Maloofs would let Petrie interview for Blazers job if he wanted

[jpsls]

So Petrie traded Spencer for Daly, then went after Chuck instead of initially going after Daly first. No matter the excuse, either of Spencer of Daly would look far better next to Cuz than Chuck. That's one poor chain of events out of a number of them by Petrie, but looks even worse while Spencer just became the first Phily center since Moses to score back to back 20 pt playoff games, while playing some very good defense, both wins btw, while Chuck as I type this is probably eating a happy meal.

Problem with Petrie is there's a number of things to blame him for. Roster of course is the big issue, and collecting pieces which don't fit while trading away pieces which do. Even a tight budget isn't an excuse for Chuck, for Travis, for the Salmons trade, or including a 1st rounder in the JJ/Omri swap. Tight budget also isn't an excuse for trading down to 10 and picking Jimmer, when Leonard, Klay Thompson or Bismack would all most likely have helped this team considerably more, and I personally like Jimmer and think he'll slowly get better, but that is a pretty large number of mistakes in the last year alone.

It's not even about getting a big fish, but more that he hasn't recongnized or made sound decisions with the resources we do/did have. Either keep Spencer or go after Daly hard as a FA, draft any of the above three mentioned, keep Beno, don't trade that f'ing 1st rounder, don't waste 34M in Chuck/Travis, and we're a considerably better team, and we HAVE NOT spent more than we are now.

Then there's the coaching. As a gm if you take the rebuilding route, which we have and have been shoulder deep in for a few years now, then it's responsibility to make damn sure you hire a good coach that can develop young players. But is paying Westy/Smart at the same damn time a better allocation of money than just going out and hiring an at least average coach? Putting together an incredibly young roster, and not hiring a sound coach might be the biggest indictment of all his errors. Committing to a rebuild while not committing to hiring a coach capable of developing the young talent, or even having a clue ho wto use the the young players, is inexcusable.

Now, all that being said, the only reason I might keep him around is that it would be the Maloofs picking the new gm. That scares me, but can it really get that much worse? Name me 5 gm's worse in the last 5 yrs and maybe I strongly consider the possibility it would get much worse. But I don't praise Petire for drafting Cuz or Reke. Cuz was a no brainer, and I would have taken him at one. Notice Petrie didn't actually move up to secure him earlier. The idiot who passed on Cuz in Minn is currently doing a better job than our own gm. Reke or Rubio, both available, was a no brainer. Wouldn't have gone wrong with either. I like Reke more, but you don't get much credit when both drop in your lap and you have to just pick one. IT was a steal, but that overshadows how poor Jimmer has been and how much more a Leonard, Thompson or Bismack might help. Trading for MT was great, but then he hurt one of his brightest moments of recent history by not bringing in a coach who could manage the IT/MT/Reke trio he assembled.

Dalembert didn't want to be in Sacramento. I don't understand why some people can't fathom that. I believe he took less money to play for Houston also. Cutting JJ Hickson when his value was his lowest was a big mistake; now he's beasting in Portland. This was likely another cost-cutting move instigated by the Maloofs. I also can't fault Petrie for selecting JImmer over Kawhi Leonard because I believe the Maloofs were all over that debacle. They were looking to select a player who would sell the most tickets, not help the team win.

The Maloofs are the ones who hire coaches, not Petrie. He may have input, but ultimately the Maloofs decide who will be the coach based on who will be cheaper. Petrie can't do much if the Maloofs are only willing to pay pennies on the dollar for a coach, not to mention the Maloofs are easily aroused by the site of powerpoint presentations.

What's the point of moving up to draft Cousins if you know he's going to fall into your lap? Petrie did make the right decision in drafting Tyreke over Rubio when everyone in Sac wanted Rubio. Pure point guards are overrated because in crunch time, you need a guard who can put the ball in the basket.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Botox and ugly handbags for the whole team!

lmao

 

[John Galt]

So Grant, Wallace, Peja, Hedo, Martin etc were all the consensus picks? Hardly. Say what you want about Petrie, but talent evaluation is a strong suit of his.

You made me curious so I searched for 2004 mock drafts. the first hit I found had Kevin at 28. We picked him at 26. I never was a big fan of that particular player but yes... solid draft pick. It wasn't as "out of the box" as the Hedo & Peja picks. Back then Geoff was a little out in front of the field when it came to international picks I think. That's good on him. It was long ago.
http://nbadraft.net/mocks/2004_nba_mock_draft.html

I don't want to try to pick all those other draft picks apart with some revisionist monday morning quarterbacking kind of approach... I like Hedo and Wallace. It's fine and I really don't have a bone to pick with calling those selections "good". It is just my personal opinion that Geoff's reputation is out of proportion to his accomplishments... certainly since 2004.

 

[pshn80]

Dear John, as you say .......
"Beyond that, his tenure has been extremely ordinary and I don't understand why people are so very concerned that we might lose him. It is actually not easy for me to imagine a DIFFERENT gm who would do worse since the Webber/Vlade acquisition."

Let me assure you, though I'm sure I can't convince you, that under no circumstances would I want to lose Petrie ans GM. In my book he is competent and always has been. He has had to live with a "Maloof budget" for years now and its been getting worse. I'msorry you see him as a bookkeeping ledger instead of what he is. bafaden's easy words above should give the "I don' cares" some realism.

 

[King Baller]

You made me curious so I searched for 2004 mock drafts. the first hit I found had Kevin at 28. We picked him at 26. I never was a big fan of that particular player but yes... solid draft pick. It wasn't as "out of the box" as the Hedo & Peja picks. Back then Geoff was a little out in front of the field when it came to international picks I think. That's good on him. It was long ago.
http://nbadraft.net/mocks/2004_nba_mock_draft.html

I don't want to try to pick all those other draft picks apart with some revisionist monday morning quarterbacking kind of approach... I like Hedo and Wallace. It's fine and I really don't have a bone to pick with calling those selections "good". It is just my personal opinion that Geoff's reputation is out of proportion to his accomplishments... certainly since 2004.

So who do you want the Maloofs to hire as GM if Petrie decides to walk? Give us a name, or several since rating GM's seem to be a specialty of yours.

Who else remembers Petrie "voluntarily" taking a cut in pay along with much of his staff?

I hope Petrie stays and I think he is a good GM. Who knows who the Maloofs might bring in.

KB

 

[kingsnation]

Dear John, as you say .......
"Beyond that, his tenure has been extremely ordinary and I don't understand why people are so very concerned that we might lose him. It is actually not easy for me to imagine a DIFFERENT gm who would do worse since the Webber/Vlade acquisition."

Let me assure you, though I'm sure I can't convince you, that under no circumstances would I want to lose Petrie ans GM. In my book he is competent and always has been. He has had to live with a "Maloof budget" for years now and its been getting worse. I'msorry you see him as a bookkeeping ledger instead of what he is. bafaden's easy words above should give the "I don' cares" some realism.

"Maloof Budget" or not. That hasn't stopped him from giving a pretty substantial amount of money into Travis Outlaw and Chuck Hayes. So finances aren't always the issue.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

"Maloof Budget" or not. That hasn't stopped him from giving a pretty substantial amount of money into Travis Outlaw and Chuck Hayes. So finances aren't always the issue.

so with daly clearly NOT wanting to come back... we had to pick up a big for insurance. we also HAD to meet the league minimum. these penny pinching moves helped fill the void to meet the league minimum so the maloofs could scrape by. i think we barely met the league minimum in salary this season.

 

[Hoovtrain]

You made me curious so I searched for 2004 mock drafts. the first hit I found had Kevin at 28. We picked him at 26. I never was a big fan of that particular player but yes... solid draft pick. It wasn't as "out of the box" as the Hedo & Peja picks. Back then Geoff was a little out in front of the field when it came to international picks I think. That's good on him. It was long ago.
http://nbadraft.net/mocks/2004_nba_mock_draft.html

I don't want to try to pick all those other draft picks apart with some revisionist monday morning quarterbacking kind of approach... I like Hedo and Wallace. It's fine and I really don't have a bone to pick with calling those selections "good". It is just my personal opinion that Geoff's reputation is out of proportion to his accomplishments... certainly since 2004.

Fair enough

 

[Tetsujin]

So aside from the times that he's been good, he's not been good? Shocker.

 

[kingsnation]

so with daly clearly NOT wanting to come back... we had to pick up a big for insurance. we also HAD to meet the league minimum. these penny pinching moves helped fill the void to meet the league minimum so the maloofs could scrape by. i think we barely met the league minimum in salary this season.

A "big for insurance" should NOT be paid 22 mil over 4 years. How can you even justify that? Also, signing a guy to "meet the league minimum" is one thing, but the guy we signed also had multiple years left on his deal.

These were 2 bad signings plain and simple. The Maloofs budget had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Gary]

Hey hey! I may have my chance to GM an almost NBA team after all! I've always said I'd work cheap, and that would appear to be the Maloofs single criteria for just about any employee.

Yah no doubt. I would have done just as well as Petrie has done in the draft. Not to mention I would have had DeAndre Jordan at the asking price of 450,000 (I believe that's how much someone in the early second round sold the pick for). But we probably would have had Anthony Randolph or Mareese Speights over Thompson.

 

[Kings Faithful]

I miss Spencer... I knew it was a dumb move to give up on him so early.

 

[Tetsujin]

Yah no doubt. I would have done just as well as Petrie has done in the draft. Not to mention I would have had DeAndre Jordan at the asking price of 450,000 (I believe that's how much someone in the early second round sold the pick for). But we probably would have had Anthony Randolph or Mareese Speights over Thompson.

450,000 dollars is about several hundred million dollars more than the Maloofs can afford.

 

[rainmaker]

Dalembert didn't want to be in Sacramento. I don't understand why some people can't fathom that.

What I can't fathom is people thinking it only boiled down to a guy who wanted to come here for a couple years leading up to being traded here, and who's agent was quite vocal about Daly wanting to come here and ecstatic that it finally happened, simply wanted to move on a little while later as if there was no other reason. Do people hide in closets all day and have zero knowledge of politics which play a role in business behind the scenes?

Do you still not realize, after it's been mentioned numerous times, we went after Chuck, not Daly, and only went after Daly when Chuck's heart problem popped up? You don't think playing second fiddle to Chuck freaking Hayes in free agency had anything to do with it? Even if none of that played a part, the timeline and us making Chuck our top target not Daly, then one might assume our previous idiot coach might have had something to do with it, which is on Petrie for keeping him around, after all Westy only coached a total of SEVEN regular season games after Daly walked. So say it was coach related, we possibly passed on retaining Daly for a coach we immediately fired about a week into the season. On top of all that is Petrie's known reputation for not valuing shot blocking, and what do you know, he went after a 6'6" PF/C instead of doing everything possible to bring back Daly. Did Petrie bypass going after Daly for another shotblocker, or at least someone who can challenge shots and pair well with Cuz? Well, no, he didn't. It wasn't as simple as Daly just decided he's rather move on after wanting to come here, and stated it publicly while still a 76er.

 

[rainmaker]

A "big for insurance" should NOT be paid 22 mil over 4 years. How can you even justify that? Also, signing a guy to "meet the league minimum" is one thing, but the guy we signed also had multiple years left on his deal.

These were 2 bad signings plain and simple. The Maloofs budget had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Correct. If money was such an issue, you don't immediately offer/acquire 34M in contracts from Chuck/Travis, and then once again finish the year paying TWO crappy coaches at once.

 

[JB_kings]

I can forgive Petrie the occasional Quincy Douby pick. He really hasn't screwed up horrible like taking Adam Morrison at #3 or Marvin Williams #2 when Deron Williams and Chris Paul were there. I could point out other major blunders among a number of teams, but citing Quincy Douby as a fail is not very convincing when you consider the big picture.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If they want to fire him and find someone better, that is one thing. Though their track record speaks volumes and we'll likely end up worse, at least it is taking some kind of action for actions sake. But to just let him walk to a competitor... just a joke. What can be said about the Maloofs that already hasn't?

On the other hand, maybe they could turn around and hire Kevin Pritchard and Nate McMillan and capture the magic from the last time they put two ex-Blazers together. Oh wait, they're effin' broke.

 

[jpsls]

What I can't fathom is people thinking it only boiled down to a guy who wanted to come here for a couple years leading up to being traded here, and who's agent was quite vocal about Daly wanting to come here and ecstatic that it finally happened, simply wanted to move on a little while later as if there was no other reason. Do people hide in closets all day and have zero knowledge of politics which play a role in business behind the scenes?

Do you still not realize, after it's been mentioned numerous times, we went after Chuck, not Daly, and only went after Daly when Chuck's heart problem popped up? You don't think playing second fiddle to Chuck freaking Hayes in free agency had anything to do with it? Even if none of that played a part, the timeline and us making Chuck our top target not Daly, then one might assume our previous idiot coach might have had something to do with it, which is on Petrie for keeping him around, after all Westy only coached a total of SEVEN regular season games after Daly walked. So say it was coach related, we possibly passed on retaining Daly for a coach we immediately fired about a week into the season. On top of all that is Petrie's known reputation for not valuing shot blocking, and what do you know, he went after a 6'6" PF/C instead of doing everything possible to bring back Daly. Did Petrie bypass going after Daly for another shotblocker, or at least someone who can challenge shots and pair well with Cuz? Well, no, he didn't. It wasn't as simple as Daly just decided he's rather move on after wanting to come here, and stated it publicly while still a 76er.

Oh, so Dalembert signed with the Rockets because his feelings got hurt? Yea, that sounds like a guy we need on this team. Dalembert was using the Kings as leverage against the Rockets. Petrie didn't need to waste time on retaining a player who didn't want to be here in the first place.

 

[VF21]

If they want to fire him and find someone better, that is one thing. Though their track record speaks volumes and we'll likely end up worse, at least it is taking some kind of action for actions sake. But to just let him walk to a competitor... just a joke. What can be said about the Maloofs that already hasn't?

Oh believe me, I have a lot of things I COULD say. Unfortunately, they're things that could probably get me banned.

On the other hand, maybe they could turn around and hire Kevin Pritchard and Nate McMillan and capture the magic from the last time they put two ex-Blazers together. Oh wait, they're effin' broke.

They're also an effin' joke. I went back in the WNBA forum and found a comment from Joe Maloof when they decided to pull the plug on the Monarchs. Amazing how similar it sounded. These guys have been screwing over basketball fans in this area for years. What amazes me is they continue to believe that their excrement doesn't stink and that we gullible fans will forgive them anything. I used to say they were easily distracted by bright lights and shiny objects. It seems now that they're trying the same with the fans.

I truly wish I could sit down and talk to Ron Burkle for just an hour or so. I would let him know what it would mean to an incredible number of people to have their faith restored. I'd make sure he knew that Kings fans are family traditions, that we're global in nature, that we cross all political and economic boundaries, that we come in all shapes and sizes. I'd have him look at the pictures of my granddaughters as they attended their first Kings game. I'd point to our board, to the incredibly loyal fans of all ages who come here to talk about this team we have loved and rooted for through thick and thin. And then, I'd show him the clips from The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills that ridiculed us and tried to convince the viewers that Sacramento fans were shallow and mean and vindictive.

This all sucks and it angers me more than words can express.

 

[VF21]

Oh, so Dalembert signed with the Rockets because his feelings got hurt? Yea, that sounds like a guy we need on this team. Dalembert was using the Kings as leverage against the Rockets. Petrie didn't need to waste time on retaining a player who didn't want to be here in the first place.

I also think Paul Westphal might have been part of the reason Daly wasn't in any real hurry to come back. I think there was a lot of tension in the locker room that just didn't come to the surface publicly.

 

[SacTownKid]

What I can't fathom is people thinking it only boiled down to a guy who wanted to come here for a couple years leading up to being traded here, and who's agent was quite vocal about Daly wanting to come here and ecstatic that it finally happened, simply wanted to move on a little while later as if there was no other reason. Do people hide in closets all day and have zero knowledge of politics which play a role in business behind the scenes?

Do you still not realize, after it's been mentioned numerous times, we went after Chuck, not Daly, and only went after Daly when Chuck's heart problem popped up? You don't think playing second fiddle to Chuck freaking Hayes in free agency had anything to do with it? Even if none of that played a part, the timeline and us making Chuck our top target not Daly, then one might assume our previous idiot coach might have had something to do with it, which is on Petrie for keeping him around, after all Westy only coached a total of SEVEN regular season games after Daly walked. So say it was coach related, we possibly passed on retaining Daly for a coach we immediately fired about a week into the season. On top of all that is Petrie's known reputation for not valuing shot blocking, and what do you know, he went after a 6'6" PF/C instead of doing everything possible to bring back Daly. Did Petrie bypass going after Daly for another shotblocker, or at least someone who can challenge shots and pair well with Cuz? Well, no, he didn't. It wasn't as simple as Daly just decided he's rather move on after wanting to come here, and stated it publicly while still a 76er.

Then why did he go to Houston? Heck, the freaking Rockets called Hayes to see if he could still play after the failed test before finally singing Dalembert!

I think Petrie going after Hayes may have had something to do with finding a compliment to Cousins. Strange how he rarely played with Cousins after the coaching change. My gripe is with the guy that saw that 6'6" player as a full time center, not a PF. There is quite a difference in size between both positions after all.

 

[SacTownKid]

I also think Paul Westphal might have been part of the reason Daly wasn't in any real hurry to come back. I think there was a lot of tension in the locker room that just didn't come to the surface publicly.

I think you also have to look back and ask why Dalembert was one of the last free agents on the entire market. Why did the Rockets attempt to sign Hayes after a failed physical before Dalembert? Why did the Rockets trade for a stop gap center to take Dalembert's starting spot?

Personally I think he has something wrong with his knee. Just a stab based on how he had knee problems during his year with the Kings but I don't see Dalembert as a malcontent. Could have been, never heard too much to support it though.

 

[ParniValjak]

Oh, so Dalembert signed with the Rockets because his feelings got hurt? Yea, that sounds like a guy we need on this team. Dalembert was using the Kings as leverage against the Rockets. Petrie didn't need to waste time on retaining a player who didn't want to be here in the first place.

Oh please can you spare us the crap of re-writing history. Feel free to check out the timeline of events and come back again with a version of events that is just unbacked by anything

1. When the Free Agency opened Chuck Hayes became out #1 target and we completely ignored Dalembert (Chuck ****ing Hayes for a team with most cap room and owners that promised to spend it all)
2. We renounced the bird rights for Dalembert to sign Chuck Hayes and Dalembert came out and said that the Kings could still offer him a contract (Not the words of someone that did not want to be here)
3. We sign Chuck Hayes and his contract gets voided because he fails his physical.
4. With most of the FAs already committed to other teams, we extend an offer to Samuel Dalembert.
5. Dalembert comes out in the National Media saying that he expects to sign with Sacramento in the next 24 hours.
6. Doctors at Cleveland Clinic say there is nothing wring with Chuck's heart.
7. Sacramento Kings issue out a statement saying that they have rescinded the contract offer made to Dalembert.
8. Within couple of hours of previous press release, the Sacramento Kings announced that they have agreed to terms with Chuck Hayes after slapping another $1 million for his troubles in getting his contract voided in the first place.

The "Dalembert didn't want to be here" brigade blatantly overlook points 5-8 in the timeline because it blows their argument right out of the water. We RESCINDED our offer to Dalembert once we found out that Chuck's heart is OK and upped our initial offer to Hayes to keep him. That led to Dalembert signing with Houston for less than what we offered him and then we pulled that same offer. So people say that Dalembert signed for less with Houston so that means he didn't want to be here, conveniently ignoring the fact that we rescinded out our offer before he had a chance to accept it because we found out that there is nothing wrong with Chuck.

Hey but don't let the facts get in a way of a good story!

 

[jpsls]

Oh please can you spare us the crap of re-writing history. Feel free to check out the timeline of events and come back again with a version of events that is just unbacked by anything

1. When the Free Agency opened Chuck Hayes became out #1 target and we completely ignored Dalembert (Chuck ****ing Hayes for a team with most cap room and owners that promised to spend it all)
2. We renounced the bird rights for Dalembert to sign Chuck Hayes and Dalembert came out and said that the Kings could still offer him a contract (Not the words of someone that did not want to be here)
3. We sign Chuck Hayes and his contract gets voided because he fails his physical.
4. With most of the FAs already committed to other teams, we extend an offer to Samuel Dalembert.
5. Dalembert comes out in the National Media saying that he expects to sign with Sacramento in the next 24 hours.
6. Doctors at Cleveland Clinic say there is nothing wring with Chuck's heart.
7. Sacramento Kings issue out a statement saying that they have rescinded the contract offer made to Dalembert.
8. Within couple of hours of previous press release, the Sacramento Kings announced that they have agreed to terms with Chuck Hayes after slapping another $1 million for his troubles in getting his contract voided in the first place.

The "Dalembert didn't want to be here" brigade blatantly overlook points 5-8 in the timeline because it blows their argument right out of the water. We RESCINDED our offer to Dalembert once we found out that Chuck's heart is OK and upped our initial offer to Hayes to keep him. That led to Dalembert signing with Houston for less than what we offered him and then we pulled that same offer. So people say that Dalembert signed for less with Houston so that means he didn't want to be here, conveniently ignoring the fact that we rescinded out our offer before he had a chance to accept it because we found out that there is nothing wrong with Chuck.

Hey but don't let the facts get in a way of a good story!

Your timeline is wrong.

December 19, 2011

The Sacramento Kings voided Chuck Hayes' $21.3 million, four-year contract Monday, saying the forward-center failed a team physical that forced his release.

December 21, 2011

The Houston Rockets have reached terms on a new contract with free-agent center Samuel Dalembert, according to sources close to the situation.

December 22, 2011

They hit me with the news and every day after that was just, like bad news until Thursday morning.

Chuck Hayes was medically cleared by the Cleveland Clinic to resume his NBA career on Thursday, and is preparing to rejoin the Sacramento Kings, according to Yahoo! Sports.

Dalembert signed on the 21st while Hayes didn't receive medical clearance until the 22. Chuck didn't get clearance until AFTER Dalembert signed with the Rockets i.e. the Kings did not have knowledge Chuck would be medically cleared until the day after they rescinded their offer to Dalembert. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

 

[BMiller52]

I also think Paul Westphal might have been part of the reason Daly wasn't in any real hurry to come back. I think there was a lot of tension in the locker room that just didn't come to the surface publicly.

I agree with this. I doubt too many people wanted to play for Westphal.

 

[Rookie]

1. When the Free Agency opened Chuck Hayes became out #1 target and we completely ignored Dalembert (Chuck ****ing Hayes for a team with most cap room and owners that promised to spend it all)

I don't know if we completely ignored Dally. There could be more to what we see because GP don't go out and talk much about what his decision will be. You could be right with this one but without knowing the reasoning behind the decision it's hard to draw any conclusion.

2. We renounced the bird rights for Dalembert to sign Chuck Hayes and Dalembert came out and said that the Kings could still offer him a contract (Not the words of someone that did not want to be here)
3. We sign Chuck Hayes and his contract gets voided because he fails his physical.
4. With most of the FAs already committed to other teams, we extend an offer to Samuel Dalembert.
5. Dalembert comes out in the National Media saying that he expects to sign with Sacramento in the next 24 hours.

First Dally deal with Houston failed, so in that regard Kings would be all he got. Of course he would come out and stated publicly that the Kings could still put an offer for him. If not he be unemployed.

Anyway, the Kings wanted to resign him after Hayes failed his physical but he then signed with Houston the very next day. As he stated in the link below, he was frustrated that Houston deal fell apart showing indication that he prefer Houston over Sac. The link after indicated that he signed on Wednesday, we offer him on Tuesday, and Hayes didn't get cleared until Thursday morning. And from what I remembered he took Houston offer which was slightly less than ours.

http://www.foxsportsflorida.com/12/20/11/Dalembert-set-to-re-sign-with-Sacramento/landing_heat.html?blockID=630806

"Houston moved Wednesday to seal a deal with Dalembert before Sacramento could finalize a deal to keep the Haiti native."
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7377238/sources-houston-rockets-samuel-dalembert-reach-two-year-deal

6. Doctors at Cleveland Clinic say there is nothing wring with Chuck's heart.
7. Sacramento Kings issue out a statement saying that they have rescinded the contract offer made to Dalembert.
8. Within couple of hours of previous press release, the Sacramento Kings announced that they have agreed to terms with Chuck Hayes after slapping another $1 million for his troubles in getting his contract voided in the first place.

From the link below, Hayes was rethinking of where to go after he was cleared. One of his choice could be to head back to Houston. However that it was a little late since Dally signed with Houston already. Minny/Toronto was also interested in Hayes as well (possibly the reason to increase the offer, who knows). This is where I think your time line is incorrect unless SI is wrong. Dally signed with Houston on Wednesday before we resigned Hayes on a Friday, after he was cleared on Thursday morning.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/12/22/chuck.hayes/index.html

And as a result, believing that Dally didn't want to be here is reasonable IMO.

 

[Sac.1989]

when we end up replacing GP, whose been operating in questionable circumstances, with some cheap rookie GM who wants to put his own stamp on the team and trades away what we've built, we will look back and think about what we had and what we gave up.

The maloofs have screwed us. Letting go of GP would be a mistake and would doom us further

 

[Tyndel]

when we end up replacing GP, whose been operating in questionable circumstances, with some cheap rookie GM who wants to put his own stamp on the team and trades away what we've built, we will look back and think about what we had and what we gave up.

The maloofs have screwed us. Letting go of GP would be a mistake and would doom us further

This was my first thought. A new gm will want his own fingerprints on the talent and will make unneeded trades to do it.

 

[Elektrik]

I'm not the biggest Petrie supporter but I'm fully convinced that the Maloofs want NOTHING good to happen to this team as long as the team is in Sacramento.

Can you say sabotage? I think the Maloofs will do anything in their version of reality to get out of Sacramento and letting Petrie go is next on their list. They want the team to implode so they feel justified about their exit. After all, they are pretty much boxed into a corner at this point. They're just going to help the process along at the fastest pace possible.

 

[Jose]

Grant for GM!!!!