Is this the worst Petrie miscalculation that you've ever personally witnessed?

[steelevt]

What's not to get? They thought Salmons would take care of the needed upgrade at SF and that they could get a good player they wanted at 10 too.

personally i dont see salmons as the much needed upgrade at SF. he's a little better than what we have now, but i dont think a little better than what we got is the answer. we should be targeting better SF with the amount of money that is wasted on salmons contract. dont just settle. i see it like this. you can choose a girlfriend. your first choice is ugly, so u move on to the next choice. do you choose the first girl that is not as ugly? or do u wait and choose one that is actually pretty. (you can substitute ugly/pretty for bad/good personality if thats ur thing )

 

[Glenn]

How many people are willing to take the risk that no free agent would sign with the Kings because Sacramento's reputation is that of being just this side of the end of the world?

 

[Arco Arena]

How many people are willing to take the risk that no free agent would sign with the Kings because Sacramento's reputation is that of being just this side of the end of the world?

Money talks, we had the urgency and capspace to do it.

 

[Bricklayer]

1. I don't buy this post-event talk that they weren't interested in Knight. From the workout and the post-workout talk, they were interested. This is probably BS to cover tracks on a mistake.

2. Petrie is good at evaluating talent, but his GM skills seem to stop there. He doesn't seem to understand how to assemble a cohesive, working team. It happened once and hasn't happened since.

3. This is the second three team deal in a row in which the Kings got the least value coming back their way. In the Kevin Martin trade, they gave up the biggest talent and got back a player that was good, but not good enough to stick around. It wasn't like draft picks, cap space and former lotto guys weren't being tossed around in that trade. The Kings went to a buffet and came back with soup and salad. The same thing could be said of today's trade. Salmons is easily the most ho-hum player received, and the Kings are the team that gave up the higher pick and a reliable if limited PG. Jax would be a chemistry nightmare, as well as Mags, but at least they're of a talent level you would be otherwise looking for. Salmons is not much better than any SF you could overpay in FA and not have his on-court chemistry issues.

4. There has to be another move coming because all these SFs make no sense.

Agree there has to be another move, but the thing I keep coming back to is this: once they saw Jimmer and decided he was going to be the **** (whether that is true or not of course is an open question), then something had to give in our backcourt, and that something was Beno. There would be no room for Jimmer getting any significant minutes if we had Reke/Thornton/Beno all coming back. So now all of a sudden Beno is expendable, because you think you have identified a player in the draft who can replace him.

So now you take Beno, and his contract, and more or less swap it for Salmons and his contract. And Salmons is paid a little more, but you help make up for that gap by swapping your #7 for the #10 pick, and thus having to pay Jimmer less every year than you would have if he was picked #7. And so Beno, who was an extra piece once we decided to draft Jimmer, is now swapped out for a veteran defensive minded SF, and at a very low hit to our overall salary cap. In the end structurally and monetarily we are not that much different post trade with Salmons at SF and Jimmer at 3rd guard then we were before the trade with Beno at 3rd guard, and maybe a Leonard drafted at SF. Fairly similar money. One vet, one kid, etc. Even kept the one defensive player, one scoring sieve structure. The big difference is just that we moved the drafted kid into a 3rd guard/support role behind some of our best players, rather than having him be out front expected to start. And we turned the vet into a starting SF, to complete the starting lineup with 5 starting quality guys.

Now there is a lot of cleanup and questions left after such a maneuver, but I don't think the general idea for it is totally irrational. And because it only shaves a million or two off of our caprom, it also leaves open almost all of the possiblities to go try to add another major FA even after resigninng Thornton and Daly.

 

[Arco Arena]

There's a few SF in FA, yes, but all are likely to cost as much or more than Salmons and there's no guarantee of getting one of them.

Actually there are several SFs that are a better option than an afterthought 31 year old with a 8million/year 3 year contract and bad attitude.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

personally i dont see salmons as the much needed upgrade at SF. he's a little better than what we have now, but i dont think a little better than what we got is the answer. we should be targeting better SF with the amount of money that is wasted on salmons contract. dont just settle. i see it like this. you can choose a girlfriend. your first choice is ugly, so u move on to the next choice. do you choose the first girl that is not as ugly? or do u wait and choose one that is actually pretty. (you can substitute ugly/pretty for bad/good personality if thats ur thing )

well first off, every team "settles" at some roster spots. No team has the ideal guy at every position. In the Kings case, I don't think they were looking for a top 10 SF, just an adequate SF. They were able to do that and move Beno, keeping their cap room about the same, so it works out well I think. Now they can spend money in free agency at PF or C. It works in the Kings favor too because some of the best players available this year are power forwards and centers.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Actually there are several SFs that are a better option than an afterthought 31 year old with a 8million/year 3 year contract and bad attitude.

Sure, if you happen to get one of them. Free agency doesn't work that way though. There's a reason why significant free agent signings are fairly rare. It's not shopping where you just go out and buy what you want. Locking up the SF spot via trade gave them one less spot to have to try and fill via free agency. Now they can focus all their resources on getting the best center available.

 

[steelevt]

Agree there has to be another move, but the thing I keep coming back to is this: once they saw Jimmer and decided he was going to be the **** (whether that is true or not of course is an open question), then something had to give in our backcourt, and that something was Beno. There would be no room for Jimmer getting any significant minutes if we had Reke/Thornton/Beno all coming back. So now all of a sudden Beno is expendable, because you think you have identified a player in the draft who can replace him.

So now you take Beno, and his contract, and more or less swap it for Salmons and his contract. And Salmons is paid a little more, but you help make up for that gap by swapping your #7 for the #10 pick, and thus having to pay Jimmer less every year than you would have if he was picked #7. And so Beno, who was an extra piece once we decided to draft Jimmer, is now swapped out for a veteran defensive minded SF, and at a very low hit to our overall salary cap. In the end structurally and monetarily we are not that much different post trade with Salmons at SF and Jimmer at 3rd guard then we were before the trade with Beno at 3rd guard, and maybe a Leonard drafted at SF. Fairly similar money. One vet, one kid, etc. Even kept the one defensive player, one scoring sieve structure. The big difference is just that we moved the drafted kid into a 3rd guard/support role behind some of our best players, rather than having him be out front expected to start. And we turned the vet into a starting SF, to complete the starting lineup with 5 starting quality guys.

Now there is a lot of cleanup and questions left after such a maneuver, but I don't think the general idea for it is totally irrational. And because it only shaves a million or two off of our caprom, it also leaves open almost all of the possiblities to go try to add another major FA even after resigninng Thornton and Daly.

but wasnt the plan to add a SF as the major FA after we resign thornton and daly. having salmons here kind of fills that gap. we had our starting 4 out of 5 if we resign thornton and dally. i assumed we would spend the rest to lure ak/prince/battier.

 

[Glenn]

Agree there has to be another move, but the thing I keep coming back to is this: once they saw Jimmer and decided he was going to be the **** (whether that is true or not of course is an open question), then something had to give in our backcourt, and that something was Beno. There would be no room for Jimmer getting any significant minutes if we had Reke/Thornton/Beno all coming back. So now all of a sudden Beno is expendable, because you think you have identified a player in the draft who can replace him.

So now you take Beno, and his contract, and more or less swap it for Salmons and his contract. And Salmons is paid a little more, but you help make up for that gap by swapping your #7 for the #10 pick, and thus having to pay Jimmer less every year than you would have if he was picked #7. And so Beno, who was an extra piece once we decided to draft Jimmer, is now swapped out for a veteran defensive minded SF, and at a very low hit to our overall salary cap. In the end structurally and monetarily we are not that much different post trade with Salmons at SF and Jimmer at 3rd guard then we were before the trade with Beno at 3rd guard, and maybe a Leonard drafted at SF. Fairly similar money. One vet, one kid, etc. Even kept the one defensive player, one scoring sieve structure. The big difference is just that we moved the drafted kid into a 3rd guard/support role behind some of our best players, rather than having him be out front expected to start. And we turned the vet into a starting SF, to complete the starting lineup with 5 starting quality guys.

Now there is a lot of cleanup and questions left after such a maneuver, but I don't think the general idea for it is totally irrational. And because it only shaves a million or two off of our caprom, it also leaves open almost all of the possiblities to go try to add another major FA even after resigninng Thornton and Daly.

I'm happy you had the energy to spell it out. Whether people will believe this may depend on if they think they know the options the front office had better than Petrie did.

The world will continue to circle the sun. Or is it the other way around?

 

[Glenn]

but wasnt the plan to add a SF as the major FA after we resign thornton and daly. having salmons here kind of fills that gap. we had our starting 4 out of 5 if we resign thornton and dally. i assumed we would spend the rest to lure ak/prince/battier.

Some people will say that this replaces the idea of signing a free agent, don't ya think? And we picked a SF in the 2nd round. The assumption of signing a free agent is that people want to come here. This is not a FA magnet of an area. This was safe and if worst came to worst and no SF free agent wanted to sign with us, we got an upgrade anyway.

 

[Arco Arena]

Sure, if you happen to get one of them. Free agency doesn't work that way though. There's a reason why significant free agent signings are fairly rare. It's not shopping where you just go out and buy what you want. Locking up the SF spot via trade gave them one less spot to have to try and fill via free agency. Now they can focus all their resources on getting the best center available.

Usually free agents will go to the highest bidder. We have the capspace to make significant offers that would be hard to refuse.

Also, we have a center.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Usually free agents will go to the highest bidder. We have the capspace to make significant offers that would be hard to refuse.

Also, we have a center.

Sure but that can lead to bidding wars. Would you rather get Salmons for 8 million or get in a bidding war for AK 47 and have to pay 10 million or more to get him? By getting Salmons, that's one less position they have to chase in free agency. If you mean Cousins is the center, then they need a starting PF. It's better to only have one need to fill in FA than two.

 

[D13]

I know some won’t agree, but I am a big Kings fan ticket buyer and this is how "I" feel…

IMO, we have opened ourselves up to being the Charlie Browns of the league. No matter how we sugar coat and twist it, this was a questionable draft day trade… It’s like, I’m still waiting for the punch line to drop.

I absolutely do not understand how John Salmons required trading down for. Like he was some kind of in demand commodity???… If anything, the Bucks should have been adding assets to dump him and his contract… or jeez, prob woulda gave him to somebody with cap space for free (like us) to shed the contract…

I don’t see how Beno was a detriment and bad contract that needed us begging teams to take him… Sure we needed to clear space if taking a PG, but he had to have some value out there?.. Maybe not huge, but for real, some equivalent… and IMO John Salmons was not worth taking on and trading down for.. If anything, they were even. We did Bucks a huge favor.

I do like the Jimmer pick. I can live with it. Especially if he is an added saving factor to us keeping the Kings in Sac from all the attention he’ll bring. Fine… but it would have just been better to reach for him at 7 than what went down.

I don’t like missing out on Brandon Knight... How the hell did we not have a contingency plan if he fell? Did we not want him over Jimmer? …I doubt it… So why did we not have a trade breaking clause that gave us a way out if a player dropped to us we wanted? …Like; keep the 7th pick, and sorry Bobcats, we got our guy, thanks anyway!!!… Instead we were the patsies worked over by MJ??... wow Petrie.

To me it looks like many here are trying hard to justify things…. Maybe… but look around the web guys… the general consensus is we don’t look good in this. Are they just haters?

 

[Arco Arena]

Sure but that can lead to bidding wars. Would you rather get Salmons for 8 million or get in a bidding war for AK 47 and have to pay 10 million or more to get him? By getting Salmons, that's one less position they have to chase in free agency. If you mean Cousins is the center, then they need a starting PF. It's better to only have one need to fill in FA than two.

Would you rather overpay Salmons or overpay AK47?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

To me it looks like many here are trying hard to justify things…. Maybe… but look around the web guys… the general consensus is we don’t look good in this. Are they just haters?

General consensus means squat to me. i remember when the general consensus was that the big blockbuster Magic trade was going to make them a better team. We all know how that worked out, first round exit. That's why I take all these analysts and "experts" opinions with a grain of salt. They're prone to groupthink and often wrong. I don't see that the trade needs any defending. There are no mysterious or illogical aspects to it. Any question that can be raised about it has a logical answer.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Would you rather overpay Salmons or overpay AK47?

Depends. If we're talking 8 million a year for Salmons or 12 for AK, i'll go with Salmons.

 

[Vlade4GM]

The overhyping of Knight has gotten so ridiculous.

 

[swisshh]

Agree there has to be another move, but the thing I keep coming back to is this: once they saw Jimmer and decided he was going to be the **** (whether that is true or not of course is an open question), then something had to give in our backcourt, and that something was Beno. There would be no room for Jimmer getting any significant minutes if we had Reke/Thornton/Beno all coming back. So now all of a sudden Beno is expendable, because you think you have identified a player in the draft who can replace him.

So now you take Beno, and his contract, and more or less swap it for Salmons and his contract. And Salmons is paid a little more, but you help make up for that gap by swapping your #7 for the #10 pick, and thus having to pay Jimmer less every year than you would have if he was picked #7. And so Beno, who was an extra piece once we decided to draft Jimmer, is now swapped out for a veteran defensive minded SF, and at a very low hit to our overall salary cap. In the end structurally and monetarily we are not that much different post trade with Salmons at SF and Jimmer at 3rd guard then we were before the trade with Beno at 3rd guard, and maybe a Leonard drafted at SF. Fairly similar money. One vet, one kid, etc. Even kept the one defensive player, one scoring sieve structure. The big difference is just that we moved the drafted kid into a 3rd guard/support role behind some of our best players, rather than having him be out front expected to start. And we turned the vet into a starting SF, to complete the starting lineup with 5 starting quality guys.

Now there is a lot of cleanup and questions left after such a maneuver, but I don't think the general idea for it is totally irrational. And because it only shaves a million or two off of our caprom, it also leaves open almost all of the possiblities to go try to add another major FA even after resigninng Thornton and Daly.

If I have to choose between having too many PGs or too many SFs, I will always go with the guard gluttony. When I see teams with a lot of semi-decent swingmen, I see a lot of losing teams. Having Christie/Bibby/Bobby was a luxury. Having Kidd/Terry/Barrea helped the Mavs immensely. On a team with major court leadership issues, I'd rather have the guy that has been the best at running things traded for a vet PG in return. As it stands currently, the inexperienced backcourt only exacerbates the team's biggest issue.

So if they have capspace leftover, then what vet guard do they get? That is a position not really there in FA. The SF defender is there in FA, so why take back in trade something you can buy? Get the need thats off the FA market via trade and sign the other need in FA.

 

[ParniValjak]

Agree there has to be another move, but the thing I keep coming back to is this: once they saw Jimmer and decided he was going to be the **** (whether that is true or not of course is an open question), then something had to give in our backcourt, and that something was Beno. There would be no room for Jimmer getting any significant minutes if we had Reke/Thornton/Beno all coming back. So now all of a sudden Beno is expendable, because you think you have identified a player in the draft who can replace him.

So now you take Beno, and his contract, and more or less swap it for Salmons and his contract. And Salmons is paid a little more, but you help make up for that gap by swapping your #7 for the #10 pick, and thus having to pay Jimmer less every year than you would have if he was picked #7. And so Beno, who was an extra piece once we decided to draft Jimmer, is now swapped out for a veteran defensive minded SF, and at a very low hit to our overall salary cap. In the end structurally and monetarily we are not that much different post trade with Salmons at SF and Jimmer at 3rd guard then we were before the trade with Beno at 3rd guard, and maybe a Leonard drafted at SF. Fairly similar money. One vet, one kid, etc. Even kept the one defensive player, one scoring sieve structure. The big difference is just that we moved the drafted kid into a 3rd guard/support role behind some of our best players, rather than having him be out front expected to start. And we turned the vet into a starting SF, to complete the starting lineup with 5 starting quality guys.

Now there is a lot of cleanup and questions left after such a maneuver, but I don't think the general idea for it is totally irrational. And because it only shaves a million or two off of our caprom, it also leaves open almost all of the possiblities to go try to add another major FA even after resigninng Thornton and Daly.

I tend to agree with this. When its all said and done, our cap room is pretty much unaffected but our needs have somewhat shifted. If we re-sign Thornton and Dalembert we pretty much have the starting 5 set and all 5 are starter quality. Some may not be elite at their position but they would all be capable of being starters at other teams.

So now we have Thompson and Cisco as the key reserves.

I suspect we will be looking at a quality veteran big to add some depth to the front court and maybe a veteran PG in case Jimmer cannot contribute straight away (eg. Earl Watson)

All things considered, we are probably better balanced and in a better shape now that we a couple of days ago without affecting our salary cap.

Is Salmons ideal at the position?! No but he is an upgrade.

Westphal did make a very valid point. When we tried to post up smaller guards, they would switch them our small forwards. Now if we roll out Reke - Thornton - Salmons line up, those midgets have no where to hide and that line up also improves us defensively in a significant way.

 

[ParniValjak]

but wasnt the plan to add a SF as the major FA after we resign thornton and daly. having salmons here kind of fills that gap. we had our starting 4 out of 5 if we resign thornton and dally. i assumed we would spend the rest to lure ak/prince/battier.

Thats just an assumption or a popular opinion of majority of the people but it was always more likely that we got one via trade. Just because it wasn't AK/Prince/Battier doesn't mean that we haven't tried to address our weakest position.

 

[Warhawk]

Brick is 100% spot-on with his previous post.

I have some concerns with Salmons. But talent is talent. Yes, we have cash. But who thinks that we were going to be able to sign a big-name FA? Sacramento, when we aren't winning, has to trade for talent. Which big names have we signed as FA? Vlade? SAR? We couldn't even get Bonzi to re-sign even though we were generous with our offer.

Look at how we have to get talent - draft and trades.

Webber, Bibby, Christie, Miller, Richmond, Dally, Thornton, Artest (excuse me, Metta World Peace), Bobby J - all trades.

Peja, J-Will, Hedo, Wallace, Evans, Cousins, Martin - all drafted.

WE CAN'T COUNT ON FA SIGNING HERE, NO MATTER THE CASH. If we can sign some - bonus! If not, we have some upgrades/additional depth already.

 

[Sac.1989]

look we can sit here and say we missed out on an opp of a lifetime but the fact is we got our man. Dont think for a second GP a 2 time GM of the yr didnt consider knight slipping. The fact is i was pissed with us missing out on him as soon as utah took kanter but i put my faith in GP.

The term "in GP i trust" is still dam well alive. If anything its tested. Revisit this in a few yrs. Smells liks reke v rubio here. I was dam well wrong once ill happily be again

 

[UK_King]

I don't like Salmons but if he's here he's here nothing i can do about now.

Happy with the draft picks and time to get behind the team.

 

[Spike]

Wasn't Knight the one who didn't want to work out against others? Perhaps there was a reason. Granted, you never know what you're going to get with a Freshman - it depends on location and education. He could flame out, or he could have a meteoric rise to the top. With Jimmer, we know what we're getting. And having him in the rotation getting steady minutes will be pretty good - I'm guessing he'll be first off the bench, which will take a lot of pressure off of him.

Salmons? Wasn't happy about it, but money wise his contract decreases while Beno's increases (they're pretty much a wash), and his last year is a team option. It's up to Donte or Omri to show they can take the starting role from him, then he can Kenny Thomas at the end of the bench or be traded for some flexible pieces. If he does what is asked of him, then the team will be all the better for it.

 

[Showtime]

He's a great talent evaluator, and downright one of the worst at draft day deals.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

So now you take Beno, and his contract, and more or less swap it for Salmons and his contract. And Salmons is paid a little more, but you help make up for that gap by swapping your #7 for the #10 pick, and thus having to pay Jimmer less every year than you would have if he was picked #7.

The extra year on Salmons' contract is kind of a big deal, and I'm surprised at how easily it gets swept under the rug. Salmons is guaranteed $25M over three years ($1M of that the 4th year buyout), Beno is guaranteed $14.3M. The gap between the Salmons contract and the Beno contract is simply not made up for by moving from #7 to #10.

That said, I don't think this was a miscalculation at all. I think that had we kept the #7, we'd have picked Jimmer. And I'm beginning to think we'd have swapped Beno for Salmons straight up if given the opportunity. If both of those are true, then we actually made a good move all told because we did exactly what we wanted and saved a small amount of money on Jimmer's contract. The question is how long it's going to take for Salmons to wear out his welcome (as he has a habit of doing) and if he does, whether the rest of that contract is just eaten. If Salmons comes in, starts at SF for us for 3 years, plays his hard-nosed defense, doesn't pound the ball, and only shoots within the flow of the offense, then this will work out all right. If not, it's going to look really bad two or three years down the road.

 

[Section 101]

I know some won’t agree, but I am a big Kings fan ticket buyer and this is how "I" feel…

IMO, we have opened ourselves up to being the Charlie Browns of the league. No matter how we sugar coat and twist it, this was a questionable draft day trade… It’s like, I’m still waiting for the punch line to drop.

I absolutely do not understand how John Salmons required trading down for. Like he was some kind of in demand commodity???… If anything, the Bucks should have been adding assets to dump him and his contract… or jeez, prob woulda gave him to somebody with cap space for free (like us) to shed the contract…

I don’t see how Beno was a detriment and bad contract that needed us begging teams to take him… Sure we needed to clear space if taking a PG, but he had to have some value out there?.. Maybe not huge, but for real, some equivalent… and IMO John Salmons was not worth taking on and trading down for.. If anything, they were even. We did Bucks a huge favor.

I do like the Jimmer pick. I can live with it. Especially if he is an added saving factor to us keeping the Kings in Sac from all the attention he’ll bring. Fine… but it would have just been better to reach for him at 7 than what went down.

I don’t like missing out on Brandon Knight... How the hell did we not have a contingency plan if he fell? Did we not want him over Jimmer? …I doubt it… So why did we not have a trade breaking clause that gave us a way out if a player dropped to us we wanted? …Like; keep the 7th pick, and sorry Bobcats, we got our guy, thanks anyway!!!… Instead we were the patsies worked over by MJ??... wow Petrie.

To me it looks like many here are trying hard to justify things…. Maybe… but look around the web guys… the general consensus is we don’t look good in this. Are they just haters?

Dead on.

 

[Section 101]

Brick is 100% spot-on with his previous post.

I have some concerns with Salmons. But talent is talent. Yes, we have cash. But who thinks that we were going to be able to sign a big-name FA? Sacramento, when we aren't winning, has to trade for talent. Which big names have we signed as FA? Vlade? SAR? We couldn't even get Bonzi to re-sign even though we were generous with our offer.

Look at how we have to get talent - draft and trades.

Webber, Bibby, Christie, Miller, Richmond, Dally, Thornton, Artest (excuse me, Metta World Peace), Bobby J - all trades.

Peja, J-Will, Hedo, Wallace, Evans, Cousins, Martin - all drafted.

WE CAN'T COUNT ON FA SIGNING HERE, NO MATTER THE CASH. If we can sign some - bonus! If not, we have some upgrades/additional depth already.

Cap space can also be used in trades. It doesnt mean we have to sign someone out right.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

To those worrying about not drafting Knight. Jerry Reynolds just said on the Rise Guys that the Kings liked Jimmer and Walker better than Knight all along and even expected Knight to fall some in the draft. Take it for what you will, you could argue that he's doing spin control but I believe him.

 

[Spike]

Cap space can also be used in trades. It doesnt mean we have to sign someone out right.

Like I said before, I don't think the Kings are going to move Salmons, which is sad, but if they were to move him via trade, his contract allows for bigger money players (better targets?) to move back over a lot more fluidly over those last two years.