1. It was a joke. 
2. Had #3 gone ANYWHERE but to an expansion team, he wouldn't have started either...
hrdboild makes it sound as though Wallace tore it up in Charlotte. While his stats did get better, which they just about had to considering the very limited minutes on the court he spent here, I think 11/5.5/2 is a long way from super-stardom.
2. Had #3 gone ANYWHERE but to an expansion team, he wouldn't have started either...
hrdboild makes it sound as though Wallace tore it up in Charlotte. While his stats did get better, which they just about had to considering the very limited minutes on the court he spent here, I think 11/5.5/2 is a long way from super-stardom.
Don't forget the shot blocking (1.3 is damned good for a SF) and the steals (1.7)...VF21 said:
No, those numbers don't scream superstar, or anything other than "roleplayer" quite frankly, but it's a hell of a thing to let a guy who can put up the numbers that Wallace can walk for nothing; what Wallace does best (block shots, rebound, attack the basket) is all the stuff that the Kings were pretty much unable to do at all last season. And, more importantly, in the thirty or so games that I got to watch before I went on deployment, Wallace showed signs that he was still getting better, whereas most of the roleplayers we have now (I'll reserve judgement on the kids for now) have pretty much topped off, and aren't going to get any better.
Hell, if we'd kept him, I'd be really interested in starting him at SF, and packaging Stojakovic for a quality PF.
Such an old and moot argument, but who would you have exposed to the draft?
He was exposed because, for whatever reason, he was the most expendable. It was an expansion draft. We had to expose someone. Sorry, but I still don't see what you saw in Gerald Wallace. Probably never will.
START him at SF? I'd sooner start Corliss.
EDIT: As far as the roleplayers go (except for the kids), the "roleplayers we have" we don't have any more...
He was exposed because, for whatever reason, he was the most expendable. It was an expansion draft. We had to expose someone. Sorry, but I still don't see what you saw in Gerald Wallace. Probably never will.
START him at SF? I'd sooner start Corliss.
EDIT: As far as the roleplayers go (except for the kids), the "roleplayers we have" we don't have any more...
Last edited:
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
I don't think you're including Mo on "topped off", but just to say since he still could be back, he will definitely be better offensively (mid-range) and ball-handling. Defense he'll only get better. Not like he isn't working on his game, as he has great work ethic, and said he is over the summer.
Songaila, I don't know.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
VF21 said:
In retrospect, Darius would have been a good choice. Gerals has MUCH more upside. And probably only in Sacto does a SF who puts up those kind of defensive numbers inspire yawns. With the exception of the single ill fated and short lived Glen rice year, Gerald's talents are much closer to those of the Sfs who have won titles in the last 15 years than are our own's.
I can't remember what the rules for the expansion draft are, at the moment, and therefore cannot remember who would have been eligible to leave available. But, just going by my personal assessment of the talent that we had at the time, I would have locked up:
Webber
Stojakovic
Bibby
Jackson
Miller
Wallace
And taken my chances with everyone else.
So, you don't see what I see in Wallace? You don't see the value in a roleplayer off the bench who can contribute in the way that Wallace can contribute? Perhaps you would have rather have had Songaila than Wallace out of personal taste but, to me, Wallace was a better player at the time we let him walk than all but the top six in our rotation, and has a better potential upside than anyone on the team. But, even if he never gets better than the 11.1/5.5/2.0/1.3/1.7 that he's already putting up, that's better than anything we've got coming off the bench right now.
I'm inclined to suspect that you and I began to disagree about Wallace after he got into Adelman's doghouse. I think that, basically, you take Adelman's side of the story, and I take Wallace's side of the story. I think that there was way more to the alleged "cramp" story than was leaked to the public, and I don't buy that it was anything near as cut-and-dry as that; I also think that there was some legitimate heat between the coach and the player. And frankly, given Adelman's reputation for losing faith in young players quickly, I find myself disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Webber
Stojakovic
Bibby
Jackson
Miller
Wallace
And taken my chances with everyone else.
So, you don't see what I see in Wallace? You don't see the value in a roleplayer off the bench who can contribute in the way that Wallace can contribute? Perhaps you would have rather have had Songaila than Wallace out of personal taste but, to me, Wallace was a better player at the time we let him walk than all but the top six in our rotation, and has a better potential upside than anyone on the team. But, even if he never gets better than the 11.1/5.5/2.0/1.3/1.7 that he's already putting up, that's better than anything we've got coming off the bench right now.
I'm inclined to suspect that you and I began to disagree about Wallace after he got into Adelman's doghouse. I think that, basically, you take Adelman's side of the story, and I take Wallace's side of the story. I think that there was way more to the alleged "cramp" story than was leaked to the public, and I don't buy that it was anything near as cut-and-dry as that; I also think that there was some legitimate heat between the coach and the player. And frankly, given Adelman's reputation for losing faith in young players quickly, I find myself disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Right, because we couldn't find 30 minutes a game for a 6'7" G/F with the motley crew that we have now? Wallace would be the 6th man on this team today, without question, and I might be tempted to start him at SG; it's not like Wells is so clearly better than Wallace that he should be the unqualified starter.Kings113 said:
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Your initial suspicion might just be correct. From what I've heard from people I trust, Wallace had a very poor work ethic. He didn't want to work on his game and improving himself, he just wanted to work on the showboat dunks...
Regardless, the ship sailed...and Wallace was on it.
If I regret losing anyone, it's letting Jimmy Jackson walk. He was, IMHO, a much better fit for the team and could have paid BIG dividends the last couple of years.
Gerald Wallace on the bench? Maybe. Sixth man? Probably not. Starter? Not in my book...
But that's why we're here. To talk, agree, disagree, etc.
Our projected starting lineup, assuming no other changes, will probably be:
PG - Bibby
SG - Wells
SF - Stojakovic
PF - Thomas
C - Miller
Which currently leaves us a bench of: House, Garcia, Martin, Williamson, Skinner... you know, I don't see any of those guys deserving more minutes than Wallace but, of course, YMMV.
I don't agree that J. Jackson was a better fit that Wallace; I thought at the time, and continue to think, that he was overrated. I think that we made a mistake in signing Jackson in the first place, as Adelman should have been more willing to see what Wallace had to give. I also don't think that Jackson deserves the money that he's getting paid at this point in his career.
It is believed by some that Petrie and the Maloofs decided, after Webber suffered his injury, that they needed to take an opportunity to move him into consideration. If that is, in fact, the case, then when they decided that a team built around Webber was not going to get it done, then they should have made a move to build the team about young players with potential. Wallace should have been a part of that movement, not Jackson.
At any rate, with regards to the thread topic, I do agree that Evans has the potential to be a good roleplayer, but I was only in favor of keeping him if we were going to package Stojakovic to get a real star. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, I would personally rather see us develop our young players, for a change, and see what they can do. I think that Evans would be a good fit for San Antonio, and if were able to suceed there, I would be happy for him.
PG - Bibby
SG - Wells
SF - Stojakovic
PF - Thomas
C - Miller
Which currently leaves us a bench of: House, Garcia, Martin, Williamson, Skinner... you know, I don't see any of those guys deserving more minutes than Wallace but, of course, YMMV.
I don't agree that J. Jackson was a better fit that Wallace; I thought at the time, and continue to think, that he was overrated. I think that we made a mistake in signing Jackson in the first place, as Adelman should have been more willing to see what Wallace had to give. I also don't think that Jackson deserves the money that he's getting paid at this point in his career.
It is believed by some that Petrie and the Maloofs decided, after Webber suffered his injury, that they needed to take an opportunity to move him into consideration. If that is, in fact, the case, then when they decided that a team built around Webber was not going to get it done, then they should have made a move to build the team about young players with potential. Wallace should have been a part of that movement, not Jackson.
At any rate, with regards to the thread topic, I do agree that Evans has the potential to be a good roleplayer, but I was only in favor of keeping him if we were going to package Stojakovic to get a real star. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, I would personally rather see us develop our young players, for a change, and see what they can do. I think that Evans would be a good fit for San Antonio, and if were able to suceed there, I would be happy for him.
I'm just saying, when you've got talent you should keep it. That's the only commodity that matters in professional sports. Earlier in the offseason you made a post listing the names of the guys still on the team and what a dropoff it is from the level of talent we're used to having around here. That's what happens when you let talented players leave. I didn't say Wallace was a superstar, but he put up very good numbers for a first time starter this year and he's probably still improving. We definately could have used him on the team. Evans is a potential sixth man. If he doesn't do it for us, he'll do it for someone else. I'd rather it was us.
It seems the choice was Wallace or Songaila. Wallace was under contract though while Songaila was a restricted free agent which means if he had been drafted, he would have become an unrestricted free agent and any team but us could have signed him. (I looked up the rules here) Seems a lot less likely Charlotte would have used a pick on him given that stipulation. I was actually happy to see him go because he wasn't getting any playing time here and that's not a good situation for any player to be in. It'd be nice if we found a spot for him though instead of just cutting him loose. With the neverending string of injuries, he would have had a lot more playing time last year had we kept him.
It seems the choice was Wallace or Songaila. Wallace was under contract though while Songaila was a restricted free agent which means if he had been drafted, he would have become an unrestricted free agent and any team but us could have signed him. (I looked up the rules here) Seems a lot less likely Charlotte would have used a pick on him given that stipulation. I was actually happy to see him go because he wasn't getting any playing time here and that's not a good situation for any player to be in. It'd be nice if we found a spot for him though instead of just cutting him loose. With the neverending string of injuries, he would have had a lot more playing time last year had we kept him.
Last edited:
:: shrugs ::
I only said that he's the projected starter assuming no other changes, and I stand by that; it's not like either Skinner or Williamson have proven that they deserve to start ahead of him.
I only said that he's the projected starter assuming no other changes, and I stand by that; it's not like either Skinner or Williamson have proven that they deserve to start ahead of him.
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Evans would be a good fit anywhere coming off the bench, including the Kings as he showed last season. I'd rather have Evans over Martin out of keeping one of the youngsters. If that were to be the case.
There will be other changes, everyone should expect that. If you don't, you haven't been following the Kings off-season and reading Sacbee.
hrdboild said:
He wasn't a first-time starter in Charlotte. He actually started one game for us...
And I still think, for a variety of reasons, that he was not going to work out in Sacramento. With a different coach, who knows? That wasn't going to happen, though, so it was most likely best for all concerned that he be let go.
If Mo Evans gets a decent offer from the Spurs, I wish him well. He's not going to get major minutes with us now.
All things considered, I'd rather see us bring in some new blood instead of always thinking about bringing back the ones on the fence who shined just enough for us to hope they might be capable of more.
My only exception to that is Matt Barnes, for reasons I've outlined many times.
At this point, I'm just a spectator...I don't really have a horse in this race. I just want Petrie to do whatever he can do to make this team the best it possibly can be with what he has to work with.
And I want him to trade Kenny Thomas.
:: shrugs ::
I'd probably rather keep Evans than Martin, but I'd rather keep Martin than Garcia, so I guess it evens out.
I'd probably rather keep Evans than Martin, but I'd rather keep Martin than Garcia, so I guess it evens out.
He started nine games for us; and, as I recall, we were 8-1.VF21 said:
BigSong
Bench
this love fest for evans is really getting to be absurd. he sprang to the top of a lackluster traing camp, above the likes of anwar ferguson, alton ford, tony bland, liu wei, and adam parada. If it wasn't for alexander being injured, evans probably wouldn't have even made the team. people think evans is some diamond in the rough, when hes really just some sandstone we polished up for a season. hes not gonna explode next year, and so what if hes "working on his game," so is everyone else. if he takes the offer sheet fine, if not nice knowing him.
BigSong said:
What's the matter? Someone do something "not nice" in your Wheaties or something?
It's TDOS. This is the kind of stuff we talk about. It's not a love fest. It's a matter of bringing someone back who showed a lot of heart, determination, resiliency, and athleticism. He'll probably never be a true work horse, but there's every chance he might end up being a pretty good role player in some capacity and it would be nice to have a couple of those around...
1) Don't allow yourself to make the mistake of believing that just because the guy wasn't drafted, that he isn't going to become a good player; he wouldn't be the first undrafted player to become an all-star, and the quality of the players that he was in camp with means less than nothing relative to his own talent.BigSong said:
2) If he goes to the Spurs, he won't need to "explode." He's a hard worker, he plays defense, and he's coachable; history has already proven that that's all you need to be good in Pop's system.
Ever hear of Wally Pipp?BigSong said:
Okay, Petrie isn't done making moves. Howe'er, comma, since we don't know what those moves are, I don't see any sense in projecting our "future PF," and I might as well say Thomas.VF21 said:
VF21 said:
yea
------
Evans won't explode next year, yes, because he'd have the same role anywhere he goes, including the Kings. I'd just like to keep him because he'd be a really good back-up SG, and provide energy off the bench.
I wouldn't take Martin over Garcia, he's a better prospect and more versatile than Martin. Martin'll be a good player though.
while, yeah, we don't know specific future plans, we know that the starting power foward position WILL be addressed, anyone who saw the Sonics series should know that. Also, Thomas is one of the best pieces we have for a trade. Now that Bobby is gone, the back up PG spot WILL be filled by someone. Not by Garcia, he won't get those kind of minutes, or that big of a spot. Also, if we all did "I don't see any sense in projecting our "future PF," and I might as well say Thomas.", what would be the point of all these threads about PF and back up PG? It's because those two spots will be filled by someone not on the team right now. PF was the main position next to SG that needed to be filled. Geoff also said back-court play making was another area that needed fixing, the departure of Bobby only adds to that.
Last edited:
I don't agree that Garcia is a better prospect than Martin. I do agree that Garcia is more versatile than Martin, but I also believe that Martin will become a better player at his one position than Garcia will be at his multiple positions.Kings113 said:
Personally, I compare Martin and Garcia to Michael Redd and Desmond Mason in Milwaukee; Mason may be more versatile than Redd but, all things being equal, I'd rather have Redd.
Garcia's primary spot is SG, his secondary is PG, third is SF. Garcia can do everything well in the game, and will bring that into the NBA and only get better in those areas. Martin has shown he can score, be an okay defender, and has athleticism. If the situation was right I'd keep both, but with Mo still being around, I'd rather have him over Martin for back-up SG. Heck, the Kings have shown interest in Juan Dixon, so who knows.
So, to sum this up... One of those three (Evans/Martin/Dixon) will be our back-up, and one of Evans/Martin won't be here next season. Is how I see it. I've already made known who I'd have at back-up. Dixon isn't really a big factor yet (has interest from 4 other teams), so we'll see with that.
So, to sum this up... One of those three (Evans/Martin/Dixon) will be our back-up, and one of Evans/Martin won't be here next season. Is how I see it. I've already made known who I'd have at back-up. Dixon isn't really a big factor yet (has interest from 4 other teams), so we'll see with that.
BigSong
Bench
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
well I never heard of wally pipp until now...Lou [size=-1]Gehrig??? no comment
and since I went on one little quest, decided I'd go for another and as it turns out there hasn't been an undrafted all-star since 1989, so gonna have to still say im not sold on evan's "potential" or whatever else people have going for him.
[/size]
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Associated Press
- Kings News Links
- NBC Sports BayArea
- Kings News Links
- NBC Sports BayArea
- Kings News Links