Voisin's thrown us under the bus with her review of it
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/20/2835227/voisin-hawes-trade-could-leave.html
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/20/2835227/voisin-hawes-trade-could-leave.html
I don't mind about the grade. Even if he graded the trade an A or an F, I still cannot get why Tyreke's outside shooting has anything to do with Hawes and Nocioni in exchange for Dalembert trade. I am probably missing something between the lines.
Uh oh. We agreed. Does this mean the end of the world is near?
Want to know what the Bee might really be upset about? Voisin pretty much spills the beans with this paragraph:
Interesting that she doesn't make it clear it's the SACRAMENTO BEE (her employer) that carried the story. She also doesn't make it clear that IIRC Hawes wasn't exactly talking to the reporter (Sam Amick) but was talking with another player and was overheard by Amick, who then "broke" the story.
No trade is ever perfect. Yes, we're losing a potentially talented young big but Petrie weighed the options and pulled the trigger on the deal. And Geoff Petrie is in a better position to gauge the possible outcomes than Ailene Voisin, who - if you remember - was very upset the Kings didn't draft Ricky Rubio.
Interesting that she doesn't make it clear it's the SACRAMENTO BEE (her employer) that carried the story. She also doesn't make it clear that IIRC Hawes wasn't exactly talking to the reporter (Sam Amick) but was talking with another player and was overheard by Amick, who then "broke" the story.
No trade is ever perfect. Yes, we're losing a potentially talented young big but Petrie weighed the options and pulled the trigger on the deal. And Geoff Petrie is in a better position to gauge the possible outcomes than Ailene Voisin, who - if you remember - was very upset the Kings didn't draft Ricky Rubio.
This trade was a solid A.
I liked Hawes, and I wasn't really ready to give up on him. But even if he begins to make strides to reach his potential, his strengths are not going to be on the defensive end.
With-out a doubt, what this team needed last year was someone who could defend the post position against the other team's bigs, and hopefully provide some intimidation against opposing players trying to get into the paint.
While would still rather of had Okafor as I think he's a more solid player, Sammy comes in as a close 2nd for potential obtainable defensive-oriented bigs.
I'm fully prepared to let Sammy frustrate me on the offensive-end, and I don't think he's going to be a savior for this team. But he is going to make his presence felt defensively, and he is going to make this team better than it was last year.
So though I don't like losing the potential talent that Hawes had to offer, we needed a player like Sammy, so from a talent perspective I have to give this an A rating, as I'm looking at the proven defensive talent of Sammy as opposed to the potential offensive talent of Hawes.
From a contract point of view, we traded our highest paid player, who also had no desire to play for us. Not only did Nocioni not want to play for us, he also plays his position at the one spot where we need to let the kids have their minutes.
So we cleared out a log-jam at our crowded SF position while clearing out the biggest anchor this team had financially.
That's an A+ move in my opinion.
Finally, when looking at Sammy's salary and Hawes' salary something has to be considered.
This was Hawes' last year before we'd have to look to sign him to a new contract. If he flopped this year, we'd just let him go and not gain anything from him in terms of using him as an asset.
If he played well or showed some signs, we'd have to decide if we should lock him up with another contract.
Moving Hawes now, means that we got value from him now, and are not faced with the decision of trying to decide if we should try to sign him long-term in the hopes that he reaches his potential.
For Sammy it's the same thing. His 12 million come off the books after this year, so we can see how he's playing, and either look to re-sign him long-term under the new CBA rules, or if he isn't playing well, look to trade him at the deadline for some extra goodies.
Either way, it will be a win-win for us.
So all-around, from a talent perspective, to a log-jam perspective, to a salary perspective, this was just a great trade for Petrie.
I really hope that this move is just a sign of more great moves for this franchise over the next year or two as we attempt to get back into title contention.
I liked Hawes, and I wasn't really ready to give up on him. But even if he begins to make strides to reach his potential, his strengths are not going to be on the defensive end.
With-out a doubt, what this team needed last year was someone who could defend the post position against the other team's bigs, and hopefully provide some intimidation against opposing players trying to get into the paint.
While would still rather of had Okafor as I think he's a more solid player, Sammy comes in as a close 2nd for potential obtainable defensive-oriented bigs.
I'm fully prepared to let Sammy frustrate me on the offensive-end, and I don't think he's going to be a savior for this team. But he is going to make his presence felt defensively, and he is going to make this team better than it was last year.
So though I don't like losing the potential talent that Hawes had to offer, we needed a player like Sammy, so from a talent perspective I have to give this an A rating, as I'm looking at the proven defensive talent of Sammy as opposed to the potential offensive talent of Hawes.
From a contract point of view, we traded our highest paid player, who also had no desire to play for us. Not only did Nocioni not want to play for us, he also plays his position at the one spot where we need to let the kids have their minutes.
So we cleared out a log-jam at our crowded SF position while clearing out the biggest anchor this team had financially.
That's an A+ move in my opinion.
Finally, when looking at Sammy's salary and Hawes' salary something has to be considered.
This was Hawes' last year before we'd have to look to sign him to a new contract. If he flopped this year, we'd just let him go and not gain anything from him in terms of using him as an asset.
If he played well or showed some signs, we'd have to decide if we should lock him up with another contract.
Moving Hawes now, means that we got value from him now, and are not faced with the decision of trying to decide if we should try to sign him long-term in the hopes that he reaches his potential.
For Sammy it's the same thing. His 12 million come off the books after this year, so we can see how he's playing, and either look to re-sign him long-term under the new CBA rules, or if he isn't playing well, look to trade him at the deadline for some extra goodies.
Either way, it will be a win-win for us.
So all-around, from a talent perspective, to a log-jam perspective, to a salary perspective, this was just a great trade for Petrie.
I really hope that this move is just a sign of more great moves for this franchise over the next year or two as we attempt to get back into title contention.
I gave it a B. I think Hawes has ALREADY reached his potential. He had 3 years to bulk up and play in the post for the Kings and he never seemed to get any bigger to contend with the stronger centers of the league. Dalembert should be a very good player for the Kings for one year at least. After that, he is a BIG expiring contract that will be a huge barganing chip for Petire to use in free agency AFTER the new CBA is reached. That will be a lot of bang for the buck. Noc has kinda worn out his welcome here in Sacto. That is pretty hard to do the way Sacto fans worship their players. He was mouthing off in every spanish tabloid how badly he wanted out of Sac. Well, I hope he likes the way the Newspapers and fans treat him in Philly!
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I agree. If you're msising something between the lines, so am I because his statement makes absolutely no sense at all to me either...
Uh oh. We agreed. Does this mean the end of the world is near?
Uh oh. We agreed. Does this mean the end of the world is near?
BTW, there are a lot of your posts already that I agree point by point. But you were so thorough on those posts that I cannot think of anything else to add.