chances of signing Dalembert?

[RookieOfTheDay]

he's soft as a baby's bottom. A fat baby. That's his glaring weakness. He is a "power" forward who doesn't like to bang, who isn't a real post threat, who can be muscled on the boards, and who's offense is a midrange jumper. Yes, he's one of the better PFs in the league, he is a skilled offensive player, but he's a weenie, and looked it against Chandler. That's before we get to the lack of mental toughness.

Before we had an offensive big, when we needed one, I considered him, as I've said. Now that we have our offensive big, there is NO room for him. He in fact flies directly in the face of the physical, tough, rebounding team we are putting together. For our team I would take Dalembert every day and twice on Sundays.

Here's a query -- do you think Dallas would trade Chandler for him? Shake your head. In fact when it comes time to win titles, Tysons Chandler is MORE important than Chris Bosh. Think when was the last time a title team DIDN'T have Tyson Chandler on their team? I cna tell you when that was -- the Jordan Bulls, who only had Dennis Rodman and a 7'2" center named Luc Longley. Since that time its been Shaq, and Duncan/Robinson, and Ben Wallace and Perkins and Bynum and Chandler...you get beyond your superstar, the next greatest common denominator on championship teams is the lane clugging rebounding physical big man. The skilled jumpshooting weenie big man comes somewhat lower on the list.

It wouldn't make sense for Dallas because they have Dirk. They don't need a good PF. Also, Chandler is better than Dalembert as well. He has a better FG% and unlike Dalembert actually gets an assist on occasion. Plus he's a few years younger. Overall Chandler>>Dalembert.

 

[Bricklayer]

It wouldn't make sense for Dallas because they have Dirk. They don't need a good PF. Also, Chandler is better than Dalembert as well. He has a better FG% and unlike Dalembert actually gets an assist on occasion. Plus he's a few years younger. Overall Chandler>>Dalembert.

First of all that assist quote is strange. Did you even watch the Kings last year? Or are you just going off of old reps? Chandler is not a passer. Dalembert surprised just about everyone by showing that he actually can be for you with a little of Coachie's influence, to the degree we were letting him run old Brad Miller sets from the top of the key hitting backdoor cuttters. Secondly of course Dalembert has been much more durable than Chandler over his career. In the last 5 years he's missed a grand total of TWO games, playing in 408 of his last 410 gms.

I have always liked Tyson Chandler. Then again, the reasons I like Tyson Chandler are the exact same reason I like Samuel Dalembert.

Tyson Chandler career:
27.6min 8.3pts (.568 .000 .626) 8.8reb 0.8ast 0.5stl 1.4blk 1.6TO 3.1PF

Samuel Dalembert career:
26.1min 8.1pts (.520 .000 .696) 8.3reb 0.5ast 0.5stl 1.9blk 1.5TO 3.1PF

calling anybody >> over anybody between two players that similar shows a warped viewpoint. Just because one guy got some TV time this season does not suddenly change the relationship between the players.

As an aside, a center's shooting % is going to have a tendency to be higher when he's spent the last half of his career playing next to Chris Paul and Jason Kidd, as opposed to Allen Iverson and Tyreke Evans.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

First of all that assist quote is strange. Did you even watch the Kings last year? Or are you just going off of old reps? Chandler is not a passer. Dalembert surprised just about everyone by showing that he actually can be for you with a little of Coachie's influence, to the degree we were letting him run old Brad Miller sets from the top of the key hitting backdoor cuttters. Secondly of course Dalembert has been much more durable than Chandler over his career. In the last 5 years he's missed a grand total of TWO games, playing in 408 of his last 410 gms.

I have always liked Tyson Chandler. Then again, the reasons I like Tyson Chandler are the exact same reason I like Samuel Dalembert.

Tyson Chandler career:
27.6min 8.3pts (.568 .000 .626) 8.8reb 0.8ast 0.5stl 1.4blk 1.6TO 3.1PF

Samuel Dalembert career:
26.1min 8.1pts (.520 .000 .696) 8.3reb 0.5ast 0.5stl 1.9blk 1.5TO 3.1PF

calling anybody >> over anybody between two players that similar shows a warped viewpoint. Just because one guy got some TV time this season does not suddenly change the relationship between the players.

As an aside, a center's shooting % is going to have a tendency to be higher when he's spent the last half of his career playing next to Chris Paul and Jason Kidd, as opposed to Allen Iverson and Tyreke Evans.

Just because their production is similar doesn't make them similar players. I've never seen Chandler take the kind of ill-advised shots that I've seem Dalembert take and I also haven't seen him rack up goaltends the way Dalembert does.

 

[bajaden]

Just because their production is similar doesn't make them similar players. I've never seen Chandler take the kind of ill-advised shots that I've seem Dalembert take and I also haven't seen him rack up goaltends the way Dalembert does.

While I'll admit that some of Dalemberts misses look ugly, he does make 52% of his shots. Ironicly he and Thompson have the two highest FG% on the team. Well, not ironic really. Usually bigs that play close to the basket take higher percentage shots. But my point is, percentage wise, compared to Donte Greene, he's a superstar. So while I, like you, wince at times with his shot selection, the truth is, he doesn't really hurt the team as much as a Casspi or a Greene taking 10 to 15 shots and only making 42% of them.

As for his goaltending. Its sort of an abstract argument. There's no way to know how many of those shots would have gone in if not interfered with. I could throw out a number like 80% would have gone in anyway, and there's no way for you to disprove that number. No way for me to prove it either. But if true, that would mean only 20% of his goaltends had real meaning. So if he goaltended 100 shots all season long, then only 20 of those mattered in an 82 game season. Not very significant really. Pure speculation of course, but no different than speculating that those goaltends really impacted a game, or the season.

Personally, I'd rather have a player be aggressive and try to block shots, rather than just stand there passively, and watch. Those passive guys are a dime a dozen, and can be easily aquired. There aren't many players like Dalembert out there to be had. He's not perfect! But there aren't many better alternatives out there.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

While I'll admit that some of Dalemberts misses look ugly, he does make 52% of his shots. Ironicly he and Thompson have the two highest FG% on the team. Well, not ironic really. Usually bigs that play close to the basket take higher percentage shots. But my point is, percentage wise, compared to Donte Greene, he's a superstar. So while I, like you, wince at times with his shot selection, the truth is, he doesn't really hurt the team as much as a Casspi or a Greene taking 10 to 15 shots and only making 42% of them.

As for his goaltending. Its sort of an abstract argument. There's no way to know how many of those shots would have gone in if not interfered with. I could throw out a number like 80% would have gone in anyway, and there's no way for you to disprove that number. No way for me to prove it either. But if true, that would mean only 20% of his goaltends had real meaning. So if he goaltended 100 shots all season long, then only 20 of those mattered in an 82 game season. Not very significant really. Pure speculation of course, but no different than speculating that those goaltends really impacted a game, or the season.

Personally, I'd rather have a player be aggressive and try to block shots, rather than just stand there passively, and watch. Those passive guys are a dime a dozen, and can be easily aquired. There aren't many players like Dalembert out there to be had. He's not perfect! But there aren't many better alternatives out there.

Good point. While it may come off like I'm knocking Dalembert, I'm actually not. I hope the Kings can keep him. I saw the impact he had on games at times. I'm just baffled by people who would rather have Dalembert than Bosh or who think Dalembert will make the team better than Bosh could. I even talked to a friend of mine about it who played college basketball and who is a lot more knowledgeable about the sport than I am and even he laughed at the idea of choosing Dalembert over Bosh. It seems like a no-brainer to me that you take Bosh over Dalembert under almost any circumstance. As things stand right now, Bosh would be the best player on the Kings. Dalembert is what, the 4th or 5th best player on the Kings? I'm betting Petrie would pull the trigger on a Dalembert for Bosh trade in a New York Minute and I'd bet 29 other GMs would too.

 

[Spike]

Maybe it depends on how you phrase the question. Defensively, I would take Dalembert 100 times out of 100.

We don't need another post whose game is mid-range jump shots. We need someone to keep the opposing team out of the paint. Having a friend who played college b-ball, while a nice perspective, doesn't make yours anymore "right." You'll find that many posters here have played, and coached at all levels (although I'd be surprised if we had an NBAer on here.)

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Maybe it depends on how you phrase the question. Defensively, I would take Dalembert 100 times out of 100.

We don't need another post whose game is mid-range jump shots. We need someone to keep the opposing team out of the paint. Having a friend who played college b-ball, while a nice perspective, doesn't make yours anymore "right." You'll find that many posters here have played, and coached at all levels (although I'd be surprised if we had an NBAer on here.)

I didn't claim that it made it right. That would be argument from authority. I was just pointing it out because admittedly, I'm not an expert myself.

 

[cuad]

I read someone's post a long time ago and it said that Dalembert was going to resign with us cause we have tons of cap space and that at his age it will be his last pay day. Plus we rly need him out here.