rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Then Petrie should be given a drug test.
Kings extend offer to Chuck Hayes - 4 yr $20 mil
- Thread starter pupsingh
- Start date
Then Petrie should be given a drug test.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
Elektrik
Starter
Im too lazy to pull up comparable offensive stats between Barkley and Hayes but, be assured that Charles Barkley dominates the stat line in all categories compared to Chuck Hayes. The two shouldnt even be mentioned together at the same time. As far as Grant is concerned, he is, has, and will always be THE Maloof mouthpiece. Nothing new there He knows where his bread is buttered. It seems that our Kings teams seem to be nothing more than a bunch of no-names. Hard to get excited about a bunch of guys that really havent done much of anything as far as winning as concerned. This is a star league and while potential for stardom is there for Reke and Cousins, neither has attined that status IMO. Since we have the money, we better spend it on a star.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
I don't see a lot of people defending this move, so I'm going to give it a shot.
Before touching the Hayes move, we have to assume Dalembert was gone. I think there is no way we go after Hayes if Dalembert was still an option. EVEN if the money we were offering was more than anyone else, unless we beat a deal by 4 mil he was out. Lets be honest here, we thought Dalember was moving on all offseason until Petrie and Cisco mentioned that they would like to have him back. Amick and others said that we contacted Dalembert, and we must have got the impression he was going somewhere else.
Looking at the Hayes deal in a vacuum .. with no teams or players attatched to where he was going, I think the money is right. At the very least he is not grossly overpaid like some others will be this offseason. He is basically the opposite version of Carl Landry. Instead of the undersized blackhole offensive big we got the undersized defensive passing big. And having seen Landry at his worst, I'll take Hayes over him. And I'm willing to bet Carl Landry will make more than 20 mil over 4 years.
Once again, assuming Dalembert was gone, who would make a better realistic pick up? The likes of Chandler/Nene/Gasol/Jordan were never going to come to Sacramento.
And I don't think this means Jason Thompson will be dealt. This is coming from the ultimate 'log jam' hater. I hate hate hate having too many players at the same positions .. especially with this coach, but I don't know if it will be as big of a problem with Hayes as it would have been with a 10mil a year Dalembert.
There is also one other positive with Hayes .. by all accounts he's a really good guy. Could be our Garcia of big men. Everyone should know by now that we need more leaders ... as much as I love Dalembert, I never got the sense that he had anything to do with chemisty in the lockeroom. Don't get me wrong, he's clearly one of the better guys in the league with all of his charity work, but he wasn't a voice for us like I wanted him to be .. he wasn't that voice Tyson Chandler was with the Mavericks. Hayes should bring us some of that.
I don't love the move. I wanted Dalembert as much as anyone .. but I also don't think this is some garbage pickup. I have been much more upset with some of Petrie's other moves.
And anyone who thinks we 'used up all our cap space' is just wrong. We still have as much room as anyone to do whatever we want. Its just up to the Maloofs to spend it.
Before touching the Hayes move, we have to assume Dalembert was gone. I think there is no way we go after Hayes if Dalembert was still an option. EVEN if the money we were offering was more than anyone else, unless we beat a deal by 4 mil he was out. Lets be honest here, we thought Dalember was moving on all offseason until Petrie and Cisco mentioned that they would like to have him back. Amick and others said that we contacted Dalembert, and we must have got the impression he was going somewhere else.
Looking at the Hayes deal in a vacuum .. with no teams or players attatched to where he was going, I think the money is right. At the very least he is not grossly overpaid like some others will be this offseason. He is basically the opposite version of Carl Landry. Instead of the undersized blackhole offensive big we got the undersized defensive passing big. And having seen Landry at his worst, I'll take Hayes over him. And I'm willing to bet Carl Landry will make more than 20 mil over 4 years.
Once again, assuming Dalembert was gone, who would make a better realistic pick up? The likes of Chandler/Nene/Gasol/Jordan were never going to come to Sacramento.
And I don't think this means Jason Thompson will be dealt. This is coming from the ultimate 'log jam' hater. I hate hate hate having too many players at the same positions .. especially with this coach, but I don't know if it will be as big of a problem with Hayes as it would have been with a 10mil a year Dalembert.
There is also one other positive with Hayes .. by all accounts he's a really good guy. Could be our Garcia of big men. Everyone should know by now that we need more leaders ... as much as I love Dalembert, I never got the sense that he had anything to do with chemisty in the lockeroom. Don't get me wrong, he's clearly one of the better guys in the league with all of his charity work, but he wasn't a voice for us like I wanted him to be .. he wasn't that voice Tyson Chandler was with the Mavericks. Hayes should bring us some of that.
I don't love the move. I wanted Dalembert as much as anyone .. but I also don't think this is some garbage pickup. I have been much more upset with some of Petrie's other moves.
And anyone who thinks we 'used up all our cap space' is just wrong. We still have as much room as anyone to do whatever we want. Its just up to the Maloofs to spend it.
jcwkings
All-Star
Why do we need guys with potential? If were sure that Tyreke and Cousins are going to be our big 2, then adding supplemental pieces around them, including veterans who are PROFESSIONALS on and of the court is important. Whens the last time a team won an NBA title with a bunch of young guys? cant think of any, championships are won with veterans who know how to play their role. Ever team needs that scrappy post defender who will sacrifice his body for the team.
Kings Faithful
Starter
I think we are hording talent so we can land the big one through a trade. There certainly isn't any "3rd star" players in the free agency aside from Gasol who isn't even realistically available. How else are we supposed to get the 3rd guy? They don't exactly grow on trees.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Hey, never said I'd bail. But if we don't bring in someone who improves this roster, and don't resign Daly, or do our damn best to replace him, then I won't spend money on tickets, and drive up to Sac for games this year. Never said I'll bail. You couldn't get rid of me if you tried, lol. Just won't drop $200 for a Kings game, if the roster stays as it is now, assuming this Hayes crap goes through.
I just don't appreciate being lied to by the owners and Petrie. Now, we still have time. I'm worked up, but free agency hasn't even started. I realize that. But if there is not more.......I mean, we didn't wait years, and have Petrie/owners telling us we'd spend, and spend big, to have resigning a RFA in Thornton, and signing Chuck Hayes be the marquee signings.
rhythmless
Starter
I didn't say guys must come with potential. But there is no reason to pay him 20 million for his body of work IN THE NEW CBA. Who was competing with us?
This is the other thing I don't get. Who else is going to offer Hayes this much? If there is a 2.5 mill exception for those under the cap, doesn't Hayes fit that salary range far more?
Neither the fit nor the money makes sense.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Which is probably why all the good teams are engaged in bidding wars for the big shotblockers, and we could wrap up the chihuahua for $5mil per.
Note: chewing away at our cap for a middling undersized scrapper becomes a much much better move if we somehow ALSO score the shotblocker that signing Hayes doesn't cover in the least. Get both Hayes and a shotblocker and it sucks for JT, but you approach critical mass for actually becoming a defensive team. Sign Hayes INSTEAD of a shotblocker and you are a blithering idiot, and I wish wish wish I could be the GM across from you and pound your midgets into dust just as I have been doing for decades.
I think I was wrong. This deal makes more sense if you look at Chuck Hayes as a replacement for J.J. Hickson. With a resigned Dalembert, J.J. Hickson's responsibility would have been to chase the quicker PFs around that Cousins, Thompson and Dalembert could not. That role is probably too much to expect from J.J. Hickson, while Chuck Hayes is probably the NBA's best player for that role.
I think now think that the Dalembert or Dalembert replacement window is still open, while J.J. Hickson is on his way out.
You beat me to it, except I think J.J. Hickson is the one in trouble because I think Jason Thompson > Hickson.
Larry David
Starter
I've been reading about the trade where petrie sends out two borderline starters making 5 million each for a star player making 10 for 8 years. Still waiting for that to happen.
It's harder to make trades when your roster is cluttered with overpaid 8th men. That's why we had to wait for three years of hell (well, really it's because our owners are going under). And as soon as he got to that off season, he took on Salmons and over paid Hayes.
Petrie is great at picking players but cannot manage a cap to save his life.
kingofthejungle
G-League
I'm pleased
Chuck Hayes started at center for the Houston Rockets last year! In that role, he is definetly a below average NBA player. Buy Hayes will likely be the fourth big on the Kings and backing the power forward position--a completely different story. The guy is the shortest STARTING CENTER in modern NBA history, so why can't he be a high level backup power forward for the next 4 years while providing the veteran presence this team so badly needs?
Pros:
Good value at 4 years 20 million in an offseason with overpriced free agents.
Probably undervalued because his game isn't glitzy.
Relatively young at 28.
Great one on one defender against power forwards with surprising foot speed.
Does not fall for pump fakes and excellent at stripping the ball.
In no way selfish and knows his limits on offense.
Low usage player on offense and an underrated passer.
An efficient rebounder and brings intangibles that are not on the stat sheet.
A leader, great model for our youngins, and consumate professional.
Will not pout or demand minutes because he knows his role.
Cons:
Undersized even for power forwards (but actually 6'7" in shoes per Draft Express with a 6'10" wingspan).
Poor shooter and horrendous free throw stroke.
Does not provide shot blocking presence.
Note. Claiming that the Kings are throwing out too much money for Hayes and that other teams have not expressed is ignorant. Interest in Hayes has been clearly documented by at least four other teams.
Go ahead and compare Hayes with Chandler and, other than their physical profile (height and wingspan), I challenge others to reveal significant differences. NEITHER are great shot blockers. Both are great one on one defenders who understand team defense. Both are good rebounders. Both are low usage and know their limitations. Both are team players, veterans, and seem to work hard despite playing time and touches.
Hayes: 28 years old, 28 minutes a game, 8 points, 8 rebounds, 53% FG, 66% FT, 3 assists, 1 steal, 1 turnover, and nearly 1 block a game--5 million per year.
Chandler: 29 years old, 28 minutes a game, 10 points, 9 rebounds, 65% FG, 73% FT, almost 0 assists, 0.5 steals, 1 turnover, and 1 block a game--???????????? per year.
So Chandler shot a significantly higher percentage from the field but he also had Nowitzki and his championship friends to space the floor. Otherwise, Chandler bsically gets you one more put back layup and one more rebound in the same minutes. Hayes is the the better passer by far, so do the math.
I agree with those that feel a high level shot blocker is an important part of any championship puzzle. I just don't trust Dalembert. His effort is inconsistent and dependent on how he's featured on offense. He demands minutes or gets upset, which is okay as long as you don't broadcast that and hurt team chemistry. He's on the wrong side of 30. His offense is limited but he seems to be the only one who doesn't know it. Lastly, Dally is not a longterm rebuilding piece, so why spend 10 million per year on a guy who has 3-4 years left at an elite level and will probably be unreliable during that period anyway (see track record). A better argument can be made to grab Chandler, but his statistics are not significantly different from Chuck Hayes, who may be as much as one third of Chandler's asking price...
And lets be realistic. The Kings core is Evans and Cousins and that will hopefully be the case for the next decade. If they play to expectations, both will need close to max contract to retain. Consider the small market and financial state of the Maloofs, while considering the longterm interests of this team. Ultimately, the rest of the guys are designed to compliment Evans and Cousins, even second tier team stars like Thornton and first round picks such as Jimmer. Hayes is an ideal COMPLIMENTARY piece and won't handcuff the Kings' cap situation in years to come.
Front Court Depth Chart:
PF: Hickson (25 minutes) /Hayes (23 minutes)
C: Cousins (30 minutes) / Thompson (23 minutes) / Whiteside (0 minutes)
That's a reasonable 4 man rotation with Whiteside as your garbage time/injury guy. I'm not in love with starting Hickson, but that would seem to be the case with the personnel since Thompson has the size to backup at center. But Hickson is what, 23 or 24, so he may just surprise us?
Also, I realize that comparing Landry and Hayes is tempting, both 6'7" big men that played for the Rockets, but that's where their similarities end. Comparing the two any further is a mental short cut IMHO.
Lastly, signing Hayes is not a return to "midget ball." Cousins has the same standing reach as Shaq. Whiteside's is slightly greater when not wearing flip flops (see last year's combine). Thompson is a full bodied 6'11" with a good wingspan and improved athleticism (really impressed at Goon Squad Classic) That's 3 6'11" or taller guys right there, which is comprable to other high level teams.
Chuck Hayes started at center for the Houston Rockets last year! In that role, he is definetly a below average NBA player. Buy Hayes will likely be the fourth big on the Kings and backing the power forward position--a completely different story. The guy is the shortest STARTING CENTER in modern NBA history, so why can't he be a high level backup power forward for the next 4 years while providing the veteran presence this team so badly needs?
Pros:
Good value at 4 years 20 million in an offseason with overpriced free agents.
Probably undervalued because his game isn't glitzy.
Relatively young at 28.
Great one on one defender against power forwards with surprising foot speed.
Does not fall for pump fakes and excellent at stripping the ball.
In no way selfish and knows his limits on offense.
Low usage player on offense and an underrated passer.
An efficient rebounder and brings intangibles that are not on the stat sheet.
A leader, great model for our youngins, and consumate professional.
Will not pout or demand minutes because he knows his role.
Cons:
Undersized even for power forwards (but actually 6'7" in shoes per Draft Express with a 6'10" wingspan).
Poor shooter and horrendous free throw stroke.
Does not provide shot blocking presence.
Note. Claiming that the Kings are throwing out too much money for Hayes and that other teams have not expressed is ignorant. Interest in Hayes has been clearly documented by at least four other teams.
Go ahead and compare Hayes with Chandler and, other than their physical profile (height and wingspan), I challenge others to reveal significant differences. NEITHER are great shot blockers. Both are great one on one defenders who understand team defense. Both are good rebounders. Both are low usage and know their limitations. Both are team players, veterans, and seem to work hard despite playing time and touches.
Hayes: 28 years old, 28 minutes a game, 8 points, 8 rebounds, 53% FG, 66% FT, 3 assists, 1 steal, 1 turnover, and nearly 1 block a game--5 million per year.
Chandler: 29 years old, 28 minutes a game, 10 points, 9 rebounds, 65% FG, 73% FT, almost 0 assists, 0.5 steals, 1 turnover, and 1 block a game--???????????? per year.
So Chandler shot a significantly higher percentage from the field but he also had Nowitzki and his championship friends to space the floor. Otherwise, Chandler bsically gets you one more put back layup and one more rebound in the same minutes. Hayes is the the better passer by far, so do the math.
I agree with those that feel a high level shot blocker is an important part of any championship puzzle. I just don't trust Dalembert. His effort is inconsistent and dependent on how he's featured on offense. He demands minutes or gets upset, which is okay as long as you don't broadcast that and hurt team chemistry. He's on the wrong side of 30. His offense is limited but he seems to be the only one who doesn't know it. Lastly, Dally is not a longterm rebuilding piece, so why spend 10 million per year on a guy who has 3-4 years left at an elite level and will probably be unreliable during that period anyway (see track record). A better argument can be made to grab Chandler, but his statistics are not significantly different from Chuck Hayes, who may be as much as one third of Chandler's asking price...
And lets be realistic. The Kings core is Evans and Cousins and that will hopefully be the case for the next decade. If they play to expectations, both will need close to max contract to retain. Consider the small market and financial state of the Maloofs, while considering the longterm interests of this team. Ultimately, the rest of the guys are designed to compliment Evans and Cousins, even second tier team stars like Thornton and first round picks such as Jimmer. Hayes is an ideal COMPLIMENTARY piece and won't handcuff the Kings' cap situation in years to come.
Front Court Depth Chart:
PF: Hickson (25 minutes) /Hayes (23 minutes)
C: Cousins (30 minutes) / Thompson (23 minutes) / Whiteside (0 minutes)
That's a reasonable 4 man rotation with Whiteside as your garbage time/injury guy. I'm not in love with starting Hickson, but that would seem to be the case with the personnel since Thompson has the size to backup at center. But Hickson is what, 23 or 24, so he may just surprise us?
Also, I realize that comparing Landry and Hayes is tempting, both 6'7" big men that played for the Rockets, but that's where their similarities end. Comparing the two any further is a mental short cut IMHO.
Lastly, signing Hayes is not a return to "midget ball." Cousins has the same standing reach as Shaq. Whiteside's is slightly greater when not wearing flip flops (see last year's combine). Thompson is a full bodied 6'11" with a good wingspan and improved athleticism (really impressed at Goon Squad Classic) That's 3 6'11" or taller guys right there, which is comprable to other high level teams.
Last edited:
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Valiant effort on your part.
But, we don't know if any of those guys would have come. What we do know, supposedly, was that the Kings weren't willing to come close to 10M for Daly. Judging from that, yeah, none of those guys would come if Petrie won't offer more then 8M per. And if that's the case, we're never sniffing the Finals with Petrie.
If we offer market value, or a little above, which we can clearly afford, I think we can attract one of those guys.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I think it's more that Hayes isn't anything to get excited about, talent wise, and on top of it, there is no potential for improvement at his age, stubby height.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You can think whatever you want about JT vs. Hickson, but fact is that Hickson was the guy who blew up down the stretch of the season and who Petrie opportunistically snagged in a trade just this summer. The odds of us shipping him out without even giving him the tryout we clearly envisioned are low to say the least.
Jason Thompson also played very well at the end of last season. His jumper was automatic. He was rebounding. He even had a post game, did not miss even one easy layup and made enough tough ones to catch my attention. I mean, they still looked ugly but they went in.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
A few things ..
You are assuming we had a shot at getting a shotblocker. I'm assuming you're talking about Dalembert. For every 4 interviews with Dalembert mentioning all the other teams he'd like to go to, maybe, maybe1 would mention the Kings. Is it not possible he just didn't want to play here? That is how I make sense of the move. I think Dalembert soured on Sacramento at the beggining of last year with all of that Landry garbage and never thought we were an option for him. He and his agent probly used our cap room as leverage for whatever deal he will eventually sign. Could I be wrong? sure! but doesn't that explanation make the most sense based on the Kings signing a different player?
I also think that just because Houston used him at their 'center' doesn't mean we have to use him for 40 minutes a night on the other teams tallest player ... but I think when we have to play Zach Randolph or Blake Griffin he will come in handy.
Elektrik
Starter
If the maloofs fail to put their money where their mouth has been this time, then they are in deeper trouble that we thought and should do everyone a favor, inclusing themselves, and sell the team. If Petrie cant get us the kind of players that will put this team back to where it belongs than I say that petrie is washed up and shouold be replaced. I'm tired of waiting and I feel like the maloofs financial situations are keeping top tier free agents from even considering signing here.
Larry David
Starter
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the Maloofs called collect into the NBA owners meetings.
No team, with 20+ million in cap, would start their plan with Chuck Hayes at 5 million. That's crazy. Unless the Kings wow everbody with a monster move this weekend, this is trade bad.
However, if the Kings have agreed to trade for Kaman and are moving Thompson it makes more sense.
Thus, giving the Kings: Cousins, and Kaman with Hickson, Hayes, and Whiteside on the bench ... now that would make some sense and give them room to bid next summer.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Pretty much in agreement with this.
If we resign Daly, or get another defensive big that can do what he does, or damn close to it, then this move actually looks good. Daly/or replacement+ Hayes/Hickson in a 6 months period is pretty good, and our frontline has improved.
The problem, and it's a big problem, is that if we don't resign Daly or replace him, then this move is absolutely horrible, and a waste. A step back. A big step back defensively. There's no grey area. Either we resign Daly or replace him, and we come out looking great. If not, we come out looking like the new TWolves, and Petrie will replace Kahn as the laughing stock of gm's.
why thompson instead of hickson?
rhythmless
Starter
Truer words have not been spoken.
If you overpay, you overpay for a gamechanger, NOT a roleplayer. You get gamechangers FIRST, then you entice roleplayers to come play with the gamechangers. Petrie is so lazy he won't even draft new contracts. It's like he has 20 copies of a midlevel contract sitting on his desk. Even when he's not using the midlevel, he signs people with the damn thing. The lack of imagination is just incomprehensible.
Petrie only has a few modes on his auto-GM program:
Accept one sided trade by GMs better than you.
Sign to Midlevel
Sign to Minimum
Seriously though, look at the past signings by petrie that were not minimum contracts or rookie signings. Outside of Kevin Martin, who has he signed to a non midlevel deal?
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
You bring up a good point.
Is this Petrie, not knowing what he's doing, or is this the Maloofs, not letting Petrie spend?
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
It has to be the Maloofs. Petrie was always a good GM before so it doens't make sense that he'd suddenly become lousy unless there's more going on behind the scenes with the Maloofs dictating his moves than we know.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
They can afford it, or are a broke joke. As an NBA owner, when you have this much cap space, and it was the goal to achieve this much cap space, then you must have the money to fill up that cap space. If the Maloofs can't even afford a 50M per year payroll, then this team should have been sold yesterday. The onlything in the NBA which should prevent owners from spending on top talent, is a salary cap, and not having room(or another scenario which doesn't apply here, regarding saving room for extensions). If you have the room, you spend.
Larry David
Starter
When most trades deal with, "How much money can we get back" and not "what can we get for this guy" Petrie's hands were tied. The Maloofs must be crushed by the 3 million per season rule.
At this point, I doubt he has the budget to spend for the top guys. But unless he's done something else, this is really bad and on him.
At this point, I doubt he has the budget to spend for the top guys. But unless he's done something else, this is really bad and on him.
Telemachus
Starter
Portland, Minnesota, Toronto and Boston are among the other teams to express interest in Hayes besides the Kings.
Marc Stein is a senior NBA writer for ESPN.com.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
What I can point to is history, and histoy says that no one wants to play for Sacramento.
When was the last time we signed a free agent for 10 million per? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we had brought back Dalembert for that number it may have been the highest salary free agent signing the Kings have ever made. Ever.
Free Agents .. truely unrestriced free agents ( like Dalembert ) almost always go to bigger markets or more competitive teams. We are a small market with a bad team. Good luck bringing anyone here until we get better.
For some perspective .. people consider Boston a big market basketball team with a rich basketball history. You would think guys would want to play there, right? Boston can't even attract free agents. Chris Paui said he wouldn't resign with the Celtics if they traded for him. It took Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers months to convince KG to play there. If Boston can't get big time NBA talent to play there how is Sacramento supposed to attract free agents? The team may not even stay here. As of right now it is the most unstable place to play in the entire league.
That is why we have to build our team through the draft and via trades. Petrie has done a great job in the draft and a decent job on trades. If we are going to get ourselfs another big peice it will have to come from one of those two places, because guys are not going to come here willingly.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
