There are 106 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

2011-2012 Sacramento Kings Thread

Originally posted by 9erReign:
Originally posted by Muggins:
If the Kings move I've decided I'm done with NBA. I'll come back if they come back but other than that I'll just watch a Warriors game or two a year and maybe put on some playoffs as background noise for when I'm surfing.

Football is the perfect sport, just go with the 49ers that is what I am doing. Hard salary cap so even playing field. 16 games, completely manageable to go to/watch all the games, every game is meaningful. Dooooo it! NBA is done.

lol
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 9erReign:
Originally posted by Muggins:
If the Kings move I've decided I'm done with NBA. I'll come back if they come back but other than that I'll just watch a Warriors game or two a year and maybe put on some playoffs as background noise for when I'm surfing.

Football is the perfect sport, just go with the 49ers that is what I am doing. Hard salary cap so even playing field. 16 games, completely manageable to go to/watch all the games, every game is meaningful. Dooooo it! NBA is done.

lol


MLB/NHL >>> NBA
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 9erReign:
Originally posted by Muggins:
If the Kings move I've decided I'm done with NBA. I'll come back if they come back but other than that I'll just watch a Warriors game or two a year and maybe put on some playoffs as background noise for when I'm surfing.

Football is the perfect sport, just go with the 49ers that is what I am doing. Hard salary cap so even playing field. 16 games, completely manageable to go to/watch all the games, every game is meaningful. Dooooo it! NBA is done.

lol

I dunno what you are laughing at, the NBA is pretty much a joke. Have fun with Dwight Howard, Steve Nash and Kobe.
I'm laughing because the NBA's more popular than ever, and you guys only feel this way because your organization sucks. You guys thought the NBA was pretty awesome 10 years ago, and nothing of significance has changed about the structure of the league since then. What changed was your favorite team. I'm gonna enjoy the hell outta Howard, Nash, & Kobe. Thanks.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I'm laughing because the NBA's more popular than ever, and you guys only feel this way because your organization sucks. You guys thought the NBA was pretty awesome 10 years ago, and nothing of significance has changed about the structure of the league since then. What changed was your favorite team. I'm gonna enjoy the hell outta Howard, Nash, & Kobe. Thanks.

And I am sure that you saying that has nothing to do with being a fan of 1 of the 3 remaining teams in the NBA. Good unbiased statements as usual.
Originally posted by 9erReign:
And I am sure that you saying that has nothing to do with being a fan of 1 of the 3 remaining teams in the NBA. Good unbiased statements as usual.

Sure doesn't. The Western Conference Finals last year consisted of those big market juggernauts of San Antonio & Oklahoma City. Every team has a chance to win titles, but title contending teams aren't built overnight, and the Kings haven't even been trying to build a winner for quite some time.

And yes, in a 7 game series format you're going to have several fewer title contenders than in a single elimination format like the NFL. If you like teams being able to catch lightning in a bottle and be crowned champions despite them not really being the best team in their sport (see: Giants, New York), that's your prerogative. I don't.
[ Edited by LA9erFan on Aug 27, 2012 at 12:16 PM ]
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 9erReign:
And I am sure that you saying that has nothing to do with being a fan of 1 of the 3 remaining teams in the NBA. Good unbiased statements as usual.

Sure doesn't. The Western Conference Finals last year consisted of those big market juggernauts of San Antonio & Oklahoma City. Every team has a chance to win titles, but title contending teams aren't built overnight, and the Kings haven't even been trying to build a winner for quite some time.

And yes, in a 7 game series format you're going to have several fewer title contenders than in a single elimination format like the NFL. If you like teams being able to catch lightning in a bottle and be crowned champions despite them not really being the best team in their sport (see: Giants, New York), that's your prerogative. I don't.

Yeah stupid Kings, hurry up and luck into a Kevin Durant or Tim Duncan falling into your lap.
Originally posted by 9erReign:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 9erReign:
And I am sure that you saying that has nothing to do with being a fan of 1 of the 3 remaining teams in the NBA. Good unbiased statements as usual.

Sure doesn't. The Western Conference Finals last year consisted of those big market juggernauts of San Antonio & Oklahoma City. Every team has a chance to win titles, but title contending teams aren't built overnight, and the Kings haven't even been trying to build a winner for quite some time.

And yes, in a 7 game series format you're going to have several fewer title contenders than in a single elimination format like the NFL. If you like teams being able to catch lightning in a bottle and be crowned champions despite them not really being the best team in their sport (see: Giants, New York), that's your prerogative. I don't.

Yeah stupid Kings, hurry up and luck into a Kevin Durant or Tim Duncan falling into your lap.

Tim Duncan hasn't been a transcendant talent in like 5 years, and the Spurs are still title contenders. Try again.
Pete. You and I both know that there are 3 teams that can win the title this year. I'm sure a Laker fan loves it but the league is becoming a farce in my opinion when there is such a discrepancy between the haves and the have nots. The NBA (and all leagues) should simply have a hard cap in my opinion.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Pete. You and I both know that there are 3 teams that can win the title this year. I'm sure a Laker fan loves it but the league is becoming a farce in my opinion when there is such a discrepancy between the haves and the have nots. The NBA (and all leagues) should simply have a hard cap in my opinion.

Yes, I know that 3 teams can win the title this year. I'd argue that the perceived "parity" in the NFL is overstated, and more of a function of two factors rather than the lack of a hard cap.

1) 7 game series vs. Single game elimination - The NFL is much more prone to fluke champions than the NBA is. Miami proved to be the better team than OKC was, but if it was single elimination, the Thunder would be the champs. Or they wouldn't have even made the Finals, because the Spurs took the first game against them in the previous round. Obviously a 7 game (or even 3 game) format is impractical in the NFL, but that in and of itself narrows the amount of teams that could win a championship.

2) Playing time - Even someone that's as dominant as an Aaron Rodgers is on the field less than half of the plays, and is part of an 11 man unit. In the NBA, the superstars play about 80% of the game, and can impact every single possession in a sport that's 5-on-5. That's why one transcendent talent can the pendulum so much. That's not a flaw in the NBA, that's just the nature of the sport itself.

I'd be fine with a hard cap in the NBA, but I don't think it would have much of an impact, and I don't think you'd have more parity than you do now.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Yes, I know that 3 teams can win the title this year. I'd argue that the perceived "parity" in the NFL is overstated, and more of a function of two factors rather than the lack of a hard cap.

1) 7 game series vs. Single game elimination - The NFL is much more prone to fluke champions than the NBA is. Miami proved to be the better team than OKC was, but if it was single elimination, the Thunder would be the champs. Or they wouldn't have even made the Finals, because the Spurs took the first game against them in the previous round. Obviously a 7 game (or even 3 game) format is impractical in the NFL, but that in and of itself narrows the amount of teams that could win a championship.

2) Playing time - Even someone that's as dominant as an Aaron Rodgers is on the field less than half of the plays, and is part of an 11 man unit. In the NBA, the superstars play about 80% of the game, and can impact every single possession in a sport that's 5-on-5. That's why one transcendent talent can the pendulum so much. That's not a flaw in the NBA, that's just the nature of the sport itself.

I'd be fine with a hard cap in the NBA, but I don't think it would have much of an impact, and I don't think you'd have more parity than you do now.

My biggest gripe with the NBA is how much refs influence the winner of an NBA game. Just the way the sport is played, its extremely difficult to call an even game and IMO I've never seen an NBA playoff game without a BS call. Because of the high scoring nature, you could argue it doesn't change the course of a game but when it gets into the 4th quarter, one bad call can make a tremendous effect on the outcome and it happens too often.

I still find college ball more entertaining then the NBA because I love to see the variety of talent and wide range of schemes going up against each other. I find college ball is more determenined by 6 or 7 guys then the 2 or 3 that decide in the NBA.

I agree that the NFL's one and done set up ensures that the best time doesn't truly win it all. No matter how good a team is, you can lose a game and it happens quite a bit in the NFL.
LA, the league has changed since ten years ago and is continuing to change. Did we have this collusion of star players, while they are still really good, ten years ago? I think this trend won't go away. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the people who defend the NBA when these topics come up are usually finds of the teams that have the advantage and vice versa
[ Edited by sacniner on Aug 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM ]
Originally posted by sacniner:
LA, the league has changed since ten years ago and is continuing to change. Did we have this collusion of star players, while they are still really good, ten years ago? I think this trend won't go away. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the people who defend the NBA when these topics come up are usually finds of the teams that have the advantage and vice versa

There are two examples of collusion amongst players, and that's in Miami & New York, and like I said...nothing's changed in terms of the rules from the days when Kings fans were rabid, in love with the NBA, and packing Arco every night. We've had only one team successfully build their squad through players colluding via free agency, or even through free agency at all. Every other contender has built their team through traditional means.

Boston = Traded for KG, traded for Allen, drafted Pierce, drafted Rondo
Spurs = Drafted Duncan, drafted Manu, drafted Parker
Lakers = Traded for Kobe, traded for Pau, traded for Nash, traded for Howard
OKC = Drafted Durant, drafted Westbrook, drafted Harden, drafted Ibaka

I just don't see how this is different from any other era aside from the 70's. The nature of a sport where it's 5-on-5, the best players play 80% of the game, and the playoff series are 7 games instead of 1 all lead to a structure where there's only gonna be a select few contenders at any given time.

50's = Dominated by the Lakers & Celtics
60's = Dominated by the Celtics
80's = Dominated by the Lakers, Celtics, & Pistons
90's = Dominated by the Bulls
00's = Dominated by the Lakers & Spurs

The only thing that's stopping the Kings from doing what they did in their heyday again is the ineptitude of their upper management.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by sacniner:
LA, the league has changed since ten years ago and is continuing to change. Did we have this collusion of star players, while they are still really good, ten years ago? I think this trend won't go away. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the people who defend the NBA when these topics come up are usually finds of the teams that have the advantage and vice versa

There are two examples of collusion amongst players, and that's in Miami & New York, and like I said...nothing's changed in terms of the rules from the days when Kings fans were rabid, in love with the NBA, and packing Arco every night. We've had only one team successfully build their squad through players colluding via free agency, or even through free agency at all. Every other contender has built their team through traditional means.

Boston = Traded for KG, traded for Allen, drafted Pierce, drafted Rondo
Spurs = Drafted Duncan, drafted Manu, drafted Parker
Lakers = Traded for Kobe, traded for Pau, traded for Nash, traded for Howard
OKC = Drafted Durant, drafted Westbrook, drafted Harden, drafted Ibaka

I just don't see how this is different from any other era aside from the 70's. The nature of a sport where it's 5-on-5, the best players play 80% of the game, and the playoff series are 7 games instead of 1 all lead to a structure where there's only gonna be a select few contenders at any given time.

50's = Dominated by the Lakers & Celtics
60's = Dominated by the Celtics
80's = Dominated by the Lakers, Celtics, & Pistons
90's = Dominated by the Bulls
00's = Dominated by the Lakers & Spurs

The only thing that's stopping the Kings from doing what they did in their heyday again is the ineptitude of their upper management.

Agree. Any team can change the culture if they really try. Dallas is a great example. He came in, revamped the facilities, made it serious, and got what he wanted. Years later, serious contender, then champion. It starts up front.
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Agree. Any team can change the culture if they really try. Dallas is a great example. He came in, revamped the facilities, made it serious, and got what he wanted. Years later, serious contender, then champion. It starts up front.

Ya, they're a perfect example. Those Mavs teams before Cuban got there were God awful. As soon as he arrived, everything changed. The Kings problem is that they have two guys that are no longer in a position to adequately own an NBA franchise, not some systemic thing that's holding them down.

Chris Webber's actually a really good example of what I mean about star players not leaving good situations. When he got traded to Sac, he didn't even want to be there because the Kings were perennial losers. But they made some great moves, built a top notch team, and 3 years later, Detroit-born Chris Webber was all to happy to sign a 7 year contract to stay in little ol' Sacramento.