Anyone upset they could have had Knight?
- Thread starter RookieOfTheDay
- Start date
I never thought that Knight would slip past Toronto. I wanted Jimmer the whole time and am glad we got him.
I guess it makes sense. They've got Bayless and Calderon at PG, Barbosa and Demar at SG, an overpaid Kleiza and Weems at SF and a huge logjam at PF with Ed, Bargs, and Amir.
A center was the pick.
I guess it makes sense. They've got Bayless and Calderon at PG, Barbosa and Demar at SG, an overpaid Kleiza and Weems at SF and a huge logjam at PF with Ed, Bargs, and Amir.
A center was the pick.
Last edited:
Jimmer shouldn't have ever been the target. He was the consolation prize. The kings never thought Knight would have slipped past 7, so they got the best deal they thought they could, which ended up being a huge mistake. Imagine them trading down and losing Evans, thinking he wouldn't have been there. Imagine them trading down and losing Cousins, because they didn't expect him to slip. Now, we will watch Jimmer instead of Knight or Kemba, because the kings made a stupid move. It's only worth it if the prospect of the deal (in this case: Salmons over Beno) is worth losing a potential slip (in this case: Knight), and it clearly wasn't.
Talk about sticking it in your eye. I'm a blind man now. Could have had either Knight or Kemba. But we have Jimmer. The Maloofs are happy. And Salmons. Petrie must be happy. Is Salmons a golfing buddy or something? Petrie, you're a Princeton man, a literate man, no doubt. Did you ever read: You Can't Go Home Again ?
He was bad when he was here, and is worse now, both in production, and how much he'll cost. He also is not the type of sf we need. He can't pass, or simply won't. He can't create for others. He's not a great spot up shooter. He's not a great defender. He was a better defender when he was younger. He seeks his own offense and shots. That is the last thing we need.
So now we can't go after AK/Prince/Battier. We're stuck. We lost Beno, who is/was our only proven pg who could set up an offense. I think Jimmer can, but not yet. We now have zero vet presence in the backcourt for JImmer/Reke to learn from. What's worse, Jimmer and Knight were both there at 7. Now where does our cap space go? No sf anymore.
So now we can't go after AK/Prince/Battier. We're stuck. We lost Beno, who is/was our only proven pg who could set up an offense. I think Jimmer can, but not yet. We now have zero vet presence in the backcourt for JImmer/Reke to learn from. What's worse, Jimmer and Knight were both there at 7. Now where does our cap space go? No sf anymore.
Utah and Minnesota were strongly rumored to take Kanter and Williams in some order, Cleveland wasn't taking Knight at 4 after picking Irving, Washington picking Knight at 6 was out so Toronto was the biggest question mark. I heard they liked Knight, Kemba, Valanciunas, and Biyombo. When Cleveland passed on Valanciunas for Tristan Thompson (a smart move I think) that pretty much sealed it that Toronto was picking Valanciunas and Knight would fall to 7. We would have had 10 minutes to decide if we still wanted Jimmer or not. Trading the pick before the draft was an amateur move.
And it's debatable whether that trade made us any better anyway. We still could have drafted Fredette at 7 if we wanted him that badly and found a taker for Beno eventually. I have a hard time believing we were that desperate to (a) trade Beno asap or (b) not lose out on John Salmons that the trade needed to be made before the draft. Clearly Petrie and I disagree. If I were him I would throw the Maloofs under the bus and say this whole thing was their idea. Sure he'd get fired, but he'd be able to get a job somewhere else. His reputation just took a major hit.
And it's debatable whether that trade made us any better anyway. We still could have drafted Fredette at 7 if we wanted him that badly and found a taker for Beno eventually. I have a hard time believing we were that desperate to (a) trade Beno asap or (b) not lose out on John Salmons that the trade needed to be made before the draft. Clearly Petrie and I disagree. If I were him I would throw the Maloofs under the bus and say this whole thing was their idea. Sure he'd get fired, but he'd be able to get a job somewhere else. His reputation just took a major hit.
That's the point: they gambled and lost, when the prospect of winning either way wasn't worth it. If you gamble that Knight isn't there, and make this deal and he doesn't slip, the kings don't get much better by swapping John and Beno. There's marginal improvement, if at all. However, if you hold tight and don't gamble for marginal (at best) improvement, you could end up with one of the steals of the draft, which is a much bigger win potential.
It's a question, not of odds, but of scenarios. The Kings clearly had far better options by holding onto the 7th then making this deal. Even if they wanted Jimmer, they could have picked him at 7 anyway, and what did they lose? The Salmons deal, which again is marginal. It wouldn't matter if they lost that potential deal. It is a big deal if they lose Knight, which they did.
Also, this deal was done before the 6th was made. It was reported before the draft even STARTED. Why didn't they just wait? Why not talk seriously about a deal, get ready to make it, but wait until they got a better idea of the landscape before pulling the trigger? It doesn't make sense at all to make this deal before the entire draft even starts. It's poor strategy. They risked a lot to win a little, and lost.
It's a question, not of odds, but of scenarios. The Kings clearly had far better options by holding onto the 7th then making this deal. Even if they wanted Jimmer, they could have picked him at 7 anyway, and what did they lose? The Salmons deal, which again is marginal. It wouldn't matter if they lost that potential deal. It is a big deal if they lose Knight, which they did.
Also, this deal was done before the 6th was made. It was reported before the draft even STARTED. Why didn't they just wait? Why not talk seriously about a deal, get ready to make it, but wait until they got a better idea of the landscape before pulling the trigger? It doesn't make sense at all to make this deal before the entire draft even starts. It's poor strategy. They risked a lot to win a little, and lost.
Last edited:
Surely if you strike this sort of deal prior to the draft then it would not be set in stone but more of a conditional trade?!
Eg, if someone ridiculously good slides good to 7 we have the right not to deal?!?!?!
Surely thats sort of thing is allowed. You agree in principle but its not final pending what happens in the draft.
Eg, if someone ridiculously good slides good to 7 we have the right not to deal?!?!?!
Surely thats sort of thing is allowed. You agree in principle but its not final pending what happens in the draft.
Here's the thing. Petrie has proven himself among the best talent evaluators in the league (trade skills maybe not). If he didn't see enough there to warrant picking Knight at 7 or even trading up to get him and thought that he could get someone that he thought higher of down at 10, so I trust him in that aspect.
So that just proves they gambled and lost. They gambled that Knight wouldn't slip, and he did. Imagine the kings losing Evans and Cousins from pre-draft deals for insignificant improvement, and instead having Flynn and Monroe. There was no need to do this deal. Big loss potential for marginal improvement potential. That's not a good strategy.
While I am questioning the addition of Salmons, I am willing to trust Petrie with this pick (Jimmer) because the dude just very rarely makes a mistake in the top 10.
Its a weak draft but on paper Jimmer brings some of what we need from the backcourt, ie someone who is a lights out shooter from 3 and has some ball handing skills to play some 1. Unfortunately, he is going to get burned defensively but with Evans and Salmons, hopefully thats not a major issue.
Its a weak draft but on paper Jimmer brings some of what we need from the backcourt, ie someone who is a lights out shooter from 3 and has some ball handing skills to play some 1. Unfortunately, he is going to get burned defensively but with Evans and Salmons, hopefully thats not a major issue.
That could very well may be the case. In which case, I have serious doubts about that strategy as well, because they were picking team needs over talent potential. That's not a strat I agree with when discussing top 10 picks. I think in the top 10, you go for the best player available, and if they fit a team need, all the better. I think they felt Jimmer could fit better with Evans in the Bibby role: a scoring PG who can spread the floor and take pressure off of the primary facilitators, those being Cousins and Evans.
If Jimmer turns out to be Curry/Bibbly like then this is a very good move.
Sometimes when you accumulate enough talent, you need to get the pieces that fit especially if the draft is one of the weakest in years. Chances are that half the players picked in top 10 won't be in the league in 5 years time.
Jimmer is a nice fit for the sort of player you are looking to pair Tyreke with in the long term. Defensively, he could be a real liability but there is no doubting that the kid can shoot.
Salmon does bring some good attributes we need BUT he also brings some that are not a good fit for this team. He can defend, shoot the 3 and handle the ball. Problem is we traded one of the leaders in Beno for a non-leader in Salmons who also has a reputation as a pouty black hole which is what this team does NOT need.
Worst rebounder at SF in the league. Thank god Evans is a good rebounder for his position.
Lets just hope we re-sign Dalembert and Thornton and clear out some of the SG/SF logjam that we have created with this trade.
Sometimes when you accumulate enough talent, you need to get the pieces that fit especially if the draft is one of the weakest in years. Chances are that half the players picked in top 10 won't be in the league in 5 years time.
Jimmer is a nice fit for the sort of player you are looking to pair Tyreke with in the long term. Defensively, he could be a real liability but there is no doubting that the kid can shoot.
Salmon does bring some good attributes we need BUT he also brings some that are not a good fit for this team. He can defend, shoot the 3 and handle the ball. Problem is we traded one of the leaders in Beno for a non-leader in Salmons who also has a reputation as a pouty black hole which is what this team does NOT need.
Worst rebounder at SF in the league. Thank god Evans is a good rebounder for his position.
Lets just hope we re-sign Dalembert and Thornton and clear out some of the SG/SF logjam that we have created with this trade.
I'm happy with getting Jimmer. Like some others have said, my main issue is why we needed to make the trade. You only ever trade down if you get something good in return. Frankly, I'm not so sure that trading Beno for Salmons made us better. So if we didn't get better (some say we got worse even), why trade down, regardless of whether we were after Knight or Kemba or Jimmer!
Gah John Salmons ... Bleh. Do not like.
I'm so so so so hoping Petrie has something more up his sleeve, and I am hoping even more that that something involves us moving Salmons somehow for someone else I'd like more.
As for the "who's gonna pass the ball and facilitate the offense" question, guys, we have JETER!!! /SARCASM
Gah John Salmons ... Bleh. Do not like.
I'm so so so so hoping Petrie has something more up his sleeve, and I am hoping even more that that something involves us moving Salmons somehow for someone else I'd like more.
As for the "who's gonna pass the ball and facilitate the offense" question, guys, we have JETER!!! /SARCASM