Beno agrees to terms with Kings
- Thread starter NyfdRIP343
- Start date
Beno was 20-21 when he played for Maccabi Tel Aviv. He is now 26. He also didn't exactly show that he's a legit NBA player until the right opportunity came along this year with the Kings. It's really a combination of having to make tremendous improvement to his game and getting the right opportunity to excel.
Although I can see where you are coming from, there just werent really many options for us in free agency. It was either give Beno a mid level contract or trade and shell out big bucks for either guys nearing 30 or someone that has had serious injuries in the past. So basically we had to get Beno back the minute Bayless was drafted one spot ahead of us.
Thi is all so very true, except perhaps the Bayless part. I am not convinced that the Kings would have tried to make Bayless their PG of the future, even if he had been around.
In order to get this rebuild in full gear, the point guard position is perhaps the most important, since the point has to make the team go, regardless of whether or not the point you have is the one you want forever and ever. Without that critical piece, you run the real risk of not having other, perhaps more coveted, players develop to their full potential, at least on one end of the floor.
Beno is a fine PG, no matter where you place him in the rankings amongst his peers, compared with what was realistically available to us. I was also in the camp of pushing a shorter deal for him, since his "proven period" is so short and the injury bug risk has not yet been erased, but if he had leverage from another team offering the full MLE over a longer period, then what do you do?
I agree with the signing, even though I do not necessarily think that Beno is the long-term solution.
In order to get this rebuild in full gear, the point guard position is perhaps the most important, since the point has to make the team go, regardless of whether or not the point you have is the one you want forever and ever. Without that critical piece, you run the real risk of not having other, perhaps more coveted, players develop to their full potential, at least on one end of the floor.
Beno is a fine PG, no matter where you place him in the rankings amongst his peers, compared with what was realistically available to us. I was also in the camp of pushing a shorter deal for him, since his "proven period" is so short and the injury bug risk has not yet been erased, but if he had leverage from another team offering the full MLE over a longer period, then what do you do?
I agree with the signing, even though I do not necessarily think that Beno is the long-term solution.
That post right there shows how much you lack in knowledge of european basketball! Are you actually aware that player (and the ones much better than Beno) change teams regularly in european competitions?! There are not as many restrictions as here and contracts can be broken easily.
Just because Beno stayed for one season in Maccabi, it is no reflection on him as a player what so ever. Much bigger names in basketball have stayed for the same length of time in european clubs and have gone on to bigger and better things.
I understand that you are against this move by the Kings but seriously, if this is the best you have to offer as your counter argument, I suggest you just give up now because it just doesn't hold water.
Just because Beno stayed for one season in Maccabi, it is no reflection on him as a player what so ever. Much bigger names in basketball have stayed for the same length of time in european clubs and have gone on to bigger and better things.
I understand that you are against this move by the Kings but seriously, if this is the best you have to offer as your counter argument, I suggest you just give up now because it just doesn't hold water.
Oh, please. While I don't know as much as mighty you about European basketball, I do have the ability to discern when a player has bounced around from team to team. My European knowledge is irrelevant here. All I know is we signed a guy for 5 years at a high price who has not played consistently with one employer anywhere near half the length of his new contract. Foolish if you ask me.
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
Last edited:
Oh, please. While I don't know as much as mighty you about European basketball, I do have the ability to discern when a player has bounced around from team to team. My European knowledge here is irrelevant here. All I know is we signed a guy for 5 years at a high price who has not played consistently with one employer anywhere near half the length of his new contract. Foolish if you ask me.
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
Oh, please. While I don't know as much as mighty you about European basketball, I do have the ability to discern when a player has bounced around from team to team. My European knowledge here is irrelevant here. All I know is we signed a guy for 5 years at a high price who has not played consistently with one employer anywhere near half the length of his new contract. Foolish if you ask me.
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
Oh, please. While I don't know as much as mighty you about European basketball, I do have the ability to discern when a player has bounced around from team to team. My European knowledge is irrelevant here. All I know is we signed a guy for 5 years at a high price who has not played consistently with one employer anywhere near half the length of his new contract. Foolish if you ask me.
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
But I will bow out of this discussion because clearly, I know nothing...
Some of the biggest names in european basketball that have gone on to hall of fame status have bounced from team to team. It is not unusual for european superstars to change teams often. The great Aleksandar Djordjevic played for more teams that you could count and in his prime he was without a peer the best player in europe. If Beno can be half the player Djordjevic was, Beno would be stoked.
I don't mind you expressing that you are not happy wbout Beno getting MLE for 5 years but seriously if you are using the "He was at Macabi for one year only" reason, then you seriously do need to quit.
Personally, I'm glad they signed Beno. Cisco and Doubie isn't going to cut it at PG and who else is available that's any better than Beno?
Now with a more experianced Beno starting, we can hope $$ steps up and becomes that dream PG we're looking for.
In the meantime, Beno gets even more experiance at starting pg and that's a positive thing because I think he only gets better.
Now with a more experianced Beno starting, we can hope $$ steps up and becomes that dream PG we're looking for.
In the meantime, Beno gets even more experiance at starting pg and that's a positive thing because I think he only gets better.
Last year in 33 mins (33 games) with the Hawks Bibby’s averages (per game) were
14 points, 5 assists, 3.2 rebounds, 1.1 steals, .80 FT%, .37 3PT FG%, .41 FG%
Meanwhile in 32 mins (65 games) Beno averaged
13 points, 4.3 assists, 3.3 rebounds, 0.9 steals, .85 FT%, .39 3PT FG%, .46 FG%
Stats (while not great, assist-wise for PGs) are pretty comparable, except Beno had better shooting percentages across the board. Considering we were able to replace Bibby’s output at half the price, I say that this was not a bad signing at all, value-wise. However, in games last year, I saw him shoot quite a bit more than I liked in certain situations (not unlike Bibby), when I was thinking he should be facilitating play for his teammates more. If he can improve on being a facilitator and show some leadership (be more of a floor general) I can say I like the signing altogether. Wait and see, I guess.
14 points, 5 assists, 3.2 rebounds, 1.1 steals, .80 FT%, .37 3PT FG%, .41 FG%
Meanwhile in 32 mins (65 games) Beno averaged
13 points, 4.3 assists, 3.3 rebounds, 0.9 steals, .85 FT%, .39 3PT FG%, .46 FG%
Stats (while not great, assist-wise for PGs) are pretty comparable, except Beno had better shooting percentages across the board. Considering we were able to replace Bibby’s output at half the price, I say that this was not a bad signing at all, value-wise. However, in games last year, I saw him shoot quite a bit more than I liked in certain situations (not unlike Bibby), when I was thinking he should be facilitating play for his teammates more. If he can improve on being a facilitator and show some leadership (be more of a floor general) I can say I like the signing altogether. Wait and see, I guess.
Superstars are just rare, that's all you proved. Your best chance to get them has been and always will be having a pick at the top of the draft unless you're in a city like LA, Boston, Miami or NY.
You also conveniently left out the 2003 and 2007 drafts. Each of which had franchise-changing talent at the top.
Further, just because there were only a couple teams that got franchise guys in each of the drafts you mentioned, look at the ones that got them. Orlando with Howard and NO with Paul. Those teams are contenders for the next ten years!
Teams like the Hawks suck at drafting, they've had chances to get franchise players, they just picked other people. If they had picked Paul which everyone in the basketball world thought they should have at the time, they'd have a championship level team right now.
You also conveniently left out the 2003 and 2007 drafts. Each of which had franchise-changing talent at the top.
Further, just because there were only a couple teams that got franchise guys in each of the drafts you mentioned, look at the ones that got them. Orlando with Howard and NO with Paul. Those teams are contenders for the next ten years!
Teams like the Hawks suck at drafting, they've had chances to get franchise players, they just picked other people. If they had picked Paul which everyone in the basketball world thought they should have at the time, they'd have a championship level team right now.
Exactly, superstars that can change franchises by themselves are extremely rare, so that's why tanking isn't a practical option to build a contender. Just because the draft may be the 'best' chance for sac to land that guy doesn't make it a probable chance that's worth it.
The reason I left out '03 was because that was an exceptionally rare draft that's one of the best and deepest in recent memory, and because I wanted to show a time period factor. 2004 was 4 seasons ago, and I wanted to show what the average lottery team gets at that level in a usual draft, and where they are at a few years down the road.
And I didn't include 2007 because it's too early to tell what kind of players these guys will turn out to be. Oden still hasn't played a single game, Durant hasn't done much so far, so there's no merit to your statement that there were franchise-changing talent. It's too early to call any of those guys that.
So as a GM, you would be willing to institute a direction of the team that is focused on tanking for a pick with those odds? I'm not rehashing the same argument. The team can't take that strategy, the fans can't take that strategy, and I don't like that strategy.
So you think it's impossible for Geoff to chose a player who might turn out to be a bust, or possibly choose a decent player but passed up on a guy who would turn out to be a superstar? Nothing is a sure thing, except losing with the tanking strategy. Guaranteed losing for a non-guaranteed future success isn't a risk I would take, so if you disagree, then so be it.
The reason I left out '03 was because that was an exceptionally rare draft that's one of the best and deepest in recent memory, and because I wanted to show a time period factor. 2004 was 4 seasons ago, and I wanted to show what the average lottery team gets at that level in a usual draft, and where they are at a few years down the road.
And I didn't include 2007 because it's too early to tell what kind of players these guys will turn out to be. Oden still hasn't played a single game, Durant hasn't done much so far, so there's no merit to your statement that there were franchise-changing talent. It's too early to call any of those guys that.
So as a GM, you would be willing to institute a direction of the team that is focused on tanking for a pick with those odds? I'm not rehashing the same argument. The team can't take that strategy, the fans can't take that strategy, and I don't like that strategy.
So you think it's impossible for Geoff to chose a player who might turn out to be a bust, or possibly choose a decent player but passed up on a guy who would turn out to be a superstar? Nothing is a sure thing, except losing with the tanking strategy. Guaranteed losing for a non-guaranteed future success isn't a risk I would take, so if you disagree, then so be it.
Last edited:
how is that not a contradiction?
and again...you previously stated that last season you wanted to see them play the kids more. is that "tanking" by your definition?
that was rhetorical, because i know you're going to say no. which is exactly the point the rest of us are trying to make: it's not tanking, we just want the kids to play more. at least i do; i don't want to send our players out there and go "miss on purpose." i want the younger players out there and to do their best. if they win, great, build experience and cohesion. if they don't, better draft position.
and again...you previously stated that last season you wanted to see them play the kids more. is that "tanking" by your definition?
that was rhetorical, because i know you're going to say no. which is exactly the point the rest of us are trying to make: it's not tanking, we just want the kids to play more. at least i do; i don't want to send our players out there and go "miss on purpose." i want the younger players out there and to do their best. if they win, great, build experience and cohesion. if they don't, better draft position.
You continue to flutter about in the same morass that most who have espoused your position before have fallen into.
Probable it may not be (in any single year -- over time its guaranteed). But virtually the ONLY way it definitely is, in particular for a small market team like the Kings. If your chances are 20% of doing it through the draft each year (with a properly executed draft top pick strategy), and 5% (if that) of doing it any other way, then the first choice is stll the better choice. Arguing that the first choice is not "probable" is a copout when you offer no viable alternative that has been proven to work.
While we have wallowed, teams that were behind us have passed us up with their draft strategies. Some teams that were ahead of us have even fallen behind, and then bounced right back up to zoom right back past us with their draft strategies. The coward will of course always point to the ones who have not made it (yet). But he can't prove his point by the negative -- fact is that teams (in fact almost every championship team) DO succeeed with the draft strategy. And until/unless he can prove (and he can't) that other teams are routinely using other ways to get to the top more often, that not EVERY team pulls of the draft strategy is not relevant. MORE contending teams do than through any other method. That is enough.
Probable it may not be (in any single year -- over time its guaranteed). But virtually the ONLY way it definitely is, in particular for a small market team like the Kings. If your chances are 20% of doing it through the draft each year (with a properly executed draft top pick strategy), and 5% (if that) of doing it any other way, then the first choice is stll the better choice. Arguing that the first choice is not "probable" is a copout when you offer no viable alternative that has been proven to work.
While we have wallowed, teams that were behind us have passed us up with their draft strategies. Some teams that were ahead of us have even fallen behind, and then bounced right back up to zoom right back past us with their draft strategies. The coward will of course always point to the ones who have not made it (yet). But he can't prove his point by the negative -- fact is that teams (in fact almost every championship team) DO succeeed with the draft strategy. And until/unless he can prove (and he can't) that other teams are routinely using other ways to get to the top more often, that not EVERY team pulls of the draft strategy is not relevant. MORE contending teams do than through any other method. That is enough.
But what if you get a #2 or #3 draft pick and he is good but not franchise. Yet he is good enough to get you 10 more wins the next season. So then your looking at a #9 - #12 pick. Then that guy is decent but not great and you end up with 13th pick the next year then maybe you get the 8th seed.
What I am saying is the draft is a good way to get the franchise player but, If you only get a real good player he may ruin your chances of getting that franchis player next year.
Kevin Martin is a good example. He is good enough to get you 10 wins vs. if you didn't have him. Franchise no. But do you keep trading off young talent in hopes to get the franchise one day just because the new guy got you another 8-10 wins?
What I am saying is the draft is a good way to get the franchise player but, If you only get a real good player he may ruin your chances of getting that franchis player next year.
Kevin Martin is a good example. He is good enough to get you 10 wins vs. if you didn't have him. Franchise no. But do you keep trading off young talent in hopes to get the franchise one day just because the new guy got you another 8-10 wins?
Lets say we are rid of Miller, KT, SAR, and Artest. so we have a line up of
Beno
Martin
Salmons
Thompson
Hawes
Garcia
Moore
Williams
lets say that team gets you the #9 pick. They what? Maybe you get a PF better than Thompson with that pick then you win 5 more games the next year. Well s**t you did what you were supposed to do you got rid of vets had nothing but kids and still just a little to much talent to get that #1 pick. So this goes on for 2 years then we have a rash of injuries and get the #1 and that guy is a Bogut or an Olowakandi. Then what. the injured players are back the next season and you get the 10th pick or so.
Don't get me wrong I am in favor of rebuilding. I just don't want it to turn into a 10 year rebuild.
To get that franchise you have to be the worst at the right time or be the worst for a long time. I prefer the right time but, we won't get that right time with the talent we already have with or without the vets.
Beno
Martin
Salmons
Thompson
Hawes
Garcia
Moore
Williams
lets say that team gets you the #9 pick. They what? Maybe you get a PF better than Thompson with that pick then you win 5 more games the next year. Well s**t you did what you were supposed to do you got rid of vets had nothing but kids and still just a little to much talent to get that #1 pick. So this goes on for 2 years then we have a rash of injuries and get the #1 and that guy is a Bogut or an Olowakandi. Then what. the injured players are back the next season and you get the 10th pick or so.
Don't get me wrong I am in favor of rebuilding. I just don't want it to turn into a 10 year rebuild.
To get that franchise you have to be the worst at the right time or be the worst for a long time. I prefer the right time but, we won't get that right time with the talent we already have with or without the vets.