Dalembert stillin the mix
- Thread starter Elektrik
- Start date
I'm calling out Jason Jones on this one: he is incorrect. Petrie said they "have some offers, that they are sitting on a proposal." He said this in reference to getting over the minimum salary. It could have been about any player. If you go back and look at the interview video, its obvious that Petrie isn't talking about Dalembert in specific.
Yep, your absolutely correct. I listened to the entire interview twice (I'm hard of hearing), and that comment came sometime after he had stated that Dalembert was still in the mix. He was referring to deals that had no stated connection to Dalembert. That doesn't mean one of the deals their sitting on isn't for Dalembert, but he never specified Dalembert.
Well, never say never, but you just don't go out and trade him for the hell of it. If a deal comes along that you think can help the team, then maybe you trade JT. But JT has value. I know some on this fourm tend to think not, but I can guarantee you there are teams around the league that would love to have JT.
JT isn't and probably never will be a star, but he's a legit big at 6'11". He's only 25 yr's old and always comes into camp in great shape. He's improved every year. Maybe not as fast as all of us would have liked, but none the less, he's turned into a very good isolation defender. A lot has been mentioned about his tendacy to foul, but last season he only averaged 2.8 fouls a game, as compared to 3.8 fouls a game his first year.
My point is, players improve, but many times the improvement doesn't get noticed by the average fan. Right now, this team needs complimentry players more than stars, and JT is the consumate complimentry player. Lets not forget that he's played under four different head coaches. That would slow down any players progress.
JT isn't and probably never will be a star, but he's a legit big at 6'11". He's only 25 yr's old and always comes into camp in great shape. He's improved every year. Maybe not as fast as all of us would have liked, but none the less, he's turned into a very good isolation defender. A lot has been mentioned about his tendacy to foul, but last season he only averaged 2.8 fouls a game, as compared to 3.8 fouls a game his first year.
My point is, players improve, but many times the improvement doesn't get noticed by the average fan. Right now, this team needs complimentry players more than stars, and JT is the consumate complimentry player. Lets not forget that he's played under four different head coaches. That would slow down any players progress.
L
I have to disagree with a lot of this. First of all, his tendency to foul was virtually the same last year as it was the previous year. Yes, he only averaged 2.8 fouls per game, but be also averaged 8 less minutes a game. If you do the math, he fouls as just about the same pace. With the reduced minutes, his fouling isn't a major concern because he's not going to foul out but it's the stupid fouls that he needs to stop committing. He is the king of the cheap "and 1" foul.
As far as needing complimentary players versus stars, I highly disagree. This team needs a star. Our roster is filled with complimentary players. One could argue that we have a few guys that have the potential to be stars, but that remains to be seen and the Vegas oddsmakers would probably bet against that. The super elite teams in this league have at least one star on the team. They are the leader and teams are build around them. Right now it seems like we are just stacking the roster full of productive players but nobody exceptional. It will be interesting to see how it all mixes....
As far as needing complimentary players versus stars, I highly disagree. This team needs a star. Our roster is filled with complimentary players. One could argue that we have a few guys that have the potential to be stars, but that remains to be seen and the Vegas oddsmakers would probably bet against that. The super elite teams in this league have at least one star on the team. They are the leader and teams are build around them. Right now it seems like we are just stacking the roster full of productive players but nobody exceptional. It will be interesting to see how it all mixes....
Um...we basically have 3 of the top 5 or 6 star level players to come out of the last 2 drafts. You prety much can't do the star/rebuild thing betteer than we have. We didn't get in the Top 3 either year and yet we nabbed Reke, Cousins, and now Thronton as a comer. That's pretty outstanding. Its the next grouping that gets muddled as we have more bodies and contracts expecting starter/high rotation minutes than we have slots. The very problem is that preceisely because we do have a trio of young star level kids, the team structure is off. Teams with groups of stars like that normally surround them with waves of roleplayers who come cheakp and do the little things. We've got a few, but we also have a bunch of second tier starters who want shots and whatnot. We won't be able to afford all those guys longterrm, and shortterm there's a threat it could cause dissension and fighting over the ball.
So you are saying you can understand what Petrie means? 
I doubt it. Petrie is the guy who stays quiet about what he really wants and then pulls the trigger. I like Daly as much as you do and if it came to a choice between Daly and AK, I'd pick Daly. I look at our starting lineup using any combo of the players we have now and there is a huge problem with the two bigs. We do not have two starters. This is what makes the team as constructed now worse than last year's team.
I doubt it. Petrie is the guy who stays quiet about what he really wants and then pulls the trigger. I like Daly as much as you do and if it came to a choice between Daly and AK, I'd pick Daly. I look at our starting lineup using any combo of the players we have now and there is a huge problem with the two bigs. We do not have two starters. This is what makes the team as constructed now worse than last year's team.
L
I agree that we have drafted well but whether Reke or Cousins become "stars" remains to be seen. I would be inclined to think most experts would bet against them becoming superstars. I think they will be very nice players who can put up good numbers but whether they can take us deep into the playoffs remains to be seen.
To me, a "star" is a Blake Griffen, a Derrick Rose, etc.
To me, a "star" is a Blake Griffen, a Derrick Rose, etc.
The pistons didnt do it without a star and neither do we. The young players being talked about will do very well - perhaps not superstars but star players are fine with me, as long as they share the ball and play the right way we'll be good. With the talent we have in Reke, Boogie, Marcus and Jimmer we have great building blocks to move forward and be dam good for a long time.
in your third sentence, you equivocate stardom in the nba with taking a team deep into the playoffs. then in your fourth sentence, you describe blake griffin as a star. the two sentences seem to be in conflict with each other, as the clippers finished 13th in the western conference last season, missing the playoffs. the kings finished right below them at 14th in the conference. you'll find no dispute from me on the point of derrick rose, but while blake griffin's flash is good enough to stock espn highlight reels for a decade, it remains to be seen whether or not he can take the clippers to the next level. team him up with chris paul, on the other hand, and its an entirely different conversation...
and that's just my point. it takes more than one star in the nba. it always has. it always will. give tyreke evans a healthy season with demarcus cousins and marcus thornoton, give them time to grow and develop together, and we might know more about the star potential of all three. but to pan them as "very nice players" at this point is incredibly short-sighted. you say that their potential "remains to be seen," but you also seem predisposed to agree with your perception of what "most experts" believe. and for the record, very few of them are actually saying that evans and cousins don't have star potential. its foolish to bet against a bullish 6'6" PG with explosive capabilities at the rim, and a brutish 6'11" PF/C with a once-in-a-generation skillset. does that mean they're destined for superstardom? of course not. i think it really does "remain to be seen" just how far these talented young players will go, but its astonishing to me how much pessimism still permeates kingsfans.com...
things have not looked this good for the kings in many years. they're on an undeniable upward trajectory in terms of the acquisition of talent and the development of that talent. i think the players surrounding evans, cousins, and thornton are mismatched, but they're still valuable assets. and those assets can easily be flipped for more complementary players down the line as those players become more available. for the first time since the chris webber trade, the kings truly do have "flexible pieces," and with the marcus thornton re-signing, and new cba rules in place that will mightily encourage evans and cousins to re-sign when their contracts expire, its just a matter of filling in the gaps. but its prudent for the kings to take this shortened season to see what they have first...
its a crazy whirlwind of an all-too-brief "official" offseason, and it would be a shame to see the kings trade in some of their chips for anything less than a "sure thing." so re-signing thornton was a priority. and getting to the salary floor via free agency is still a priority. signing chuck hayes is a good step towards doing so. attempting to lure andrei kirilenko back to the states is an even better step towards doing so. though hayes is quite undersized, both moves signal that the kings front office still understands the importance of role-players who can hustle and defend. as a fan, its important to me that management is thinking actively about the big picture, and their stance seems to indicate that they are. kirlenko would add the length and shot-blocking presence lost if dalembert should sign elsewhere. i think the front office recognizes that dalembert likely will sign elsewhere, and they're attempting to recoup some of the skills that would be missed in his absence. even if the kings aren't able to acquire kirilenko, at least we know that petrie and co. are pursuing defensive, role-playing talents, without foolishly dishing out max contracts...
and that's just my point. it takes more than one star in the nba. it always has. it always will. give tyreke evans a healthy season with demarcus cousins and marcus thornoton, give them time to grow and develop together, and we might know more about the star potential of all three. but to pan them as "very nice players" at this point is incredibly short-sighted. you say that their potential "remains to be seen," but you also seem predisposed to agree with your perception of what "most experts" believe. and for the record, very few of them are actually saying that evans and cousins don't have star potential. its foolish to bet against a bullish 6'6" PG with explosive capabilities at the rim, and a brutish 6'11" PF/C with a once-in-a-generation skillset. does that mean they're destined for superstardom? of course not. i think it really does "remain to be seen" just how far these talented young players will go, but its astonishing to me how much pessimism still permeates kingsfans.com...
things have not looked this good for the kings in many years. they're on an undeniable upward trajectory in terms of the acquisition of talent and the development of that talent. i think the players surrounding evans, cousins, and thornton are mismatched, but they're still valuable assets. and those assets can easily be flipped for more complementary players down the line as those players become more available. for the first time since the chris webber trade, the kings truly do have "flexible pieces," and with the marcus thornton re-signing, and new cba rules in place that will mightily encourage evans and cousins to re-sign when their contracts expire, its just a matter of filling in the gaps. but its prudent for the kings to take this shortened season to see what they have first...
its a crazy whirlwind of an all-too-brief "official" offseason, and it would be a shame to see the kings trade in some of their chips for anything less than a "sure thing." so re-signing thornton was a priority. and getting to the salary floor via free agency is still a priority. signing chuck hayes is a good step towards doing so. attempting to lure andrei kirilenko back to the states is an even better step towards doing so. though hayes is quite undersized, both moves signal that the kings front office still understands the importance of role-players who can hustle and defend. as a fan, its important to me that management is thinking actively about the big picture, and their stance seems to indicate that they are. kirlenko would add the length and shot-blocking presence lost if dalembert should sign elsewhere. i think the front office recognizes that dalembert likely will sign elsewhere, and they're attempting to recoup some of the skills that would be missed in his absence. even if the kings aren't able to acquire kirilenko, at least we know that petrie and co. are pursuing defensive, role-playing talents, without foolishly dishing out max contracts...
Last edited:
that's a bad contract on principle, but its not as bad for GS as it seems. they had to get to the salary floor before the season started, and they didn't want to overpay dalembert long-term to do it. so they signed kwame brown to a one-year deal that'll put them within cap rules, but won't compromise their long-term cap situation...
I'm failry certain that if you're under the minimum, you end up spreading that amount amongst your own players.
So I guess the question is whether or not you'd rather pay your current players more for no reason, or at least get some sort of asset from it.
While I agree it's a bad contract, I also agree with Padrino that this isn't the worst thing in the world because it does allow them to keep their cap flexibility.
I'm sure that if Dalembert had been willing to sign a 1-year deal, they would have paid him more and brought him on.
Who knows, perhaps it will end up that we could be the only team willing to offer Dalembert a multi-year deal for more than the MLE.
So I guess the question is whether or not you'd rather pay your current players more for no reason, or at least get some sort of asset from it.
While I agree it's a bad contract, I also agree with Padrino that this isn't the worst thing in the world because it does allow them to keep their cap flexibility.
I'm sure that if Dalembert had been willing to sign a 1-year deal, they would have paid him more and brought him on.
Who knows, perhaps it will end up that we could be the only team willing to offer Dalembert a multi-year deal for more than the MLE.
so I guess the question is who is left?
May have to wait to see what happens with Dwight and Nene?
Nets hoping for Dwight, but also interested in Nene
Rockets interested in Nene maybe Sammy
If Dwight stays home, Nene to Nets then Houston might target Sammy
If Dwight goes to Nets, Nene to Houston who else is left?
I know Sammy mentioned Toronto, but are they really interested?
May have to wait to see what happens with Dwight and Nene?
Nets hoping for Dwight, but also interested in Nene
Rockets interested in Nene maybe Sammy
If Dwight stays home, Nene to Nets then Houston might target Sammy
If Dwight goes to Nets, Nene to Houston who else is left?
I know Sammy mentioned Toronto, but are they really interested?
Last edited:
