Oh well. This ain't the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
Dalembert Signing...with Houston!!
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
Oh well. This ain't the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Fireplug
Bench
Basically fate screwed us once again. We had seriously upgraded at the center position with Chuck Hayes and fate stole him from us. It is just one of those screwed up situations which we Kings fans are used to having to sigh about and move on. Daly would have been a nice consolation prize (he is a bottom tier center, but he IS a center after all) but perhaps too many bad feelings kept that one from turning around toward our favor. The way I understand it the Kings will still have to make up the salary of Hayes to get to the cap minimum, right? I am sure they feel they can spend that money better on a center who is perhaps not a black hole on offense with a poor shooting percentage, and perhaps we can make up the rebounding by constantly throwing those fresh athletic bodies we have lying around now at the problem.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I agree. When we have more cap space and flexibility than anyone else in the league, and we're told time and time again this is the summer of spending, the result we're looking at is inexcusable. FO and ownership are to blame. No way around it.
WALTtheWIZ
G-League
I guess. Who do you think would have chosen to come here? I would guess they did make inquiries about all the top guys and were probably told "no thanks." I know we didnt have a great offseason but what we do know is that the FO tried to get some guys and came up short with Dalembert and AK.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Unless of course we were making the biggest offers and people jsut turned them down.
In which case the broke FA system is at least particlaly to blame. Coming to the "boring cow town" for the broke owners who may be leaving after the year means you don't get the guys you want even if you make them the best offers.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
We recinded our offer approximately 1 minute before he said he was signing with Houston. I don't think he signed with Houston because we recinded our offer, but the other way around. WoJo of ESPN said that the two best offers of guarnateed money Dalembert got, came fromt the Kings. In other words, it looks like Dalembert wanted to go to Houston all along, but couldn't get the money he wanted. So he turned back to the kings publicly, even stating that he could live with 7 mil a year for one year with an option on the second. And Wa La, guess what? Houston pops up with something very close to that same offer.
I think the Kings recinded thier offer as quickly as they could when they figured out that Dalembert was using them to get what he wanted from Houston. Now those of you that hate the front office, and most of what the team consists of, can believe what you want. But clearly there was some under the radar stuff going on. And by the way. I don't blame Dalembert at all. He had every right to get the best deal he could from the place where he wanted to play.
Personally I think he wanted Houston because he'd be the number one guy on the block there. With us, he'd have to share the spotlight with Cousins. And, I don't blame him for that either. All he has to do now is live up to the expectations of those that signed him, and the Houston fans.
I think the Kings recinded thier offer as quickly as they could when they figured out that Dalembert was using them to get what he wanted from Houston. Now those of you that hate the front office, and most of what the team consists of, can believe what you want. But clearly there was some under the radar stuff going on. And by the way. I don't blame Dalembert at all. He had every right to get the best deal he could from the place where he wanted to play.
Personally I think he wanted Houston because he'd be the number one guy on the block there. With us, he'd have to share the spotlight with Cousins. And, I don't blame him for that either. All he has to do now is live up to the expectations of those that signed him, and the Houston fans.
TehSwimGuy
Bench
Whoa. For a minute I thought we were talking about losing Vlade or something. This is Dalembert. As much as we seem to espouse him, he's not very good. The type of guy the Kings could definitely use, yes. But he's not exactly a Vlade or Shaq presence. If we're a great team this year, we are. If we're not, we're not. Dalembert won't be any sort of season changer.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
That's quite ridiculous to say. Go look at our record with a healthy Daly/Cousins last year, and compare them to our record without Daly, and only Cousins. Stats as well. Rebounding. Def FG%. Points in the paint. There is a considerable difference, which I'm sure you're aware of, so why do you choose to ignore it?
I'm confused. I don't think Daly is chopped liver, but he played 80 games last year. DMC played 81. We won 24 games. How good could our record have been with both of them? 24-56?
I wish we could have kept him, but I never really expected us to.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Yeah, he played 81, but started 46, while battling groin/knee injuries, and a crowded frontline. After we traded Landry, which was a little after Daly became healthy, he started. Knee problems did creep up again towards the end, but he still started. Look at the games both Daly and Cousins started. He left a huge statistical imprint.
Elektrik
Starter
Truer words have not been spoken. As far as Dally goes....he was a free agent and he did what he did to play where he wanted. He had that right. Geoff Petrie failed...yet again...to get a deal done. He should have seen it coming. I think most people did. He was schnuckered and was played by Dalembert and his agent. Shame on Petrie. He has to understand that free agents are not attracted to Sacramento, ergo, he is going to have to pay a little more. He also has to be quicker on the draw. The money that was alloted to free agency has yet to be spent and there are no longer any quality free agents left other than that pipe dream of Kirilenko which does not give us the same dynamic that Dalembert would have given us anyway. Petrie has been running around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to spend money but noone wants it. What does that tell you about Sacramento and more importantly...ownership? What has he really done in this big season of free agency where we were supposedly going to spend big money. He signed Thornton...which was a given. At least he dint $#@& that up. He signed Chuck Hayes (without considering Dally first) who noone really wanted anyway. That blew up in his face unfortunatley. He tried to sign Jamal Crawford, who signed with Portland instead and he tried to lure AK away from the motherland. He's still there, with no apparent desire to return to the USA or the NBA. The signing of Travis Outlaw, who pretty much flat out sucks, is a joke, and last but not least, he failed to get it done with Dalembert. Whether things happened that were not in his control is irrellevent. He has done a terrible job in free agency. I think he has been living off his reputation far too long and its time people stop looking at him as the second coming of GM's. Lets call it like it folks. Petrie is at best, an average to below average GM, and add the brothers Magoof into the equation with their nonsense along with the potential moving of the team to Anaheim, its no wonder players dont want to come here. Even with millions of dollars on the table. Sad...but true.
Elektrik
Starter
Totally agree
I forgot about the Landry trade. That did increase his role with the team. There were a lot of things that happened at the same time, though, so I don't know how accurate it is to say that he was the primary reason for the improvement. Thornton was a huge factor, obviously. Daly did leave a huge statistical imprint, as you say. But we still weren't winning a whole lot of games.
Let me ask you this: What should the Kings front office have done differently with regard to Daly? Offer more money? How much more? $20 million, two years?
I don't think he wanted to be here, personally. And if it was going to take that kind of money to keep him, I'm glad we didn't give it to him. In that respect, I agree with what the other poster was saying: We're not going to be a playoff contender with Daly if we're not a playoff contender without him. I think last year proved that. I'd rather have him than not, but if we're going to pay him like he's an elite big man, maybe we should get a little more out of him than the five or six wins he might have been directly responsible for last year. Because if it was going to take $20 million over two years to get him to stay, then we're talking about a lot of cheddar per win. Is he worth it? I don't think so.
Elektrik
Starter
Hey, what Sammy did was just business and we came out on the short end of the stick. We'll get over it. OP however, and his atrocities, will forever be the most hated King of all time.
TehSwimGuy
Bench
Thornton was huge though. You'd have to take him out of the equation, because that's another major variable.
Elektrik
Starter
Wow! Exactly the way I feel! Simpatico!
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Don't think I said he's the primary reason for improvement, I responded to a poster saying removing Daly wouldn't matter much, and he's "not that good". Well, he was a key part to what little success we had, and when healthy and starting, the stats showed it. Can't remove Daly, without replacing him, without a negative affect, which was disagreeing with the other posters stance that losing him wouldn't matter much.
As for what I would have done? Offered more to Daly. Done it much sooner, if we weren't going to go after a Chandler/Gasol/Nene/Jordan. But we didn't go after any shotblockers, and went after the short Chuck Hayes. I feel bad saying this due to Chucks condition, but I wasn't high on the signing, and even with the signing, didn't think we had shotblocking, or an intimidator inside. I thought all along not going after a taller, athletic defensive presence was a mistake, and I don't think our FO had any desire to go after that. All sign point to them wanting Chuck, and then being very happy with that frontline.
So me, I would have gone aggressively after a shotblocker/defensive presence very aggressively, the minute free agency started. I disagree with the strategy from the getgo, the start of free agency. I'd rather overpay for Chandler/Nene/Gasol/Jordan/Daly, than have the frontline we currently have. Some are afraid to overpay for a defensive center, yet here we are, without one, and under the salary cap floor.
Yes we had Hayes, but I never liked that. Could we have had one of the bigger name centers? Maybe/ Maybe not. We don't know. It seemed that our attention was on Hayes, instead of acquiring a larger shotblocker next to Cousins. So would something be different? Hard to tell. I don't think we were ever serious about going after a defensive center, so what if we had?
Also what would contribute to us not agreeing, is that I would pay more for defensive center than I think you would. I'd overpay.
TehSwimGuy
Bench
Just to note, from the several you'd be willing to overpay for...
Nene, yes, Gasol, yes, I don't remember Chandler's or Jordan's stats right off hand. How much would you be willing to overpay for Daly? I think if we'd gone after him first thing then there wouldn't have even been a question. I wouldn't want to overpay him as much as I'd be willing to pay for Nene or Gasol.
Plus, it seems as if even if we overpaid, he was using Sac as leverage to get probably a better deal from Houston. Like Superman said, if we're going to pay him like an elite big man, I'd expect results like an elite big man.
I agree we need a great center. But I feel we should be willing to pay well for a great one, than settle for Daly.
Nene, yes, Gasol, yes, I don't remember Chandler's or Jordan's stats right off hand. How much would you be willing to overpay for Daly? I think if we'd gone after him first thing then there wouldn't have even been a question. I wouldn't want to overpay him as much as I'd be willing to pay for Nene or Gasol.
Plus, it seems as if even if we overpaid, he was using Sac as leverage to get probably a better deal from Houston. Like Superman said, if we're going to pay him like an elite big man, I'd expect results like an elite big man.
I agree we need a great center. But I feel we should be willing to pay well for a great one, than settle for Daly.
TehSwimGuy
Bench
I mean, no one on the ESPN report is particularly happy (from Houston). One of the comments was "9 years in the NBA, 3 play off appearances, all first round knockouts. The ultimate bad patch job of a center", and "Hooray, The Rockets just locked up 9th place in the West!". So not exactly in awe of him.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
It's tough to tell, because as I said, I don't think we went aggressively after a defensive center from the start. Don't think it was part of the plan.
I would have engaged all of them in serious talks. Let me put it this way. I would have offered Nene/Chandler/Gasol 10M, without hesitating. Now, we're paying Outlaw 3M per. I didn't think that signing was necessary, and definitely not as important as a center/pf alongside Cousins. So that other 3M per, which we're paying over 4 years, I would have been more than happy tacking that on top of the 10M I would have no problem offering in the first place, rather then spending it on Outlaw. So that's 13M per, right there, if we just don't sign Outlaw.
We offered Hayes 5M per. That's on top of Outlaw at 3M per. So 8M per for those two, and I don't think we're better off. I consider that largely a waste. Let's say 4M of it is a waste, to be fair. Just split it down the middle. Well, then I'd rather offer 10M to one of those guys, and waste another 4M on top of it, with one of them, compared to wasting 4M on Outlaw/Hayes. So that's 14M per, right there. Yes it's overpaying, say by 4M, but I'd much rather do it with a defensive center(which is very importnt for this team), rather than a small pf,and backup sf. 14M seems like a lot, but it's how we allocate our money elsewhere which either makes it doable, or asinine.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
And they all would have laughed at you. Based on what they all ended up signing for you'd have had to offer them at least 15$ million just to get their attention.
Telemachus
Starter
While I agree that Daly's minutes increased after the trade, I think the addition of Thorton to the roster had more to do with the Kings better play. You can't take what he did for the Kings out of the equation.
I think thornton played extremely well last year. But thway this current team is constructed, without a dally type presence, is going to get killed nightly on the boards and at the rim. That equals lots of losses especially for a team without an offensive system that claims its going to get out and run a lot.
Telemachus
Starter
I never said that losing Daly wouldn't hurt the team. I was merely pointing out that Thorton had more to do with them playing better than Daly getting more minutes IMO.
As for the impact of losing him, that is yet to be seen. The addition of Hickson will help fill his rebounding. I also think that having Tyreke, Thorton, and Salmons up front will help slow down the perimeter penetration much better than last season. That will give our bigs more time to rotate and hopefully cut off the lane. Last year there were too many times when our bigs had barely set up defensively and were already having guards in the lane.
CVKingsfan
Bench
Manipulated and deceived – this is how I feel and what bothers me most about Dalembert during the last 24 hours! Is this what has become accepted as the normal way of doing business for NBA players seeking the best deal? Based on all the supportive comments from those who are saying they do not blame Dalembert for doing whatever was necessary to get the best deal possible in this thread, I have to say manipulation and deception has become accepted as normal. If all the rumors are true and if Dalembert and his agent deliberately manipulated and deceived Sacramento, including us (the fans), so he could gain what he wanted from Houston then I am extremely happy he is not a King! I would rather have much less talented player with integrity, or go without a player, than accept one who is dishonest and of questionable character! Good riddance Mr. Dalembert!
Obviously.
I'm not advocating frugality. I just think there are a lot of things in play right now, and if Daly means the difference between a 13th place finish and a 10th place finish, and it costs $10/year to keep him, then its not cost-effective, nor is it a good splurge. He's not selling any tickets, he's not helping the bottom line, and he's not really putting us on the map in the Western conference.
As for the other variables, it might be that the Maloofs are trying to keep all their options open. Its a lot easier to sell if you don't have bad contracts for one dimensional 30 year olds.
I would rather have Daly than not, but I don't think he's so important that you overpay for him. Especially not that significantly.
We didn't have a shot at Nene. Or Chandler. Or Gasol. I think that's all pretty obvious. Maybe we could have pried Deandre Jordan from the Clips, but unlikely, given their right of first refusal. Even still, do you want to pay that stiff $12 million/year? He's a more limited Chandler. You have to be smart about this stuff. I don't think paying these one dimensional big men elite level money is smart at all.
