would we resign Chuck Hayes?
- Thread starter Entity
- Start date
the actual shot block may be overated but not the shot blocker. for instance say your a gaurd that is comfortable going to the basket. you go in and you get your shot block. next time you go in and your shot is altered because blocker was there. All of a sudden that guy is on your mind before you drive to the hoop. So instead of doing what your are great at now your thinking. You may still try you may not either way he is in your mind. Ultimatly by the 2nd or 3rd quarter that players whos strength is driving to the basket is now taking 18 ft jump shots. your shot blocker may have only blocked 1 maybe 2 shots but because of him said player is now out of his element and not playing to his strength.
I think this whole thing has been a big scam. In the space of a week they have managed to turn something that was seen by most as an undesirable downgrade into a welcome relief. And along the way we got to add a feel good story and let Chuck feel the love with the way we reached out to him when we thought he was going to die. 
Well played I say.
Well played I say.
Actually it is a legitimate question that the front office needs to come out and answer. Like I said previously, on surface this while episode makes us look like amateurs. Now where may well be legitimate reasons behind our action (eg. tight timeframes where we needed to make a decision) but from afar, it looks extremely amateurish!
They will answer it, and Amick already reported that the Kings only had 6 days to void the contract. There just wasn't enough time for them to wait on the 2nd opinion, if it came back negative they'd be on the hook for that contract.
Geoff Petrie even said they've been in contact with Hayes in the last couple of days, if anyone wants to continue to think the Daly situation was pure accident, well, maybe, but it doesn't look like it at the end of the day.
Geoff Petrie even said they've been in contact with Hayes in the last couple of days, if anyone wants to continue to think the Daly situation was pure accident, well, maybe, but it doesn't look like it at the end of the day.
Anybody who takes a 6'6" center over a 6'11" shotblocking center needs some serious work on their basketball fundamentals. But the list above would be sour grapes if you had not legitiamately long been blind to Dalembert's impact. I will grant "actually wants to be in Sacramento", much as that's a happy to be going out with the ugly guy/girl because nobody else asked argument. Doesn't want a ridiculous contract is of course all relative. Scrubs don't want ridiculous contracts either, but you can't win with them. Seems to be loved by coaches and teammates = quite possible. Hayes had a good rep in Houston even if it didn't seem to inspire any of them to play better defense, but it would be rather hard for our guys or coaches to love anyone after he'd been with them less than a week. Younger = shrug, because Daly ain't old and these are roleplayers we are talking about, not franchise cornerstones.
Meanwhile won't jack up bad shots and whine about PT = one of those urban myths that gets stubbornly repeated no mater how often it is disproven. Daly's career FG% is .520. Chuck's is .518. The only possible way that means one guy is jacking up bad shots and the other guy is doing the right thing is if the guy jacking up the bad shots is a MUCH more talented offensive player. Meanwhile Sam jacked up all of 0.8 more shots a game last year than Hayes. As in less than 1. Yes, we are truly escaping a low percentage shot jacker for...another player who takes almsot exactly the same number of shots at exactly the same percentage.
Vocal leader and better passer are Hayes' legitimate advantages. They are why he will be good to have. But that never has nor never will outweigh the impact of a shotblocking defensive anchor, when those traits are attached to a vastly undersized big man without the hops that have periodically allowed other undersized bigs to compete at the highest levels. I will gladly take Hayes on this team given our alternatives and desperate need for anybody who understands defense and self sacrifice. And he will of course be a fan favorite, because fans always overrespond to the underdog and the nice guy in the same way they treat cute little puppies. But I know this league far too well to sit here and pathetically try to convince myself this was a step forward or who we really needed. Nor am I pathetic enough if the girl I want doesn't want me to run around trying to convince everyone that I really never wanted her anyway, and am much better off with Bertha the Bearded Lady.
Meanwhile won't jack up bad shots and whine about PT = one of those urban myths that gets stubbornly repeated no mater how often it is disproven. Daly's career FG% is .520. Chuck's is .518. The only possible way that means one guy is jacking up bad shots and the other guy is doing the right thing is if the guy jacking up the bad shots is a MUCH more talented offensive player. Meanwhile Sam jacked up all of 0.8 more shots a game last year than Hayes. As in less than 1. Yes, we are truly escaping a low percentage shot jacker for...another player who takes almsot exactly the same number of shots at exactly the same percentage.
Vocal leader and better passer are Hayes' legitimate advantages. They are why he will be good to have. But that never has nor never will outweigh the impact of a shotblocking defensive anchor, when those traits are attached to a vastly undersized big man without the hops that have periodically allowed other undersized bigs to compete at the highest levels. I will gladly take Hayes on this team given our alternatives and desperate need for anybody who understands defense and self sacrifice. And he will of course be a fan favorite, because fans always overrespond to the underdog and the nice guy in the same way they treat cute little puppies. But I know this league far too well to sit here and pathetically try to convince myself this was a step forward or who we really needed. Nor am I pathetic enough if the girl I want doesn't want me to run around trying to convince everyone that I really never wanted her anyway, and am much better off with Bertha the Bearded Lady.
im perty glad we got chuck back sammy was good but i think chuck will be better guarding pf while cuz guards centers i see chuck doin more thing then sammy did.chuck is a solid bully thick body and uick feet trust me hes gona be a nightmare for a lot of pf or centers cant wait to see our kings play this season!!!!!
i think chuck is a better overall fit in everything but shotblocking and rebounding. Chuck will get the whole team working on defense and communicating. Sammy was just a safety valve that alleviated some of the mistakes made on the perimeter. Also Sammy is was only good at gaurding other 7 footers that were slower than him, but realistically how many 7 footers are out there in the NBA that are legit post threats? (Howard, Gasol, Bynum, Duncan?) cant think of any others. On the other hand how many skilled power forwards are there that regularly killed us even last year. (Garnett, Randolph, Dirk, David West, Amare, Aldridge, David Lee, Chris Bosh) off the top of my head, but im sure theres more, these are the guys Hayes will slow down considerably. I would love to have a good shotblocking center, but I would much rather have an In shape, ready to play Chuck Hayes in his prime years, than an overpayed out of shape Sammy, that we would have gotten for this shortened season only, that had no desire to be here, other than money.
Then I guess the Kings' brass need to work on their basketball fundamentals too because it would appear they preferred Hayes as well. Maybe they need you to educate em, uh?
Dalembert did whine about his playing time. I’m not going to bother trying to find the article, it’s probably long gone, but I remember it.
It’s not just about jacking up shots, it’s about jacking up DUMB shots. Dalembert has a knack for taking those WTF was he thinking type of shots that can grind your offense to a halt and shift the momentum of the game to the other team.
I don't care how offensively talented he is (or thinks he is) we don't need him to shoot as much as he wants to shoot and that's another mark against him and another reason why he isn't the perfect fit for this team.
When you have a lineup of Cousins, Evans, Thornton, Jimmer, and Salmons, the last thing you need is a Center who wants to get his shots. You need a guy like Hayes who will know his role and stick primarily to facilitating and defending.
If we needed offense, maybe Dalembert would be a better fit but we DON’T need offense. This team is actually pretty stacked offensively as it is.
A player like Hayes might be a great fit for this team, especially if he brings leadership qualities and has a good chemistry with the younger players.
Dalembert did whine about his playing time. I’m not going to bother trying to find the article, it’s probably long gone, but I remember it.
It’s not just about jacking up shots, it’s about jacking up DUMB shots. Dalembert has a knack for taking those WTF was he thinking type of shots that can grind your offense to a halt and shift the momentum of the game to the other team.
I don't care how offensively talented he is (or thinks he is) we don't need him to shoot as much as he wants to shoot and that's another mark against him and another reason why he isn't the perfect fit for this team.
When you have a lineup of Cousins, Evans, Thornton, Jimmer, and Salmons, the last thing you need is a Center who wants to get his shots. You need a guy like Hayes who will know his role and stick primarily to facilitating and defending.
If we needed offense, maybe Dalembert would be a better fit but we DON’T need offense. This team is actually pretty stacked offensively as it is.
A player like Hayes might be a great fit for this team, especially if he brings leadership qualities and has a good chemistry with the younger players.
This is what Hayes brings to a team with very little offensive cohesion:
Post all star numbers:
8.9 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 4 apg, 1.5 to
Not too far off from Daly's with the exception of the assist to turnover ratio. I know some don't like Petries affinity for bigs that pass, but he seemingly went after a real gem in that department. The Kings probably have the best passing big duo in the league right now, at least potentially.
Post all star numbers:
8.9 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 4 apg, 1.5 to
Not too far off from Daly's with the exception of the assist to turnover ratio. I know some don't like Petries affinity for bigs that pass, but he seemingly went after a real gem in that department. The Kings probably have the best passing big duo in the league right now, at least potentially.
I feel like I just keep attacking your posts and I'm not trying to. It just fascinates me that you seem to repeat such inaccurate arguments with such passion. Brick flat out destroyed your post and yet you just push on through. It would be commendable if it wasn't so irritating.
You actually claim that hayes is more important to the defense of this team than dally? And the whole argument that the team valued Hayes more than dally. If true, why did they offer more annually to Sam? And enough with fans resorting to the "oh I bet you know more than the team" line. There would be no point to debating any topic on these boards if we all just believed that every gm in the league always makes the right decision.
I hate to break it to you, but your opinion isn't worth a hill of beans to me, bud. You can think someone "destroyed" my argument all you want, I'm not going to change my view based on what you or anyone else thinks. You and Brick don’t even appear to have actually understood my argument.
But, my apologies if my tenacity annoys you. If you prefer the company of those more pliable, I might suggest you consider ignoring my posts.
I did? Where did I do that?
because he commands more. That however does not automatically translate to him being a better fit for the team.
It isn’t about that. It’s people positioning themselves as experts that annoys me. Brick started off his post by essentially saying that anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge of the fundamentals of basketball. That kind of posturing needs to be taken down a notch.
But, my apologies if my tenacity annoys you. If you prefer the company of those more pliable, I might suggest you consider ignoring my posts.
I did? Where did I do that?
because he commands more. That however does not automatically translate to him being a better fit for the team.
It isn’t about that. It’s people positioning themselves as experts that annoys me. Brick started off his post by essentially saying that anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge of the fundamentals of basketball. That kind of posturing needs to be taken down a notch.
While I tend to agree with Bricky that having a shot-blocker in the paint is important for defense, I feel that "talking" is the most important thing you can do on defense. Teams that don't talk, play bad defense with or without a shot blocker. Every interview I have heard with Kings' players early in camp, they all brought up how much Hayes talks on defense. Sammy didn't seem to talk much at all, and that is partly why the Kings were at the bottom defensively despite his shot blocking skills. I remember an interview with Nowitzki in the playoffs last talking about the Mavs improved defense, and he said it was because Chandler was constantly talking and got the rest of the team doing the same (obviously his shot blocking helped as well).
My point is that a good shot blocker in and of himself doesn't make a team better defensively. Sammy didn't really seem to make the Kings' defense all that much better. When we had Keon Clark, I think many times our defense got worse (he could block shots, but couldn't guard anyone). If Hayes can instill a defensive mindset into the rest of the team and get them all talking on defense, then he will have a bigger impact on the Kings than Dalembert did (or would have) IMO. Of course, this is all yet to be seen.
My point is that a good shot blocker in and of himself doesn't make a team better defensively. Sammy didn't really seem to make the Kings' defense all that much better. When we had Keon Clark, I think many times our defense got worse (he could block shots, but couldn't guard anyone). If Hayes can instill a defensive mindset into the rest of the team and get them all talking on defense, then he will have a bigger impact on the Kings than Dalembert did (or would have) IMO. Of course, this is all yet to be seen.
As much as I'd hate to say it, Dalembert somehow did help us quite a bit on the offensive end last season. There were games when we were throwing him the ball and letting him go to work. What I do think is the problem, is that Dalembert isn't content with NOT being a big part of the offense. I think that's quite clear - when he came to SAC he was happy and said that he thought he could be given more of an offensive role. Throughout the season he mentioned numerous times that he wanted to be a bigger part of the offense. That's all fine and dandy when your team mainly has an injured 2nd year Tyreke and a rookie Cousins, but that's not an attitude that will be good for the team if we want to get serious.
Not saying that Dalembert wouldn't be good to have. I agree that a shotblocker or at least some sort of defensive anchor is important, but I just think we need to be aware of the problems that Dalembert specifically brings as a player as well.
Not saying that Dalembert wouldn't be good to have. I agree that a shotblocker or at least some sort of defensive anchor is important, but I just think we need to be aware of the problems that Dalembert specifically brings as a player as well.
Exactly. Also the Kings had a hard time guarding the pick and roll with Sam out there. Might have been his banged up knee, but Sam was not great at staying with the quicker guys, Cousins repeatedly guarded guys like Josh Smith and Blake Griffin.
Now, in a perfect world the Kings could nab both, but, Hayes could be a huge addition for years to come. Considering offense and the system this team is going to go with, it's the Wagon 10 out of 10 times IMO.
Now, in a perfect world the Kings could nab both, but, Hayes could be a huge addition for years to come. Considering offense and the system this team is going to go with, it's the Wagon 10 out of 10 times IMO.
The real question is, why did they offer more YEARS to Hayes? Daly was going to be brought back as a total stop gap yet again. He was clearly not in the long term plans as of now considering the Kings' stance on his potential contract. Look at some of the players getting way overpaid for 1 year of service to fill out a roster! Kwame Brown anyone???
Precisely my stance as well. You have to look at the player in their entirety, not just one aspect of the game they provide. He's more than just a shotblocker so he's worth more than somebody who is just a shotblocker, however what's the price? I think his eventual deal is more than fair and I wouldn't have minded him being back on the same deal, but not at the cost of Hayes.
Teams care more about years than they do filling out their payroll with a one year contract, like I said, look at what Kwame Brown just raked in. You can most certainly conclude that they wanted Hayes more than Dalembert just by the simple fact that you heard nothing of Dalembert once the name Chuck Hayes came up in the mill as the Kings target. You can also conclude that even the Rockets preferred Hayes over Daly. Before the Gasol deal went down they told Hayes to hold on because they may be able to bring him back once that deal went through. They lost out on Gasol and Hayes and then STILL didn't sign Dalembert. Hayes goes down and they even call Hayes to see if he can play before signing Daly! Kings re-enter the picture and boom, Daly lands in Houston.
Team chemistry is so important. I remember Dalembert talking through his agent last year during the season about his "lack of minutes," and "the way he was being utilized." To me, he was all about himself and not the team. Never was a vocal leader as a vet on a young team that desperately needed one. Good riddance. Everyone in the Kings ORGANIZATION brags about Hayes and his leadership, veteran presence, talking on defense, etc. They're genuinely happy he's there. Never heard that about Sammy whatsoever. And Hayes does have a odd sized heart which was revealed at the Cleveland Clinic. That was probably why the org had to void the deal. Couldn't take the risk of waiting on the 2nd opinion and possibly eating the entire contract if he couldn't play. Now he's back, seems like he was the top choice all along, gave him a "small" raise for the trouble, and we can all be excited about beating the Lakers Monday. Happy Holidays, everyone! Go Kings!
Simply put I think the problem was that Dalembert was the only shotblocking big we could possibly get, but outside of his shotblocking and being tall had little other positive things to offer to the team, and for a high price the FO felt that wasn't worth it.
If there were other guys like Dalembert that we could have gotten without the minor chemistry problems and the whole need to do some offensive centerpiece I'd be all for breaking the bank on them.
If there were other guys like Dalembert that we could have gotten without the minor chemistry problems and the whole need to do some offensive centerpiece I'd be all for breaking the bank on them.