Are you kidding me? Robinson Traded?
- Thread starter Larry89
- Start date
Today's dollars? Today's dollars don't matter except to the Maloofs. We're a sinking ship and drowning more by the day. When your team is terrible, you invest in the future. That's what Thomas Robinson was. He was (possibly) a huge step in the right direction of the franchise. A gamble? Yes. But while were at it, why don't we trade away Jimmer and every other player that needs time to develop too? Patterson might get us a couple more wins in this worthless season, sure, but at this point that's the best we can get out of this trade.
What really makes little sense in this, beyond the contract difference(3 yrs vs 1 left on rookies deals) and giving up on TRob only 51 games into his career is not only the type of player we targeted in return, but what we also gave up.
First off, I am not a fan of stretch 4's although I can understand the theory behind going after them. We however have little use for a stretch 4. A stretch 4 is used firstly, off having a back to the basket center who does most of his work on the block, which would provide spacing, a kickout threat and prevent the other big from doubling. Cuz, in our offense, is mostly an elbow extended iso player, so that right there negates a large part of what a stretch 4 does, unless you like having both your bigs 18ft or more from the basket.
Secondly, a stretch 4 is best used in an offense based on guard penetration, where he spaces the floor and gets his looks off kickouts, off penetration. Unfortunately, we rarely see our guards penetrating and kicking(would if Reke got to see the ball more with the floor spread) and instead have trigger fingered guards who look for the first jumper they see, and either don't or can't break down their man and penetrate. We usually have IT dancing around up top, either looking to swing it to a guard popping out or he enters it into JT in the post or Cuz elbown extended. If he gets a screen he's coming off to shoot or get to the rim, not penetrating to kick.
So really, we have no use for a stretch 4 given our idiot coach and idiotic system.
Then, I want to ask why we included Cisco? We're already trading the #5 pick with upside on the first year of his rookie deal, so why did we not at the least include Salmons? Cisco could have come off the books anyway a few months from now. As an expiring he had value. We didn't need his value to add to a deal which already favored Hou. Yet we decided to keep Salmons and his 7.6M salary next year? Why?
Targeting Patterson also makes little sense. He's a stretch 4 which we have little use for. I fully expect for him to be put in iso situations and struggle, which is regular for most of our roster. But he's not really a good defender, more adequate, a terrible rebounder and adds no size. Why didn't we at least go after Parsons, a young SF coming into his own, still with upside? Why not at least a cheaper project PF with more skill, size and upside in Monteijunas? Why not at least a floor spacer at SF in Delfino?
My biggest problem with this is the thought behind it. That we didn't address a real problem. That what we target is a soft stretch 4. That instead of trying to fix our SF problem or defensive problem, we once again instead go for offense. And yes, in theory a stretch 4 could work with Cuz, but not in this system with this coach. I've seen some say he'll spread the floor for Cuz and Reke. Spread the floor for Cuz iso's 18 ft out? Spread the floor for Reke when we've seen how much Smart takes advantage of using MT/Jimmer/Brooks to spread the floor and allow Reke to attack with shooters around him? In practice and in theory are two different things, and in practice from what we've seen this won't add much.
First off, I am not a fan of stretch 4's although I can understand the theory behind going after them. We however have little use for a stretch 4. A stretch 4 is used firstly, off having a back to the basket center who does most of his work on the block, which would provide spacing, a kickout threat and prevent the other big from doubling. Cuz, in our offense, is mostly an elbow extended iso player, so that right there negates a large part of what a stretch 4 does, unless you like having both your bigs 18ft or more from the basket.
Secondly, a stretch 4 is best used in an offense based on guard penetration, where he spaces the floor and gets his looks off kickouts, off penetration. Unfortunately, we rarely see our guards penetrating and kicking(would if Reke got to see the ball more with the floor spread) and instead have trigger fingered guards who look for the first jumper they see, and either don't or can't break down their man and penetrate. We usually have IT dancing around up top, either looking to swing it to a guard popping out or he enters it into JT in the post or Cuz elbown extended. If he gets a screen he's coming off to shoot or get to the rim, not penetrating to kick.
So really, we have no use for a stretch 4 given our idiot coach and idiotic system.
Then, I want to ask why we included Cisco? We're already trading the #5 pick with upside on the first year of his rookie deal, so why did we not at the least include Salmons? Cisco could have come off the books anyway a few months from now. As an expiring he had value. We didn't need his value to add to a deal which already favored Hou. Yet we decided to keep Salmons and his 7.6M salary next year? Why?
Targeting Patterson also makes little sense. He's a stretch 4 which we have little use for. I fully expect for him to be put in iso situations and struggle, which is regular for most of our roster. But he's not really a good defender, more adequate, a terrible rebounder and adds no size. Why didn't we at least go after Parsons, a young SF coming into his own, still with upside? Why not at least a cheaper project PF with more skill, size and upside in Monteijunas? Why not at least a floor spacer at SF in Delfino?
My biggest problem with this is the thought behind it. That we didn't address a real problem. That what we target is a soft stretch 4. That instead of trying to fix our SF problem or defensive problem, we once again instead go for offense. And yes, in theory a stretch 4 could work with Cuz, but not in this system with this coach. I've seen some say he'll spread the floor for Cuz and Reke. Spread the floor for Cuz iso's 18 ft out? Spread the floor for Reke when we've seen how much Smart takes advantage of using MT/Jimmer/Brooks to spread the floor and allow Reke to attack with shooters around him? In practice and in theory are two different things, and in practice from what we've seen this won't add much.
Last edited:
Why? The franchise is in such a good place. I'm not being sarcastic. With just the smallest amount of vision, anybody is able to see that things are REALLY going to turn around in about 2 months. I'm SURE the players know the inside scoop on how this is set to play out. That's not counting your chickens, that's being realistic about your future. Cuz knows that this is THE sleeper franchise of the league. Absolute worst case for him is he has super rich owners in a new city. Best case is he turns this franchise around in Sac with super rich owners who want to win, and is in a new arena. All of that translates to more endorsement money, success, fame, winning... everything they want. I'm SURE he communicated this to his buddy Patrick.
There, now you're an insider, rather than like one of those uninformed ESPN posters.
There, now you're an insider, rather than like one of those uninformed ESPN posters.
Good coaching or bad coaching you could see if a player had that "it factor" and Robinson did not have it. He looked to be another Shelden Williams. High draft pick with mediocre talent. I still do like Shelden though. LOVED him at Duke.
Not that I am saying that about Patterson or the other two players we got. I don't really much care for them either. I did think Patterson would have been a better rebounder in the NBA though.
Not that I am saying that about Patterson or the other two players we got. I don't really much care for them either. I did think Patterson would have been a better rebounder in the NBA though.
Last edited:
Patterson is not a "soft stretch 4", nor is he some 3pt chucker like Channing Frye or Bargnani who is afraid to bang in the post. Much of Patterson's rebounding issues can be attributed to Houston having 4 stellar rebounders for their positions next to him in the starting 5. He has an extremely versatile offensive game with being a slightly above average defender at the PF position. Most importantly, he's not a guy who's going to come in and start chucking shots.
By no means do I support the trade as it's just further proof of our FO ineptitude. But I do like what Patterson can bring to the table
By no means do I support the trade as it's just further proof of our FO ineptitude. But I do like what Patterson can bring to the table
Just in case you didn't know, Petrie resigned in Portland when they fired Adelman. I think it would have been a bit too much to ask for him to quit again when the Maloofs asked him to fire Adelman again. By the way, here's a tweet I read today.
NBA people I have talked to have said Geoff Petrie was forced to do move for financial reasons. Certainly has to be tough to move someone drafted so high, so fast.
-Marc J. Spears, Yahoo! Sports
I think its obvious that Petrie didn't dream up this trade, but that it was nothing more than a money saving deal for the Maloofs. I'm starting to wonder if the Maloofs are starting to realize that their deal with Seattle might not happen, and with their dislike of Burkle, they decided to do their best to leave him a very unappealing product, while scraping every damm dime out of it they can.
NBA people I have talked to have said Geoff Petrie was forced to do move for financial reasons. Certainly has to be tough to move someone drafted so high, so fast.
-Marc J. Spears, Yahoo! Sports
I think its obvious that Petrie didn't dream up this trade, but that it was nothing more than a money saving deal for the Maloofs. I'm starting to wonder if the Maloofs are starting to realize that their deal with Seattle might not happen, and with their dislike of Burkle, they decided to do their best to leave him a very unappealing product, while scraping every damm dime out of it they can.
As for the value of the trade. My two cents! For starters, I don't think you give up on the 5th pick in the draft 4 months after you drafted him. And that has nothing to do with who is the better player between Robinson and Patterson. If you thought a player is good enough to warrant being the 5th overall pick in the draft, then you give him enough time to prove himself. Its easy to look at Patterson's stats, and say he's the better player right now, and if its the short term you care about, then maybe you can say we got the better of that deal. But if you trying to build a foundation around possible young stars, which means the long term, then we may have screwed ourselves.
This trade really had nothing to do with making the team better. It had everything to do with saving the Maloofs money. However, when the smoke clears, its really a trade of Robinson for Patterson. Everyone else in the trade is window dressing, and on our end, possibly gone at seasons end. As to why we didn't try to include Salmons or some other player, the answer is simple. The deal was to reduce our payroll, and with that in mind, along with what Houston wanted in the trade (yes, the other team does have a say in who they get in return) the trade turned out the way it did. Bear in mind, Houston sent us two ending contracts, and they still have idea's of being a player in the freeagent market this coming offseason. So, they wanted ending contracts in return. Thus Garcia, and Honeycutt.
I do think that Patterson can help us in the short term. He's a smart player with a very very good midrange shot. He's also a pretty good 3 pt shooter, but in actuality, he doesn't take that many of them. Right now, he's a better overall defender than T. Robb is. But thats only because he's been in the league for almost three years, and understands team defense better. Long term, Robinson has the potential to be a very good defender. In the rebounding area, there's no comparison. Robinson's per 36 numbers are 10.9 rebounds, while Pattersons 36 per numbers are 6.6 rebounds. So, bad hands or not, Robinson is the far superior rebounder. A more accurate comparison would be Patterson's first year against Robinsons. Once again, Robinson destroys Patterson in the rebounding area, but almost pulls equal in the points per 36 area. The one advantage Patterson has, and he had it his first year as well, is he has the better shooting percentage.
The bottom line is, what your see is what you get with Patterson. I'm not saying he won't get a little better, but in general, he looks like a good journeyman PF that you'll get consistent contributions from on a daily basis. In T. Robb, you have a player thats already a better rebounder, a better overall athlete, and the potential to just maybe, become a borderline star. And thats with emphasis on the word potential. And remember, Vince Lombardi once said, that the word potential means, "You haven't done anything yet". Anyway, whats done is done, and its time to move on. Time will decide the fate of this trade.
This trade really had nothing to do with making the team better. It had everything to do with saving the Maloofs money. However, when the smoke clears, its really a trade of Robinson for Patterson. Everyone else in the trade is window dressing, and on our end, possibly gone at seasons end. As to why we didn't try to include Salmons or some other player, the answer is simple. The deal was to reduce our payroll, and with that in mind, along with what Houston wanted in the trade (yes, the other team does have a say in who they get in return) the trade turned out the way it did. Bear in mind, Houston sent us two ending contracts, and they still have idea's of being a player in the freeagent market this coming offseason. So, they wanted ending contracts in return. Thus Garcia, and Honeycutt.
I do think that Patterson can help us in the short term. He's a smart player with a very very good midrange shot. He's also a pretty good 3 pt shooter, but in actuality, he doesn't take that many of them. Right now, he's a better overall defender than T. Robb is. But thats only because he's been in the league for almost three years, and understands team defense better. Long term, Robinson has the potential to be a very good defender. In the rebounding area, there's no comparison. Robinson's per 36 numbers are 10.9 rebounds, while Pattersons 36 per numbers are 6.6 rebounds. So, bad hands or not, Robinson is the far superior rebounder. A more accurate comparison would be Patterson's first year against Robinsons. Once again, Robinson destroys Patterson in the rebounding area, but almost pulls equal in the points per 36 area. The one advantage Patterson has, and he had it his first year as well, is he has the better shooting percentage.
The bottom line is, what your see is what you get with Patterson. I'm not saying he won't get a little better, but in general, he looks like a good journeyman PF that you'll get consistent contributions from on a daily basis. In T. Robb, you have a player thats already a better rebounder, a better overall athlete, and the potential to just maybe, become a borderline star. And thats with emphasis on the word potential. And remember, Vince Lombardi once said, that the word potential means, "You haven't done anything yet". Anyway, whats done is done, and its time to move on. Time will decide the fate of this trade.
Last edited:
Unless the Maloof brothers wrote up the exact deal and handed it to Petrie to sign, I still hold him responsible. If the goal was to find a deal to shave money off the payroll this season there were other ways to do it. Historically speaking, Petrie likes dealing with known commodities. Which is why he would rather trade T-Rob than ether Jason Thompson or Marcus Thornton even though they represent bigger salary commitments and neither one is an essential part of rebuilding this team. But from a basketball standpoint, a last place team is better off keeping the top 5 pick and trading the proven vets to teams with holes to fill (ie the Thompson/Thornton for Derrick Williams and filler trade I proposed at the start of the season). Petrie also gave up on an unproven Gerald Wallace because he'd rather bolster his playoff team with journeyman roleplayers and he went on to become an All-Star and one of the most exciting players in the league for 5-6 years. Jason Thompson should have been traded this season anyway, regardless of Maloofery. He was blocking Robinson's development and his value is only going to decline from here.
Taking it a step further, even assuming that Petrie was mandated to save money and to trade T-Rob to do it, given enough time I could still come up with a dozen plausible trades which would accomplish the same thing without being a complete washout from a basketball personnel perspective. For one thing, Houston has legitimate prospects on their roster. Both Terrence Jones and Chandler Parsons are cheaper and better than Patterson. If you're trading a top 5 prospect and expiring contracts you have every right to ask for a lot in return. If Houston says no, there are 28 other teams in the league competing to put together a better roster than their peers. Someone would have given us a better deal. We essentially got their end of the roster filler and their fill-in starting PF by default who was already expendable with Terrancxe Jones waiting in the wings and became doubly so when they just traded for a better player to take his place. When you're trading the best player in the deal, you need to at least make up the difference somehow with prospects, draft picks, or an opportunity to unload undesirable contracts. We got none of that.
Before this trade I looked at our roster and saw 5 guys who might survive the ownership change roster turnover which is likely coming in the off-season: Cousins, Evans, Robinson, Jimmer, Hayes (by virtue of being difficult to trade). That's it. Everyone else is gone. Salmons: Amnesty, Cisco: Expiring, Johnson: Free Agent, Outlaw: Waived, Brooks: Free Agent, Thomas: Trade Bait, Thornton: Trade Bait, Thompson: Trade Bait. Now we're down to 4 players and only 2 of them are actually good. If the team stays in Sacraamento, I don't even really care that the roster has been gutted. With new owners and a new front office there's actually some hope for the future. But that's big picture. What happened here in this trade was inexcusable no matter what direction you look at it.
Taking it a step further, even assuming that Petrie was mandated to save money and to trade T-Rob to do it, given enough time I could still come up with a dozen plausible trades which would accomplish the same thing without being a complete washout from a basketball personnel perspective. For one thing, Houston has legitimate prospects on their roster. Both Terrence Jones and Chandler Parsons are cheaper and better than Patterson. If you're trading a top 5 prospect and expiring contracts you have every right to ask for a lot in return. If Houston says no, there are 28 other teams in the league competing to put together a better roster than their peers. Someone would have given us a better deal. We essentially got their end of the roster filler and their fill-in starting PF by default who was already expendable with Terrancxe Jones waiting in the wings and became doubly so when they just traded for a better player to take his place. When you're trading the best player in the deal, you need to at least make up the difference somehow with prospects, draft picks, or an opportunity to unload undesirable contracts. We got none of that.
Before this trade I looked at our roster and saw 5 guys who might survive the ownership change roster turnover which is likely coming in the off-season: Cousins, Evans, Robinson, Jimmer, Hayes (by virtue of being difficult to trade). That's it. Everyone else is gone. Salmons: Amnesty, Cisco: Expiring, Johnson: Free Agent, Outlaw: Waived, Brooks: Free Agent, Thomas: Trade Bait, Thornton: Trade Bait, Thompson: Trade Bait. Now we're down to 4 players and only 2 of them are actually good. If the team stays in Sacraamento, I don't even really care that the roster has been gutted. With new owners and a new front office there's actually some hope for the future. But that's big picture. What happened here in this trade was inexcusable no matter what direction you look at it.
Last edited: