Let's Decide on THE Big.

Gooden doesn't deserve a raise; he barely deserves what he's making right now.

And Chandler is not a "liability" on offense, he just doesn't shoot jumpers; a PF that doesn't shoot three-pointers ≠ liability. It's not like he's going to be camped out on the perimeter next to Miller; if anybody doubles off Chandler, Chandler is going to be able to get wide open dunks.
 
Gooden doesn't solve anything. He's precisely what we DON'T need. Undersized, non-shotblocking, not even much of a man defender.
 
did you seen Chandler against us. Miller killed him on the inside and he couldn't power through miller on offense. He is weak and if rebounding is all he has we got that with KT. AS far as Gooden goes i put him in front of both chandler and KT by a long way. Besides Chandler is unatainable as we have nothing that wouls help them. That is something you and all us should really take a look at. Sure i can say alot ppl that would be great but the fact of us getting is not going to happen. $ wise we could get Oakafor, Howard, Bosh, but it will never happen. and they are not role players.
 
Entity said:
who would we trade to get Chandler. Bolnzi? they have plenty of 2 guards. KT. not saying much for them wanting size. Ref i doubt it. we have to keep Ref or KT to come off the bench if i voted for a bench guy it would be Ref.

I personally like Griffin. As he can block shots and rebound. But as an addition he won't be a liability on offense because you can't leave him open by any means and as a bonus he really doesn't need the ball to be effective.

Kendrick Perkins is another guy that has caught my eye in the 2 games against boston.

Actually, they don't even have a two-guard. That's been one of their needs for a couple years now. Chicago's only actual two-guards, in size, are Eric Piatkowski and Eddie Basden at 6'5". Who doesn't play much, and I think is still down in the DL. Piatkowski isn't used much either, and isn't what they need at starting SG. 6'2"/6'3" Ben Gordon starts at SG for them, and plays well, but has just been forced to be used there.

Agreed on Griffin, and Perkins is intriguing. Entity, Chandler also has consistent shot-blocking.
 
Gooden averages almost 1 blk a game thats more than what we got now and he is 8th in the league amongst pf in blocked shots + he is 6-10 How much size do you want. he has 20 double double games and 27 double digit rebound games and 11 games with 2 or more blocked shots. But again i am not saying he is the best but probably the best we can get and better than what we got. Upgrade is always better you have to crawl before you can walk maybe we get KG the next offseason
 
with all this being said. Stromile Swift has turned out not to be what houston needed maybe they would entertain a trade
 
Entity said:
did you seen Chandler against us. Miller killed him on the inside and he couldn't power through miller on offense.
I've seen every game that the Kings have played this season. I have also seen more than half of the games that the Bulls have played, and Chandler contains his man more often than he gets beaten. And, more to the point, Chandler can provide us with something that we haven't had since we traded Clark: a weak-side help defender in the post.


Entity said:
... He is weak and if rebounding is all he has we got that with KT.
Except that that is not, in fact, all Chandler has.

Entity said:
... AS far as Gooden goes i put him in front of both chandler and KT by a long way.
You're entitled to your opinion, even if it appears to be misinformed... You seem to be basing your opinion that Gooden's is a better player than Chandler on his shaky jump shot, because there isn't anything else in Gooden's game that he does better. And, if that's the case, I think that you're placing a ridiculously high premium on offense. We don't need a PF that's going to stand at the FTE and take jump shots; it's bad enough that we have a center who does that... What we need is a PF that's going to be the last line of defense when his teammates (coughbibbycough) get beat by their man. Gooden is not that guy, and neither is Thomas, but Chandler can be.

And not only is Gooden not better "by a long way" than Thomas, but their games are virtually identical; Thomas may actually be a better rebounder. (his career numbers support that theory, at any rate).
 
Entity said:
Gooden averages almost 1 blk a game
It's a little bit of a stretch to say that 0.75 is "almost" one.

Entity said:
... and he is 8th in the league amongst pf in blocked shots...
According to what? What's your cite for that information? Because ESPN.com ranks him as tied with Nenad Krstic for 34th-best among PF-eligible players, and even if you remove all the guys that actually play center (as well as Diaw, who actually plays SF), that only brings him up to about 22nd-best. Where did you get that "8th best" figure from? Gooden isn't even the eighth-best shot-blocking power forward in the eastern conference. He's only the fifth-best shot-blocking power forward in his own division. :eek:
 
Entity said:
did you seen Chandler against us. Miller killed him on the inside and he couldn't power through miller on offense. He is weak and if rebounding is all he has we got that with KT. AS far as Gooden goes i put him in front of both chandler and KT by a long way. Besides Chandler is unatainable as we have nothing that wouls help them. That is something you and all us should really take a look at. Sure i can say alot ppl that would be great but the fact of us getting is not going to happen. $ wise we could get Oakafor, Howard, Bosh, but it will never happen. and they are not role players.


Actually the Chandler I remember against us was the guy who went for 4pts 16rebs in 30min against us the first game, and 2pts 15rebs in 31min the second game, when his fouling out in the final minute was the turning point that allowed us to steal it. He also held Miller to 4-11 first and 5-11 second.

As far as how much size do you want? The more the better. Not a 6'8" softie. A guy big enough to siwng to center to cover up for Brad, and long enough to intimidate the hordes of drivers that come rumbling down the lane. Gooden is not intimidating, or close to it. He blocks shots like SAR, or Brad of last year. A surprise here and there, but nobody pays him an ounce of notice. It is in fact the very reason the Cavs themselves have been looking to upgrade for the past year.
 
Last edited:
yahoo has him 8th best among PF not F no F/C but PF. anyway back to my point there is no way we get chandler so why even bother. I am saying people we CAN get not ppl you 2 dream about at night. I mean hell we can get alot of players salary wise. Who do we have that CHI could use for they only real big they have????????????????? answer me that or stop talking about Chandler.
 
Entity said:
yahoo has him 8th best among PF not F no F/C but PF.
Let's see:

No Andrei Kirilenko (PF)
No Tim Duncan (PF)
No Pau Gasol (PF)
No Shawn Marion (PF)
No Kevin Garnett (PF)

And the list goes on...

Any list of the top shot-blocking PF's that doesn't include Kirilenko and Duncan is immediately invalid, so pardon me if I disregard Yahoo's list; they're wrong.
 
I would love to get Chandler. Oh dear.

Okay getting Chandler is kind of realistic, but Ray Allen-without giving up Bibby, I don't think so. But we can dream. 1st option in Allen, 2nd option in Bibby, 3rd Option in Artest, 4th option in Brad.

Bibby
Allen
Artest
Chandler
Miller

Excellent perimeter defense, Excellent post defense (minus Brad)

And excellent Offense.
 
Here's the deal.

We've now got 4 bigs (+ Sampson who apparently does not figure into the equation, and Corliss being played completely out of position). Of the 4 bigs, Miller, SAR, Thomas + Potapenko, there is not a one of them, or a pair of them, capable of shutting down the paint. Doesn't matter which one, two, or three you want to keep. NONE of them can pull it off.

So, with that as a backdrop, basically ALL of our interior presence has to be imported. That's a helluva lot to ask from one player. So maybe it shuld even be too. But regardless it means the list of "bigs" we should be looking at should pretty much exclusively involve guys who control that painted area on defense.

Just going team by team:

Atlanta
-- Have nobody (except Josh Smith who is an OG/SF not an interior intimidator)
Boston
LaFrentz -- can blocks shots, hit a shot, and might fit our "system" (which may be part of the problem), but soft and a huge contract
Olowokandi -- will be a free agent, but nobody's answer
Perkins -- young guy been impressive in the last month, still not clear whether he's a real player or just a backup, and doubtful Boston gives him up
Jefferson -- too short, not areal intimidator, and basically untouchable
Charlotte
Okafor -- presumably untouchable or at least VERY expensive
Wallace -- of course we had him once, and doubt he wants to come back. Also obviously a SF, not an interior presence.
Ely -- showing something this year. But as a scorer. Not much of a rebounder or shotblocker really.
Chicago
Chandler -- obvious choice. Rebounder/shotblocker. Big contract, and all Chicago has is the problem.
Cleveland
Big Z -- likely untouchable, pourest of pure centers, really more a soft scorer than anything else, not much of a rebounder
Dallas
Diop -- blossomed in Dallas but still so so limited, pureest of pure low skill centers,would actually be hard to attain
Dampier -- available I'm sure, but who wants him? Impressive numbers. Not so impressive game except during contract years BIG contract. Pure center.
Denver
Camby -- unattainable
Martin -- too small, huge contract, bumb knee
Detroit
Big Ben --- free agent, but no way, unattainable
Sheed -- also unattainable + getting up there in age as any kind of anchor
Golden State
Foyle -- all they have, but sucks, very limited, and vastly overpaid
Houston
Yao -- untouchable
Deke -- ancient, and Houston should be his last stop as a backup
Swift -- attainable, but has really flopped in Houston and now you have to wonder. Dumb, not much of a rebounder. Could help maybe, but not the anchor.
Indiana
O'Neal -- likely untouchable, or INCREDIBLY expensive. Also he and Ron had issues, so probably out of the question.
Granger -- way too small, SF really, just a good defender, likely unattainable
Harrison -- unproven young guy. All around guy rather than intimidator, pure center,
Clippers
Brand -- remarkable for a guy his size, but clearly unattainable now and despite block #s not clear he really shuts down the paint
Kaman -- likely unattainable caveman, pure center, not an anchor all by himself
Lakers
Mihm -- mediocre, could help, but not anchor, softish
Memphis
Gasol -- likely unattainable, not much of a boarder and softish anyway, a major move for a star type rather than a guy who fits
Wright -- no longer much of a shotblocker and terribly mediocre
Tsakalidis -- scrub, huge scrub, but still a scrub
Miami
Shaq -- obviously unattainable
Zo -- Miami is his last stop as a backup (what an amazing year he's having though)
 
While he probably wouldn't do it, you forgot Franciso Elson in Denver. Has played well when Camby's been out, though.

Still would like to see Sampson get some regular minutes.. won't happen though.
 
i won't quote you becaue of length Brick. but judgeing by your list and assesments beside them. Basically we are stuck with what we got. The are either old, dumb, expensive or flat out untouchable. So what are we to do. Hope for some undrafted guys or our draft pick? Or is there some guy overseas that meets our needs that can handle NBA speed?

Or maybe our guys can actually decide to do what needs to be done and play all out on both ends. i dunno about that though we probably have a better chance of get KG. ah speaking of Min i noticed Griffin not on the list any particular reason?
 
Or maybe Rick can play Jamal Sampson near-regularly... he'd certainly help with what he can do.

I think he didn't list Minnesota because that's already been discussed with Griffin, same for the Bucks and Gadzuric.
 
Last edited:
Kings113 said:
Or maybe Rick can play Jamal Sampson near-regularly... he'd certainly help with what he can do.

I think he didn't list Minnesota because that's already been discussed with Griffin, same for the Bucks and Gadzuric.

Yeah, I definately agree with you about playing Jamal. I mean at least give him like 20 minutes for just ONE game to see how he does...
 
Joking or not, James is a big body and tall, can block shots, score a bit, get boards. But is foul prone, slow, not good work ethic, ridiculous contract, and probably attitude problems.

Honestly though, I wouldn't want him, don't think the Kings would, nor would we need to go after him or think about him with the bigs out there already.
 
I just ran out of time to do the second half of the teams.

But its similar.

And yes, there are a limited number of candidates out there. The only ones that might come somewhat cheaply are guys like Griffin, Gadzuric, Swift, or Etan Thomas, and of those, the only one with real longterm starting potential is Griffin.

But we have TONS of trading pieces stacked around. Enough to get a lot of guys.

The frustrating and frightening thing is that most of the guys who fit the bill were FAs this past summer. One of the reasons why I went into the summer wiht hope we'd patch that hole. And we did nothing but pick up another tweener and sit on our ***. Griffin, Chandler, Gadzuric, Swift, Dalembert..all of them were on the market. Who knows if they were truly attainable or not, but so far as we know we didn't lift an eyelid so focused on cluittering our team with one-dimensional scorers were we.
 
Last edited:
Why not just draft Boone and call it good? He does pretty much the same stuff as Chandler, and it would be no where near the price. It'd be great to pull a S&T w/ Bonzi for Chandler, but if not, there are some pretty viable options in this year's draft. Especially if we end up in the lottery. Or, if we get the #1, somebody will really overpay for the right to draft Morrisson. That could be our big man right there.
 
Venom has a point. Guys like Chandler and Ben Wallace don't get looked at much in college because the don't score much. Soo maybe our scouts are looking for someone under the radar because they don't average 20pts a game.
 
Well, Chandler was a second pick overall straight out of high school. Wallace, you can make a case for. And he even moved around a bit (think Orlando wants to do the Grant Hill trade over again?). So there is hope out there. But I hope even more that Petrie is aware of this glaring hole and wants to patch it, not ignore it by adding more offense.
 
Entity said:
Venom has a point. Guys like Chandler and Ben Wallace don't get looked at much in college because the don't score much. Soo maybe our scouts are looking for someone under the radar because they don't average 20pts a game.

that's why many of us have more or less hoped that the kings miss the playoffs and maximize their draft pick. the truth is i will be depressed to have no kings basketball to watch in june, but i will be more pleased in the long run if they can pick up a big with some potential in the offseason. brickie layed it all out earlier in this thread. alotta the bigs that would suit our needs are pretty unattainable. imo, tyson chandler, as unproven as he really is, has more of the qualities the kings need than some of the other more ball-dominant bigs in the league. he may or may not be unattainable in his own right, but i think the kings should pursue him. call up chicago. see what it will take to get him. no harm in calling.

regardless, the kings are going no where this season. they performed too poorly early on when the schedule was at its easiest. now they have to pull a complete 180 just to sneak into the 8th spot? forget it. no point in dropping out of the draft lottery to get trounced by san antonio or dallas in the first round. the potential is there. we have seen some positive things that point toward a brighter future on the horizon. ron artest is a beast. bonzi wells is a beast. kevin martin and francisco garcia are both beginning to blossom into rather dependent reserves. brad miller and mike bibby, despite their independent weaknesses, still show off an extremely reliable two man game. shareef abdur rahim is extremely effective with limited shots, even in limited minutes. there's promise in our new acquisition, sergei monia, too. all these pieces seem to fit together well. a rebounding and interior defensive presence in the starting unit would make that picture much more complete. and it would be great if we could get it in the draft, without having to give up any pieces. imagine this, assuming we make no trades in the offseason:

starters:
C/PF: defensive/rebounding big with potential
C/PF: brad miller
SF: ron artest
SG: bonzi wells
PG: mike bibby

bench:
shareef abdur rahim
kevin martin
francisco garcia
kenny thomas
corliss williamson
vitaly potapenko
sergei monia

that's a flexible lineup. not all the bench players are included (*cough*jasonhart*cough*), but it's at least 9-10 players deep, assuming the PF/C we draft was good enough to start. now, if we can unload thomas' or williamson's contracts to help bolster our bench, then that'd be great as well. regardless, you're looking at a kings team with a future, and it doesn't come at the expense of any existing players, and it doesn't come with any major offseason acquisitions. it comes in the draft...hopefully.

this may or may not be a "title contender." probably not, unless the big we draft is a beast who just explodes the way chris bosh or josh howard has. but i like the visions for the future. the draft people....the draft. there's no guarantees, of course, but all we have to do is sacrifice kings basketball in june for a realistic opportunity to improve in the areas that the kings are weakest in.
 
Padrino said:
that's why many of us have more or less hoped that the kings miss the playoffs and maximize their draft pick. the truth is i will be depressed to have no kings basketball to watch in june, but i will be more pleased in the long run if they can pick up a big with some potential in the offseason. brickie layed it all out earlier in this thread. alotta the bigs that would suit our needs are pretty unattainable. imo, tyson chandler, as unproven as he really is, has more of the qualities the kings need than some of the other more ball-dominant bigs in the league. he may or may not be unattainable in his own right, but i think the kings should pursue him. call up chicago. see what it will take to get him. no harm in calling.

regardless, the kings are going no where this season. they performed too poorly early on when the schedule was at its easiest. now they have to pull a complete 180 just to sneak into the 8th spot? forget it. no point in dropping out of the draft lottery to get trounced by san antonio or dallas in the first round. the potential is there. we have seen some positive things that point toward a brighter future on the horizon. ron artest is a beast. bonzi wells is a beast. kevin martin and francisco garcia are both beginning to blossom into rather dependent reserves. brad miller and mike bibby, despite their independent weaknesses, still show off an extremely reliable two man game. shareef abdur rahim is extremely effective with limited shots, even in limited minutes. there's promise in our new acquisition, sergei monia, too. all these pieces seem to fit together well. a rebounding and interior defensive presence in the starting unit would make that picture much more complete. and it would be great if we could get it in the draft, without having to give up any pieces. imagine this, assuming we make no trades in the offseason:

starters:
C/PF: defensive/rebounding big with potential
C/PF: brad miller
SF: ron artest
SG: bonzi wells
PG: mike bibby

bench:
shareef abdur rahim
kevin martin
francisco garcia
kenny thomas
corliss williamson
vitaly potapenko
sergei monia

that's a flexible lineup. not all the bench players are included (*cough*jasonhart*cough*), but it's at least 9-10 players deep, assuming the PF/C we draft was good enough to start. now, if we can unload thomas' or williamson's contracts to help bolster our bench, then that'd be great as well. regardless, you're looking at a kings team with a future, and it doesn't come at the expense of any existing players, and it doesn't come with any major offseason acquisitions. it comes in the draft...hopefully.

this may or may not be a "title contender." probably not, unless the big we draft is a beast who just explodes the way chris bosh or josh howard has. but i like the visions for the future. the draft people....the draft. there's no guarantees, of course, but all we have to do is sacrifice kings basketball in june for a realistic opportunity to improve in the areas that the kings are weakest in.

no.
 
Back
Top