SB Nation User Blog: pookeyguru

Meet one Career Arc of a Bronc

pookeyguru — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:06:51 -0000

If you haven't figured out from the post of the title, then maybe you will by this next line. This is about Jason "Skywalker" Thompson. But I got to thinking that the best case scenario for JT is probably someone around the realm of David West isn't it? Aren't they similar type players? Players with some outside skills who mainly thrive on the outside? Put up good numbers in college, although West certainly did it against best talent in the Atlantic 10 (Xavier's conference) than JT did at Ryder playing in the MAAC. But let's say for a moment the worst case scenario is Mark Blount. If you look at Blount's age when he came into the Pro's he was a whopping 25. That's very old for a player playing his first season. Unlike West and Jt who were both 22 during their first season that makes quite a bit of difference. So it's hard for me to believe that the worst case scenario is Mark Blount. Now look at Jt's stats and age. He's going to start the season at 22 years of age, and he will turn 22 on the 21st of this month. Look at David West's age, and look how old he ended up being at the end of his rookie season. Not bad production for a 23 year old rookie with upside. He was productive and simply got better. So, what's my point? Either Chris Paul made West into a pure All-Star by affiliation, or West is doing something right. Barring a major injury to JT, he could be somewhere on this type of career arc. After all, isn't that what dreams are for? Especially in the summer with little to do?

Sonics fans get screwed; City of Seattle ups the Ante to a cool 75 Mill

pookeyguru — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:58:17 -0000

Sonics fans get screwed; City of Seattle ups the Ante to a cool 75 Mill

As you can imagine the title says it all, but given the chance to alter history with how teams negotiate lease's with cities, especially one's who buy arena/stadium's for teams, should not be screwed by this. This is a crappy day for every Sonics fan, and every NorthWest resident. This is a terrible day, and I don't know how to describe it. Other than to say that Clay Bennett, David Stern, Howard Schultz and Greg Nickels share the greatest amount of blame.

The Seattle Public deserves the Sonics

pookeyguru — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:10:41 -0000

The Seattle Public deserves the Sonics

Today Danny Westneat pointed out how much of a sham and Machiavellian exercise the fight to keep the Sonics has become. But the point about the fans being the most important people in this fiasco is clearly the most important thing to remember. That, and what legal precedent gets set as a result of this trial.

Stuck in the middle of a Cowtown with Cowbells

pookeyguru — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:58:08 -0000

Well I don't know why I came here tonight I got the feeling that something ain't right I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the right Here I am Stuck in the middle with you Yes I am stuck in the middle with you

This is where the Kings are kinda at with the Beno signing, and the Jason Thompson draft selection, and maybe even more so with the selections of Mike "Sean" Singletary, and Patrick Ewing Jr. That's the problem being in the middle. You either drop precipitously. Or you tell your fans to go fuck themselves and get a life for 3 months until the games are played. Or maybe, you don't do that, and you tell the fans that competitiveness is next to godliness. Or something like that.

With a nod to someone on Kingsfans who pointed this out, and much to my surprise at that, but I also assume every dog has his day, is that Beno has an interesting parallel to a current PG whose career started off slowly. He grew up playing soccer, and cricket sometimes, or maybe not, and he grew up in a tiny island closer to the country of the south than his own. He ended up playing in a smallish school in the Bay Area, then ended up being behind 2 near/Hall of Famers in the rotation when finally arriving to the L. 4 years later he finally started showing production that was worth of a top 15 pick when he averaged 15 & 7 in the 2000-01 season. Who was he? Steve Nash.

I'm not comparing Nash to Beno Udrih so don't get your knickers in a tizzy flipper okay? I'm saying that Beno Udrih didn't have a clear cut opportunity to excel at the level he believes he can. Now he does. Having the opportunity, and knowing you do, is one thing that helps players elevate their games. If Beno averages 16 & 7 no one is bitching about the 5 year deal anymore. Are they? (I'm on record for thinking the deal is too long, but who knows maybe it's right. It's definitely one of those either/or deals that can clearly go either way. For the record TZ was one of the first to say this. And several others for that matter.)

If you want to spend your life worrying about the draft picks for 2009 then that's your issue. My question is fairly simple: Does 2009 matter at this point? Getting to that draft is probably more important. After all, with Baron Davis signing with the Clippers (which is possible but I want to see all the details before I believe it's really happened--after all the Clippers must have had a tremendous amount of cap space that wasn't created by Elton Brand's opting out--technically his salary is eating up that space--but it is clear that Corey Maggette isn't being resigned and perhaps neither is Livingston--although re-signing him would not be a terrible idea given the amount of time they had invested in him) proves that anything is possible on a down year. So much so that it probably prompted Artest to lash out with his "I should have opted out email", and all that nonsense that will come with it. Ron is what he is, and that's all good fine and dandy, but what his supporters don't realize, is they're talking about David Blaine. (You remember him. He's the guy who was sponsored by Target, when most of us wanted to use that symbol to make sure he'd never appear on the Boob Tube again. Yes, I'm saying shoot him. Get over it. David Blaine sucks.) Everything that is said positive about Ron Artest is, at best, an illusion because it rarely takes place, and when it does, it's replaced with the monster that is Ron Artest. When the "what if" question is consistently used, then perhaps it's time to let go. The question is for whom? And what team will take the risk. I maintain Dallas is the best fit, and perhaps the best chance for Ron to show that the "what if" won't follow him everywhere. I think Josh Howard for Ron would be a perfect swap myself, but then again you'd have to throw Shelden Williams in that swap to make the money work. I'm game for that. Are the Mavs? (For the record Howard is expensive, he's a good player, and he's an excellent rebounder for his position. He could help the team, and it's still just as possible that Artest could help the Mavs more.)

The question I have, as many others do, is that these moves keep the team in the middle, and do nothing to push the team to a championship level. I am one of those people to an extent, but I will use a nod toward history in the hopes that the past can shed some light on the current plight of our beloved team and the flock who are willing to be fleeced like the sheep they are if this group ever wins a ring or more. Most people focus on Divac, Webber, and Williams as the key players in the team's rise. But it wasn't until Doug Christie did the team even make the 2nd round. Sometimes what the team weakness' isn't even obvious until you put a team together and see it make the playoffs a few times. That's where I think the argument that this team in the middle doesn't do anything. You can't make a championship team without having a playoff team first. It's very hard to go from last place to a championship the next year in the NBA. In fact, has it ever happened in the shot clock era?

I think it's easy to question the selection of Jason Thompson and wonder whether he was selected too high. In fact most mock drafts didn't have him higher than the 20's, with DX having him the highest, and much to my internal delight, the same mock draft written by Jonathan Givony, was also dumped on in the draft day grades. I really wonder if Givony is a Dubs fan, and was severely disappointed by the Thompson pick at 12th. Was it that big of a surprise if you mocked him to go 14th, and that the Kings were there at several of Thompson's workouts with Golden State, that he would have been selected 2 spots higher than where you mocked him only to say selecting him 2 spots up was such a reach? Anyway, I think that's the outside view of Thompson with the Kings. It's a reach that this team needed Thompson with better talent on the board. I will give Givony this: He mentioned it's too early on the board, and he mentioned that 2-3 years down the line is time to evaluate the draft.

At the time I expressed surprise with Thompson's selection, and still am a tad surprised, but the more I look at this, it's better than any other option on the board too. I still feel that way, and will always feel that way. I wasn't interested in Anthony Randolph, and definitely am not interested in Roy Hibbert. The thing is that I'm a simple guy. I believe in picking the best available player at the position you pick. If Thompson was the best big on your board, then why not take him? If the guards you were interested in no longer were available how did that show some chink in Petrie's/the organization's armor? Why not take Thompson? What was the purpose of trading down? To get a player through the draft that would take time to develop? I realize that's a valuable tool, but how well have teams done going this route? (For every team that has a successful player go this route, probably 3-5 have failed in similar circumstances. We like to remember the success more than the failure. I prefer to keep each within a relative realistic progression of each other.) Gerald Wallace anyone? How well did he do at 19 sitting on the bench? You need to give time to kids who can play, and you only have so many spots on the floor for them to do so. You can take the team that route, but the more I think about it, and I am thinking about it, I don't remember a team being successful by just putting young players on the court. There has to be more purpose in that, that is unless you get Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardwaway in back to back drafts. Then you can play them together.

One of the frustrating things about Thompson is that he's described as non-athletic. I don't really understand that. For someone described as a player grabbing rebounds out of his rebounding area, on draft day no less by Jay Bilas, to be only a solid player I find a tad confusing. If anyone has watched the Kings team since Brian Grant stopped playing here, anyone knows that this team ABSOLUTELY NEEDS A PLAYER LIKE THIS. It's not like I'm unhappy about not taking Bayless as I felt that was more of a draft board feeling myself, but I'm happy with Thompson. I didn't really want Augustin either to be honest. Alot of people did though, and since more of them studied the draft far more closely than I did, I have to respect there was a reason. That being said I think given the circumstances there isn't a better way to describe what happened. If you're put in a 3 square inch box, and that's all you got to work with, what's wrong with going for the whole 3 inch square box? After all, what does trading down really solve besides getting more draft picks? If noone is interested in taking any players you have, and the likelihood that both teams have to swap players in order to get a deal done, since most teams are over the salary cap, how does it help anyone that the team didn't make a move? Was one necessary with so many players already on the roster? If the Kings aren't going to cut players, was really anything more than a 2nd round and a 1st round pick necessary for this team at this time? I would have wanted the team to trade down, but the more I think about, I wonder what for? What would have been accomplished? At this point, the more and more I look into it, and I hate to say it given my own disputes with Petrie, namely over Artest, but given the view of all these particular points, it's hard to say Petrie made a mistake. Especially one of an egregious nature.

As far as Singletary and Ewing Jr, I'm willing to keep an open mind. I'm not sure why Ewing Jr was even considered, and I wonder what other options there were other than Singletary, but I'm not sure that was Petrie's consideration. There are money considerations, that if the Kings didn't want to pay luxury tax, and I'm pretty close to 110% sure they don't, that they're interested in having only one of the players make the roster at best. That would be the guess I have anyway. It's one thing to deal a 1st rounder away, but it's quite another to have 2nd round draft selections. Petrie has never valued them very often. And if he doesn't this time what has he lost? I'm willing to accept that Singletary, and the selection of Ewing Jr has more to do with his father potentially becoming a big man coach (which doesn't thrill me but whatever). If Singletary or Ewing Jr become productive players for the Kings at some point, all reservations will be laughed at, and forgotten almost immediately. After all, fans only ultimately care about winning, and our opinions are merely visible forms of angst. This teams choice, or simply actions, of treading water pleases few. Fans want to have a clear cut choice of pleasure. Sometimes it's not that simple, and in the case of the Kings, it probably never will be.

I walk a lonely road The only one that I have ever known Don't know where it goes But it's home to me and I walk alone I walk this empty street On the boulevard of broken dreams Where the city sleeps And I'm the only one and I walk alone My shadow's the only one that walks beside me My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating Sometimes I wish someone out there would find me Till then I walk alone

It's easy to figure out why so many fans are enamored with the Blazers. They make alot of moves (3 draft day deals in 3 years and counting), and they make some that just aren't the flashy New York Knicks kind. They seem to make a real kind of sense that most fans resonate with. They don't seem desperate, and they don't seem to be anything more than a simple franchise doing things the right way. That is unless you of course they have the richest owner in the league, and the guy treats the Blazers like some rich broads put diamonds on their dog's collars. Sometimes it's excessive, and whether all those moves utlimately work out in the Blazers favor is an interesting question. Sure trading for Brandon Roy worked, as did LaMarcus Aldridge, but then again wasn't that at least something of a mistake on Kevin McHale and Danny Ainge's part too? Not to mention getting lucky to take any player they wanted in a stacked draft in 2007. The Blazers are alot of things, and amongst them good, but the real question is the moves they made simply a move to move, or moves of real substance? Time will only tell, and time will tell whether Rudy Fernandez and Nicolas Batum, both come over and become players, and whether it was a good idea to spend 6 million just for the "right" to select players that ended up netting them that selection. I won't hold my breath if Blazers fans are going "Uh oh Fernandez ain't coming over." I'm not saying it's likely, but keeping a well roudned view of other team's helps you, at the very least, keep, hopefully anyway, a far more well rounded view of your beloved set of morons running your franchise.

I want to say several things before I wrap this monstrosity up. First is that whether Beno signing for the full M(id) L(evel) E(xception) was smart, it was certainly necessary from the franchise's point of view. Maybe today that reason isn't clear, but several years down the road it might become so. What I do know is that great players are hard to find regardless of the circumstance. What if Jason Thompson becomes the player that breaks out, and ultimately is one of the 3 best players, if not one of the 2 best players, of the whole draft? At 12th overall that's at least a steal? If not some of the greatest foresight ever shown by a GM. I'm not saying it's possible, or it's likely, but what if it happens? The Kings got lucky, and all that talk about needing a top 5 pick suddenly gets drowned out by the Kings having a top tier talent without tanking the season to accomplish it. Beno's success, though, I think will ultimately be determined by how stable this team is over the course of the season, and ultimately season's beyond. If that team includes Artest, the likelihood is low that Beno will produce at an eye popping level. If that team doesn't include Artest, what would Beno's production be? Do we even know that? The unknown surrounding this team is so vast that's it's hard to guage a true production expectation out of anything at this point, other than keeping Artest in my view, is a grand mistake for this franchise. When you have 2 moves to make, and both of those moves will not be popular no matter how many times they're explained, you don't spend alot of time worrying about what outsiders think of it. Which is why when you're Geoff Petrie you spend time in Napa avoiding the crys of the dead cowbells that litter Arco, and the surrounding landscape, and focus on cooking, even though you know the spoils of your labor won't be appreciated until several years from now.

I Close Both Locks Below The Window I Close Both Blinds And Turn Away Sometimes Solutions Aren't So Simple Sometimes Good Bye's The Only way And The Sun Will Set For You The Sun Will Set For You And The Shadow Of The Day Will Embrace The World In Grey And The Sun Will Set For You

Do the Kings do a trade with Houston for their first round pick (25th overall) by gtiving up a fu...

pookeyguru — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:46:12 -0000

Do the Kings do a trade with Houston for their first round pick (25th overall) by gtiving up a future 1st round choice and both 2nd rounders this season to acquire the 25th overall pick?

A brief CBA reminder

pookeyguru — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:26:03 -0000

I've noticed alot of CBA errors in reporting of trades. I've also noticed some interesting thoughts that do not matter because the NBA won't allow those trades to happen. So onto the reminders, and hints that you should read this before wondering why I'm talking about this stuff.

TJ Ford, Rasho Nesterovic the 17th pick for Jermaine O'Neal.

This deal has several problems. One is that Ford is BYC until June 30th. Another is that O'Neal can't be traded until July at the earliest since he has an opt out/early termination (eto) clause in his contract. Why does this matter? First to Ford. When a player is BYC (Base Year Compensation) that means his contract value and trade value are 2 different things. Ford's trade value is actually half of what his actual contract meaning matching any player with a hefty contract like O'Neal's extremely difficult to do. Complicating matters, though, is that the Pacers are well over the cap this season and are not eligible to make a deal that allows them to take less money in trade (but the same salary) then they give up. This is simply against CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) rules, and as such cannot happen. You say, though, that the money matches up. That's fine because it is close to matching up if Ford's trade value was not half of his total contract. The problem, again, is that you have to find a team that can do a deal for a player half the value of the player they're getting, and have the remaining cap room to acquire the player they're getting is BYC. Unless you're trading a player of similar salary who is also BYC, or trading a player of that status to a team with lots of cap room (like say the Cavs this year signed Varejao and then traded him to the Bobcats for a trade exception--I'm willing to bet that almost happened too--then that is possible as the Cats were under the cap, and could afford to take on Varejao's entire first year salary, as well as give something back to the Cavs at the trade value Varejao was at. Disclaimer: If you don't understand this don't really bother to try. It's not that important and it's only speculation. The important thing to remember with BYC is that the players "TRADE STATUS" is different than his actual contract.)

Another problem was Jermaine O'Neal. He had an early opt out in his contract (I think--these things are only technical details--as it was reported with Ron Artest he had an opt out which was wrong; he really had an ETO which could be easily true of JO too) that could have him a Free-Agent this off-season. Many took this as he would be able to traded sometime in June. Wrong! As far as the CBA is concerned, JO cannot be traded until July 1st because he will be a considered a prospective Free Agent until his actual status is determined.

Now for those of you think I'm an arrogant piece of shit with an IQ of a peanut (not totally unlike the current Prez), then I suggest you also refer this same set of loathing onto Mr. Larry Coon. Via Senor Coon:

74. How does a base year player's salary count against the team's salary cap? His actual salary is included in the team salary. BYC is used only when comparing salaries for trades.

See what I mean about Ford? His actual salary didn't change. Only his trade value. For those wondering on why JO can't be traded? Another bit of news from Senor Coon:

85. When can't a player be traded? Can players be given "no-trade" clauses in their contracts?

A "no-trade" clause can be negotiated into an individual contract if the player has been in the NBA for at least eight seasons, and has played for the team with which he is signing for at least four seasons. They don't have to be the immediately prior four seasons -- for example, Horace Grant got a no-trade clause from Orlando when he signed with them in 2001. He had played for Orlando for four seasons, but had played for Seattle and Los Angeles in the interim. Very few players actually have one of these no-trade provisions. Otherwise, individually negotiated contracts may not contain no-trade clauses. The no-trade clause prevents the team from making a trade involving the player without the player's consent.

In addition, teams cannot trade players under the following circumstances:

- For two months after receiving the player in trade or claiming him off waivers, if the player is being traded in combination with other players. However, the team is free to trade the player by himself (not packaged with other players) immediately. This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap. (Also see question number 72 for a special case where players can be traded together in less than two months.)

- When the trading deadline has passed. Teams are free to make trades again once their season has ended, but cannot trade players whose contracts are ending or could end due to an option or ETO.

- For three months or until December 15th of that season (whichever is later) after signing a contract as a free agent. This obviously does not apply to the trade completing a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 76). Interestingly, however, it is unclear whether this rule prevents a player who has been signed-and-traded from being traded agiain prior to three months/December 15 (see question number 80).

- For 30 days after signing as a draft pick.

- Without the player's consent when the player is playing under a one-year contract (excluding any option year) and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the season. This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season. When the player consents to such a trade, the team loses its Larry Bird/Early Bird rights, and the player is considered a Non-Bird free agent. Note: when there is an option year involved, they can get around this regulation by invoking the option prior to the trade.

- For one year after exercising the right of first refusal to keep a restricted free agent (however, the player can consent to a trade to any team except the team that tried to sign him).

- After claiming a player on waivers, for 30 days if the player was claimed during a season, or until the first day of the next season if the player was claimed during the offseason.

- A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30) unless the player has been waived.

- In the special case of players waived through the amnesty provision (see question number 18), the player cannot be reacquired for the length of the terminated contract. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the first bullet item above. Many media reports mistakenly say that a player cannot be re-traded for two months under any circumstances, even by himself. This is not true -- Danny Manning's trade from Phoenix to Orlando, and soon thereafter to Milwaukee is one example of the correct application of this trade rule. Other media reports confuse the sign-and-trade rule with this one, claiming that the player can be re-traded within 48 hours or after 60 days, but not in between.

Read this and weep kiddies. The master knows all. (And I'm not talking about me.) My point is fairly simple. When talking about trades they have to be done legally. During draft time most of the time people talk about trades because of the draft. Most of the time they don't work because draft picks A) don't count as compensation in a trade, and B) most of the time the trades don't make sense regardless of the financial implications. If you're going to come up with a trade scenario you'll need to know the following in my humble opinion:

1) Whether the player has an Early Opt-Out or ETO option

2) Whether the player is BYC

3) Whether the player is a restricted FA (Free Agent) or FA period

4) Give a reasonable cause as to why each side would do a deal

5) Make me happy

To end this piece of shenanigans I will point out a couple of things. When doing something with salary there are always conflicting information. It's best to check out as many sources as you can. ESPN has a good trade checker, and Sham Sports has a solid salary information page. Most people have heard of Hoopshype, and there are alot of opinions out there to what would be a good trade or not. But if you're trade doesn't work out under the CBA, as the Ford/Nesterovic 17th pick for O'Neal trade proves, then it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether each team wants to do it or not.

Sam Amick mentions a Josh Howard pairing

pookeyguru — Thu, 15 May 2008 01:53:47 -0000

Today in his blog, Sam Amick of the Bee mentions the Josh Howard for Ron Artest trade.

For the record I think this could only be done from the Mavs point of view, if, that Artest doesn't opt out, and demand a higher salary than his current 7.4 million, and that is of course a problem.

Now, another issue, is of course that Josh Howard is a BYC player, and as such, probably can't be realistically traded until the July Moratorium is lifted. That's going to give the Kings a great advantage in putting together an Artest package as well. That, of course, will also hurt putting together a JO package as all of Howard's salary will be needed in putting toward the total amount to satisfy the trade from CBA requirements.

Personally, I think, the trade would be a great idea. I also think it would help the Mavs from a versatility standpoint. Artest can defend, or do it at a higher level than anyone currently on the Mavs roster at least, more players from 1 to 5 than just about any other player today. The Mavs need that, regardless of Rick Carlisle coaching the team or not.

For the record though, and I say this only for this reason, for those wondering how Carlisle feels about it here's what he said in Amick's blog today:

"Of course," Carlisle said when asked if he would coach his former player again. "This guy is one of the real difference-makers that we have in this league. He's had one all-star year; that's when he played for me. I've had a chance to reconnect with Ronnie a couple times over the last couple of years. I love him and I love his family, so yeah. This guy was one of the most physical, intimidating players that I've ever seen at the small forward position, so he'd be a player that any team would want to have."

I think that personally says it all, and then some, but clearly, if it was a healther Artest, and a cheaper one at that, with a smaller contract than JO's, and one that expires after next season if he doesn't opt out, this gives the Mavs every bit of leverage to target Artest before O'Neal. And I say that knowing the Mavs targeted Kidd for several years, and finally got the deal done. I don't think, though, that O'Neal is quite the same as Kidd in many respects. And that's just starting with health. Again, I'm curious to see what everyone around here thinks, and as everyone knows, anytime a trade there is 2 to tango.

Poll

Would you pull off a Josh Howard for Ron Artest trade?

Tutu's, Reggie, SpeedRacer, Peachosaurus Rex and Sam Amick

pookeyguru — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:40:23 -0000

So you ask, what's up with that title? Hopefully by the end of this tidy diatribe you will understand. I do mean hopefully. It's possible this thing takes one of the nasty HWY 1 on the NorCal coast type of turns. We'll see. I do hope, though, that this fills in some information gaps, which is a bunch of stuff that I noticed in the past 5 days, which hasn't been touched on once, in any medium, whether it be KHTK, or here on StR. (Not a knock on TZ. He has other stuff to do.) Disclaimer: This is a non trolling, Reggie shit-talking, Kevin was a baby forum. There are some interesting questions that remain to be asked, and I would like to ask those. This isn't another forum to continue the he-she said crap that KTHK and Peachosaurus Rex (P.R.) specializes in.

The whole aspect of this started with Sam Amick's article. It started with Reggie talking about the way the team finished the season, the context of the whole season up to a point, and some of the weakness this team displayed. There were some important points that got lost by the wayside just so Reggie could defend his standing with his "players", and quite honestly, I wonder why? Why did Reggie have to defend his relationship with "his" players through the media? I don't understand that.

For all the talk about what Ron is and what Ron isn't, and I'm sure there are other things that Ron will say, I find it interesting that Ron hasn't commented yet. I wonder why. I speculate that is silence is in part because the conversation is going in his direction, and it could help to convince a team to trade, or sign him, in the off-season. That doesn't seem to have stopped Ron before though. I think the biggest reason, perhaps, is that Ron isn't in town and probably doesn't spend a ton of time reading much of anything. On that note, however, it is interesting that the guy who can rely on in the clutch is sitting behind the Nuggets bench while the guy who scores 20 points a game, and is vastly improving improving every season, was still in Sacramento reading the papers. Very very interesting. I'm not sure what Reggie's spin control did for him. It sure proved the point he likes to talk, but I'm not sure that does anything for the fan's. I'm not sure they will ever even care at any point. What I do know is that Reggie's spin control seemed desperate to cover his ass on 2 major points: Ron's availability in the clutch, and that Kevin is an important player to him. I wonder why he had to say in the first place? What did he gain? Not much, but then again did he have anything to lose?

I think Reggie is at an interesting point in his coaching career. He saw how easy it was for the Maloof's to fire Musselman, especially after how poor of a search came about to get a candidate, doubly so when the Kings were the only team on the market ACTUALLY looking for a coach to begin with. I wonder if this has anything to do with Reggie trying to help the franchise gain value for Ron Artest in a straight up trade/sign & trade this summer. That doesn't make much sense, but then again the interview with P.R. and Theus didn't make any sense either..

One informational gap is the season grades Amick gave to the team as a whole. I'm sure TZ will have his take, but here's mine. There is some anti Theus information in here, and I'll try to go at it bit by bit. (Disclaimer: For Anti-Amickites, it's not as if he wrote this AFTER what P.R. and Reggie said on the air Friday afternoon. It was published Friday morning, and presumably written several days either, as it was a set piece that I'm sure Sam took some time to polish and write over.)

And there were the Kings as seen from within, where Theus' bosses were reluctant with praise and often wary of the way he handled his rookie season, where the players' opinions regarding their coach could change by the week and where in-house issues often overshadowed progress.

This is not a paragraph of quiet strength toward Reggie, and I also think is why Reggie lashed at Sam on Friday afternoon on Lamb/P.R's show. Reggie probably knows everything Sam printed was true. There was some anti Petrie/Maloof/Theus stuff in the whole column, and frankly, that's why Sam's credibility got attacked. That's the real issue of Reggie vs Sam. Sam didn't say it on Saturday, and Reggie didn't say it, but I think everyone knew that was the crux of the issue. Because Sam didn't misquote or misinform the public on what Reggie said on Wednesday. Sam gave Martin the opportunity to go to Theus first, which Martin didn't take advantage of.

Some more of the article:

The indisputable truths are enough to deem the season better than the previous one. A five-game improvement despite significant injuries to three starters and a midseason Mike Bibby trade that sent three players out and brought three in. A 20-21 home record in 2006-07 under Eric Musselman was followed by a 26-15 mark under Theus, with Arco Arena raucous again. Career years from numerous players and late development from some of the youngest up-and-comers. The penchant for beating some of the league's best, in the end, was nearly negated because of their knack for losing to the worst.

As I said Sam is fair. Why did I post the first paragraph first? Because it was written first. (That's the only reason. I'm doing this in pure chronological order out of respect to Sam.)

In regards to Artest:

When he played, he set career-highs in scoring, shooting percentage (45.3) and three-point percentage (38.0), often playing amazingly well while also dealing with his daughter's bout with cancer. Still, his unpredictably was distracting.

That, again, is not something P.R. wants to hear. He wants to hear Ron is a hero, so he can then say Geoff Petrie is God when able to trade him for (insert player "here" that P.R. likes).

In regards to K-Mart:

The skinny: For the second consecutive season, Martin – who finished sixth in the league in scoring – showed that he is not only capable of handling a heavier offensive load but that the load isn't heavy enough. He'll focus on defense and leadership in the offseason, necessary steps in becoming an all-around threat.

My only reaction is that, Sam's right. StR as a community is right. Those who think Martin shouldn't be handling that type of load next season are the type I disagree with at this point.

A side point about Shareef to prove why I like Sam:

The skinny: Two arthroscopic surgeries on his right knee within six months led to the looming question of whether the 12-year veteran can return, and the coming months should tell plenty. In the third season of his five-year deal, Abdur-Rahim was done after six games. He is still owed $12.8 million on his contract, although the Kings do have insurance in case of career-ending injury.

See, that's why I have respect for Mr. Amick. He throws in an important point about why the Kings PROBABLY wouldn't consider buying Kenny Thomas out. Because they won't have to if they can take all of Reef's salary off the books. Especially if insurance covers the payment of money to boot.

Quincy Douby:

The skinny: The guard went from playing in 42 games as a rookie to 74 in his second season, but he was unable to show enough to become relevant. Coach Reggie Theus played him more after ownership stomped its feet on the matter, but Douby's campaign left serious questions about his future.

Spencer Hawes:

The skinny: The rookie center had enough highlights to justify the logic behind the pick. His advanced offensive skills were obvious, and Theus' demand for defense sparked improvement. Management wanted to see Hawes more early on, but his finish was certainly solid when Theus finally got the message to let him loose.

So, let me get this straight. First off young players made improvement (I'm assuming this meant Garcia and Martin at the heart of that improvement--noting that Douby had a few moments, and Shawes had a solid overall year considering). If management/ownership has to prod Theus into playing Douby/Shawes how solid a ground is Reggie Theus on? And if so, wouldn't that be more criticism of Reggie than anything written 2 days earlier? Reggie's diatribe on Friday made little sense, but it was stoked by P.R. That's P.R.'s agenda, and not necessarily Reggie's. All Reggie proved by Noon Saturday is that talking out of both sides of his mouth is an Inglewood specialty.

Reggie Theus:

Reggie Theus GRADE: B- Up until the end, Theus found ways to irk his players and bosses with messages sent through the media. It made for a distrusting environment early which improved in the final months but still needs work. His unwillingness to discipline Ron Artest early in the season hurt him as well, as he had slapped fines on the likes of Moore and John Salmons for minimal transgressions while taking tongue-lashings without recourse from his small forward. All things considered, he avoided most potential potholes and managed to lead his team to an improvement few expected while playing a part in the career years of Martin, García, Artest and Salmons. From here on, Theus needs to make sure his vision for the future is something close to that of the front office and ownership. His ability to toe the company line and continue developing younger players will be key. The natural conflict comes into play when the coach with only short-term security is being asked to think long-term.

That, would be irksome if I was Reggie. I'm sure he knew privately he made mis-steps, but having them pointed out in such a public way, that is probably what set off Reggie to begin with. I don't see anything inflammatory about Sam said. It's his job to report, and not necessarily what the Maloof's/Petrie/Reggie/P.R. want Sam to say. His job is to report a story. When it's asked for to give an opinion. He does that well. I don't know why media censorship is such a popular spectator sport in Sacramento. I really don't. I really think too there is a strong under-current of what Petrie/The Maloof's want here. The Maloof's end is pretty simple. They want to win a championship, and make money doing it. They want to sell out seats, and want to "talk" about the greatest fans in the NBA. Ailene Voisin had an interesting column on what the Maloof's are doing to re-connect the Kings into the community, and how they've gone about changing how they sell tickets. It's worth a read.

Petrie's end of things? Now, good luck on that one.

Geoff Petrie GRADE: B In chronological order, the drafting of Spencer Hawes has all the signs of an eventual success. The offseason signing of Mikki Moore not only helped this season, but the structuring of his contract (guaranteed next season with a virtual $2 million buyout option for the 2009-10 campaign) gives them flexibility if he doesn't fit beyond next summer. Ditto for Reggie Theus, whose contract had two seasons guaranteed and a third (2009-10) as a team option. The signing of Beno Udrih was phenomenal for Petrie. The Bibby trade didn't solicit nearly as much in return as most would expect, but it will be a semi-success as long as Udrih returns. If Shelden Williams can go from bust to busting out, it makes that deal look even more respectable.

I agree with Sam pretty much on everything, sans Bibby, and I find it interesting that Sam mentions flexibility on the franchise's part when talking about 2009 and relation to Reggie's contract. Reggie knows next season is make or break for him, and again I keep pointing to this, as it was far more critical of the Kings, and Theus, than anything really said by Kevin Martin in Thursday's article. That's what was talked about, but really the strong under-current of P.R. and Reggie was talking about what's an appropriate thing to report on. Clearly P.R.'s whole issue was with Amick to begin with, and Reggie seized the moment to do so too. Then he kept on stating how good his relationships were with the media and his players. Which is it Reggie? Worse, the deafening silence of Ron Artest makes the whole scenario even more interesting.

To top it off, the Maloof's/Petrie were silent too. They clearly weren't sought out very hard to deny comment, because as far as I can tell, nobody asked them. Kevin Martin hasn't said anything other than what he told Sam, and nobody on P.R's show, as Jim Crandell said, mentioned that he said the same thing on his show on Wednesday, and who knows what he said after that, yet nobody mentioned him in the proceedings. (On a side note, since I do mention censorship, it is interesting, and probably a coincidence, that Crandell is the sports reporter on KTXL, Sacramento's FOX affiliate.) I really don't understand where this team is going, particularly with regards to Artest, but there is little choice since Petrie made Linas Kleiza a tipping point in a trade, and I really don't understand what the Maloof's expectation of the team is. I just hope it isn't to win a ring, or a playoff game by 2009.

I do know that after this diatribe, the silence by management/Artest is more intriguing than anything Reggie said. If you noticed everytime Reggie tried to define "throw the ball to" it changed. And it got worse every time he defined it. And he attempted to silence criticism by raising his voice, and raising it even louder than before, when a new criticism was raised. He would switch and bait every topic, and by the time I heard Crandall's interview end, I was just hoping Reggie's mouth wouldn't fall off after that talking.

I do know that amongst this diatribe this franchise is not in an enviable position. For the first time in many years, a team with 48 wins did not make the playoffs. That doesn't bode well for next season unless several teams drop off their pace this season. I do know that the team's main promotional arm amonst the media, KHTK, saw another instance where 2 radio hosts directly contradict each other, in part, because one has a better sense of where the media lies, and one has a total conflict of interest at all times on another slot. Gee, gotta love this EC don't we?

The bottom line, minions, is this. What we've learned is that Martin isn't down being looked upon as a 2nd option. Another forgotten thing was, that Martin said he agreed about Artest. Which means that maybe Kevin was being nice, but he, too, was talking out of both sides of his mouth. But if the Kings don't know where Kevin is at, and for the highest paid non Brad Miller player on the roster, is that a comforting feeling? What about Reggie? Does some stupid statements, and some foolish tongue in cheek statements suddenly negate the obvious land-mines that currently litter the Kings roster? Does Geoff Petrie deserve a free pass from all this when it's his roster? Do the Maloof's deserve anything at this point? Is it fair to blame Sam Amick? What do we as fans expect out of our local coverage if we don't force P.R. to change his tune? Or spam Mike Remy's email with Fire P.R. (or at least remove him from the 4-7 main slot) messages? What gives?

Last, but not least, I would like to say that we learned some things about this town's interest towards the Kings, and what interest's that KHTK and the Bee each have in covering the local team. Clearly, those interest's don't coincide, and what we learned is that in the last 6 days, nothing was said on KHTK that amounts to much on the Kings. As far as the Bee? The beat writer published 3 different' stories, all which pertain greatly to the Kings, and one included Theus' opinion on Ron Artest, and team weakness', another included (what seems like anyway) an honest opinion of where Kevin Martin stood after the season after Theus' end of the season comments to the Bee and local TV stations, and the third Amick story contained end of the season grades. Did KHTK do any such thing? Would P.R. or Mike Lamb, who does pre-game coverage for the team, ever CONSIDER such a thing? No, and for 2 reasons: 1) because talk radio doesn't do that type of thing, and 2) because P.R. and Fake Laugh guy don't criticize much of anything. They mostly aimlessly talk about some ESPN story, or some well covered national story, and they stick to the safe headlines for the team. P.R. won't allow criticism, and Lamb won't tell P.R. to fuck off. Meanwhile the Bee ran 3 pertinent stories relating to the team, and not some stupid multiple monologues on what throwing the ball means, a column about what the team is doing to change how it's viewed within the business column, and a column by a former beat writer who wrote how stupid the whole ordeal was in the first place. This of course doesn't include <a href=" Maybe, at this point, KHTK is winning the war, but if this battle means anything, and I think it does, the Bee won a major battle.

if you prefer a political analogy, the Bee sort of did, what I feel anyway, what Bill Maher does in covering politics. KHTK does what Fox News does. The real funny part is, that while KHTK was doing it's pretty ballet around the truth, and what truth is, the Bee simply walked in the room and said: Reggie Theus thinks Ron Artest is a guy who you throw the ball to in crunchtime. And that, in of itself, is why "Amickgate" is so funny to begin with. Real controversies are important. Fake contrived conflicts designed to make personalities feel comfortable are not. For once, I have to salute the Bee on their coverage. And that, perhaps, is the most astonishing thing I have written in quite some time.

A look back of the year

pookeyguru — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:34:49 -0000

This isn't about the Kings, but more to do with the NBA in general. I'm going to look back at the year and offer some thoughts on the multitude of things that happened leaguewide, with one omission. Avoidance of any Clay Douchebag and his Sterness talk. That's been pretty talked out, yes?

Okay, so what about them Supes? What did we learn? That they suck, and more importantly maybe that Bennett wanted them too. (Okay I lied so I'll mention the lawsuit only because I think it ties into the basketball side of things. If the City wins their trial, scheduled to start on July 16th, then the Sonics stay for 2 years period. Then the tax passed in OKC may expire for Clay because a provision stated that a NBA team must be in OKC by 2009. Boy, that was a waste of 850 K eh Clay? Via Steve Kelley in 2006. If you like soap opera's watch Schultze's lawsuit. That may be the funniest thing since American Idol's existence. Unless you happen to like American Idol.

More likely, 2006-07 will be a lame-duck season. Bennett and his partners will go through the motions of negotiations before throwing up their hands and announcing they have reached an impasse with all of the local governing bodies.

This story seems to keep repeating itself, doesn't it? So, let's get back to the actual Supes. (When you find something funny you must pass it on/~~pontificate~~; regardless of the intention.) The problem as I see it is this. It's a roster filled with Forwards and 2 backup PG's. That's not a roster built to win 60 games in a league that saw a 49 win team miss the playoffs. So my question about Bennett is this: Will he allow Sam Presti to make the right decision for this franchise regardless of where it's located come October? If nothing else, that remains the pertinent question of the day regarding the team in the Pac NW.

One of the more interesting stories, and I'm surprised it got very little mention when the Shaq trade went down, was the fact that Amare Stoudemire was the player the Suns were actually banking on. In otherwords, Kid you're this superstar talent. Rather than be a superstar clown start playing like it. It's time. Put up or shutup. And for the 2nd half of the season Amare is putting up. For a change. The guy can get numbers, but it remains to be seen whether he can be a centerpiece of a championship team. The time is now for Amare. I don't need to toot my own horn, but this is what I said at the trade deadline. (I don't feel any smarter, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Haw!)

The Suns may have wanted to move Marion, but I don't really see how acquiring Shaq will make them better. In fact unless Amare Stoudemire becomes a better post defender I don't see how they will win anything period.

Okay, maybe I didn't say the key was Amare scoring 35 a game. I said better post defense. (I'm not on wrong on this. They need better defense from Amare, and I refuse to say anything about that here.) If the Suns end up winning the whole enchilada, and I put nothing past them or anyone else in the top 8 out West, except maybe Denver, then perhaps the trade ended up being useful for 2 reasons:

1) Selling more Jersey's and tickets with Shaq around

2) Amare's maturity kicked in kicking the Suns to greater heights

Interestingly enough, and no matter how important the first part came in with regards to the cheap A-hole, I mean Robert Sarver, it's also true the 2nd part was what the Suns were interested in. Could they say that when they made a national press conference. No, of course not. Why would you call out an immature player publicly? They told Amare internally, whether direclty or in-directly, there is no more excuses. If they win a ring, and it probably won't be because of Shaq, then Steve Kerr's moves of trading 2 draft picks with Kurt Thomas won't be brought up too often.

Towards the 2nd half of the season in the East some interesting things emerged. The Hawks weren't totally terrible, and Mike Bibby's health is critical to his play. Gee, who could have guessed that? However, of more profound importance, the team that made no move, and made one where it really counted, coincidentally or not, was the Philadelphia Sixers. Many people are saying Thaddeus Young has serious upside, yesterday David Thorpe listed him as 6th on his ballot for rookie of the year, and I wonder if Jason Smith will enter the mix on the upside tip. Apparently I'm not alone because Ed Stefanski, the guy who replaced that retard named Billy King, thinks highly of the kid too. Or he did some time back. The Sixers remain an interesting question. Making the playoffs this year, and after such little time after the Iverson trade, makes me wonder exactly what King did get fired for? If it's gross incompetence, why not fire the guy in 2005? Unlike Isiah Thomas who hasn't managed the cap in any way, King actually had the Sixers to be one of /TWO/ teams with cap space this summer. Even better he had a chance to add a key player from Free Agency with a young, talented and improving player set already. The only thing that confused me is this: Would Billy King trade Kyle Korver? If, the answer is no, and I could understand why it would be, then maybe it's understandable. But if that isn't the case, and I don't think anybody will know the answer because King won't say any of this publicly, other than saying he got shafted, is that if Stefanski ends up reaping the credit for bringing in players he didn't have any hand in scouting drafting trading for or signing in Free Agency, then you have to wonder what people are sniffing in Philadelphia. And glue shouldn't be the first answer.

The question of who will win between Boston and Detroit remains the prevalent predominant school of thought when most dare to tackle the boggling talent difference between Esst vs West. What doesn't seem to being mentioned very often, particularly in MVP talk, about how brilliant Dwight Howard is becoming offensively in the post. Just imagine if the guy can find somewhere in the realm of 5-8 shooters a game, and shoot 70% from the line. Dwight Howard is a stud, and it's almost sad that he's stuck on an awfully run team. I look forward to a Detroit-Orlando rematch in the 2nd round. I want to see how well the Magic compete. (Boston-Cleveland shouldn't be a bad consolation round either.) Speaking of consolation whether or not Jose Calderon gets a big contract in the off-season, or not, he had a great season. Why has he been forgotten so quickly in recent times? (It isn't his fault Chris Bosh missed a dozen games or so.)

If Kevin Durant isn't an all star by his 3rd season there is something badly wrong. At the beginning of the season he was constantly chided for not passing the ball (and to whom I might ask?) more often. The more interesting development is how quickly, and if PJ Carleismo can, Jeff Green and Kevin Durant can integrate their games. Because, if the season finale goes down constantly over the next decade, regardless of Seattle or OKC, this group will win a lot. Oui!

I got a simple question. Where is Andrew Bynum? And why did Waldo hide his knee so effectively?

Will the Jason Kidd trade go down as a mistake? Maybe, maybe not. Time is the only real judge, and not the posthumous entry of opinions that masquerade facts in many media outlets today can change that fact. What I do know is that the Mavericks, despite a nearly devastating Dirk ankle injury, may end up being the sleeper team come playoff time. It's always a mistake to count out 2 players like Kidd (and I think the guy's overrated, as far as overall impact in terms of franchise player levels, but.....he's never played with a guy the caliber of Dirk either) and Nowitzki. The West playoffs will be a wild ride.

Most of the talk surrounding the MVP race seems to center around 5 people: Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, and LeBron James in no particular order. Of these 5 Howard isn't going to get it. Of these 5 LeBron probably won't get a real shot despite having the best stats of any Guard Forward since Michael Jordan, because of how poorly the Cavs performed in the 2nd half of the season. So that leaves 3. Garnett missed so many games, and the Celtics still performed relatively well without him, that it's hard to imagine, even despite claim's that KG changed the culture. There's no doubt his point holds merit, but that only gets you so far. Kobe had a similar type impact, and one that Simmons underscores by saying that the teammates are better.

There wasn't anything different about this particular Kobe season than the past three Kobe seasons, except for two things: (A) He gave us a phenomenal soap opera from start to finish (B) His teammates were much, much, MUCH better. Statistically, Kobe's stats don't stand out from his numbers the previous four seasons, although there was a five-week stretch right after the Gasol trade when he played the most inspired all-around basketball of his career.

I clipped this down somewhat because the whole snippet is too long. But if you read the whole article, and the tone in which he injects Garnett's value, and downplay Kobe's, and says Paul is more valuable than Isiah Thomas but not enough to win this MVP, it's blatant homerism. He goes so far to say that Pierce had given up. This is the same Paul Pierce he mentions last season who was forced to give up on the season by Celtics management (perhaps he was hurt but wait for it) even though he would have played through the injury if it were up to him. I remember that, only because I do, and because I knew at some point it would be useful to remember. And it is. Simmons wants a Celtic player to be MVP for having the best record. He wants to give Garnett credit for things that have probably as much to do with winning as they do Garnett. People in Boston like Garnett, but don't most fans everywhere? He is, afterall, a popular player. He has been his entire career.

That being said, if you want to talk about a MVP candidate, and what he means to the culture, how can you exclude Chris Paul in that argument? (For the record I will sound off on the MVP if you let me get there. This must be said first.) If there's still a basketball team in New Orleans in 2009 and beyond, it will be because of Chris Paul. I'll admit I didn't think highly of Paul because of the groin incident he had in the ACC tournament. I thought it showed a lack of immaturity, that clearly didn't exist, on Paul's part. And I wrote him off. That was a mistake. But I know mistakes where I see them, and I don't think the Jazz have regretted for a moment drafting Deron Williams instead. Chris Paul deserves the MVP. He deserves the MVP for the type of season he's had, and under the pressure he's certainly under to perform for the Hornets, in arguably the greatest conference in the history of the sport. Do I think he's more valuable than Kobe? No.

I agree with Simmons about Kobe in that he's the best all-around player. I agree with Simmons that Kobe's soap opera crap was dumb. I agree that Kobe's mood changed when he saw the potential of the young players on his squad (which naturally brings into question why he didn't think about the whole perspective before he spouted off in the first place). I agree that Kobe got downright ecstatic when the Lakers "traded" for Pau Gasol. (I don't think it was a heist. I think it was a giveaway. There's a difference. The fact that Memphis was /GOING NOWHERE/ seems to be forgotten in all this. And Simmons loves to drum LA for, well, being LA. It's greatly amusing, but has no real merit. Especially for a writer whose sarcasm, wit and overall humor ranks him as the best sports writer of his generation. Whether or not you like him, you read what he writes.)

What I think is forgotten about KB24's season is that Kobe's endured more change than Paul, Duncan or Nowitzki. None of those guys didn't watch a 20 year old kid rise to All Star level status only to suffer a dehabiliting knee injury in the midst of it. Those guys didn't watch a valuable, and athletic wing like Trevor Ariza, so shortly after arriving, be lost for most of the season. They didn't watch Gasol come to the team, then be lost for 2 weeks. They didn't watch the silent consistence of Odom, being slotted in a far more natural role of 3rd scorer, thrive in a role, then have the same problems crop up when Gasol goes out with injury. Kobe endured, and sure he wasn't perfect, a season that could have gone badly wrong had he not played with a different tone to his season. (I realize that the Spurs faced injuries, but not the type of injuries the Lakers faced. The Spurs are also an older team, and that comes with the territory of being at an older age in a highly competitive physical game.) If you think Chris Paul is MVP good for you. You're probably not wrong. If you think any vote for Kobe will be done on a career basis, you might be right, and unfortunately the process will be as stupid as it usually is. Wrong, and for all the dumb reasons.

I think Coach of the Year is an interesting vote. Do you vote Rivers for keeping the Celtics at a high level despite missing Allen, Pierce and Garnett for substanially sized portions of the season? What about Adelman? Does missing Yao, and then winning 10 games after he goes down mean anything? Where does Mike D'Antoni fit in for keeping the Suns together after integrating Shaq, and allowing for a relatively large Stoudemire explosion post trade. Does Byron Scott deserve it for the job he's performed?

If you ask me Byron Scott is by far & away the most deserving. Adelman is deserving, but he's been deserving other years too. The guy has perfected the act of a martyr, and what's worse is he won't apologize for doing the best he can with the talent he has on hand. He isn't a media's dream, won't kiss their ass, and doesn't give a damn what they think of him. It's why he was so perfect in Sacramento. There was no media, or so few during most of Rick's time as the Head Coach, and he ignored them. Wah Lah! Doc Rivers did a good job keeping his young players prepared for the inenvibility of watching 3 older veterans go down with the injurys and helped the younger players stabilize the team. The greater question, though, is that did the injuries allow the Celtic's to peak at the right time. In many ways the subtle job that Rivers did over the course of the season deserves a strong Coach of the Year vote. But regardless of the argument, and regardless of whether Paul hurts his status here, Scott did well with a limited bench and rotation, and managed to get lucky no starter blew out a knee or anything. Byron Scott has won it before, and if anything, has proven that despite his spat with Jason Kidd, he belongs as a head man in the L.

It's amusing idea what award's are.Take Most improved Player for example. This year Monta Ellis probably had the most eye popping leap of any player that I've noticed get mention of MIP. And, yet, around here because of Martin being robbed in the wake of Ellis' win last season, there has been no mention of this. Partly I say this because Ellis is a god awful interviewer, who makes Charles Barkley sound like Jesus Christ, but more importantly Ellis is a player who improved across the board on a team that won 49 games. Ellis, whose winning of the award jobbed the award from Martin a year ago, who was more deserving, because of the incredible leap he took last season from a good season the year prior, Ellis is equally deserving of the same honor this time around. It's an amazing shame that awards rarely get it right. And awards don't deserve a celebration that validates their worth when the voters "manage" to get it right.

Last but not least here's the I told you section. (No pun intended 214.) Whom is more deserving of the Executive Award of the year: Mitch Kupchak or Danny Ainge. Frankly I think Ainge MUST win the award. Ainge was the guy who watched the original Garnett proposal be shot down because Garnett wasn't interested in playing on the Celtics. (I don't know if this is a factor, or not, but I wonder how much Allen being from South Carolina, as is Garnett, had anything to do with changing KG"s mind. Maybe the extension, maybe not, but I wonder what it was exactly about Allen that made KG convinced Boston was a great place for him.) Kupchak did alot of good things. The Ariza trade, sticking with Bynum and of course saying Yes to the Gasol extradiction. Kupchak, though, mostly though did minor tweaks to a roster with a franchise player. Ainge ACQUIRED a franchise player, through trade, and used a 5th pick to draw a near all-star. He also changed the whole tone of the franchise, from Eddie House, Scot Pollard, and James Posey. He kept Rajon Rondo. He brought in Sam Cassell, and waited for Cassell to get a buyout from the Clippers rather paying a dumb price in a trade that the Clippers nearly held out for. Ainge, put together a roster capable of winning a Finals roster, in about 6 months worth of moves. Kupchak kept together a roster that with a few tweaks, and one lucky exile, came into contention over night with an already gifted franchise player on it. That's why Ainge should get executive of the year.

The Bloody reality of doing business with Napoleon

pookeyguru — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:08:18 -0000

There is a lot of people out there who don't know what's going on when it comes to their team. Pete Nussbaum is not one of those people. He is, of course, one of the three proprietor's of SuperSonic Soul. He makes some interesting points that so many people out there really don't have a firm pulse on the whole story of what's going on in Seattle. I've been meaning to write this for awhile, but I'm going to do so tonight while I'm waiting for some clothes to dry.

The differences between Oklahoma City and Seattle are vast. I do think, however, that the biggest difference between the two is that Seattle is a major regional center of industry, tourism, and entertainment. Does OKC have any such claim? That's not Oklahoma City's fault for wanting a NBA team. If it was up to me Bennett could have the Grizzlies or the Hornets in OKC. Those are the teams that should be moving to Oklahoma City. But why aren't they? Because both have bought "new" arenas and Stern perceives that good business. Remeber that if you buy Satan whatever you want you will get a short term reprieve. Until he becomes bored and wants something new and better and more from you. That's the problem with this buying of new arena's. It's in similar fashion to the internal arguments we as Kings fans have had about Ron Artest. It's become a mass circle jerk of stupidity with very little being accomplished it seems. (With the possible exception of fostering long-term bad feelings.) However, if you want the biggest difference of where I have with this whole ordeal? The idea that there is another spot for a new Arena in Seattle. This isn't Sacramento. Space is limited in Seattle, which is why many 1/4 acre plots are filled with 2 houses that normally would see one in Sacramento. The amount of creative land use in Seattle has been use for decades because of a housing shortage here, and Clay Bennett, and David Stern, expects that Seattle will just spring up a new site just for the Sonics? Psshhawww! (I still think it's forgotten, even Henry Abbott pointed it out, that the offer of Steve Ballmer (CEO of Microsoft) and his partners, combined with the public money would have far out-dwarfed the offer of what OKC gave with their tax dollars. Everybody count. 300 million vs 121 million. Hmmm, Yogi?) The Sonics have multiple corporate opportunities that the Maloof's could only dream of. It'd be nice if that was true of the Kings, but that simply isn't the case.

I'm not thrilled that the Maloof's went to David Stern. I, still, think Cal Expo is not a very intelligent spot for a new arena. Unlike Seattle, which does not have the land space that Sacramento has, there are multiple spots to put a new arena. The best space is behind where the Amtrak/Light Rail station currently is. The 2nd best space is probably where Arco is now. Cal Expo is the 3rd best place. But the Maloof's want a subsidy. They want the taxpayers to improve their finances on the team. Because they're owners, and visible one's at that, they expect that the taxpayers do what other taxpayers have done. It's not hard to understand, but if you're on the other side, and I am, I don't particularly give a damn about billionaire problems. The reason I'm not interested in David Stern being involved in the process is how callous he's been towards Seattle for the entire process.

"Is there always some crime? Sure," Stern said. "But the rebuilding continues in a positive way and we think we have a contribution to make by calling attention to the opportunities that people have to pitch in, to make this into an American success story, rather than an American failure.

I don't really have a problem with that comment. But since when is David Stern interested in philanthrophy? After his speech in Nawlinz, this is what Steve Kelley wrote in the Times the next day. He called Stern "The Royal Smugness". He called Bennett and his ownership group "The Hijackers". And they are. I'm not interested in anything Stern has to say when he popped off about the state legislature approving money for UW. Udub is a state institution. It's a popular sporting institution that hasn't crapped on the state as a whole in the way the 3 professional sports team have tax wise. That's the problem in this whole scenario. Stern is holding onto a vendetta against Seattle, and because of that I don't want him in anything regarding a new arena in anywhere in the vicinty of Exposition and Challenge. That is not a soothing proposition.

For the record. I am opposed against public funding of the new arena. I voted against the 2 measures put to a vote in 2006. (I was annoyed with the flip smugness of the Maloof's against a parking structure. Nothing irritates me more than people who think the right to drive is more important than the greater good. Not a damn single thing. Suburbanites married to your car take it for what you will.) I don't like David Stern. He's Napoleon in charge of a PR Firm. I don't particularly enjoy that. I enjoy Mark Cuban making an ass of himself. I enjoy the fact that nobody in their right mind knows who Peter Holt is, but it's seemingly gone totally under the radar how more public funding is needed to make the Spurs work in San Antonio only a short year after winning their 4th championship in 7 years. That's pretty irritating. Not to mention greedy as all hell.

If the NBA is interested in me they have to stop treating with so much contempt and dis-ingenuity. I don't like it when somebody acts entitled to something when I answer them on the phone, and as such I treat them like shit. (After all I don't give a rat's ass if you ever get a cab. That is, after all, your problem.) I feel likewise towards Stern and NBA Owners. I'm tired of the circle jerk that these owners, and Stern in plying his trade, which is shilling the highest amount of public tax dollars for many wealthy men, many of whom who would be opposed to giving 400 dollars to a poor woman with 2 children to feed. If you want me to have total interest in the product stop insulting me. And frankly, I know I'm not alone, I don't think it's going to stop soon. That is the real shame. The real shame that as the country has real problems, and very serious decisions to make post Bush, the idea's of David Stern revolve around putting NBA franchiess in both China and Europe. That's David Stern's grand idea. Putting franchises on one continent, that's more than 7 hours in time zones, from the furthest eastern point of the US, to the furthest Western point of the European continent, and it's far worse in China. China is about 18 hours ahead of the West Coast, and Stern wants to put a live NBA franchise there? This guy is a clown, and because he's made so much money for tax payer gobbling assclown's like Clay Bennett, he will be dictator for life. I, for once, and maybe I'm alone, hope that the Sonics start a trend that, for a change, starts treating the fans with the respect they've earned after supporting the NBA enterprise for the better part of 6 decades now. Where is our multi-million subsidy? Where is our guarantee?