Why is it so hard for this team to find a suitable SF?!?
- Thread starter c-webb1s#1
- Start date
To be honest with you. If I was a team owner and GM. Having Salmons, Garcia, Outlaw, and Honeycutt also possibly Williams. Thats 4 SF plus Williams. Its hard to say hey lets sign ANOTHER SF. the problem is pretty apparant. Now the argument may be we shouldn't have signed Salmons and Outlaw but whats done is done. Also had Donte last year. next argument would be amnesty. What do we actually gain out of that? You still have to pay the player. We arent over the tax so whats the point. Then you have the elusive trade. Garcia is expiring so you have to hold onto that plus he is a great player to have around. Outlaw is cheap and a vet. Salmons is expensive and is not very appealing to other teams coming off a season where we would rather start our PG at SF than him. Honeycutt well no need to explain that he was a rookie. Sooo what team would trade their SF for any of ours?? If any team was wanting one of ours how good could that player possibly be? Best chance is trade a guy that is actually useful or fits a teams need i.e. Thorton, Hayes, Thomas out side of those the rest are untouchable. Then we would need a team with a surplus of SF's itself to be willing to trade with us. Alot of the scenerios are with teams with maybe 2 SF's that are decent. example of a FA signing our roster looks like this with saaaay Gerald Wallace
Thomas, Jimmer
Tyreke, Marcus
Wallace,Salmons,Garcia,Outlaw,Honeycutt
Robinson,Hayes
Cousins, Whiteside
see a problem with that??? Another Big is our Direct need JT or Anderson? Then we can see what happens.
Thomas, Jimmer
Tyreke, Marcus
Wallace,Salmons,Garcia,Outlaw,Honeycutt
Robinson,Hayes
Cousins, Whiteside
see a problem with that??? Another Big is our Direct need JT or Anderson? Then we can see what happens.
Does anyone think we maybe juggle our starting line up a bit too much? I think what some of these guys might need is some consistency. Just leave either Salmons or Outlaw out there. Outlaw actually had a stretch towards the end of the season where he looked, dare I say, serviceable?
I'm actually ok with the following starting lineup:
PG - Thomas, Fredette
SG - Evans, Thornton
SF - Salmons, Outlaw
PF - Robinson, Anderson(??)
C - Cousins, Hayes, Whiteside
I think the dedication being shown by DeMarcus this offseason will prove to be invaluable this next season. I might be crazy, but I believe that with the offseason, a new season under Keith Smart, and more experience for guys like Isaiah, Jimmer, and Cousins (not to mention Thomas Robinson's addition and improvement offensively at the 4) we can sneak into the playoffs.
I'm actually ok with the following starting lineup:
PG - Thomas, Fredette
SG - Evans, Thornton
SF - Salmons, Outlaw
PF - Robinson, Anderson(??)
C - Cousins, Hayes, Whiteside
I think the dedication being shown by DeMarcus this offseason will prove to be invaluable this next season. I might be crazy, but I believe that with the offseason, a new season under Keith Smart, and more experience for guys like Isaiah, Jimmer, and Cousins (not to mention Thomas Robinson's addition and improvement offensively at the 4) we can sneak into the playoffs.
I think the obvious answer to why amnesty if your already under the cap, and you answered it yourself when you mentioned Wallace, or someone like Wallace. We may still be under the cap after we resign JT, but not enough under to sign someone like Wallace, thus the amnesty. I do think there are teams that would like to have Salmons. Just not at that price. So if we were to amnesty him, someone would pick up part of his contract, just as we picked up part of Outlaws contract. Another way is to trade Salmons despite his contract. The only way I see that happening, would be to take back more in salary than were sending out, but maybe for a year less overall, or for another player that we like, but is being overpaid as well. An example might be Iggy, who also has a hard contract to move, and I'm not saying they want to move him, but if so, Salmons is a similar player and would be nice insurance behind Turner.
And by the way, I agree that getting the PF situation settled first is whats important.
And by the way, I agree that getting the PF situation settled first is whats important.
Of the guys on our roster. Garcia fits the role of a SF we need more than anybody. Plays off the ball. Willing and able passer. Before Westphal he got good min and was shooting right at 40% from 3pt range. He is a good help shot blocker and a very annoying defender on guys bigger than him. I have seen him really get under the skin of some of the best including dirk.
In my humble opinion, Garcia is not a starting SF in the NBA. Now he may, in some people's opinion, be the best SF on our team, but thats an entirely different conversation. He's going to turn 32 years of age in Dec, and he's been a walking injury magnet for the last four years. Over that span, he's averaged playing in 49 games a year. He has over the years, been a decent to good 3pt shooter, but last year he fell off the cart shooting under 30% for the year.
Add in, that his days as a King are numbered, so I think we'd better off sticking Honeycutt out there and let him get some experience. The Kings need to solidify the SF position. Putting Cisco out there would just be kicking the can down the road. I like Cisco, and he brings certain intangibles. I can see him retiring in a couple of years and being an assistant coach for the Kings. But I can't see him as the answer to our SF problem.
Add in, that his days as a King are numbered, so I think we'd better off sticking Honeycutt out there and let him get some experience. The Kings need to solidify the SF position. Putting Cisco out there would just be kicking the can down the road. I like Cisco, and he brings certain intangibles. I can see him retiring in a couple of years and being an assistant coach for the Kings. But I can't see him as the answer to our SF problem.
yes, but...at this point also no. SF is not a terribly difficult position to fill. And with our team structure it doesn't need to be filled with a star level guy. Although star level defender would be nice.
At a certain point it is the same thing as the eternal lack of shotblocking -- we have not been willing to spend enough assets to make it happen. Money or otherwise.
-- consider last year we could have spent a Top 10 draft pick on the position and gotten Kawhi Leonard. We chose not to.
-- this year we could have drafted Harrison Barnes with our #5. Again we chose not to.
Instead since Artest has left we have tried to fill it with:
-- 23rd (Cisco); 23rd (Omri) and 28th (Donte) picks in the draft. Perhaps Tyler Honeycutt too as a #35 pick.
-- a guy who got cut from his team (Outlaw)
-- and John Salmons. Twice. The second time after he has digned a horrendous deal that nobody else in the league wanted to touch.
Its perhaps no surprise that Terrence Williams came in and looked better than any of them ever did -- he too was picked up off the scrap heap, but he was a lottery pick (11th) a couple of years back and stillaahs the talent.
I've made this point before about the shotblocking. Geoff Petrie has CHOSEN not to get a shotblocker in here. He's chosen it by simply being unwilling to commit the resources necessary to get one. Other franchises who are willing to commit those resources get player after player of that type. Same thing can be said for SF. We have tried to fill it on the cheap, using minimal assets. We haven't spent big to get one, we haven't used any of our 4 straight Top 10 draft picks on one. And the only significant trade for one we made fell victim for Geoff's Salmons fetish.
Last edited:
I really would like to see the team make a trade for Dorrell Wright. He is available and he had the best year of his career under Keith Smart averaging 16 pts, 5 reb, shooting 37 percent from the 3 playing 38 minutes a night.
But for whatever reason, Mark Jackson did not play him as much. And now the 2012 Warriors will have Klay Thompson, Richard Jefferson, Brandon Rush and Harrison Barnes in the mix at the Shooting Guard/Small Forward along with Wright. If we could find a suitable deal, he would fit this team perfectly.
Otherwise I personally would be fine with Francisco Garcia as the starting SF if the Kings can not find one. He does exactly what the Kings need. Outside Shooting and Defense....he just has not done it well since his unfortunate accident. But......and this is a big but; if the team can not find a front line starting SF, and if Garcia plays well enough, I feel very comfortable with him being the staring 3 and playing 24-28 minutes a night.
But for whatever reason, Mark Jackson did not play him as much. And now the 2012 Warriors will have Klay Thompson, Richard Jefferson, Brandon Rush and Harrison Barnes in the mix at the Shooting Guard/Small Forward along with Wright. If we could find a suitable deal, he would fit this team perfectly.
Otherwise I personally would be fine with Francisco Garcia as the starting SF if the Kings can not find one. He does exactly what the Kings need. Outside Shooting and Defense....he just has not done it well since his unfortunate accident. But......and this is a big but; if the team can not find a front line starting SF, and if Garcia plays well enough, I feel very comfortable with him being the staring 3 and playing 24-28 minutes a night.
After doing a little research, Dorrell Wright is an expiring contract at 4.1 million for this upcoming season. A contract that the Warriors have wanted to dump for a number of years is Andris Biedrins at 9 million for '12-'13 and a Player Option at 9 million for '13-'14. I would do the following....
Sacramento Trades
Chuck Hayes
Hassan Whiteside
2nd Round Pick
Golden State Trades
Dorrell Wright
Andris Biedrins
Why Would the Warriors Do it?
Warriors shed the albatross of Biedrins, plus get two solid front court players to shore up their bench.
Why Would the Kings Do It?
Kings get two players, a back up center who needs a change of scenery and a small forward who gets a chance to start and flourish under a coach he had his best season ever with.
Sacramento Trades
Chuck Hayes
Hassan Whiteside
2nd Round Pick
Golden State Trades
Dorrell Wright
Andris Biedrins
Why Would the Warriors Do it?
Warriors shed the albatross of Biedrins, plus get two solid front court players to shore up their bench.
Why Would the Kings Do It?
Kings get two players, a back up center who needs a change of scenery and a small forward who gets a chance to start and flourish under a coach he had his best season ever with.
I think too many fans are hoping for a savior at SF to mask the deficiencies of our other starters, and there just isn't anyone available who can do what this team needs.
If there was a checklist of the things we need this SF to do it would look like this:
-Get through every screen to avoid having to ever switch leaving Isiah on a SF
-Hit the three ball at a high rate without having to get in a rhythm because his kick outs come at random times when he is in random spots, with the shot clock running down, against defenses that stack the paint and try and chase him off the 3 point line.
-Be an above average man defender against both SGs and SFs to cover for Thornton when they play together
-Be a playmaker because if he only shoots the few sporadic times he gets the ball he will be considered a black hole and hurt the team
-Strictly be a catch and shoot guy because all the other players need time with the ball in their hands
-Act as a defensive shotblocker to cover for all 4 of our bigs who don't block shots, even if he's having to guard perimeter players
-Do all of the above things in 25 minutes a night, because anyone who coaches this team feels like they have to run a 12 man rotation every night so the high priced SFs on the bench don't get left out
All and all, this team has way too many flaws, way too many one dimensional players, for any SF to fix. Bigger needs have to be addressed. A prime Kirelinko is probably the closest to being able to do that, but when he was putting up those amazing statlines, he handled the ball more than he would be able to on this team, and he's not exactly the player he was when he was 24 anymore, he's comfortable now, and just hasn't put in that huge effort that he used to in a long time. Prime Battier might have worked in that role, but he was more about getting the consistent kick outs in the corner that this team doesn't provide for its SF's. Bruce Bowen wouldn't have provided the help defense that this team needs. Prime Artest dribbled and shot too much.
As for SF's in the league now, who can do all that this team is looking for? Iguadala can't shoot well enough. Deng doesn't have the range and is good but not versatile enough defensively for us. Batum is too inconsistent and not a great defender, Kawhi Leonard wouldn't see the looks he gets set up for with the Spurs. Gallanari can shoot but can't bring the defense we need.
This team needs to address the flaws in its "core" players before its going to go any farther. Yeah Demarcus, Tyreke, Thornton and Thomas are talented, but they have some serious flaws which is the only reason we got them. They are hard to build a team around, especially with a limited budget. Huge changes have to be made to our core guys, either in there own games, which is increasingly unlikely, or swappign them out for people who can do what their positions require. Centers need to be anchors defensively. SGs need to be able to shoot. Starters need to be able to defend their position.
Trying to cover the flaws in these guys with role players is going to be forever like trying to plug the hole in the dike, yeah you may be able to plug a few, but other holes will be constantly popping up.
If there was a checklist of the things we need this SF to do it would look like this:
-Get through every screen to avoid having to ever switch leaving Isiah on a SF
-Hit the three ball at a high rate without having to get in a rhythm because his kick outs come at random times when he is in random spots, with the shot clock running down, against defenses that stack the paint and try and chase him off the 3 point line.
-Be an above average man defender against both SGs and SFs to cover for Thornton when they play together
-Be a playmaker because if he only shoots the few sporadic times he gets the ball he will be considered a black hole and hurt the team
-Strictly be a catch and shoot guy because all the other players need time with the ball in their hands
-Act as a defensive shotblocker to cover for all 4 of our bigs who don't block shots, even if he's having to guard perimeter players
-Do all of the above things in 25 minutes a night, because anyone who coaches this team feels like they have to run a 12 man rotation every night so the high priced SFs on the bench don't get left out
All and all, this team has way too many flaws, way too many one dimensional players, for any SF to fix. Bigger needs have to be addressed. A prime Kirelinko is probably the closest to being able to do that, but when he was putting up those amazing statlines, he handled the ball more than he would be able to on this team, and he's not exactly the player he was when he was 24 anymore, he's comfortable now, and just hasn't put in that huge effort that he used to in a long time. Prime Battier might have worked in that role, but he was more about getting the consistent kick outs in the corner that this team doesn't provide for its SF's. Bruce Bowen wouldn't have provided the help defense that this team needs. Prime Artest dribbled and shot too much.
As for SF's in the league now, who can do all that this team is looking for? Iguadala can't shoot well enough. Deng doesn't have the range and is good but not versatile enough defensively for us. Batum is too inconsistent and not a great defender, Kawhi Leonard wouldn't see the looks he gets set up for with the Spurs. Gallanari can shoot but can't bring the defense we need.
This team needs to address the flaws in its "core" players before its going to go any farther. Yeah Demarcus, Tyreke, Thornton and Thomas are talented, but they have some serious flaws which is the only reason we got them. They are hard to build a team around, especially with a limited budget. Huge changes have to be made to our core guys, either in there own games, which is increasingly unlikely, or swappign them out for people who can do what their positions require. Centers need to be anchors defensively. SGs need to be able to shoot. Starters need to be able to defend their position.
Trying to cover the flaws in these guys with role players is going to be forever like trying to plug the hole in the dike, yeah you may be able to plug a few, but other holes will be constantly popping up.
This guy will save our team.... 
1. Last off-season was a really weird time and some players just did not prepare for the season with the same intensity because they had no idea when they would start
2. He broke his wrist on the shooting hand during the off-season and that generally takes a bit longer to get over.
3. When he was inserted into the starting line up late in the season, he actually looked like a very serviceable option for us.
4. Donte is gone and we won't be replacing him with anyone better so Outlaw is sure to get more chance than he got last season.
Don't get me wrong, he will not be our saviour but I think that he can be a serviceable option for us and if he returns to his Portland type production, he will be a bargain for us at the price we got him.
I would still love an upgrade but if we don't have it, I would give Outlaw a chance and a clear role that he needs to stick to. I think he is a better player than he showed last year and there are a number of reasons as to why he was below the par last season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please stop blaming the Maloofs if we don't have a good SF, because there are no clear indication that the Maloofs were behind the acquisition of our under-performing SFs in this team. And don't blame the Maloofs for not spending money on SFs. Just compute the salaries of our current SFs and it is clear that we spent enough money that we should have gotten our starter caliber SFs.
The problem is Petrie with so many wrong moves he had done the previous years. He messed-up too much the previous years - overpaying for Garcia and acquiring non-fitting players who are hard to ship out. And he never really was serious in addressing our problem with lack of shot-blocking big. We could have had one in Dalembert, but what did Petrie do?
Petrie is the GM and he should be the one to take the blame for this ridiculously poorly assembled and unbalanced roster. I think it is about time that we believe that we have a below average GM or at best an average GM. The product on the floor speaks for itself.
The problem is Petrie with so many wrong moves he had done the previous years. He messed-up too much the previous years - overpaying for Garcia and acquiring non-fitting players who are hard to ship out. And he never really was serious in addressing our problem with lack of shot-blocking big. We could have had one in Dalembert, but what did Petrie do?
Petrie is the GM and he should be the one to take the blame for this ridiculously poorly assembled and unbalanced roster. I think it is about time that we believe that we have a below average GM or at best an average GM. The product on the floor speaks for itself.
Last edited:
Give Outlaw enough rope .......
Outlaw is a vet, has the hops, can shoot jumpers and finally played his butt off last few games at end of season when he knew he was a starter. Give him the starting SF slot and if he decides to play at that same high level and produces on both ends problem solved. I think Honeycutt is ready for backup minutes this year and who knows maybe we have a future star in the making with a good vet that could then back him up. TWill on bench might just be best 3rd shooter and ball handler.
Outlaw is a vet, has the hops, can shoot jumpers and finally played his butt off last few games at end of season when he knew he was a starter. Give him the starting SF slot and if he decides to play at that same high level and produces on both ends problem solved. I think Honeycutt is ready for backup minutes this year and who knows maybe we have a future star in the making with a good vet that could then back him up. TWill on bench might just be best 3rd shooter and ball handler.
Why is it so hard for us to get a SF to improve this team? Let me count the rreasons. One, the Maloofs are broke. Two, even if they weren't how easy is it for any team to get a starter in a specific position?
We have two SFs on the roster now. Outlaw and Honeycutt. Could either be a satisfactory role player at the position? I don't know but I think it possible. At least worth a try. To test it we would have to play them. Playing them means not playing Greene (he's gone) or Salmons or Evans or Williams or Anderson or Robinson or anyone else at the SF position. I'd love to see it happen. We may well see it since you can't just go order a starting SF out of the catalog.
How did we get the other startes on this team? Cousins, Thompson, Evans, Thomas? Just think of the history of each and you'll see a rather indirect and chancy road for each. Cousins? Think about it. Thompson, we were ready to throw him out off and on for three seasons. Evans, just what position does he play? I don't know yet. Thomas, what position did we draft him at, oh yes, sixtieth, shrewd move. So, in a word, it ain't easy.
y
We have two SFs on the roster now. Outlaw and Honeycutt. Could either be a satisfactory role player at the position? I don't know but I think it possible. At least worth a try. To test it we would have to play them. Playing them means not playing Greene (he's gone) or Salmons or Evans or Williams or Anderson or Robinson or anyone else at the SF position. I'd love to see it happen. We may well see it since you can't just go order a starting SF out of the catalog.
How did we get the other startes on this team? Cousins, Thompson, Evans, Thomas? Just think of the history of each and you'll see a rather indirect and chancy road for each. Cousins? Think about it. Thompson, we were ready to throw him out off and on for three seasons. Evans, just what position does he play? I don't know yet. Thomas, what position did we draft him at, oh yes, sixtieth, shrewd move. So, in a word, it ain't easy.
y
I think the easy answer is that because our only good players have come here through the draft (aside from the Thornton deal)... we just haven't spent a high lottery pick on one yet. We can't get good players any other way.
That being said, I'm leaning towards starting Travis ****ing Outlaw if we do not sign anyone else at the SF spot this offseason. I can't believe I'm saying that. If he plays at his potential he can be a good 3pt shooter with good size, good ability to run the floor, and a good weakside shot blocker (1.5 blocks per36 last season). His size would also FORCE Tyreke Evans back into the PG or SG spot .. something that we really need.
That being said, I'm leaning towards starting Travis ****ing Outlaw if we do not sign anyone else at the SF spot this offseason. I can't believe I'm saying that. If he plays at his potential he can be a good 3pt shooter with good size, good ability to run the floor, and a good weakside shot blocker (1.5 blocks per36 last season). His size would also FORCE Tyreke Evans back into the PG or SG spot .. something that we really need.
Some time ago, I watched a round table discussion on one of the comcast sports channels with a group of ex-GM's and some scouts. The question arose as to who makes the final decision on trades or who the team will draft, and all the GM's said nothing is done without the approval of the owner. None of them said they had autonomy. Of course the relationship between the GM and the owner varies from team to team, as do the restrictions impossed. But I got the impression that in many cases, owners play a bigger part of the decision making than one would necessarily want. But as one GM put it, its his money we're spending.
They all said they have had heated arguments with their owners over trades, and that many times the owner wanted to disregard their scouting informantion on a player, either positive or negative. The GM makes for a convenient whipping dog for the owner. Look at Portland. They have an owner with plenty of money, but they go through GM's like water.. One GM said that he had several trades he wanted to make, and that were agreed upon by both parties, but that the owner killed them at the last monent. Of course he said, its his team, and I just work for him.
Anyway, its not just cut and dry. Sometimes owners for whatever reason fall in love with certain players on their team, and they become almost untradable. Or they fall in love with a potential draft pick, despite scouting reports that might say otherwise. As one GM put it, GM's tend to look at the team from a technical point of view, and how to reasonably improve it. Owners tend to look at the team from a fan's point of view, which is more emotional. Sometimes both points of view don't come together, and the owner will win that decision.
They all said they have had heated arguments with their owners over trades, and that many times the owner wanted to disregard their scouting informantion on a player, either positive or negative. The GM makes for a convenient whipping dog for the owner. Look at Portland. They have an owner with plenty of money, but they go through GM's like water.. One GM said that he had several trades he wanted to make, and that were agreed upon by both parties, but that the owner killed them at the last monent. Of course he said, its his team, and I just work for him.
Anyway, its not just cut and dry. Sometimes owners for whatever reason fall in love with certain players on their team, and they become almost untradable. Or they fall in love with a potential draft pick, despite scouting reports that might say otherwise. As one GM put it, GM's tend to look at the team from a technical point of view, and how to reasonably improve it. Owners tend to look at the team from a fan's point of view, which is more emotional. Sometimes both points of view don't come together, and the owner will win that decision.
The problem is the Kings overpay players that project to be bench players over the long term. They keep giving starter money to 6th man-types, and, surprisingly, to everyone but themselves, don't have cap room even though most of their talent is on rookie contracts.
Thornton, Hayes, Cisco... these are bench players that got paid. Marcus is a primo 6th man type, but they're paying him to start.
You only hope these contracts are moved or expired before the young talent is due to be extended.
On top of that, they don't have enough scouts or "minds" to influence decisions. We all know what Petrie loves, but he doesn't love enough things. There is no defensive mind to influence decisions, there is no PG mind to influence decisions, and so, they end up with oddball lineups.
Thornton, Hayes, Cisco... these are bench players that got paid. Marcus is a primo 6th man type, but they're paying him to start.
You only hope these contracts are moved or expired before the young talent is due to be extended.
On top of that, they don't have enough scouts or "minds" to influence decisions. We all know what Petrie loves, but he doesn't love enough things. There is no defensive mind to influence decisions, there is no PG mind to influence decisions, and so, they end up with oddball lineups.
Last edited:
So, you think that Salmons as a SF is cheap at $7-8M?
That Salmons who clearly is a guard and clearly cannot match most SF in the league and yet Petrie sees him as the answer to our SF problem?
So, you think Petrie giving Garcia $6-7M is not overpaying?
And what about a 4th BIG in Hayes that costs another $5M?
Is that really Petrie trying to save money for the Maloofs?
That Salmons who clearly is a guard and clearly cannot match most SF in the league and yet Petrie sees him as the answer to our SF problem?
So, you think Petrie giving Garcia $6-7M is not overpaying?
And what about a 4th BIG in Hayes that costs another $5M?
Is that really Petrie trying to save money for the Maloofs?
Look, its obvious that you don't like Petrie. I get that! But I think you have to take all the information you have and apply it, and then come to some conclusions. Yes Petrie made the trade for Salmons. But why? Well it was reported that Westphal wanted Salmons instead of another rookie player at the SF position. So if your the GM, you rightly or wrongly decide to try and get your head coach what he wants in order to help him be successful. Is that Petrie's fault? Of course it is, but it might not have been something he would have done without Westphal's influence. Being one that didn't like Westphal from the beginning, I wouldn't have given him anything he wanted, and I would have made him use what I wanted.
At the time we resigned Garcia, I didn't think he was being overpaid. He had showed improvement and the promise of more improvement to come. No one could have known he would become an injury magnet. Hayes actually got paid the market price at the time. . Hayes wouldn't have been my first choice, but as it turned out, with a shortened freeagency, and a shortened season, he was about the last chance to shore up our front line, once Dalembert opted to sign with Houston. Turns out it was a good signing since Hickson turned out to be a bust. Otherwise we would have had a rotation of Cuz and JT.
Of the deals mentioned, the only one I really hate is the Salmons deal. I didn't like it at the time, but hoped it would work out. I actually think Salmons is a good player, and on the right team, can be valuable. Unfortunately, although Salmons is a veteran player, he doesn't bring those intangibles that you need from a veteran player. For the moment, we're stuck with him, so hopefully he can be a good player off the bench for us.
I think logicaly, you have to separate the Petrie with money to spend, from the petrie without money to spend. When he had the freedom to just go and do what he wanted, he appeared to have the magic touch. He didn't win GM of the year twice for nothing. However, since he's had financial restrictions put on him, not so good. But during that time, he's drafted well, and without those draft choices, the Kings wouldn't even be revelant.
My point is, its not just black and white. For every action, there's a reaction. A little physic's there. Any deal you make has risk, but the more money you have to spend, in order to attract better talent, the easier it is to reduce that risk. When your trying to make a major impact on your team, with beer money, it gets much harder. Example: If you were to add a Jon Barry to this current team, how much impact would he really have? Would he turn the team around? No, of course not. But if you add a Jon Barry to a team of Vlade, Webber, Peja, Christie, and Bibby, he suddenly becomes revelant. A player like Cisco might not look so bad on that team, but on the current team, too much is expected of him, as it is Hayes.
You have to step outside the box and take an objective look at the team. We're still missing some parts, and until we aquire those parts, the supporting cast just isn't going to matter as much, nor appear as important as one would desire.
At the time we resigned Garcia, I didn't think he was being overpaid. He had showed improvement and the promise of more improvement to come. No one could have known he would become an injury magnet. Hayes actually got paid the market price at the time. . Hayes wouldn't have been my first choice, but as it turned out, with a shortened freeagency, and a shortened season, he was about the last chance to shore up our front line, once Dalembert opted to sign with Houston. Turns out it was a good signing since Hickson turned out to be a bust. Otherwise we would have had a rotation of Cuz and JT.
Of the deals mentioned, the only one I really hate is the Salmons deal. I didn't like it at the time, but hoped it would work out. I actually think Salmons is a good player, and on the right team, can be valuable. Unfortunately, although Salmons is a veteran player, he doesn't bring those intangibles that you need from a veteran player. For the moment, we're stuck with him, so hopefully he can be a good player off the bench for us.
I think logicaly, you have to separate the Petrie with money to spend, from the petrie without money to spend. When he had the freedom to just go and do what he wanted, he appeared to have the magic touch. He didn't win GM of the year twice for nothing. However, since he's had financial restrictions put on him, not so good. But during that time, he's drafted well, and without those draft choices, the Kings wouldn't even be revelant.
My point is, its not just black and white. For every action, there's a reaction. A little physic's there. Any deal you make has risk, but the more money you have to spend, in order to attract better talent, the easier it is to reduce that risk. When your trying to make a major impact on your team, with beer money, it gets much harder. Example: If you were to add a Jon Barry to this current team, how much impact would he really have? Would he turn the team around? No, of course not. But if you add a Jon Barry to a team of Vlade, Webber, Peja, Christie, and Bibby, he suddenly becomes revelant. A player like Cisco might not look so bad on that team, but on the current team, too much is expected of him, as it is Hayes.
You have to step outside the box and take an objective look at the team. We're still missing some parts, and until we aquire those parts, the supporting cast just isn't going to matter as much, nor appear as important as one would desire.
