Leaderboard

Sacha, I think you make everyone laugh. You said you wanted to be a Pedo at one time and then you start talking about haters and how you get girls, your very interesting to be honest.

In this thread I will hold topics about money. I am here to share what I know and learn as well. It's said that you learn more by sharing what you know. Besides, I know there must be someone or two here I can learn from about this topic. If you have disagreements, voice them, we discuss here... possibly to reach an answer... but more so to understand different people have different points of view and to have the unique opportunity see it from "their world". --- 1.) Introduction Some people have their jobs because they genuinely LOVE their jobs/ profession. In other words, the main reason they work is because of their passion for their job, and that is admirable... in fact, if you have a passion in what you do, that's when you rapidly reach success (financially or others). Before they know it, they get promoted from employee to manager to president of company... because they are in their jobs with a burning passion and they bring the energy every day to work. They do NOT work for money. They may be aware they get paid as they go along, but the importance of the passion for their job far outweighs the money compensation they get from it. People who work for the sole purpose of money and the love of it will not have their flame of energy and passion last long and eventually the load of work will start becoming a burden. Most of you here are in their teens or early 20s just beginning to go to workforce and get their first jobs. I am in no way discouraging you to do this... in fact, I highly encourage you to get that first job... whether they be a McDonald's counter, pizza delivery, paperboy, janitor, or accountant, secretary, etc. Before you learn how to make money work for you, you will first have to learn how to work for it first. Before you can lead (and build a business of employees), you must learn how to follow (and learn how a business is built). But there's also some who work because they have no choice and they have bills to pay and other obligations such as taking care of their family members and they're just happy with the way things are, and that's perfectly fine as long as they're truly happy and aware with their choice of exchanging freedom for money. But there are so many people in this position wonder why they never become rich. If you're not willing to exchange your freedom for money though, then you have to start thinking like rich people: freedom is EVERYthing (NOT money!). I will also refer to people who have achieved "Financial Independence" (discussed #3 How to get out of the Rat Race) as "rich people"... shorter. 2.) Security vs. Freedom Ever since we were kids, we're told by our parents to "get good grades, graduate, and then get a high paying job with benefits and security. The problem is they're telling their children to basically advocate their TIME/ lives in exchange for money, no matter if they're used to pay bills, to take care of their important ones, to bring foods to the table, or for wrong reasons such as illegal drugs, alcohol, etc. Billions of people wake up every morning (or night) going to work when they don't want to or don't feel like it. When this happens, they're essentially trading their freedom for money. This is equivalent to a prisoner who gets locked up in high security but he's locked up and is not free to enjoy life to the fullest... they're safe from rain, storm, weathers and outsidendangers from other criminals but they wake up every day in a small cell having their freedom taken away from them. This is why people with a lot of money (aka "rich" people) advocate freedom. They will never work for other people or money. They will find a way to make money work for them, so they will never ever have to work and spend the most valuable asset of all: TIME. To them time is more valuable than money. They wake up when they want to, they do whatever they want to anytime, anywhere. While working people force themselves to wake up and get into a packed train/ bus to go to work, the rich are enjoying their breakfast. One thing that does not change when they sleep, work, play, vacation... is that: money keeps flowing with or without them working. That's the power of money working for you, even when you're not working, you're still making money. The problem with people who work for money is, when they stop working, the money also stops... and they have no choice but to keep working and keep trading their TIME for money... essentially enslaving themselves for life (or until they retire) for money. This is called the "rat race". No matter if you're blue, white collars in high-end suits or just in a t-shirt as a janitor, no matter if your income is $20,000 or $100,000 a year, if you work for money, you're in the Rat Race. Their incomes stop when they stop working... to ensure the income keeps flowing, they have to keep working. 3.) How to get out of the Rat Race The ONLY way to get out of the Rat Race is to achieve Financial Independence/ Freedom. Financial Independence happens when your monthly (or yearly) Portfolio and Passive incomes combined are greater than/ exceed (>) your monthly (or yearly) expense. Three types of income: - "Portfolio income" is what you get from assets such as businesses or also called profits. - "Passive income" is what you get from assets such as properties (rent) or copyrights such as books, songs, etc. - "Earned income" is what you get from working as an employee. It's clear that Portfolio and Passive incomes are distinctly different from Earned income. The difference is: you have to keep working to produce Earned income and if you stop it also stops. On the other hand, Portfolio and Passive incomes are derived from your assets and therefore they work and generate the income for you, even when you sleep. It's obvious if you want freedom/ financial freedom, you will have to start seeking Portfolio and Passive incomes... and not Earned income as an employee. In order to start realizing incomes from these, you must have ASSETS that produce them. Once your monthly Portfolio and Passive incomes combined (you may only have Portfolio or Passive income, not both, and that is OK) exceed your monthly expense, you're financially independent/ free, meaning you can stop working. 4.) Assets While people who work for money focus on the "Income" column, the rich people focus on the "Asset" column. They find ways to keep building their assets. An asset is something that continuously gives you income or cashflow. after the break-even point, the income generated from that asset is considered passive income and cashflow. E.g. Tony buys a boat for $10,000 and rents it for 1,200 monthly. The cost of maintenance is $200 monthly. So overall, Tony gets a net income of $1,000 monthly from the boat. If the boat continues to make the $1,000 net income for him consistently, that means it will take 10 months for Tony to reach break-even point ($10,000 for the cost he paid for the boat). The 11th month marks his first official profit ($1,000) from the boat/ asset... and from the 11th month on, Tony's boat has truly become an asset that throws off cashflow of $1,000 every month. So you can imagine, if he has 10 boats, he will rack in $10,000 every month... with him probably just working small work at the counter. If he chooses to do something else, he can hire someone to do the job for $1,000 a month... and that means even if he sleeps without doing a single work for one whole month, he still gets an income of $9,000 a month because he has an employee that runs the boat business for him, even when he sleeps or doing something else. This is the power of leverage. The smart way is, of course, to spend that time building other assets than just sleeping. 5.) Leverage This is everything for rich people. They use them in any endeavor they undertake, and without which they simply can't be successful. There are three types of leverage: - Other people's money - Other people's time - Other people's resources or talent In the above example, once Tony hires an employee to watch over his boat business, he is using his employee's time as his leverage (Other people's time). True, Tony has to pay $1,000 to the employee, and if he takes charge of the business himself, he saves $1,000 every month. But consider the return, that he is FREE to do something else. Remember that FREEDOM is what rich people seek. Consider that if he's free to do something else, he can possibly build a second business e.g. liquor store that in time produces another $10,000 to his pocket every month... combining with the boat business, he gets $19,000 every month. If he had to watch over the boat business himself, true, he saves the $1,000 every month in the employee wage, but that monthly saving of $1,000 is not comparable to the potential of building another business that produces a monthly income of $10,000... which means the likelihood of building the liquor store is slim to none (if he had to watch over his boat business by himself). In this case, Tony pays his employee $1,000 every month to watch over his boat business and in return he gets the FREEDOM and TIME to build his second business, a liquor store that produces another income of $10,000 every month... essentially he is trading the $1,000 he pays to the employee for $10,000 he gets from the second business he builds from the free time the employee gives him. If you're a working employee, you're right now in the shoes of Tony's employee (Tony is your boss). And if you're wondering that Tony must be generous and have lots of money to pay you $1,000 a month just to watch over the counter and do small work, remember for every penny your boss pays you, you generate about 10-100-1000 times as much FOR him. That's leverage of "Other people's time" working for Tony, and a powerful one at that. That's why the more employees you have the richer you are... as long as they're effective hiring. Working people/ employees unfortunately do NOT possess any type of leverage working for them. In fact, the only leverage associated with them is the ones their boss have working against them. If they come late to work, poorly perform, they get fired, income stops. Example of "Other people's money" is if you borrow money from a bank to invest in a business or real estate. Example of "Other people's resources" is if you hire a specialist to get a task done in your business. I will post more... thanks if you give your time to read, give opinions, etc.

On the night of the extremely talented 2008 NBA draft, the Houston Rockets were sitting on the 25th pick in the first round. Normally many wouldn't expect anything more than a long-term project or 9th or 10th man off the bench, but tonight was different as the draft was stocked with great talent in both rounds. Houston tried to move up to the 'teen picks to try and snatch Brandon Rush or Courtney Lee, but Daryl Morey came to no avail. After the Orlando Magic selected Lee with the 22nd pick, the Rockets didn't pout and they set their sights on another prospect. Houston selected the ever so talented and potential loaded French native, Nicolas Batum. Batum was earlier thought to be a lottery pick but slipped to the Rockets' lap. Sounds like a great pick right? Sure but Daryl Morey and the Rockets were not done. Shortly after the announcement of the 25th pick, Houston traded the rights to Batum to the Portland Trailblazers for the draft rights to Darrell Arthur and Joey Dorsey. Arthur was considered to be a late lottery pick and many predicted to go to the Sacramento Kings at the 12th pick (they would take Jason Thompson instead), but a heart condition recently discovered in his physical caused him to drop. By making this trade the Rockets c-blocked their divisional rival, the San Antonio Spurs, and also picked up another pick (Dorsey). Arthur was a Rocket (most consider this a three team deal but many Rockets fans recall Morey trading for Arthur's rights) for all but 30 minutes to an hour. Houston would make another deal, this time with the Memphis Grizzlies, in which Arthur draft rights were traded and in return the Rockets finally received the player they were targeting all night long in Donte Greene. Greene was another projected late lottery pick but his stock dropped after word got out of Donte's poor attitude in a Nets workout. Houston was absolutely enamored by Donte's length, athleticism and high scoring ability. The sky was the limit and Tracy McGrady (at the time) seemed like the perfect mentor for the rookie. Just a couple of weeks after Donte Greene scored 40 points in a Rockets summer league game, he was traded along with Bobby Jackson and a future first round pick (Omri Casspi) to the Sacramento Kings for the controversial Ron Artest, Sean Singletary and Patrick Ewing Jr. Artest, a former All-Star and regarded as one of the NBA's elite perimeter defenders, would help lead the Houston Rockets to their first second round appearance in over a decade and force a game 7 with the future NBA champions Los Angeles Lakers. After the season many thought the Rockets would resign Ron Artest to a multiple year deal but after news of Yao's season ending injury got out, Houston got cold and merely offered Artest a $10 million one year deal. Artest was offended by the Rockets short term offer and would bolt to the team that ended his Rockets' season, the Lakers. Houston in turn signed the Lakers young athletic forward Trevor Ariza to a Mid-Level Exception (MLE) multi-year deal. Adelman would later state that Ariza would be the Rockets new #1 option as they try to turn him into an all-star. The experiment failed miserably but Trevor put together a strong performance in the second half of the season that included a triple double game against his future team, the New Orleans Hornets. With no sign of warning Daryl Morey traded Trevor Ariza in a multi team deal for the player he targeted 2 years ago, Courtney Lee. Morey and Adelman spoke very highly of Lee, praising his work ethic, basketball IQ and defense. Unfortunately the Rockets would struggle early on the season with a 3-9 record and Lee hasn't been able to show the skills that Morey has sought after ever so much. With rumors of a potential trade for an all-star to help the Rockets get back into form, could Lee be packaged? Or will Houston decide to keep Lee if he shows improvements as the season goes along? Only time will tell.

Don't think so but with our defense I wouldn't get too comfortable.

See, but here's the thing- It's HOW they shot over 50% from the field. With or without his peak athleticism, with or without Shaq, with or without Gasol, with or without the triangle, Kobe's style of play will always limit him to sub-50% shooting. More importantly he'll almost always shoot a worse FG% than a number of his closest peers who score in volume because of this (LBJ, Wade, Durant currently). Jordan ALWAYS scored more efficiently than Dominique, Drexler and similar players. Guys like Dantley and prime King scored with similar efficiency and volume, but nontheless Jordan was considered efficient for his time and style. Kobe is not. And since I know you won't take my word for it, but Phil Jackson himself said MJ's ability to shoot over 50% was a big difference between him and Kobe. Kobe is NOT an efficient scorer. Bringing it back to the topic of Bird, I look at Durant. Similar type of frame and style of play in terms of scoring (with Durant being more athletic, but Bird having a post-game, better ballhandling and generally a much higher IQ). Durant is still able to score VERY efficiently, and I fully believe in today's NBA Bird would too. With offenses being more spread and guys like LBJ taking over 5 3's per game, Bird would fit in just fine. I would think Bird would have a much easier time defeating a zone than Kobe would. Maybe not in a 1-on-5 situation, but he worked much better off-ball and was a much better catch-and-shoot player, which would wreak havoc on a zone. He would also be more patient than Kobe would, and his shot selection would be smarter, which would also help his efficiency. But yes, Kobe is amazing at all areas of scoring, and is a better iso scorer than Bird was. How so? Shaq led the league in scoring twice, FG% a whopping 10x, was top 3 in rebounding 5x, top 3 in blocks 3x, and besides Jordan he has been the only guy (so far) in the modern NBA to lead his team to a 3-peat as the undisputed #1 guy, winning all 3 Finals MVP's. His post-season runs during his prime were legendary. If he didn't miss so many games a number of those seasons, and if he wasn't completely robbed of his 2001 MVP, he'd have more MVP's at his disposal. Bird shot over 40% his rookie season from 3. The seasons early in his career that he didn't shoot well from 3 were seasons that A) The 3pt line was still brand new and coaches were figuring out how to take advantage of it, and B) Where he was taking less than 1 3pt shot per game. Once he started taking 1-4 3pt shots per game, his 3pt% was over 40%. Bottom line is he was a dead-aim 3pt shooter, and in today's NBA where 3pt shooting is a premium and some coaches base their entire gameplan around the 3pt shot, I think Bird would be fine. I'm using the eye-test for Bird being the better passer. He was a very willing, nifty passer who took care of the basketball. He understand offensive flow and how to get players the ball in their sweet spots...his IQ was insanely high. I generally include passing into the "playmaking" term, so even if a bunch of Kobe's TO's come off of careless ballhandling, that's still a big factor (Bird routinely had an A:TO ratio over 2:1, an area Kobe has never been strong at). I think Kobe is a great passer, but he makes a ton of mistakes when he is expected to consistently make plays for his teammates. How does it help your arguement? What's wrong or less dominant about scoring less in iso situations and more within the flow of the offense? Is Melo a better scorer than Durant on the basis that over 10% more of Durant's scoring was assisted last season? To measure dominance IMO is to see what a player did relative to his era. In a talent-heavy era Bird won 3 straight MVP's, multiple championships, multiple Finals MVP's, put up awesome numbers (relative to any era), won All-Defense awards a few times, and was the undisputed leader of arguably the best teams in NBA history. To me, that's dominant. Even if you don't consider him as dominant as Kobe, which is a shaky but reasonable arguement for sure, they are certainly in the same ballclub, which is what I was getting at you for in the first place.

Well like Nitro said the main reason why I mentioned both Magic and Bird ahead of Kobe is because they both dominated what I consider to be the best decade of basketball ever, the 80's (90's are a close second though IMO). Now about Bird I think that he's often underrated by many people. Of course I know that most everyone consider him as a top 10 player of All Time so it might seem weird that I say something like that but what I mean is that it seems pretty clear for everyone that Magic was better than him and that most people don't consider him as a top 5 player. Well I am not so sure personally that Magic was better than him... I think that both players were around the same level and it's almost impossible to say that one of them was the best for sure. In fact many people do not realize how huge Bird truly was at the beginning of his career. The Bird of the end of the 80's and early 90's was totally broken and had almost nothing to do with the one of the first part of the 80's. Larry "Legend" was a fantastic player and leader and always had a huge impact on his team. The year before he joined the team the Celtics had one of their worst season ever with only 29 wins. With him they won 61 games during his rookie year. With Bird in the team the Celtics also made the playoffs every year. Bird is also one of the most versatile players ever (I would personally rank him as the third most versatile one, after Connie Hawkins and Magic Johnson). He was fantastic passer and rebounder as Nitro said, a triple double king, he ranks fifth of all time in triple doubles, behind O, Magic, Wilt and Kidd. Now as Nitro said Kobe is a better scorer and defender, true, but not by far Larry was an excellent defender indeed. I'd give the edge to Kobe but honestly Larry was right behind. And if Kobe has a better offensive repertoire Bird was still one of the most efficient scorer in the NBA history and could score from everywhere on the court. His jump shot is for the best in the history of the game. He's the very first player to shoot 50% or better on field goals, 40% on 3 pointers, and 90% on free throws in a single NBA season. And he's even the only one who ever lead his team to a ring while shooting 50% or better on field goals, 40% on 3 pointers and 90% on free throws during the entire playoffs in 1986 ! Besides Bird could be a great scorer without shooting a lot, as a matter of fact he only shot more than 20 times per game 4 times in his career, Kobe did it every year since the 2000-01 season (except in 2004) for example. And Bird shot at almost 50% in career, 49.6% exactly while Kobe shot at 45.4%. Finally as clutch as Kobe is (and I believe that he's among the three best clutch players ever with Bird and Jordan) I'd personally would give the edge to Bird. A case could even be made for him as the best ever, even if I personally would give the edge to Jordan though. I even know other people who think that Larry was even better than Jordan in the clutch... What I like the most about Bird is his arrogance, his trash talking, how he told people what he was gonna do BEFORE actually doing it. He was unique... One of my favorite plays ever was when Bird told the X Man, who was guarding him, exactly where he would hit the game winning shot. After a timeout, Bird made two baseline cuts, then posted in the exact spot he had indicated to McDaniel, paused, turned, and hit the shot in his face. Here's the video of it : Another one that I loved, I couldn't find a video of that one sadly, but it was during a game against the Indiana Pacers, before the game Person stated that "The Rifleman is Coming, and He's Going Bird Hunting." Then Bird told Chuck that he had a Christmas present waiting for him. During the game, when Person was on the bench, Bird shot a three pointer on the baseline right in front of Person. Immediately after releasing the ball, Bird said to Person, "Merry [expletive]in' Christmas!", and then the shot went in... I could mention many others like those one, this was what Larry Bird was all about.

Lil Penny, AL, and Oliver are probably my favs.

Garbage like the Chilly-led 12-4 team just one season ago who lost by a field goal in OT to the superbowl champs in the playoffs? They're garbage because their personnel is garbage, had nothing to do with Chilly. Scapegoat ftl.

http://i53.tinypic.com/2ithgn5.gif

I'm gonna sit on his thick juicy lap

if LeBron never left Cleveland then people would be arguing for him to be #1. signing a contract in Miami does not make him a worse player, despite what you may believe.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aoqUmSLRuqk/SdtOXiIJ9ZI/AAAAAAAAAfw/aB9lRCToekA/s320/whatchu+talkin+bout+willis.jpg you can never to too old well my mum and dad are hopeless on that stuff they would have a clue what to buy or where to buy it so they will just give me money and ill buy after christmas when all the sales are on

Yes, and no one expected the Thunder to beat the Lakers. But Durant came up flat individually, and wasn't even the best player on his team that series. Therefor, to say he didn't come up short is ridiculous. Yes...huge sign looking forward. Right now it is laughable to call him a better player than Kobe, Wade, LeBron or Paul. I'd even say it's pushing it to call him a better player than Dwight.

kevin love and then rajon rondo.

Durant isn't even a top 5 player at this point, get out of here with that BS, seriously, the MVP talk last year was bad enough. I am genuinely annoyed with how idiotic some of you are, putting him in the same breathe as Kobe, LeBron, etc is absurd. He might get there, but he isn't there yet. So far this year Durant hasn't even been the undisputed best player on his own damn team.

lol, what a difference a year makes huh?

Griffin, the name Swish is already taken on this forum, seems silly to have 2 people with very similar names

Wow...I don't know if it's because everyone hates the Heat or because he doesn't have the same offensive load he once had, but I think it's kinda crazy how Wade isn't running away with this, or how Kevin [expletive]ing Durant is leading. That's just embarassing.

Neither played 15 years ago, simple statement fail.

http://www.backstagegfx.com/forum/uploads/U1278-1290391047.png

That's not something you should be joking about.

You came here just to post that? Great, want to post some more irrelevant things? Jesus, do you not have anything better to do to come onto this site, read the Introductions forum, find a member from another forum, dig up dirt on said member, save it, crop it, upload it then post it on here for kicks? I legitimately feel bad for you.

They are just opinions not reality.

If this stupid thing really goes 1. Kobe 2. LBJ 3. Durant idk what imma do, maybe hack the board and delete everything you dumbasses. Durant might be your favourite player, but he isn't better than Deron, Melo, Dwight, CP3, etc. God dammit.

saw wiz khalifa last night, was legit

They definitely made the right decision trading for Ron, despite him leaving pretty soon after. Any time you have the opportunity to land a Ron Artest for a late round pick, you do it and don't look back.

There is not a luckier team in the league than the New York Jets.

you come here but you say this about otr? http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4069/rszr.jpg

Well in fact it didn't just seem like they started two SGs ABL, they really started two SGs. Ron Harper never was a PG, he's always been a SG/SF which is why you defintely cannot use a true PG for the Harper comparison. The Bulls never used a true PG anyhow. Pippen was the real PG of that team, he's the one who got the ball upcourt most of the time. Jordan, Harper and Kukoc did so too though. They didn't have a PG but several players who were all terrific ball handlers and could get the ball upcourt. Even during the first three peat, Paxson or BJ were PG because of their size but they were truly shooting guards, there were never a true PG in that team. So I like the fact that you used Sefolosha as PG. Personally I think that I would rather pick Raja Bell though, cause Sefolosha is not good enough offensively IMO. And Bell is around the same age as Harper at the time. But Sefolosha is a good pick nonetheless. Especially that Harper wasn't close to the offensive player that he was in Cleveland and LA anyhow. It's funny that Harper was never known for his defense during all his career, he was always a pure scorer and in Chicago it seemed like he lost his scoring abilities (he really struggled when he arrived in Chicago in 94/95, he was totally lost in the triangle) and became a defensive expert. I think that no one saw that coming lol... At PF I agree with Real Deal that Noah is a much better comparison, no doubt about that. He certainly still ain't at Rodman's level defensively (no one is anyhow) and his jump shot, as ugly as it is (uglier than Rodman's no doubt), is more efficient than Rodman's though, but yeah he's the closest to Rodman right now. At center I highly disagree with Przbylla. Longley was a horr... well I was about to say horrible defender, it might be a bit exaggerated, but let's say that he's not half the player that Przbylla is defensively. Longley's main strength was his jump shot, other than that he was pretty average... I don't know which player looks the more like him today. Maybe Krstic. Yeah I think I would pick Nenad. As for Pippen yeah it's a hard comparison I agree, but I would pick Odom instead of Wallace. Wallace ain't good enough from being the arc, and he's not the passer that Pip was. Odom is certainly the most versatile player in the league right now just like Pip was in the 90's. However Odom is certainly not the defender that Pip was, Wallace is a better defender. So it's tough... But I'd still pick Odom I think, Odom is a good enough defender anyhow IMO. None of the two is as good as Pip was anyhow, that's for sure. For Kukoc, well yeah I can agree with the Turk pick... Yeah I can't think of a better comparison as well. All those comparisons are tough to make anyhow, no player today really looks like any of those players (the only obvious one is Jordan-Kobe) but this said I think that my roster would be something like this : P.G. Raja Bell S.G. Kobe Bryant S.F. Lamar Odom P.F. Joakim Noah C. Nenad Krstic 6th man : Hidayet Turkoglu

The Sacramento Kings made just enough plays in their 86-81 win over the New Jersey Nets to offset their youthful mistakes. Let’s examine Sacramento’s roster to see what the Kings have now, and what they’ll need going forward. Tyreke Evans—8-21 FG, 0-1 3FG, 4-5 FT, 4 AST, 5 TO, 3 STL, 20 PTS—is the point man of Sacramento’s attack, despite questions surrounding whether or not he’s a true point guard. The Kings mostly featured wing or high isolations or screen/rolls for him against the Nets, though they sometimes posted him 16 feet out along the baseline and allowed him to go one-on-one. Evans has a terrific body and attacking mindset that favors him someday being a primetime scorer. He also has a tight crossover with either hand and an explosive first step that always left him a half step past his defender before that player could react. Despite knocking down 5-9 jump shots, his form still needs tweaking. While it isn’t as pronounced as it was in the past, Evans still brings the ball above his head before he releases it. His touch is somewhat better as his release point is somewhat lower, but the catapult motion generated by his mechanics is still too great. One of his pull-up jumpers was an airball, and another pinballed between the front and back rim several times before dropping through. Evans also has a bad habit of fading away on his jumpers when it isn’t necessary, causing his shots to fall short. In time this should be corrected if he cares enough to correct it, but it’s still a problem in the short term. The biggest hole in Evans’ offensive arsenal is his lack of a short jumper. Inside 15 feet, Evans is either putting his head down and attacking the hoop no matter what, or he’s overpenetrating and making wild kick out passes back to the outside. Evans forced several drives this way resulting in missed layups through multiple defenders, offensive fouls, and stolen passes. As a passer, Evans almost exclusively looks to drive and kick back to the perimeter. Not all of his passes are on target either. Several drives and kicks that found their intended targets were still made at the players legs or caused the player to break out of his natural movement. He also tends to overhandle and overpenetrate. Because of Evans’ proliferation as a slasher, and his relatively flawed passing skills, he projects to somebody best served as a two-guard than a point guard, though he’ll need to learn to work more off the ball to make that switch. Defensively, Evans applies more ball pressure than he has in the past, and he has great ball skills to intercept lazy dribbles and passes, but he still gets caught on screens, still fouls jump shooters, and is still flat-footed on defense, on one possession letting Anthony Morrow blow by him while hardly leaving his stance. With all of Sacramento’s defensive difficulties this early season, and with Evans’ role as the face of the franchise, the onus is on him to stop being lazy on defense. If he doesn’t take defense seriously, why should anyone else? Carl Landry—7-12 FG, 1-1 FT, 6 REB, 0 AST, 6 TO, 15 PTS—has an explosive first step and is comfortable finishing in traffic, but he can’t jump and is undersized, which causes his shot to be blocked an inordinate number of times. Also, like Evans, he’s a bull in a china shop around the paint who goes full-speed ahead, with no finesse around the hoop. Landry is not a good rebounder, as he’s often outjumped in a crowd, or too short to keep players from reaching over him for loose balls. Defensively, he’s too short to alter many shots, and he’s not a good rebounder, though a switch and hard closeout late on a Travis Outlaw three forced a huge miss. To compensate for Landry’s poor defense, the Kings start Samuel Dalembert. Dalembert held his own in forcing the disappearing Brook Lopez into another rough game (3-9 FG, 7 PTS), but he seldom boxes out, misses rotations, and can be overpowered around the hoop. On offense Dalembert is a capable high post passer who otherwise displays terrible shot selection. Against the Nets he missed badly on a 10-foot fallaway, a clumsy right hook, and a short jumper, while also bricking a layup. Luther Head has come a long way in improving his once-disastrous defense to respectable levels. He also made several crisp passes, didn’t make any egregious mistakes, and knocked in a trey. He’s not good at penetration, partially because he doesn’t have a great deal of talent, but moreover, because he doesn’t use ball screens well, coming off of screens too flat to allow defenders time to fight or squeeze their way through screens and stay in front of him. Donte Greene spent the game against the Nets going through the motions when the Kings ran sets that didn’t involve him, and he was habitually late on his rotations. This after reporting to camp out of shape and winding up in Paul Westphal’s doghouse. It’s time for this kid to grow up. DeMarcus Cousins—2-8 FG, 10 REB, 1 AST, 1 TO, 8 PTS—is Sacramento’s prized rookie, but he can’t stay on the floor because of perpetual foul trouble. When showing on screens he has a tendency to jab at the ball, a needless exercise that will only continue to feed his foul problems, and when defending shot attempts, he throws his hands more forward than high, leading to more contact with opponents arms than the ball. When guarding the post or defending cross-screens, he’s all about fighting and shoving with his upper body than using any kind of positional advantage, and he’s flat-footed as a defender. Offensively, Cousins’ foot work is slow and clumsy, and none of his moves—a mechanical right hook, an awkward step through, a clumsy baseline spin—are executed with any degree of grace. What Cousins did do well was read double teams and make the appropriate pass to both spot-up shooters and cutters, no easy task, and he always, always boxed out. He also has good touch on his shot, and executed an impressive high-arching, reverse pivot fadeaway jumper that dropped in—shades of Rasheed Wallace. Until Cousins unlearns his bad defensive habits he’ll be hard-pressed to improve because he’ll never be on the floor. Until he improves his footwork, he’ll be predictable to defend by good defenses. At the very least, he has good potential as a rebounder and help defender, though the Kings need him to develop to move Landry to a sixth-man role off the bench. Beno Udrih—5-9 FG, 2-3 3FG, 3 AST, 0 TO, 12 PTS—is a good backup point guard because he has good vision, takes care of the ball, and has an accurate mid-range jumper. Against the Nets, Udrih’s clutch three in the final seconds eventually iced the game. However, Udrih is another poor defender who lacks the athleticism to stay in front of most NBA point guards, hence why pairing him with Evans gets problematic. Francisco Garcia—3-7FG, 7 PTS—is little more than a streaky, inconsistent scorer who only has eyes on the basket. Jason Thompson knocked down an 18-footer, was active in tracking down three rebounds, and played some effective defense in contesting a Jordan Farmar drive, and stuffing a Derrick Favors layup, though he tends to get pushed around down low because of his thin frame. What will the Kings need to rule the Western Conference? A defensive minded guard or wing who can shoot the three.Evans to improve his passing, his decision making, his jump shooting, his left hand, and his defense, while also developing either a floater, or a short jumper.Because of Landry’s limitations, he’d be best served as a designated second-unit scorer. To facilitate that, Cousins needs to improve his offensive game to become the designated frontcourt scorer.A power forward with three-point range to take advantage of Evans’ drive-and-kick game.Greene to take the game more seriously.Omri Casspi to get tougher.In lieu of the above two, one more creative wing scorer or a wing defender who can shoot.The entire team to start committing itself to playing defense on every possession. Right now Sacramento’s offense, while raw and rugged, at least has the right idea. Westphal calls a lot of split cuts that take advantage of Cousins’ and Dalembert’s passing, and the players play with physicality and aggressiveness. However, as the Kings’ defense rests, so too does the approach of their potentially bright future.

Blake Griffin is my favorite rookie but I'd give the edge to John Wall as well. I wasn't expecting Wall to be that good so fast honestly. He already became the fourth player ever to have at least 20 pts and 10 rbds (29 pts, 13 asts and 9 stls) in his first home game. The other three are Isaiah Thomas, Norm Nixon and Oscar Robertson... He's also the first rookie to average 7 or more assists per game through his first five games since Oscar Robertson. And he became the third youngest player ever to have a triple double. It's also important to consider that he became the second rookie to record a triple double WITH six steals in his first six games of the season. The other was the Magic man. This kid is just unbelievable. So far he's the ROY.

My favorite members are all of you, or else I would've banned you for not being Lakers fans. Gonna consider giving everyone here an admin spot.