Kings extend offer to Chuck Hayes - 4 yr $20 mil

[bajaden]

True, but the thing that seems like most people overlook is that those guys aren't franchise caliber players on their own. They're not good enough to make bad, rebuilding, or average teams contenders. Their true value only comes to fruition when they're plugged into a team that's already on the cusp of contending. Chandler can put a Dallas over the top, Dalembert could put a Miami over the top, Perkins could put a Boston/OKC over the top, etc. Pay any of those guys a fat contract to play on a .500 team though and you're just wasting money.

Well that was basicly part of my post. Thats why I made the Lebron/Chandler comparison. You look at Lebron as a player you can build a team around. I doubt anyone has ever looked a Chandler in the same fashion. And yet, he's probably going to get a similar amount of money. Another problem I think you raise when you pay a speciality player that much money, is what will the Evans and Cousins of the world want, when they see, lets say Dalembert making 11 mil a year on the same team?

 

[bajaden]

No I read it, I just don't agree. The fact is you don't become a great team without those kinds of players. So, the argument that you shouldn't sign one if you aren't great, doesn't really make sense (to me). Unless you are content to be the league doormat or a mid tier team at best.

I think the point he's trying to make, is not whether you need a player like that to be a contender. But do you pay him 15 mil a year before you are a contender? I think if your a team right on the brink of being a contender and your greatest need is interior defense, then maybe that player is worth 13 to 15 mil a year. The Kings are on the brink of making the playoffs, but not the brink of being a legitmate contender for the title. If we were talking about Dwight Howard, thats one thing. But were talking about Dalembert.

And by the way, every team that won a championship didn't have a great shotblocker on it. Bill Cartwright was a nice solid player, but not a great shotblocker, and yet the Bulls won championships. Detroit won without a great shotblocker, but still had good interior defense. They just knocked you on your butt when you came in there. On the other hand, there have been teams with great shotblockers that won nothing. How many championships did Philly win with Dalembert? How many championship rings does Mutombo have? Zero on both counts.

I'm not trying to discredit shotblockers. I'd rather have one than not have one, But if you don't have all the other pieces, they're nothing but eye candy.

 

[sdballer]

I think the point he's trying to make, is not whether you need a player like that to be a contender. But do you pay him 15 mil a year before you are a contender? I think if your a team right on the brink of being a contender and your greatest need is interior defense, then maybe that player is worth 13 to 15 mil a year. The Kings are on the brink of making the playoffs, but not the brink of being a legitmate contender for the title. If we were talking about Dwight Howard, thats one thing. But were talking about Dalembert.

And by the way, every team that won a championship didn't have a great shotblocker on it. Bill Cartwright was a nice solid player, but not a great shotblocker, and yet the Bulls won championships. Detroit won without a great shotblocker, but still had good interior defense. They just knocked you on your butt when you came in there. On the other hand, there have been teams with great shotblockers that won nothing. How many championships did Philly win with Dalembert? How many championship rings does Mutombo have? Zero on both counts.

I'm not trying to discredit shotblockers. I'd rather have one than not have one, But if you don't have all the other pieces, they're nothing but eye candy.

A point of clarification. I wouldn't pay Dalembert 15M either. But 10ish when that's better than the going rate and we've already seen the potential is there to work with our guys? You bet. And I especially wouldn't try to replace it with a midget 4-5 and try to pretend that interior d doesn't matter (not that you are but it keeps getting bounced around on this forum).

Is it possible to win a championship without a shotblocker? Of course, as you've pointed out the 2 franchises in the last 30 years to do so. But both those teams had once in a life time collections of defensive talents (not to mention their offensive ones). I don't know in the time of expansion and loss of team fundamentals if we'll see that kind of defensive lineup again.

So you're right, a shot blocker doesn't guarantee a championship, but it sure as hell helps.

 

[kingofthejungle]

And I especially wouldn't try to replace it with a midget 4-5 and try to pretend that interior d doesn't matter (not that you are but it keeps getting bounced around on this forum).

"Interior D" is a lot more than just shot blocking though, it's positioning and moving your feet, keeping your man between you and the basket, forcing a lower percentage shot, stripping the ball on the way up, fouling hard when necessary and not allowing the three point play, blocking out to secure the rebound, rotating as needed, etc.

Claiming that "interior d" is "bounced around" but then defining it inadequately yourself is problematic at best and ignorant at worst.

IMO, folks are so caught up in shot blocking that they're not seeing the forest through the trees. For example, I'll argue that altering shots is more important than blocking them, since blocks often lead to put backs or a ball flying out of bounds, whereas altered shots miss and allow the defense to grab the board.

 

[mac]

"Interior D" is a lot more than just shot blocking though, it's positioning and moving your feet, keeping your man between you and the basket, forcing a lower percentage shot, stripping the ball on the way up, fouling hard when necessary and not allowing the three point play, blocking out to secure the rebound, rotating as needed, etc.

Claiming that "interior d" is "bounced around" but then defining it inadequately yourself is problematic at best and ignorant at worst.

IMO, folks are so caught up in shot blocking that they're not seeing the forest through the trees. For example, I'll argue that altering shots is more important than blocking them, since blocks often lead to put backs or a ball flying out of bounds, whereas altered shots miss and allow the defense to grab the board.

The most important thing is to have an overall team defense that makes it hard for the opponents to score, inside or outside. You don't need a very good shotblocker per se, but it is certainly useful to have a big center anchoring your defense, taking up space and just intimidating the other team. I think Chuck Hayes will help us, but we certainly aren't winning any championships on the defensive end with a STARTING front court of Hayes and Cousins.

In any case, let's see what happens. I like Dalembert, but I don't think we should pay him too much because he isn't THAT crucial to our success. Like some people have pointed out, we had Dalembert last season but our interior defense still wasn't spectacular. We need a lot more than just a shot blocker, and team defense is far more important than having one big defensive stud. Still, it's a good place to start no doubt.

 

[captain bill]

I don't think there was anything we could do to keep Sammy. If we had a chance, it disappeared after Chandler helped carry the Mavs to the title. Dalembert could easily play the same role on a contending team, and those teams will be willing to pay him. Short of grossly overpaying him- which we can't do financially and which would be unwise considering how far we are from contending- he was a goner.

 

[Entity]

blah blah the dude is our 4th or 5th big who cares

 

[rainmaker]

blah blah the dude is our 4th or 5th big who cares

Based on what? Could see him starting opening night.

 

[SacTownKid]

I don't think there was anything we could do to keep Sammy. If we had a chance, it disappeared after Chandler helped carry the Mavs to the title. Dalembert could easily play the same role on a contending team, and those teams will be willing to pay him. Short of grossly overpaying him- which we can't do financially and which would be unwise considering how far we are from contending- he was a goner.

Nah, if Petrie wanted to pay him he'd be back. Clearly he's going for the money because Houston is his number 1 option and they're the only team realistically going to pay him what he wants since they need a legit C more than we do.

 

[The Hammer]

If Whiteside works out, this will have been the correct move. That's a big if, though. Go Whiteside is all I can say.

But if you think about it, locking up Sammy for another 4-5 years when you have a potentially elite shot blocker coming up... as long as that shot blocker works out and can learn the game with some sort of bball IQ (already has a nice little bank shot and a few post up moves)... yes Sammy's very good, but IF Whiteside can anchor the D in 2-3 years, having a guy like Hayes around is a very good piece. It's a gutsy move that shows trust/belief in Whiteside. At first I didn't like it, but now I do.

 

[Tetsujin]

If Whiteside works out, this will have been the correct move. That's a big if, though. Go Whiteside is all I can say.

But if you think about it, locking up Sammy for another 4-5 years when you have a potentially elite shot blocker coming up... as long as that shot blocker works out and can learn the game with some sort of bball IQ (already has a nice little bank shot and a few post up moves)... yes Sammy's very good, but IF Whiteside can anchor the D in 2-3 years, having a guy like Hayes around is a very good piece. It's a gutsy move that shows trust/belief in Whiteside. At first I didn't like it, but now I do.

Honestly that's how I've been thinking too. We weren't going to be challenging for a championship in the next two or three years when Sammy would be at his peak so I don't think it makes sense to throw the bank at him. Would I have loved to keep him? Yes. Is this going to make me call for Petrie's head? No.

 

[Telemachus]

Based on what? Could see him starting opening night.

I'm sorry. I like a lot of what Hayes brings to the floor, but I simply don't see him starting for the Kings. Both JT and Hickson are better overall players IMO. Hayes is a guy who can play productive minutes off the bench and also be used to play tough defense in key situations.

 

[bajaden]

blah blah the dude is our 4th or 5th big who cares

Well! I think that settles it then... Whew! I thought this was going to go on all night...

 

[bajaden]

First, Hayes hasn't signed yet, althougth it seems likely to happen. But truth is, we don't know what the final look of the team is. There could be another deal we don't know about that could completely change our outlook. What I'm more interested in seeing is Thornton's name on the dotted line. If we end up with Hayes, and without Dally, its not a disastor. Its just not what we were expecting.

 

[Larry David]

As far as I can see, the Rockets were kicking the tires on Sam and other free agents and therefore, they couldn’t commit to Hayes. However, yesterday morning it was reported that they told Hayes just to give them a little more time because they were working on something.

Yesterday, the Rockets were set to obtain Pau and reports are they were going to bid hard and possibly land Nene. Which would have taken their entire cap and they would have needed another big guy, which means they probably match our offer for Hayes. So if Hayes wanted to stay, that was going to be an option for him.

For at least the next 24 hours, the Paul trade is listed as dead but practically in limbo. The Rockets front office is certainly in that position for at least a day. Therefore, if Hayes wants to consider taking that deal, he’s in limbo.

 

[Kingster]

As far as I can see, the Rockets were kicking the tires on Sam and other free agents and therefore, they couldn’t commit to Hayes. However, yesterday morning it was reported that they told Hayes just to give them a little more time because they were working on something.

Yesterday, the Rockets were set to obtain Pau and reports are they were going to bid hard and possibly land Nene. Which would have taken their entire cap and they would have needed another big guy, which means they probably match our offer for Hayes. So if Hayes wanted to stay, that was going to be an option for him.

For at least the next 24 hours, the Paul trade is listed as dead but practically in limbo. The Rockets front office is certainly in that position for at least a day. Therefore, if Hayes wants to consider taking that deal, he’s in limbo.

I haven't seen anything to suggest the Chris Paul trade involving Houston is in limbo; just that it's in-the-coffin cold body dead.

 

[Section 101]

I haven't seen anything to suggest the Chris Paul trade involving Houston is in limbo; just that it's in-the-coffin cold body dead.

The teams involved are protesting the blockage.

 

[Larry David]

I haven't seen anything to suggest the Chris Paul trade involving Houston is in limbo; just that it's in-the-coffin cold body dead.

First, the teams and a lot of the league is going to push back hard. If Paul and/or the Rockets take this federal court, it's another level.

The current deal is dead, but Stern might have to save face by making the Lakers take Oakfor (thereby getting rid of the monster trade exception they were going to pick up) and trying to find a middle ground.

This is up in the air for at least 12 hours and probably 48. Just because David says it's dead, does not mean its dead. Stern has to walk this back a little or Billy hunter is going to save his job with the union by going nuclear on him.

 

[Kingster]

The teams involved are protesting the blockage.

So? Is the league entertaining their protests? If not, it's dead.

 

[Showtime]

Wow...*shaking head*

I agree. Totally disappointed by this move. Whatever magic is in Petrie's genes regarding drafting talent, they are lost in free agent signings, more specifically the MLE.

 

[Kingster]

First, the teams and a lot of the league is going to push back hard. If Paul and/or the Rockets take this federal court, it's another level.

The current deal is dead, but Stern might have to save face by making the Lakers take Oakfor (thereby getting rid of the monster trade exception they were going to pick up) and trying to find a middle ground.

This is up in the air for at least 12 hours and probably 48. Just because David says it's dead, does not mean its dead. Stern has to walk this back a little or Billy hunter is going to save his job with the union by going nuclear on him.

And in a similar vein of speculation, Stern is unlikely to do an about-face just because a few teams are mad at him.

 

[Bricklayer]

And in a similar vein of speculation, Stern is unlikely to do an about-face just because a few teams are mad at him.

Especially given the initial move was probably made because even more teams were mad at him for allowing it.

Seriously that Hornets being league owned is just an albatross at this point for the NBA. there are no good answeres. Even if they took a vote and it was 15-12 to accept the deal, would you seriously want a league owned entity to make a deal this significant with so many of the owners opposed? Its basically an internal issue for them now. They need to either reach some consensus or to sell the team off quick (adn this isn't helping its value either).

 

[sidney]

First, the teams and a lot of the league is going to push back hard. If Paul and/or the Rockets take this federal court, it's another level.

The current deal is dead, but Stern might have to save face by making the Lakers take Oakfor (thereby getting rid of the monster trade exception they were going to pick up) and trying to find a middle ground.

This is up in the air for at least 12 hours and probably 48. Just because David says it's dead, does not mean its dead. Stern has to walk this back a little or Billy hunter is going to save his job with the union by going nuclear on him.

I agree they could save face by proposing something similar. Maybe swap Bynum for Odom in the deal and send Okafor back to LA to play center.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

For those who hated the contract we offered Hayes ( again, taking Dally out of it ).

Big Baby just extended with Orlando for 4 years 26 mil. Having watched Davis in Boston his entire career .. I'll put my money on Hayes. Davis is a nut, and always a candidate to be completely out of shape... who just made 6 million more than Chuck.

 

[sidney]

For those who hated the contract we offered Hayes ( again, taking Dally out of it ).

Big Baby just extended with Orlando for 4 years 26 mil. Having watched Davis in Boston his entire career .. I'll put my money on Hayes. Davis is a nut, and always a candidate to be completely out of shape... who just made 6 million more than Chuck.

Orlando continues with the horrible decision making. Just awful

 

[Showtime]

For those who hated the contract we offered Hayes ( again, taking Dally out of it ).

Big Baby just extended with Orlando for 4 years 26 mil. Having watched Davis in Boston his entire career .. I'll put my money on Hayes. Davis is a nut, and always a candidate to be completely out of shape... who just made 6 million more than Chuck.

Davis was surrounded by better frontline talent, more specifically defensively. While he proved himself in his own right on that side of the floor, Boston didn't exactly lack depth while he was there with Powe and KG. With the Kings, they haven't re-signed Dally, leaving a massive hole defensively on the frontline, leaving Hayes to carry the majority of that burden, something he can't do effectively. He needs to be a supporter on the frontline, not the guy you rely on defensively.

 

[bajaden]

And in a similar vein of speculation, Stern is unlikely to do an about-face just because a few teams are mad at him.

Stern cleverly waited till the new CBA was signed, sealed, and delivered. His statement was that the league didn't nix the deal, the Hornets nixed the deal, and they have every right to do that. Also, once the CBA became law, the league was excempt from antitrust suits. So suing because of interstate commerce interference was off the table. In other words, I don't think Paul or the NBPA have a leg to stand on, other than public opinion.

 

[UK_King]

He's in, Full MLE

 

[sidney]

@mr_jasonjones
Jason Jones
Looks like houston will go back after Dalembert......

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

4 years 21.3 mil for Hayes. Deal is official, he is in Sac today to sign the deal.