of his signing with the Kings.

Continue reading this post »

Though the tide of opinion has turned somewhat as Paul Westphal's hiring became a reality over the course of the last couple days, it seems to me that there's still a lingering displeasure with the choice floating around this community. The first rumors of Westphal's candidacy inspired little excitement from SactownRoyalty, due in large part to votes of no confidence by ClipperSteve and Kevin Pelton whose basketball opinions TZ (apparently) trusts. Since most of us trust TZ's opinions on the Kings, some mathematical property with a name that I forgot in seventh grade applied and we branded Westphal a "retread" (an ironic accusation, since one of the few qualifications that Petrie called for was head-coaching experience). But the lures of Westphal's conference-winning rookie season as head coach of Phoenix, stellar overall winning percentage in the NBA, and distinguished playing career were too appealing for me to ignore.

In my opinion, his record in Phoenix speaks for itself. Say what you will about the amount of talent that he inherited from the architects of that team; I think we can all name plenty of immensely talented teams that never took the Bulls to six games in the Finals. Westphal's Suns won at least one playoff series in all three of his full seasons, and lost to the eventual NBA Champion each time. Maybe he was just staying out of the way, but he was staying out of the way of Charles Barkley (and winning 59 games per season in the process). That's impressive for a rookie coach. As for his poor record with Pepperdine, I simply don't care. Neither his lack of success at Pepperdine, nor his fantastic achievements at Grand Canyon College mean anything to me. It's not the same job - ask John Calipari.

So that brings us to Seattle, Westphal's most recent stop as an NBA head coach. What happened? In short: he took over a very good team, had some okay seasons, and got fired. But what else happened? Knowing little about those teams, I went to the online archives of the Seattle Times and learned some interesting things that changed my perception of this period of his career. (Spoiler: I give him the benefit of the doubt.) So if you've got the time - and, let's be honest, you do if you've gotten this far - follow me as trace the erratic course of Paul Westphal's tenure in Seattle, as reported by the Seattle Times.

Continue reading this post »

Since we're all Kings fans, we're all probably used to hoping for the best and expecting the worst. (Pervis Ellison, Bobby Hurley, Game 6 - I'm sure I don't have to remind you). So what happens if we end up with the #3 or #4 pick? Well some of us are impressed by Thabeeeeeeet! and some are excited about the potential of Tyreke Evans, and some even want to trade down if we can't get 1 or 1a. But what about trading up?

There are a few teams with a good chance of sneaking ahead of us that seem to need Rubio just as bad as we do (Clippers, T-Wolves). But there are some other teams with good lottery odds that have much bigger holes than PG. For instance, if the Wiz were to win the #1 pick, they'd probably pick Griffin. If the Thunder then were to get the #2 pick and the Kings the #3, I think we'd be in a pretty good position to switch spots. The Thunder already have a talented, 20 year-old PG to develop; they'd have much more use for a dominant pivot who can run the floor and anchor their defense (Thabeet).

So the questions are these: If the Kings don't get a top-2 pick and Rubio's still available at #2, should they try to trade up? What would you be willing to give up in order to get this done? Do you think teams would demand too much? Would the options be financially feasible?

In honor of what Peaches unilaterally (though probably fairly) decreed the worst loss of the season tonight, I'd like to invite the StR community to take a moment to ring off its best Kings one-liners. Remember - while inappropriateness isn't required, it will get you bonus points in the lightning round. Personally I'm going to follow the classic [blank] the Kings is like [blank], [blank] format, but feel free to develop your own style.

For example, I'll start:

Playing for the Kings is like being a horny teenager; you're constantly beating yourself but you rarely break a sweat doing so.

Or, for the PG-13 set:

Being a Kings fan is like fighting with the Order of the Phoenix in the Battle for Hogwarts; your only hope is a scrawny teenager with a dopey haircut.

Go ahead, let's see what you've saved up over the course of 63 losses.

There are a variety of reasons that this may be a stupid question. Maybe it's been discussed here, maybe its premise is ridiculous. I don't know. So as I have in so many times of desperate confusion, I turn to the internet for answers:

I have no idea if JVG is interested in coaching in the NBA in 2009 (let alone in Sacramento). Logically, it makes sense to me - he's still relatively young, and coaches usually can't stay away. But I'm completely unaware of his personal circumstances.

So why do I bring him up? Well, like others around here I believe that Sacramento's next head coach needs to have an established track record as a success at this level. We have too many "project" players to also have a "project" coach.

Eddie Jordan (who has been advocated for on StR and elsewhere) has the credentials, the Kings connection, and the x-and-o ability to improve any team's offense. I think he's a great candidate.

Still, I wonder if Van Gundy wouldn't be an equally-good or better candidate, and why he hasn't been discussed more on StR. His reputation suggests that he could help give the Kings something that fans have pined for in Sacramento for years: defensive toughness. And his record (career 57.5 and 50 win percentages in the regular season and postseason, respectively) suggests that whatever he does works.

I understand the argument that a coach should play to his personnel's strengths, and teams put together by Petrie tend to be offensive minded. But I also think this group has parallels to teams that Van Gundy has suceeded with in the past (i.e. skilled bigs, scrappy wings, and a pure-scoring guard. The idea of a bunch of offensively-skilled young players versed in Coachie's system, who have Van Gundy's style of hardnosed defense drilled into them excites me.

But when all is said and done, I admit to knowing little about Van Gundy or Jordan specifically and NBA coaching generally, which is why I came to you in the first place. So chew it over while you watch the #1 seeds trounce the #16's and get back to me.