Kings looking at Billups?

This is a shrew move by Petrie. Unlike most trades, a sign n trade is where the player gets to decide where he goes. For argument's sake, if Billups say to Detroit he wants to come to Sac, the Piston cannot say, "No way! You're going to Dallas instead, they offered a better deal."

So this gives us a chance to unload some bad contract(s); say John Salmons and KT for Billups. If the Piston say no, they risk losing Billups for nothing. Is signing Billups (or another star players) worth getting rid of some bad contracts? Perhaps. And I suspect that's what Petrie meant by "open question." It depends on the players involved. Of course we don't need Billups, but I'd rather have Billups than Salmons + KT, assuming the money is equal. It's a long shot to attract those elite star players, but it's Petrie's job to try.

Also, we could be the third team in a sign n trade. Remember the Spurs got involved in the Brad Miller snt and got Hedo in the process. We could join in the fun and either get rid of some bad contract or get a promising young player. Both good scenario.

I suspect the reason we contacted Mo Pete is because we're offering John Salmons in return for a sign n trade w/ Toronto (the Raptors tried to sign Salmons last year). At any rate, imo, Petrie is trying to getting rid of dead weight by signing good weight.

Thats exactly right. I'm not sure what the uproar is all about here. Nevermind the fact that it probably wouldn't happen in a million years.
 
Um, point of fact? Geoff isn't insisting on anything. People are really quick to jump right off assumption cliff into conclusion pond. Petrie does this every year. He at least touches base with the representatives of a number of free agents because most of them have more than one client and who knows what could come of a conversation...


You know I didn't mean it literally. He has showed interest in veterans that would be of no use to us if we're rebuilding. The fact that he does it every year doesn't make a difference to me, I know a deal is very unlikely to happen with one of the big names, but I still don't know why he would even show interest. And this is the first year the organisation has actually admitted it needs to rebuild. I'm not criticising Geoff, I have faith that he'll do some good deals, I'm simply saying that I don't understand why he would want to bring more veterans to the club.
 
we need leadership around here and billups could be a leader he does have a ring just my thoughts.
 
I really am amazed, after all the talk of rebuilding, at how Geoff is insisting on trying to land a veteran that will keep us in mediocre land. The only player I want from this FA class is Gerald Wallace and that ain't happenin'.


Let's hold off on the criticism for now. The article did not confirm that Petrie was going to try to land Billups. It reported that he had contacted the top 4 or 5 free agents about S&T deals and then the writer lists who he feels the top free agents are. It just as easily could be the top 4 or 5 young free agents - being Rashard (now gone), Darko, Wallace, etc.
 
i would love chauncey.... he plays on both sides of the court.....


eh, extremely overrated and now overpaid i would pass on this guy, we would get stuck with this guy, and it will be hard to move him 15mil/year and what does he bring? a big body PG and a few threes for 15million no!no!no! and i have to question his game as declining after that cavs series, no no thanks billups, you can collect your retirement money in detroit.
 
billups lead that team to a ring

Past deeds are not necessarily an indication of future success. I sure wasn't very impressed with how Billups led the Pistons in the finals this year. It was a TEAM EFFORT that got the Pistons the title. Take the team away from Billups and you have no idea how or even if he'll be able to do much.
 
Back
Top