NoBonus
Starter
Last edited:
nbadraft.net State of the Cap: Sacramento Kings
- Thread starter NoBonus
- Start date
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Thx, although the first couple of lines of "The Bad" make little sense. Getting a $12mil expiring out of that was a "The Good" you dufus (the author, not you the poster).
P.S. to avoid any trouble for article stealing could you chop this down, maybe just using "..." after the first line of "The Good" or some such, while leaving the link? I can do it myself if necessary, but if you can handle it it would be appreciated.
P.S. to avoid any trouble for article stealing could you chop this down, maybe just using "..." after the first line of "The Good" or some such, while leaving the link? I can do it myself if necessary, but if you can handle it it would be appreciated.
Last edited:
NoBonus
Starter
I think it is saying that is how much the qualifying offer would be.
I like how the article was clearly written at two different times. Under "The Good" the author talks about DeMarcus Cousins. Later, under "The Future", the author says that Sacramento will have "a top six pick in the draft". So, the last section was written before the lottery even happened, and apparently never looked at again.
Well done. Very professional job. Shows you care a lot and you really know what you're talking about.
Well done. Very professional job. Shows you care a lot and you really know what you're talking about.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Have they seen Nocioni play?
Yet another vote of confidence in this article's analysis: the Kings simply can't do without the production they've been getting from Hawes and Nocioni. Now I'll admit I was one of the biggest Hawes fans around, but his inability to do what a center is supposed to do (rebound, play good interior D) was pretty glaring. He's still got time to turn it around given his age, but let's not deceive ourselves that he was a linchpin we couldn't give up. And Nocioni?
Yeah, couldn't give up those guys to get a rebounding, defensive center.
I absolutely agree with you there. I won't miss Hawes, but we did give up a pretty skilled 22 year old 7 footer, for a 30 year old one dimensional shot blocker with just one year left on his contract. Sam is 8/8/2, and that's it. Not gonna ever be anything more than that. If Hawes turns into a 16/10/1.5 center, with the ability to score with his back to the basket and pass out of the post, then we might need to re-argue the merits of this deal. But for now, Hawes has done nothing but underwhelm.
Nocioni was a nonfactor for us. Not that he didn't ever contribute, but he wasn't part of our plans, and we're saving at least a million over the next two years just on his contract alone. I'd have traded Nocioni away for a second rounder in 2056. We win there just by shedding his contract. It's essentially a buyout of Noc and clearing his deal in one season, instead of two, except we get a shotblocker for that one year on top of it.
The Hammer
All-Star
Skilled effing schmilled. DEFENSE IS A SKILL!!!!!!!!!! REBOUNDING IS A SKILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Easy.
I'm going to disagree with you on this as well. Trading Hawes was addition by subtraction, even moreso than trading Nocioni who was only a short-term fill in from the beginning. When you draft a young center in the lottery, that makes them a key part of your future from day one. I rarely saw any evidence of the skilled post scorer he was billed as coming into the league. I saw a player who was almost always overmatched on defense and nervous and out of control with the ball in the post who gradually extended his outside shooting further and further away from the basket. Some may call that improvement, but considering his position and role in the rotation (especially considering our lack of depth at center) I call that regression.
But that wasn't the main problem with Hawes. There are plenty of soft bigmen in the league who still perform a valuable role for their team. I'm convinced Hawes will never be one of those guys because he doesn't have the right attitude. Every year he was failing conditioning tests, skipping summer league, complaining about playing time, and offering all sorts of excuses that put the blame on everyone else. His attitude needed to go. Maybe he's just a hardhead who needed to grow up, and maybe he'll do that in Philadelphia. I hope so for his sake because the fans/media in Sacramento are a whole lot more forgiving than those in Philly. But for our team right now, we had to move Hawes and we had to move him quick before the infection spread.
I missed where you disagreed with me. I'm not going to miss Hawes. All I'm saying is that his book hasn't been written yet, and if he turns into a really good player, we'll have to reconsider this deal.
Well, basically because I heard we got Dalembert and was mildly excited. Then I heard we moved Hawes and there was a huge smile on my face. That's not a "wait and see" trade for me, that's a home run. But then I never liked Hawes. I saw him play in Washington that one year and already didn't like him as a player. And we won't really have a chance to miss him regardless, even if he pulls a Gerald Wallace and makes an All Star team down the road, because the guy we replaced him with is going to be a top 5 center in the league long before that ever happens.
Or put another way, you could say that having to give up Hawes to get Dalembert means giving up a valuable asset and young centers who can play are always an asset in this league. But I don't think Hawes represented an asset on our roster and I don't think he will in Philadelphia either. Do not want.
Last edited:
Well, basically because I heard we got Dalembert and was mildly excited. Then I heard we moved Hawes and there was a huge smile on my face. That's not a "wait and see" trade for me, that's a home run. But then I never liked Hawes. I saw him play in Washington that one year and already didn't like him as a player. And we won't really have a chance to miss him regardless, even if he pulls a Gerald Wallace and makes an All Star team down the road, because the guy we replaced him with is going to be a top 5 center in the league long before that ever happens.
Or put another way, you could say that having to give up Hawes to get Dalembert means giving up a valuable asset and young centers who can play are always an asset in this league. But I don't think Hawes represented an asset on our roster and I don't think he will in Philadelphia either. Do not want.
Being able to get DMC and Whiteside (fingers crossed that Whiteside hangs on and becomes a valuable member of the team) in the draft means that having Dalembert on a one year deal doesn't matter; we'll likely be done with him after this season anyways. But let's say we weren't able to draft two seven footers, we'd have had a problem in the middle. Of course, that was the case even with Hawes, but at least we had something. Whether we liked him or not, whether he was a part of our plans or not, Hawes was an asset, and this trade is proof of that. Brought us a shotblocker and future cap space. (Also made damn certain that we never hear a certain awful nickname on this board again.)
I'm not calling it a "wait and see" trade. I'm just saying that, with Spencer being 22 years old, there's still a chance that he could turn into a really good player. If he does, I'll be happy for him, but I won't be mad because we made out ahead with that trade, and were able to draft the best big man in the draft. I wasn't mad about the Gerald Wallace thing, either, because I don't think he would have ever become a good player for the Kings, not with Adelman coaching, and not with Petrie building the team around Miller, Peja and Bibby. Wallace was in the wrong place here, I think. I'm happy for him, but not mad that we let him go.
Also, even if DMC is a top 5 center, the deal wasn't Hawes for DMC. It was Hawes for Dalembert, and if Hawes averaged 16/10 for the next seven years, while Dalembert is hopping around the league, it will be worth a look over our shoulder to say "maybe Philly got the better end of that deal". For what we wanted/needed, we made out just fine. But Hawes could still turn out to be a player, and that would change things a bit.
To that I'll just say this:
Hawes was a perceived asset around the league because he's a young 7 footer and he's got some skill. But the time clock on that potential is quickly running out and someone is going to have to make a decision about him with real financial consequences. That decision is most likely going to be based more on potential than actual production. We were smart to cash in on that perceived asset now while it remains an asset. Once he signs a new contract his production has to match the salary or he will no longer be an asset. And if the production drops off then he becomes the opposite, a liability.
Building a team in the NBA is not just a game of collecting and trading assets. That's fantasy basketball. In real life these guys have to play together and you stake the success or failure of your franchise on these players and what they do together on the court. More often than not our team was worse with Hawes on the floor the past three seasons. That means he's not a real asset. Any time you can exchange a perceived asset for a real asset you come out ahead.
Hawes was a perceived asset around the league because he's a young 7 footer and he's got some skill. But the time clock on that potential is quickly running out and someone is going to have to make a decision about him with real financial consequences. That decision is most likely going to be based more on potential than actual production. We were smart to cash in on that perceived asset now while it remains an asset. Once he signs a new contract his production has to match the salary or he will no longer be an asset. And if the production drops off then he becomes the opposite, a liability.
Building a team in the NBA is not just a game of collecting and trading assets. That's fantasy basketball. In real life these guys have to play together and you stake the success or failure of your franchise on these players and what they do together on the court. More often than not our team was worse with Hawes on the floor the past three seasons. That means he's not a real asset. Any time you can exchange a perceived asset for a real asset you come out ahead.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Nocioni's biggest problem was that he lacked all objectivity as to his own game. Was he a tough hard nosed competitor? Yeah, but I've seen countless big tough guys get their heads handed to them in the boxing ring. In truth, he wasn't that good an athlete and his skills, while well rounded, were nothing to write home about. His role on the Kings was exactly what his role should be on any team. He was a guy, that in the right situation with the right matchup, you could put on the floor and he could help. But in the wrong situation he would force things, make stupid turnovers or take bad shots. Usually both.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
Attachments
No doubt. If he goes 16 and 10 for the next two years and then gets a $60 million contract, well then we'll not regret trading him one bit, regardless of what Dalembert does. No way we'd feel comfortable dropping that kind of change on Spencer Hawes, not unless he was all of a sudden the best big man in the NBA. No one expects him to be the best big man in the NBA.
In other words, now we're liquid. I'm right there with you. Don't regret the deal at all. Don't expect that I ever will. Just commenting on the fact that Spencer Hawes can still get better, while Sammy D. is what he is already.
Telemachus
Starter
But they call Hawes and Nocioni "role players without much potenial". Then said they were solid rotational players. It was like they were looking for something to put under "The Bad" but couldn't quite commit to it.
Entity
Hall of Famer
Hawesome post
Nighthawk1
Starter
I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned much is the non-tangible at this point effect of the culture change in Sac which was helped by this trade. Our team is no longer comprised of a bunch of softies, and Spence was king softie. Whether or not he turns around to have a great stastical career to me is meaningless when he was so easily pushed around and abused by anyone in the league and he seemingly didn't care to stop it. I'm lead to believe he will always be that person being pushed around at will in the paint. Whether he changes that we won't know for a few years, but it did usher in a newer, tougher looking squad here. Where GP said no longer will we be a bunch of sissies in the paint, no longer will we settle for losing the rebounding war, no longer will we settle for non willing defenders. We are going to punch you in the mouth, grab rebounds, dominate both sides of the paint if our plan works out. It was a step in the direction you need to go if you want to compete for a title down the road.
On top of that we used some cap space to turn Noci's long term bad contract into a 1 year expiring which helps us in the long term (next year).
On top of that we used some cap space to turn Noci's long term bad contract into a 1 year expiring which helps us in the long term (next year).
Sparky6string
Bench
Agreed. I remember a string of players that after leaving Golden State had All-Star years the following year. IDK if that mean't GS had a terrible sense of when to trade players or what but yeah you never know. In the end it made way for Cousins for us though, so even if Hawes finally develops it can still be construed as a good move for us if Cousins turns into the monster we expect him to be.
Bingo.
If this team had a low post beast at PF then Hawes might be just what the doctor ordered to stretch the defense with his shooting and passing skills while letting someone else cover up his deficiencies in terms of rebounding and positional defense.
But for the Kings he was simply a liability. I looked at last year's draft of Evans, Casspi and Brockman as a sign that the Kings were getting tougher and more hard nosed. Spencer's play flew in the face of that trend with his finesse play and unwillingness to bang or fight in the post. Even if the team had not drafted Cousins, dealing Hawes for Dalembert was still a great move. It shed Noc's contract, got rid of Spencer's softness and lack of dedication (and whining) and brought in a player who, while much less skilled offensively, will provide the things this team needs from its center and continue the theme of strength and toughness.
Besides, people seem to be forgetting that Hawes is in the last year of his deal. Even if he DOES turn things around and has a career arc similar to Chris Kaman, does anyone really think he'll show enough NEXT season for a team to commit to him long term?
At least with Dalembert you know what you'll be getting if you re-sign him. And if you don't? Then you have even more cap room than you would with Spencer's deal expiring but Noc still under contract.
