NOOOOO! Kings looking at Walker?!?!
- Thread starter Warhawk
- Start date
You guys are jumping the gun a bit. I wouldn't mind Walker, but I would be concerned about who exactly we would give up. I would not do a sign and trade using Mobley for him for one. I would save that for something else, perhaps LA or Denver or Portland (SAR). The rise guys were throwing Walker for Corliss and Skinner (don't know if that would work salary-wise). But yeah, definitely. No way the guy is worth as much as they pan him out to be. I wouldnt mind seeing Walker if we could still bring in SAR or Nene. Walker was used as a benchie in Dallas and it worked quite well for them.
I'm coming at it a differnt way -- not concerned at all about who we have to give up. Am concerend about it being subtraction by addition, and perhaps even more damagingly, about it causing us to stop searching for a long term solution because we have once again thrown a puss-filled patch on a gaping wound to give us the appearance of respectability (well, picking up Antoine Walker is generally a source of mocking around the league, so not sure if it would even accomplish that). Walker is a player who is simply in the way of any team trying to get serious about either winning big now, or winning big in the future. IMO all he can help you do is be nothing much in the present.
P.S. rereading that, I realized it was slightly off. If you told me we were going to trade Corliss for Walker straight up, and that furthermore we were going to just have Walker fill Corliss's minor role, I would be cool with that -- gain in talent, youth etc. But the probelm is that if we get Walker, he's our starter. And REGARDLESS of who we have to give up to get him, that IMHO is disaster. Not only virtually guaranteeing the continuation of our softy shooting-centric ways, but more importantly perhaps critically shortcircuiting our efforts to bring in a younger player with actual size and defensive capabilities to give us hope for the future.
P.S. rereading that, I realized it was slightly off. If you told me we were going to trade Corliss for Walker straight up, and that furthermore we were going to just have Walker fill Corliss's minor role, I would be cool with that -- gain in talent, youth etc. But the probelm is that if we get Walker, he's our starter. And REGARDLESS of who we have to give up to get him, that IMHO is disaster. Not only virtually guaranteeing the continuation of our softy shooting-centric ways, but more importantly perhaps critically shortcircuiting our efforts to bring in a younger player with actual size and defensive capabilities to give us hope for the future.
Last edited:
Sometimes exaggeration works to prove a point, sometimes it does the complete opposite. I'll let you take a guess as to which one you accomplish by overestimating 10x.
Feel free to name some of these forwards who play no defense, shoot about 41%, have a horrible attitude towards their teammates and towards the refs. If 80% of all the NBA's forwards are like this, we've had at least 3 or 4 like that every year since 2000, right?
Feel free to name some of these forwards who play no defense, shoot about 41%, have a horrible attitude towards their teammates and towards the refs. If 80% of all the NBA's forwards are like this, we've had at least 3 or 4 like that every year since 2000, right?
Absolutely LESSER D- I'm not sure that works Folsom Al, but I'll let it slide. 
I've purposefully not posted about this potential trade for one reason. I don't think the filter here on Kingsfans would allow it. All that would be seen would be ^$#%@#&@#$%@#&@#$%#@%!@!@!!@!#!!$%(.
Walker is a poor man's Chris Webber, and when I say poor I mean Tiny Tim to Scrooge. No D, ridiculous ammounts of 3's, soft of the boards. Sounds like a winner to me.
I've purposefully not posted about this potential trade for one reason. I don't think the filter here on Kingsfans would allow it. All that would be seen would be ^$#%@#&@#$%@#&@#$%#@%!@!@!!@!#!!$%(.
Walker is a poor man's Chris Webber, and when I say poor I mean Tiny Tim to Scrooge. No D, ridiculous ammounts of 3's, soft of the boards. Sounds like a winner to me.
Kings could get Walker in sign-and-trade deal
I wouldn't mind trading Corliss or Skinner for Walker and either LaFrentz or Blount.
As long as we keep Peja, Miller, Bibby and we get Walker just by trading the guys we got from the Webber deal I think we're good. And we're not finished either. Petrie won't let the team look like that. I'm sure he'll make another trade or two.
I wouldn't mind trading Corliss or Skinner for Walker and either LaFrentz or Blount.
As long as we keep Peja, Miller, Bibby and we get Walker just by trading the guys we got from the Webber deal I think we're good. And we're not finished either. Petrie won't let the team look like that. I'm sure he'll make another trade or two.
I don't see GP initiating anything until both the draft AND FA signing period is over. However, given the sense of urgency some teams have to acquire one of our FA's in the feeding frenzy GP will be forced to listen to proposals so most of this is media speculation fed by systematic leaks from agents speculating on where best their clients would fit. If he bites on something it would be with an overall objective, if not specific plan, in mind and therefore be coincidental.
i would love to see shareef in a kings uni. he is a legitimate 20-10 player on any given night and from what i've seen, he gives 100% every night. then again, i heaven't seen as many games as others so i can't really give a valid opinion of him. i can, however, for sure say that i'd take him over antoine
Shareef is soft, and a perennial loser for a reason. He's got nearly the winning pedigree of Tony Massenburg. We get him, we are again soft as butter, and really have nobody to blame but ourselves (or rather our front office). There comes a point when its not an accident, its not bad luck, and you're not a genius GM. You're somebody so fascinated with certain skill sets that you basically see the game "soft". Comes a point when the problem is that the GM and owners are effectively "soft", and that's why the team continues to struggle with it.
Reef differs from Walker in that Walker is kind of the wacky worst case scenario Kings PF -- the guy who has all the skills that we've had at that position, but has them in lesser degrees, is smallish, dumb, and disruptive to an offense. Reef is not as well fitted, but still has an applicable skillset on offense. He lacks the passing, but also is not as disruptive, beyond being selfish at times.
Thing is, this is what we lost when we lost the classic Webber -- in the entire NBA there were exactly two players who could do what he did at a championship level (the other being KG) -- we are such a high skill system, that we in essence almost DEMAND softness, we demand our PFs have the skills of a SF. Webb being a remarkably talented renaissance PF, he HAD those skills, but combined it with a big frame, athleticism, shotblocking, Top 10 rebounding etc. etc. Webb was never a "hard" player for a PF, but he was a physical force that was hard enough (albeit not by much) to launch us right to the very brink of a title. Now that he's gone, our choices are stark. We are stuck in either/or land -- either we get a player with Webb's skills, OR we get a full sized stud rebounder and shotblocker. But other than KG or some yet-to-blossom kid, nobody can be both for us.
And so Twoine and Reef both make "sense" on the either/or continuum. They are the soft SF side of the equation -- both guys have played SF in their careers, and in many ways basically are just blown up SFs. Good for their skill level, but not surprisingly resulting in them being two of the softest starting PFs in the league. We take them, they more or less fit into the system, but we are soft, small, and combined with the softness of Peja, Mike, Brad, just a speedbump to the top teams.
Reef differs from Walker in that Walker is kind of the wacky worst case scenario Kings PF -- the guy who has all the skills that we've had at that position, but has them in lesser degrees, is smallish, dumb, and disruptive to an offense. Reef is not as well fitted, but still has an applicable skillset on offense. He lacks the passing, but also is not as disruptive, beyond being selfish at times.
Thing is, this is what we lost when we lost the classic Webber -- in the entire NBA there were exactly two players who could do what he did at a championship level (the other being KG) -- we are such a high skill system, that we in essence almost DEMAND softness, we demand our PFs have the skills of a SF. Webb being a remarkably talented renaissance PF, he HAD those skills, but combined it with a big frame, athleticism, shotblocking, Top 10 rebounding etc. etc. Webb was never a "hard" player for a PF, but he was a physical force that was hard enough (albeit not by much) to launch us right to the very brink of a title. Now that he's gone, our choices are stark. We are stuck in either/or land -- either we get a player with Webb's skills, OR we get a full sized stud rebounder and shotblocker. But other than KG or some yet-to-blossom kid, nobody can be both for us.
And so Twoine and Reef both make "sense" on the either/or continuum. They are the soft SF side of the equation -- both guys have played SF in their careers, and in many ways basically are just blown up SFs. Good for their skill level, but not surprisingly resulting in them being two of the softest starting PFs in the league. We take them, they more or less fit into the system, but we are soft, small, and combined with the softness of Peja, Mike, Brad, just a speedbump to the top teams.
Last edited:
O
As much as my "shoot myself in the head with a shotgun if walker throws up a 3 pointer with 23 secs left on the shotclock" post shows how I feel about him, I would have to admit that he did turn his game around a little last year when he came back to boston. He had more of a post game and he shot less pointless 3's. However, I'm still lightyears away from ever welcoming him aboard kings nation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brick, you nailed it. I don't think Walker's a bad player, and he's certainly made Boston competitive for most of his career. But I just don't like what his acquisition by the Kings would signify. It would mean we're still entranced with a now defunct offense, and have made no new commitment to defense and intensity. Does Geoff even realize what kind of teams were in the Finals this year? Does he watch?
I'm certainly not a huge fan of SAR or Toine and I realize that the acquisition of either one will not do anything to help transform the Kings into a defensive juggernaut. However, with so many posts on this board being so critical of both SAR and Toine for their defensive deficiencies and soft tendencies, who do you propose that the Kings get? Sure it would be great to get KG or Ben Wallace, but we all know that that's not going to happen. The only other big men on the market or could be on the market i.e. Tyson Chandler are not going anywhere. Big men with defensive skills are not a dime a dozen. So, for every poster that has remarked about how getting Toine or SAR will do nothing for the Kings, please explain who you would like the Kings to realistically get.
