Your thoughts on the Kings rebuild...

[Bricklayer]

My guess is the big signing is Daly, Nene, or Chandler, or that is at least the Kings hope. I'd love to sign a Prince or AK47 also, and move Salmons to the bench, but my gut tells me that won't happen. Don't think Salmons would handle going to the bench well.

Not sure why eveybody keeps assuming that if we signed another SF that Salmons would go to the bench. Part of the versatility of guys like Ak47 and Battier is precisely that they have frequently played 6th man, and been part of platoon type scenarios. The minutes are tight if you start to talk about that -- resignign Daly and Thronton, and adding in one more defensive SF to boot. Be tough to keep everybody happy. But no particular reason why poor little Johnny couldn't keep his precious starting spot and just split time with the other acquisition.

 

[swisshh]

The PGs are all in FA next year, which is one of the problems of trading away Beno. I think the best options this year are guys like Anthony Carter, and the guys available next year are the premiere PGs that would be hard to lure to Sacramento. The team would have to upgrade via trade.

 

[bajaden]

The PGs are all in FA next year, which is one of the problems of trading away Beno. I think the best options this year are guys like Anthony Carter, and the guys available next year are the premiere PGs that would be hard to lure to Sacramento. The team would have to upgrade via trade.

I know its really hard for you to fathom, but Jimmer is a PG. He's played PG since he learned how to play basketball. I seriously doubt that the Kings are looking for another PG that would be part of the rotation. Maybe someone as an emergency backup in case of injury, but thats it. The reason they got rid of Beno, was so Jimmer could get his minutes. I know your going to continue to look at the dark side of things. I think its a depressing approach, but hey, enjoy!

 

[ParniValjak]

I know its really hard for you to fathom, but Jimmer is a PG. He's played PG since he learned how to play basketball. I seriously doubt that the Kings are looking for another PG that would be part of the rotation. Maybe someone as an emergency backup in case of injury, but thats it. The reason they got rid of Beno, was so Jimmer could get his minutes. I know your going to continue to look at the dark side of things. I think its a depressing approach, but hey, enjoy!

Word!!!!

We will NOT be getting a premier PG and neither should we. I can see us getting a veteran PG on the cheap who can play if needed but is more there as an insurance and someone who will provide some veteran leadership in the locker room. I have mentioned Earl Watson a number of times in the past and I see him as the type of player that would fit well. A good PG who can shoot the 3 and is a good defender at that position. He is not going to demand a lot of playing time but he can step in and play reasonable minutes if needed.

I am hoping that we re-sign Dalembert but if it fails I hope we get Chandler as his replacement. We can still go out and sign someone like Battier as a back up SF.

Dalembert or Chandler
Cousins
Salmons
Thornton
Evans

Hickson
Battier
Fredette
Thompson
Garcia
Greene
Watson
Whiteside
Honeycutt
Thomas (if he makes the team)

That team can go 12 deep on any given night and in Battier, Watson and Chandler (if Dally doesn't re-sign) you have some strong leadership and character guys to set the tone for the youngsters and are known for their defensive intensity. That is a pretty talented and deep team!

 

[swisshh]

I don't doubt Jimmer can eventually play PG in the NBA, but the jump from college to NBA is big at that position for even more natural fits. The team has brain issues and training on the job for Jimmer doesn't help that problem. Even if Jimmer is the plan for the future, you still need a vet to soothe the team and teach the PG spot in the meantime. So, no, trading away the only PG on the roster didn't make sense.


I am not really all that negative for a team that's been bottom five in the league for years. I am getting tired of that bs from people.

"Oh but you can leave THEN"

Or the rest of you could have some perspective.

 

[Glenn]

I don't think the last 5 years predicts how the next few years will go. Just an opinion. The team had to hit bottom to get good.

 

[pshn80]

What are YOUR thoughts on how the KIngs will spend cap room money before next season? Remember Dalembert or his replacement money doesn't count. Yet the Kings have repeatedly said they are going to do it, and they have done so after the last moves. You've heard some of my guesses/assumptions now please let me hear what some of the rest of you think. I don't want to argue, I just need the benefit of your thoughts.

What do the Kings mean when they say they are going acquire significant player/s and commit significant cap space before next season?

 

[Glenn]

Other than a great big man and filler to make a full team, I don't see any great need to sign anyone else. It would be nice to get Battier for the bench, defense, and leadership but I think it would be a waste of money to try to get a SF better than Salmons. Salmons would sulk and that trade for him would have been worthless. I don't think we need a great guard either. A cheap vet would be all I would get. I would pocket the rest of the money in order to pay our youngsters who will soon want big contracts.

I think the trades we have made took us out of desparation mode. We can live with what we have as long as we get Daly or Chandler.

The problem of getting the offense into motion quicker I see as more of a coaching issue than a personnel issue.

 

[ParniValjak]

Other than a great big man and filler to make a full team, I don't see any great need to sign anyone else. It would be nice to get Battier for the bench, defense, and leadership but I think it would be a waste of money to try to get a SF better than Salmons. Salmons would sulk and that trade for him would have been worthless. I don't think we need a great guard either. A cheap vet would be all I would get. I would pocket the rest of the money in order to pay our youngsters who will soon want big contracts.

I think the trades we have made took us out of desparation mode. We can live with what we have as long as we get Daly or Chandler.

The problem of getting the offense into motion quicker I see as more of a coaching issue than a personnel issue.

I tend to agree! What this team needs is to re-sign their major FA or find a replacement for Dalembert (Chandler).

This team has already addressed a lot of the things that needed to be addressed without actually spending more than $2 million over all. That was just some smart trading. All we need to do is re-sign Thornton and Dalembert and if Dally bolts hopefully sign Chandler and this team has improved significantly.

There is no point in blowing all the money just for the sake of it because with the moves that we have made, and anticipated re-signings and signings, we are a significantly better team. Add to that a continued development of our younger players (Cousins, Evans, Thornton, Hickson) who are still young and on the improve and the team is better than last year.

If we go out and sign Battier and Watson for additional leadership and depth, then this team can go 12 deep on any given night.

As strange as it sounds, this team was only a couple of good moves away from becoming a play off team. The foundations of the team are already here and will get better. All that we need to do is surround these guys with pieces that fit and in a lot of cases, its a matter of re-signing what we already have.

Lets not forget than in last 20 games of the season, this team was playing .500 ball. Add to that Salmons, Hickson and Jimmer and take away only one real rotation player that we lost in Beno and we have added to the team positively without it impacting our salary cap.

We are deep and we are not or should NOT be desperate to spend for the sake of it. If we keep Thornton (likely) and Dalembert or sign his replacement (similar type of player of equal or better quality eg. Chandler), sign a couple of cheap steady vets to provide leadership and I am happy to call it a "work done for now".

The last thing I want to see us to is spend for the sake of spending because Maloofs said they would. Lets not forget that we have 2 main pieces to resign in a couple of years time.

 

[Kingsguy881]

People seem to be forgetting that like Carolija pointed out, with Thornton the team was playing .500 ball, mostly without Casspi too. Add to that Hickson, hopefully Whiteside, Salmons and the wildcard Jimmer, minus the steadyness of Beno and you more than likely have a better team. .500 ball in the west next year puts you squarely in the hunt with that protected pick to fall back on in case somebody else steps up. Not a bad position to be in. If Dally is retained of course.

 

[pshn80]

Thank you. I think the view you guys lay out is what will probably happen. Don't spend the bucks as high as has been implied. I like the team as it is shaping up. No matter how they field the team, it will soon be tested and our guys challenged. A CBA, a Dalembert signing, maybe a touch here or there and we be ready to play ball.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't think it's worth even the hope that Whiteside, who picked up 2 fouls, 0 points, 0 rebounds, and 0 blocks in his 2 NBA career minutes will be contributing much next year. He's still, as of today, recovering from a surgery on a treadmill rather than practicing post moves, etc. The Kings predicted that it would take 3 years before Whiteside would be able to contribute. His first year was pretty much a total loss due to injury, so that 3 year clock has barely even started.

That's precisely why its worth the hope. If the guy had played all of 2 minutes while ehalthy and with opportunity, it would be one thing. But really we had too many bigs from the beginning of the year, then he got hurt. And he's a guy with a cornerstone skill (shotblocking) that you know will always be there. Saying he's a starter or something would be silly. But having the expectation he can contribute absolutely is not. In fact if we cannot sign Daly, or a suitable replacement, Whiteside getting opportunities is going to become almost an imperative for our interior defense.

 

[Glenn]

For the umpteenth time I will say I have hope for Whiteside. High hopes but then time will tell. He's very young. Give him a few years and he might be a major contributor playing next to Cuz just as Daly was last year. Give him no experience and he still is a shot blocker. He will always be a shot blocker despite other inadequacies. I know Brickmeister said the same thing but I just want to hammer it home.

In any case, let's get Daly back and let Hassan develop his game over the course of Daly's last contract.

 

[bajaden]

I don't doubt Jimmer can eventually play PG in the NBA, but the jump from college to NBA is big at that position for even more natural fits. The team has brain issues and training on the job for Jimmer doesn't help that problem. Even if Jimmer is the plan for the future, you still need a vet to soothe the team and teach the PG spot in the meantime. So, no, trading away the only PG on the roster didn't make sense.


I am not really all that negative for a team that's been bottom five in the league for years. I am getting tired of that bs from people.

"Oh but you can leave THEN"

Or the rest of you could have some perspective.

Perspective: The definition according to my current Websters is " The ability to evaluate information, situations, and the like with respect to their meaningfulness or comparative importance". I'd say that the majority of the posters seem quite capable of doing that. Now the fact that they may come up with a different conclusion than you do is a different matter. We all like to think were right. The majority of us wouldn't give an opinion if we didn't believe what we're saying.

On a personal level, I tend to be swayed more by facts, than generalities or emotion. But what I really dislike, are statements that are open ended with the conclusions left up to the uninformed reader. Such as you referring to the Kings as a team thats been in the bottom five for years. Just what does the term "Years" mean to you? One year, two, five, or maybe ten? How many posters actually know how many years the Kings have been in the bottom five in the league?

Well its three years! The last three years. And if you go back through history, thats about the norm for a team that goes into a total rebuild. At least one that knows what it doing. Now you just as easily could have said, the last three years. But you didn't, because it doesn't sound as bad as saying years does it?

Yeah, I'm nit pickinig. Because I'm tired of people speaking in generalities without giving the true facts. Opinion is one thing, and facts are another. And they don't have to be exclusive of one another. But in some cases on this fourm, they are.

You also seemed to be obsessed with the PG position. Understandable to some extent, but not to the extent you want to carry it. That by the way is just my opnion. When have the Kings ever had a true PG? A term I don't particularly like by the way. You'd have to go all the way back to Kenny Smith to find someone that resembled a so called pure point guard.

In todays league, most teams run some variation of a motion offense. The very nature of that offense removes the need for the prototypical PG. All you need is a player that can bring up the ball and initiate a pass to start the offense. Obviously he needs to be able to handle the ball, pass the ball, and hopefully, shoot the ball. That sort of describes Mike Bibby. Sort of describes Bobby Jackson. Neither of those guys are Steve Nash. But having a Steve Nash doesn't guarantee you a ring does it?

I'll concede the point that Fredette will need some time to aquire the experience to make the jump to the NBA. At the moment, the Kings look prepared to let him learn on the fly and deal with the mistakes. In other words, put him on the fast track. If he was a freshman like a Brandon Knight, I wouldn't be in favor of that. But he's not! He's a senior with four years of college experience, with the last year being under a lot of pressure. I think he's ready. I could be wrong. We'll see!

Thats my subjective opinion based on watching him play in around 40 to 50 games over the last two years. But just for fun, who is it that you would like the Kings to sign to put in front of Fredette in the pecking order at the PG position? Please give me a reasonable name and not some ambiguous fantasy player defined as a true PG.

 

[Asaf]

You also seemed to be obsessed with the PG position. Understandable to some extent, but not to the extent you want to carry it. That by the way is just my opnion. When have the Kings ever had a true PG? A term I don't particularly like by the way. You'd have to go all the way back to Kenny Smith to find someone that resembled a so called pure point guard.

In todays league, most teams run some variation of a motion offense. The very nature of that offense removes the need for the prototypical PG. All you need is a player that can bring up the ball and initiate a pass to start the offense. Obviously he needs to be able to handle the ball, pass the ball, and hopefully, shoot the ball. That sort of describes Mike Bibby. Sort of describes Bobby Jackson. Neither of those guys are Steve Nash. But having a Steve Nash doesn't guarantee you a ring does it?

In the last three decades (possibly more, but I'm not too informed about basketball before 1980), with only a few exceptions, all NBA champions either played the Triangle or had an elite PG. Just because the Kings don't fit either of those descriptions is no reason to dismiss the importance of the PG position.

The Triangle, when executed well, creates a situation where in a way everyone is a PG, so you don't need a traditional one. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to have an offense that is run well enough to win a championship without having at least one guy who is capable of assuming responsibility for consistently running plays in an effective manner, at an elite level. Is it possible that Tyreke or Jimmer could one day become that guy? Sure, anything is possible. Personally, if I were GP I would have a hard time banking on that, and would at least consider looking at different options for that position, should the opportunity arise.

 

[bajaden]

In the last three decades (possibly more, but I'm not too informed about basketball before 1980), with only a few exceptions, all NBA champions either played the Triangle or had an elite PG. Just because the Kings don't fit either of those descriptions is no reason to dismiss the importance of the PG position.

The Triangle, when executed well, creates a situation where in a way everyone is a PG, so you don't need a traditional one. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to have an offense that is run well enough to win a championship without having at least one guy who is capable of assuming responsibility for consistently running plays in an effective manner, at an elite level. Is it possible that Tyreke or Jimmer could one day become that guy? Sure, anything is possible. Personally, if I were GP I would have a hard time banking on that, and would at least consider looking at different options for that position, should the opportunity arise.

Two things. First, the triangle offense is a motion offense, and a variation of the Princeton offense, as are all motion offenses. While the Kings don't run a triangle offense, they do run a motion offense, that is very similar in many ways to the Princeton offense. The Lakers have managed to do quite well with the great Derrick Fisher at the point.

Second, an elite PG isn't necessarily a traditional PG. Derrick Rose is hardly a pass first PG. Neither is Deron Williams. I think we'll find in the future that John Wall doesn't fit the description either. But all are, or are going to be elite PG's. Now I'm not saying that Jimmer Fredette is going to reach those levels, but I think he'll be more than adequate at the very least. The motion offense is based on all your key players being able to handle, pass, and shoot the ball. The Kings have a good start on that type of team. I'm more optimistic than you are.

 

[Asaf]

Two things. First, the triangle offense is a motion offense, and a variation of the Princeton offense, as are all motion offenses. While the Kings don't run a triangle offense, they do run a motion offense, that is very similar in many ways to the Princeton offense. The Lakers have managed to do quite well with the great Derrick Fisher at the point.

Second, an elite PG isn't necessarily a traditional PG. Derrick Rose is hardly a pass first PG. Neither is Deron Williams. I think we'll find in the future that John Wall doesn't fit the description either. But all are, or are going to be elite PG's. Now I'm not saying that Jimmer Fredette is going to reach those levels, but I think he'll be more than adequate at the very least. The motion offense is based on all your key players being able to handle, pass, and shoot the ball. The Kings have a good start on that type of team. I'm more optimistic than you are.

I'll try to break my response down coherently, since I am too lazy to make small quotes:

About the Kings offense, for the large part of Westphal's tenure with the Kings, the offense consisted of one guy dribbling and four other guys standing around trying to figure out what he wants to do. Now if you're referring to the stretch of 10 games or so that the Kings sort of looked like a team, it remains to be seen whether or not Westphal can keep it up with his new roster. Indeed, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Besides being able to handle, pass, shoot etc. a motion offense requires players with a very high basketball IQ. I'm not convinced that the current group of players are up to the task.

The Lakers played the triangle, therefore could afford to have Fisher at the point.

Rose and Deron are great players, but they have yet to win a championship. Having a PG that can score is a wonderful thing, but for a team that does not run the Triangle or a similar offense, the primary role of the PG, imo, should be to fascilitate the offense, and scoring should be secondary. I think Deron can fit into that role, not sure about Rose, though. I was rooting for Chicago against Miami, but with every game it was apparent that the Bulls were too dependent on one player to be able to win such a tough playoff series, much like LeBron's Cav's. If one player is responsible for initiating the offense AND scoring, the offense becomes stagnant and ineffective. If the player is talented enough, like Rose and LeBron, it can work in the regular season and early playoff rounds, but when it's time to face the toughest obstacles it's just not enough. I'll be rooting for Chicago or the Celtics to come out of the East next season, but I'm not very optimistic that either of them can stop the forces of evil from South Beach...

 

[Kingsguy881]

I'll try to break my response down coherently, since I am too lazy to make small quotes:

About the Kings offense, for the large part of Westphal's tenure with the Kings, the offense consisted of one guy dribbling and four other guys standing around trying to figure out what he wants to do. Now if you're referring to the stretch of 10 games or so that the Kings sort of looked like a team, it remains to be seen whether or not Westphal can keep it up with his new roster. Indeed, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Besides being able to handle, pass, shoot etc. a motion offense requires players with a very high basketball IQ. I'm not convinced that the current group of players are up to the task.

The Lakers played the triangle, therefore could afford to have Fisher at the point.

Rose and Deron are great players, but they have yet to win a championship. Having a PG that can score is a wonderful thing, but for a team that does not run the Triangle or a similar offense, the primary role of the PG, imo, should be to fascilitate the offense, and scoring should be secondary. I think Deron can fit into that role, not sure about Rose, though. I was rooting for Chicago against Miami, but with every game it was apparent that the Bulls were too dependent on one player to be able to win such a tough playoff series, much like LeBron's Cav's. If one player is responsible for initiating the offense AND scoring, the offense becomes stagnant and ineffective. If the player is talented enough, like Rose and LeBron, it can work in the regular season and early playoff rounds, but when it's time to face the toughest obstacles it's just not enough. I'll be rooting for Chicago or the Celtics to come out of the East next season, but I'm not very optimistic that either of them can stop the forces of evil from South Beach...

Tell that to Chauncey and Tony Parker.

 

[pshn80]

Reading the several offerings above with great interest. I don't know the definition of a motion offense or the Triangle even though I have watched it for 26 years here in Sacramento. So I am not a refined or knowledgeable stratigest. I just love the NBA game as a Kings fan and game attender.

With all that said, I ask those that say what we have will do it for the time being, tell me what to expect. Jimmer will be our number 3 guard option at season's beginning leaving Evans/Thornton to start. They played about a sixth of last season together and team play was improved in that time. But in watching that improved play I didn't see much change in Evans MO, that is, dribble it up securely, relatively slowly, continueing his dribble while sizing up the situation, looking for a way to go or pass but mainly go, and finally doing something. The 'something' he did was somewhat better because of Thornton's presence but Evans did not appear to me to have changed his MO. That concerns me. But I guess we can live with that if Fredette comes along well and relatively quickly, which he may and I hope he does. Is that the scenario that you see?

 

[gunks]

Reading the several offerings above with great interest. I don't know the definition of a motion offense or the Triangle even though I have watched it for 26 years here in Sacramento. So I am not a refined or knowledgeable stratigest. I just love the NBA game as a Kings fan and game attender.

With all that said, I ask those that say what we have will do it for the time being, tell me what to expect. Jimmer will be our number 3 guard option at season's beginning leaving Evans/Thornton to start. They played about a sixth of last season together and team play was improved in that time. But in watching that improved play I didn't see much change in Evans MO, that is, dribble it up securely, relatively slowly, continueing his dribble while sizing up the situation, looking for a way to go or pass but mainly go, and finally doing something. The 'something' he did was somewhat better because of Thornton's presence but Evans did not appear to me to have changed his MO. That concerns me. But I guess we can live with that if Fredette comes along well and relatively quickly, which he may and I hope he does. Is that the scenario that you see?

I agree with the concern. I think for Reke to take the next step it is as much mental as getting a reliable outside shot. He's young, so there is hope he grows a brain. And in the couple games where he "decided to be a facilitator" he really did manage to rack up assists. I also dont think its so much about Reke being a selfish ballhog, as Reke wanting to help his team win. He generally only goes into "me first" mode in the 4th, when the game is on the line...Something you actually want your star to do...He just isnt there yet skillwise.

Maybe if we had a legit coach the youngsters will come along... Westphal seems to encourage bad habits, rather than attempt to nip them in the bud.


Besides coaching...This rebuild is awesome. I still think Reke/Cuz could be a NASTY duo in a couple years. Especially since both their games lend themselves well to playoff style, D-heavy, grind-it-out, basketball. And with all the other young guys, we've established a great core around that star duo.

 

[hrdboild]

since the end of the season we have:

-- added more long range shooting (presumably)
-- added 1 more defender than we had
-- added size

we have lost Beno's vet control of the game, and that's about it. Free agency results could change or skew everything, but the above is where we stand today, and its hardly some catastrophe or some magical swing away from defense. We have in fact gained defense since the end of the season.

Others may have used the word catastrophe, mine was underwhelmed. It's a decent start but so far I'm more disappointed with the moves we didn't make than the moves we did make. We did add more shooting, I won't dispute that. Jimmer can shoot the heck out of the ball. But we also traded away our best 3 point shooter from last season and Jimmer plays the same position as our best remaining 3 point shooter. It's an improvement but not a drastic one. I didn't think shooting was as big of a need as a lot of people did though. At the end of the day we were middle of the pack on points scored. Our offensive efficiency was bad but our defense was much worse.

We did add another defender in Salmons but he's not young enough to be a part of the core, he's not an elite defender especially not at SF, and his offense, or rather his style of offense, is quite likely going to be a problem which puts his overall value in question for me. He's been a solid addition on paper to all four teams that he's played on and yet all of those teams under-performed relative to expectations. I think he's a small upgrade next year followed by declining performance and complaints about his role the following two years. That's been the pattern his whole career and he's not getting any younger. Committing to a young defensive role player would have made a bigger difference to me. Salmons is a "get better now" addition which was made in lieu of a more long-term commitment and it could just as easily backfire.

And lastly we haven't actually re-signed Dalembert yet (or signed Chandler away from the champs for that matter) and if we don't bring him back, than we haven't added size but lost size. Hickson is not a longterm solution at PF, at least not a good one. His numbers last season are not that impressive considering his usage % on what amounted to a D-League All Star team. He's Carl Landry with better rebounding, which makes him a terrible fit next to Cousins. Off the bench he's a solid role-player but we already have one of those in Thompson. Whiteside hopefully will get to contribute at some point too. I just don't see adding another high-usage scoring forward as a pressing need for us. And if it means moving Cousins to C than we're giving up size. Moving Salmons to SF is giving up more size and moving Tyreke to SG, more of the same.

The original question was how we like the re-build so far. I think the trio of Evans, Cousins, and Thornton is an excellent start and Whiteside's potential developing for cheap is a nice luxary for any rebuilding team to have. It's not all doom and gloom for me if I sometimes sound like that lately. We had a solid core already. But this was our big off-season to take a step forward and so far I'm not seeing much progress. If the four guys we already have continue to develop it may not matter anyway. I'm still mostly optimistic about the future of this team, but the moves happening this off-season have left me puzzled and, like I said, underwhelmed.

It's simple really, we currently have two solid starters and a fringe third in Thornton so we're still shopping for frontline talent and we (had) draftpicks and (have) money to spend. So far we've added Jimmer+Salmons+Hickson. I don't think any of them will be a starter on this or any other team in 5 years. Hence, underwhelmed. But I understand that not everyone agrees.

 

[est.1999]

Some people baffle me. How can you be underwhelmed with this offseason so far when free agency hasn't even started? Like seriously, it's getting to the point where some posters are really frustrating, to say the least. My god.

 

[ParniValjak]

Others may have used the word catastrophe, mine was underwhelmed. It's a decent start but so far I'm more disappointed with the moves we didn't make than the moves we did make. We did add more shooting, I won't dispute that. Jimmer can shoot the heck out of the ball. But we also traded away our best 3 point shooter from last season and Jimmer plays the same position as our best remaining 3 point shooter. It's an improvement but not a drastic one. I didn't think shooting was as big of a need as a lot of people did though. At the end of the day we were middle of the pack on points scored. Our offensive efficiency was bad but our defense was much worse.

We did add another defender in Salmons but he's not young enough to be a part of the core, he's not an elite defender especially not at SF, and his offense, or rather his style of offense, is quite likely going to be a problem which puts his overall value in question for me. He's been a solid addition on paper to all four teams that he's played on and yet all of those teams under-performed relative to expectations. I think he's a small upgrade next year followed by declining performance and complaints about his role the following two years. That's been the pattern his whole career and he's not getting any younger. Committing to a young defensive role player would have made a bigger difference to me. Salmons is a "get better now" addition which was made in lieu of a more long-term commitment and it could just as easily backfire.

And lastly we haven't actually re-signed Dalembert yet (or signed Chandler away from the champs for that matter) and if we don't bring him back, than we haven't added size but lost size. Hickson is not a longterm solution at PF, at least not a good one. His numbers last season are not that impressive considering his usage % on what amounted to a D-League All Star team. He's Carl Landry with better rebounding, which makes him a terrible fit next to Cousins. Off the bench he's a solid role-player but we already have one of those in Thompson. Whiteside hopefully will get to contribute at some point too. I just don't see adding another high-usage scoring forward as a pressing need for us. And if it means moving Cousins to C than we're giving up size. Moving Salmons to SF is giving up more size and moving Tyreke to SG, more of the same.

The original question was how we like the re-build so far. I think the trio of Evans, Cousins, and Thornton is an excellent start and Whiteside's potential developing for cheap is a nice luxary for any rebuilding team to have. It's not all doom and gloom for me if I sometimes sound like that lately. We had a solid core already. But this was our big off-season to take a step forward and so far I'm not seeing much progress. If the four guys we already have continue to develop it may not matter anyway. I'm still mostly optimistic about the future of this team, but the moves happening this off-season have left me puzzled and, like I said, underwhelmed.

It's simple really, we currently have two solid starters and a fringe third in Thornton so we're still shopping for frontline talent and we (had) draftpicks and (have) money to spend. So far we've added Jimmer+Salmons+Hickson. I don't think any of them will be a starter on this or any other team in 5 years. Hence, underwhelmed. But I understand that not everyone agrees.

Err...

Lets get one thing straight, this team needed veteran presence and experience to take the next step. We go out and address our worst position from off-season in SF by getting a veteran who addresses most of what we are looking for from that position and you are underwhelmed because we didn't get another young guy?!

We needed help now and not in 5 years time. We got help for the now with Salmons and we still have a young guy to learn the ropes in the mean time in Honeycutt and Green if he ever decides to get serious.

This team needed some veteran presence, especially at SF rather than yet another kid who will take time to develop.

 

[Warhawk]

Some people baffle me. How can you be underwhelmed with this offseason so far when free agency hasn't even started? Like seriously, it's getting to the point where some posters are really frustrating, to say the least. My god.

This.

WE AREN'T DONE YET FOLKS! FREE AGENCY HASN'T EVEN STARTED.

I bet some of you are the same ones that try to figure out which person we will draft next year and haven't played a game this season yet. Calm down and evaluate the offseason after we actually have one.

 

[kingofthejungle]

J.J. Hickson

Hickson is being seriously underrated in this thread. He was just compared to Carl Landry but I believe there's no comparison, so there's oviously some disparity worth exploration ...

Hickson Averages more points and rebounds per game but he's 5 years younger. Nearly 15 and 10 for a 22 year old.
Hickson was a one-and-done college player and considered raw comming into the NBA. Lots of upside and he has only played 3 NBA seasons with his best ball at the end of last.
Hickson is taller with a longer wingspan and standing reach; he actually played spot minutes at center for the Cavs last year.
Hickson is a far better rebounder.
Hickson has a historically good FG% but it was down last year (45%) since he was the focus of defenses. He shot 55% with Lebron on his team the year before.
Hickson picked 17th in draft after one year of college; Landry picked 31st after 4 years of college.

Hopefully this sums up why I'm so optimistic about Hickson. I expect that he will start next to Cousins and that they will make a dynamic frontcourt. I'm particularly excited about his fit on the offensive end. Thornton, Evans, Cousins, even Salmons will draw lots of attention from defenses, so Hickson should float under the radar--to an extent. Hickson is a post up option with an improved jump shot, but he can also run the floor and cut to the basket, so I expect a lot of easy buckets delivered by Evans and Cousins. Make sure to check "youtube" and watch some of his dunks in traffic--there should be little doubt that Hickson is explosive and can finish at the rim.

It is no accident that my enthusiasm regarding Hickson is in regards to offense, as he is not considered a good defender, which may pose a problem as Cousins isn't renowned on that end either. Here are a few ideas to chew on:

Hickson has the physical profile to be a good defender but reportedly lacks the focus and motivation. Considering that this is a contract year and that his team will actually compete for wins (unlike last year's Cavs), I'm cautiously optimistic that he will improve. Also, remember that Hickson is only 22 years old! How would you compare Jason Thompson's defense from 2 years ago (when he was 22) with it now?

 

[Telemachus]

I'll try to break my response down coherently, since I am too lazy to make small quotes:

About the Kings offense, for the large part of Westphal's tenure with the Kings, the offense consisted of one guy dribbling and four other guys standing around trying to figure out what he wants to do. Now if you're referring to the stretch of 10 games or so that the Kings sort of looked like a team, it remains to be seen whether or not Westphal can keep it up with his new roster. Indeed, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Besides being able to handle, pass, shoot etc. a motion offense requires players with a very high basketball IQ. I'm not convinced that the current group of players are up to the task.

The Lakers played the triangle, therefore could afford to have Fisher at the point.

Rose and Deron are great players, but they have yet to win a championship. Having a PG that can score is a wonderful thing, but for a team that does not run the Triangle or a similar offense, the primary role of the PG, imo, should be to fascilitate the offense, and scoring should be secondary. I think Deron can fit into that role, not sure about Rose, though. I was rooting for Chicago against Miami, but with every game it was apparent that the Bulls were too dependent on one player to be able to win such a tough playoff series, much like LeBron's Cav's. If one player is responsible for initiating the offense AND scoring, the offense becomes stagnant and ineffective. If the player is talented enough, like Rose and LeBron, it can work in the regular season and early playoff rounds, but when it's time to face the toughest obstacles it's just not enough. I'll be rooting for Chicago or the Celtics to come out of the East next season, but I'm not very optimistic that either of them can stop the forces of evil from South Beach...

I would point out that while the Lakers are still talked about as using the triangle offense, they have played a much more typical motion offense the past couple seasons. They still play some triangle offense, but not most of the time.

I would also ask who was the elite PG on the Mavs this season? Jason Kidd would no longer be considered an elite PG, and the Mavs play a lot of pick and roll offense.

 

[kingsboi]

So far so good for the most part I'd say. This offseason is vital in the rebuilding process going forward though IMO. We need to either retain Dalembert or get somebody who can do similar things as him, regarding rebounding and playing some sort of defense. We can't have Cousins/JT or Cousins/JJ starting, we would allow 110 points a game every night almost. It would be like watching the Kings in spurts last season and the two, three years prior. I am pretty confident we are going to resign Marcus so I'm not worried about him. Our big man situation is not done though, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Petrie goes in the right direction with this ship.

 

[hrdboild]

Lets get one thing straight, this team needed veteran presence and experience to take the next step. We go out and address our worst position from off-season in SF by getting a veteran who addresses most of what we are looking for from that position and you are underwhelmed because we didn't get another young guy?!

We needed help now and not in 5 years time. We got help for the now with Salmons and we still have a young guy to learn the ropes in the mean time in Honeycutt and Green if he ever decides to get serious.

This team needed some veteran presence, especially at SF rather than yet another kid who will take time to develop.

That'd be great if Salmons were actually a SF and a proven leader, but he's neither. So yes I'm underwhelmed that we didn't get another guy because Salmons is a questionable fit for both of those criteria. Just because a guy has been in the league a long time doesn't automatically make him a good leader. We still have money to spend but we've already moved most of our trade-able assets (including a future first round pick) and used this year's top 10 pick. Our off-season is effectively half over, with maybe one more big free agent coming in whenever the lockout ends. If you like the guys we got, then fine. We disagree.

 

[Kingster]

Perspective: The definition according to my current Websters is " The ability to evaluate information, situations, and the like with respect to their meaningfulness or comparative importance". I'd say that the majority of the posters seem quite capable of doing that. Now the fact that they may come up with a different conclusion than you do is a different matter. We all like to think were right. The majority of us wouldn't give an opinion if we didn't believe what we're saying.

On a personal level, I tend to be swayed more by facts, than generalities or emotion. But what I really dislike, are statements that are open ended with the conclusions left up to the uninformed reader. Such as you referring to the Kings as a team thats been in the bottom five for years. Just what does the term "Years" mean to you? One year, two, five, or maybe ten? How many posters actually know how many years the Kings have been in the bottom five in the league?

Well its three years! The last three years. And if you go back through history, thats about the norm for a team that goes into a total rebuild. At least one that knows what it doing. Now you just as easily could have said, the last three years. But you didn't, because it doesn't sound as bad as saying years does it?

Yeah, I'm nit pickinig. Because I'm tired of people speaking in generalities without giving the true facts. Opinion is one thing, and facts are another. And they don't have to be exclusive of one another. But in some cases on this fourm, they are.

You also seemed to be obsessed with the PG position. Understandable to some extent, but not to the extent you want to carry it. That by the way is just my opnion. When have the Kings ever had a true PG? A term I don't particularly like by the way. You'd have to go all the way back to Kenny Smith to find someone that resembled a so called pure point guard.

In todays league, most teams run some variation of a motion offense. The very nature of that offense removes the need for the prototypical PG. All you need is a player that can bring up the ball and initiate a pass to start the offense. Obviously he needs to be able to handle the ball, pass the ball, and hopefully, shoot the ball. That sort of describes Mike Bibby. Sort of describes Bobby Jackson. Neither of those guys are Steve Nash. But having a Steve Nash doesn't guarantee you a ring does it?

I'll concede the point that Fredette will need some time to aquire the experience to make the jump to the NBA. At the moment, the Kings look prepared to let him learn on the fly and deal with the mistakes. In other words, put him on the fast track. If he was a freshman like a Brandon Knight, I wouldn't be in favor of that. But he's not! He's a senior with four years of college experience, with the last year being under a lot of pressure. I think he's ready. I could be wrong. We'll see!

Thats my subjective opinion based on watching him play in around 40 to 50 games over the last two years. But just for fun, who is it that you would like the Kings to sign to put in front of Fredette in the pecking order at the PG position? Please give me a reasonable name and not some ambiguous fantasy player defined as a true PG.

So what does that say for the "minority"?

 

[Kingster]

I think there is almost zero chance we sign another starting level pg. My guess it's Thornton/Reke going into camp, but if Jimmer impresses, it'll be Jimmer/Reke starting sooner rather than later. Westy has already said the starting pg spot is up for grabs, and stopped just short of saying it would be Jimmer. Signing another starting caliber point makes no sense, after committing to Jimmer.

My guess is the big signing is Daly, Nene, or Chandler, or that is at least the Kings hope. I'd love to sign a Prince or AK47 also, and move Salmons to the bench, but my gut tells me that won't happen. Don't think Salmons would handle going to the bench well.

Also, who exactly do you think we'd sign a starting pg? There aren't any FA starting caliber pg's this summer. We'd have to trade for one. Have you looked at the FA list? If not I suggest you do, because there aren't any FA pg's on that list who could start for us. I posted the 2011 FA list a while ago, let me see if I can get an MOD to sticky it, so every can look. I don't like people suggesting to simply sign a starting pg, when there aren't any available.

Barea.