SAR Fails Physical

[whozit]

Right, I understand that the Nets really want to get SAR, but I still don't see how that has any connection to them actually getting him. Yeah, it's realistic, and they had him, and then messed it up and now SAR no longer wants to be a Net. He has final say, not the Nets. Doesn't make any sense that the Nets get him just because it's convenient and they want him.

Not sure about that statement in bold. The reports are that the Nets have the final say. That doesn't mean he can't make it very uncomfertable for them.

 

[captain bill]

I think what Brick is trying to say and what I think is true is that if we get SAR then that move will probably limit our search for a PF who can effectively address our weaknesses. Having SAR on our team might make the management and owners see no desire getting another PF who can help us seeing that we would be depth wise. Us not having a legimate starter at PF positions makes the organization more focused on getting one that help address our weaknesses. Having SAR here makes that less of a priority because we would have a legimate PF just not one who helps address our weaknesses.

So, you don't want to aquire a legit starting PF because then we would stop pursuing a legit starting PF? Umm, give me a second to think on this...


As I said before, defense and toughness on this team will need to come from the bench, as it has in the past. Remember, if the core stays together, along with Bonzi, we are not going to have a defensive starting line up and I don't care who number 5 is. We need a great bench that can come in and makes stops, grab rebounds, and force turnovers. From my vantage, that is what the Kings are doing, look at the Hart aquisition, a defensive energetic PG. I expect we will pad our bench with defensive players and more energy, and, as I said earlier, that can mean holding the opponent to 5 or 6 less points per night, meaning we take a HUGE amount of pressure off of the offensive, and can make this team great again. I am convinced that making this team tough will not be in the starting 5 unless we have a big shake up. And as this team stand, our 4 starters are damn good, and as much as I wouldn't mind to see KT go, he ain't no scrub. Same for SAR. Bring SAR in and we have 4 all-stars on our team, including a former MVP candidate, and a 5th who is not that bad of a player. If we signed SAR and traded KT for good bench players who have energy and defense, I absolutely guarantee you we would be within a breadth of contedning again. This is on the condition of getting damn good bench players, but we did it before and we can do it again.

 

[captain bill]

Not sure about that statement in bold. The reports are that the Nets have the final say. That doesn't mean he can't make it very uncomfertable for them.

If he failed the physical, the trade is void, it was a condition of the trade succeeding. SAR goes back to being a UFA, and he holds all the cards again.

 

[AleksandarN]

So, you don't want to aquire a legit starting PF because then we would stop pursuing a legit starting PF? Umm, give me a second to think on this...


.

Making a move just because we can does not make it right. We need to improve our weaknesses and SAR does not help in fact make us worse believe it or not on the defensive side of ball. We do not have the budget that other teams have that can accomulate talent reguardless if it helps address our weaknesses. We are not the Mavs who can use the MLE every year on players we have to think about the money side of too.

 

[nbrans]

Making a move just because we can does not make it right. We need to improve our weaknesses and SAR does not help in fact make us worse believe it or not on the defensive side of ball. We do not have the budget that other teams have that can accomulate talent reguardless if it helps address our weaknesses. We are not the Mavs who can use the MLE every year on players we have to think about the money side of too.

Well, I actually happen to think that one of the Kings' weaknesses at the end of the year was a lack of ball movement from the power forward and shooting guard positions. Because the Kings lost Christie and Webber's passing ability and their skill at directing the offense, it put a HUGE strain in Bibby to make all of the offense happen, particularly when Miller went down. It got so bad that all teams had to do was focus their defensive pressure on Bibby and the entire offense fell apart. And when Luke Ridnour can disrupt the Kings' offense as severely as he did in the playoffs, I think that there's a serious problem there.

Bringing in Bonzi is not really going to help this problem. So why not bring in a power forward who can fulfill a Webber-esque role in the offense? Sure he's not going to be as good as Webber was at it, but he'll be better than Thomas, and he'll take a lot of the facilitating load off of Bibby and Miller.

The Kings have more weaknesses than simply defense and the ever amorphus concept of "toughness." I agree with Bill, just because the Kings have historically had an easy time on offense doesn't mean you can start neglecting it now.

 

[captain bill]

Making a move just because we can does not make it right. We need to improve our weaknesses and SAR does not help in fact make us worse believe it or not on the defensive side of ball. We do not have the budget that other teams have that can accomulate talent reguardless if it helps address our weaknesses. We are not the Mavs who can use the MLE every year on players we have to think about the money side of too.

read the rest of my post. I don't think SAR is the end all to solve all our problems. And I also don't think we need to spend the MLE on some huge player to get it done. We can trade to improve our bench, add defense and toughness. A high scoring high energy passing starting 5 can get us off to an explosive start, outrun other teams out the gate, and SAR can help us with that. A solid bench can get stops, help us maintain a lead and ensure that we close out games. I'm sorry if I'd rather look at what we can do rather than shoot down every option out there as "not the perfect passing/shooting/rebounding/defending pf that we need for our team." Everyone says we can't get KG, but that seems to be the only thing that would ever satisfy you. How about you consider what our real options are, and then reconsider you're response.

 

[whozit]

If he failed the physical, the trade is void, it was a condition of the trade succeeding. SAR goes back to being a UFA, and he holds all the cards again.

That's the thing, he hasn't officially failed yet. The Nets have until the twelth (?) to complete it. SAR has taken offense and doesn't want it done now. NJ is still in the drivers seat as to whether or not they want to sign off on it or not. I wouldn't mind a SAR and Thomas swap even if it did cost a 2006 1st. I would prefer that and still have the MLE to use to get a back-up center. If the MLE is used on SAR, the Kings remain small, painfully small.

 

[kingsofnba]

If he failed the physical, the trade is void, it was a condition of the trade succeeding. SAR goes back to being a UFA, and he holds all the cards again.

actually i think the nets still makes the decision if he pass or fails the physical... as of now they are putting a hold on the pass or fail grade... if the nets decide he passes, he is a net or if they decide he fails he is a UFA again... ultimately, it is up to the nets to determines the results of the physical....

that being said, i doubt the nets want to commit $36mil to a player that no longer wants to be there... and the nets need to make their decision soon, because their trade exception ends this tuesday... and the nba will require they decide by the 12th...

 

[kingsofnba]

I wouldn't mind a SAR and Thomas swap even if it did cost a 2006 1st. I would prefer that and still have the MLE to use to get a back-up center. If the MLE is used on SAR, the Kings remain small, painfully small.

according to the CBA, you cannot sign a FA or player from a different team and then immediatly trade them to another team... there is something like a 60 day period where the player just signed cannot be traded... therefore any trade for SAR would have to be through portland, and they are not taking bad contracts (i.e. Thomas) in return for SAR...

 

[whozit]

that being said, i doubt the nets want to commit $36mil to a player that no longer wants to be there... and the nets need to make their decision soon, because their trade exception ends this tuesday... and the nba will require they decide by the 12th...

The trouble the Nets are in is if they back out, they will have to use the MLE for a PF. It appears they had other designs for it. That is one reason Thomas may not that bad an option. They would still have their MLE to use on other needs and they would also have recovered their 1st round pick.

 

[ParniValjak]

You must not have read the fine print disclaimer. I agree that they wouldn't do it, it doesn't make sense.

What is possible is an exchange of a bad contract for a bad contract. If my figures are right, a SAR for Kenny Thomas would work. The Kings would have to throw a pick in to replace the one owed Portland. SAR's contract is longer, but the total cost is the near the same.

For the Kings, in the short term (this year), it would actually open a smidge of room below the tax limit. SAR at $4.9 million to Thomas at $6.1 million. That ~$1.2 million could actually be huge (same could hold true for NJ also).

My bad, I didn't see the fine print

On the SAR issue. The Nets don't have him. The trade has not been done yet and it was subject to SAR passing the physical. Nets have until 12th of August (this friday) to complete the trade and when they do, my understanding is that they can't trade him for 90 days.

 

[whozit]

according to the CBA, you cannot sign a FA or player from a different team and then immediatly trade them to another team... there is something like a 60 day period where the player just signed cannot be traded... therefore any trade for SAR would have to be through portland, and they are not taking bad contracts (i.e. Thomas) in return for SAR...

True. But since the deal is not finalized can it not still be modified? (i.e. make a three team trade rather than two)

 

[ParniValjak]

The trouble the Nets are in is if they back out, they will have to use the MLE for a PF. It appears they had other designs for it. That is one reason Thomas may not that bad an option. They would still have their MLE to use on other needs and they would also have recovered their 1st round pick.

IF Nets decide they don't want a disgruntled player in SAR, and if GP is still interested as much as he has been earlier, then there is no reason why we couldn't make a trade with Portland and Nets where we get SAR, Nets get Thomas and Portland gets the trade exception and 1st round pick from either NJ or us.

If this is the option then the trade would have to be done by tuesday (????) so that NJ's exception doesn't expire. This scenario would also allow both NJ and Sacramento to keep their MLE to address other needs.

EDIT: Just a general comment, $36 million over six years ($6 million per season) is not overpaying for a player of Shareef's ability. In fact it could be considred as a bit of a bargain, scar tissue or not

 

[jay dubb]

I wonder if Rod Thorn is just trying to find some accuse to come up with so that he doesn't have to sign SAR, b/c he didn't want to give up that 1st round draft pick and I bet he wants it back.

By the way it was Lawrence Frank and Jason Kidd who pushed so hard to get SAR and thats why Thorn did it but i bet he has changed his mind and thats probably why all this stuff about SAR's physical is getting out of control.

 

[Kings113]

Right, I understand that the Nets really want to get SAR, but I still don't see how that has any connection to them actually getting him. Yeah, it's realistic, and they had him, and then messed it up and now SAR no longer wants to be a Net. He has final say, not the Nets. Doesn't make any sense that the Nets get him just because it's convenient and they want him.

I didn't say Evans or Griffin were on the bench because they were bad, I said you can't accurately gauge how good they are because they didn't play big minutes, didn't get worn down, and didn't have to bang with the big boys. You give these reasons for them being on the bench, like being behind KG, and then just assume because there is good reason for them being on the bench that they must be budding stars waiting to break out. That is absolutely terrible logic, the sort of logic that earns the Jerome Jameses of the world big contracts. These two are some of the most overrated players in the league, Griffin especially. Evans I believe is a good player, but he needs to stay on the bench.

And you are making a HUGE leap of faith in the comments that the Kings won't have a problem on offense. That means that they won't spend the offseason worrying about offense because we've got plenty of firepower as is. That does not mean that we can put a bunch of offensive scrubs on the court and expect them to put up big numbers. People are stuck in the past. This season will not be last season, or any other before it. We need to look at this team and see what we can do. We cannot plug Griffin in as our starting PF and still expect to be the explosive offensive team that we have been. We won't be stagnant, no, but it will take out a lot of our punch, esp because the PF is critical to our offense, and won't get us anywhere close to being a great rebounding or defensive team.

The Nets haven't had their says on the situation today, just SAR. The issue isn't a large one. I never said the Nets would get him because they wanted him so bad, but it's something to consider as this develops. I don't see anything more to say on it at this point.

Never heard about Griffin or Evans being overrated (edit: okay I remember about Griffin, don't remember it being a big deal/highly overrated though, and he's settled back down now). I don't care though, because I don't and haven't seen them as that.

I don't think the Kings will have a problem with offense, considering we'll have (even if one of the core is gone, we'd get someone good back or suitable to fill it) Peja/Bibby/Miller/Wells in the starting line-up, with a bench TBD (aside from Hart/Garcia/Price). That will in the end, have something of a solid balance of offense/defense IMO (which is how it's looking to go right now). Petrie/Maloofs already stated offense isn't and won't be a problem, it's improving the defense. From the starting five, w/ a PF of some kind to TBD, it looks that way, and the bench won't be a problem as the slots will be filled (SF/C/PF/combo C/PF/maybe SG).

They haven't played big minutes because of the reasons I stated, that's obvious. Jerome James, is once again, completely irrelevant.

 

[kingsofnba]

IF Nets decide they don't want a disgruntled player in SAR, and if GP is still interested as much as he has been earlier, then there is no reason why we couldn't make a trade with Portland and Nets where we get SAR, Nets get Thomas and Portland gets the trade exception and 1st round pick from either NJ or us.

If this is the option then the trade would have to be done by tuesday (????) so that NJ's exception doesn't expire. This scenario would also allow both NJ and Sacramento to keep their MLE to address other needs.

EDIT: Just a general comment, $36 million over six years ($6 million per season) is not overpaying for a player of Shareef's ability. In fact it could be considred as a bit of a bargain, scar tissue or not

Brilliant idea... its a win-win-win situation... the kings get SAR, an upgrade over Thomas... the kings get rid of KT bad contract and can resign Songaila to backup PF... New Jersey gets a reliable PF in Thomas for the Eastern Conference... and Portland gets their 1st round pick (probaby from the kings)....

 

[ParniValjak]

Petrie/Maloofs already stated offense isn't and won't be a problem, it's improving the defense.

They DID say that. However, they also showed some serious interest in SAR before he deiced to join the Nets. They were genuinely disappointed that they couldn't get him. If they were presented with a chance to get him now, I am sure they would go at him just as hard as they did earlier in the off-season.

During our prime we were pretty good defensive team. Of our 5 starters (Bibby, Doug, Peja, C-Webb, Vlade) we only had one defensive specialist in Doug and solid to average defenders in the other spots. What we had in those days is some grunt and defence off the bench in Bobby, Pollard and to lessr extent Hedo. Adelman generally uses 8 man rotation and of his 8 man, you could say 3-4 were good defenders and only one of them was a starter.

I go not problem with getting SAR as our starting PF BUT we need to get a defensively minded big coming off the bench. A younger version of Pollard or Keon. We got a defensively minded PG in Hart. If we can get SAR in a sign and trade and ude our MLE to address our bench and defensive aspect of the game then we will be pretty good again.

Having said that, I fully expect SAR to end up with the Nets. I doubt they would void the trade on the basis of some scar tissue.

One thing that people keep forgetting is that you don't build a championship contender in a year. GP will need a couple of off-seasons to get us to that level again. He is heading in the right direction witht the aqusition of Wells and to lesser extent Hart. To expect Petrie to turn this team into a genuine contender in one off-season is somewhat unrealistic.

 

[ParniValjak]

Brilliant idea... its a win-win-win situation... the kings get SAR, an upgrade over Thomas... the kings get rid of KT bad contract and can resign Songaila to backup PF... New Jersey gets a reliable PF in Thomas for the Eastern Conference... and Portland gets their 1st round pick (probaby from the kings)....

Another positive for the Nets would be that they got a decent PF but still kept their MLE. That way they used their trade exception and got better in the process.

However, I just don't think Nets will let SAR go because of some scar tissue in his knee.

 

[captain bill]

Never heard about Griffin or Evans being overrated (edit: okay I remember about Griffin, don't remember it being a big deal/highly overrated though, and he's settled back down now). I don't care though, because I don't and haven't seen them as that.

I don't think the Kings will have a problem with offense, considering we'll have (even if one of the core is gone, we'd get someone good back or suitable to fill it) Peja/Bibby/Miller/Wells in the starting line-up, with a bench TBD (aside from Hart/Garcia/Price). That will in the end, have something of a solid balance of offense/defense IMO (which is how it's looking to go right now). Petrie/Maloofs already stated offense isn't and won't be a problem, it's improving the defense. From the starting five, w/ a PF of some kind to TBD, it looks that way, and the bench won't be a problem as the slots will be filled (SF/C/PF/combo C/PF/maybe SG).

They haven't played big minutes because of the reasons I stated, that's obvious. Jerome James, is once again, completely irrelevant.

I still don't see an argument that says we need Evans/Griffin more than SAR. You say that they're not overrated because you haven't heard anyone say that they are overrated. You don't see the fallacy in that statement? In 21 minutes, Griffin averaged 7.5 ppg and 6.5 rpg. Evans, in 23 minutes, averaged 9.3 rebs and 4.9 pnts. On face, we can see that they are both good rebounders and not the best scorers. Consider that in those limited minutes they are not facing starters and do not face serious competition, meaning that if they are put into a starters role their numbers will diminish. Also, playing limited minutes prevents them from serious fatigue, which is why per 48 minute stats are so flawed. These guys have shown potential, but they are still mostly young and unproven, and I certainly wouldn't say that they are ready for a starting role, especially on a team that is looking to climb back into contention. I would be happy to have them on the bench, however, in the capacity that I have mentioned.

You state that the Kings won't have a problem on offense, simply because the organization said so. Okay. And the Clippers said they will make the playoffs, so they don't have to make any moves to get better, right? And if Petrie says our offense is good enough, let's just unload all our offense, bring in defensive players, and we'll still magically score 100 per night.

You say JJ is irrelevent. I'm not saying that he's as good as Evans or Griffin, but the justifications you use for them apply equally to James. You say Evans had a bench role because he played on a deep bench (which somehow makes him instantly good...) but you ignore that James played on that very same bench. So, unless you look at the player individually, which you have not done, you're argument justifies giving JJ a fat contract.

So here's the bottom line: Sar has proven he can be an all-star caliber player, and a consistent one at that, logging big minutes. He can score, he can rebound, he can fit our offense. These other guys are unproven commodities and liable to break down over a long season after having to play 30+minutes per night, assuming you give them a starters job, as you seem to want to. Taking that unproven young kid who, even if he pans out, is just a rebounder and a rebounder alone, over a proven all-star player in Reef is just stupid.

 

[Kings113]

They DID say that. However, they also showed some serious interest in SAR before he deiced to join the Nets. They were genuinely disappointed that they couldn't get him. If they were presented with a chance to get him now, I am sure they would go at him just as hard as they did earlier in the off-season.

we need to get a defensively minded big coming off the bench. A younger version of Pollard or Keon. We got a defensively minded PG in Hart. If we can get SAR in a sign and trade and ude our MLE to address our bench and defensive aspect of the game then we will be pretty good again.

Having said that, I fully expect SAR to end up with the Nets. I doubt they would void the trade on the basis of some scar tissue.

Agreed with these. Mixed on the stuff not there.

 

[Kings113]

I still don't see an argument that says we need Evans/Griffin more than SAR. You say that they're not overrated because you haven't heard anyone say that they are overrated. You don't see the fallacy in that statement? In 21 minutes, Griffin averaged 7.5 ppg and 6.5 rpg. Evans, in 23 minutes, averaged 9.3 rebs and 4.9 pnts. On face, we can see that they are both good rebounders and not the best scorers. Consider that in those limited minutes they are not facing starters and do not face serious competition, meaning that if they are put into a starters role their numbers will diminish. Also, playing limited minutes prevents them from serious fatigue, which is why per 48 minute stats are so flawed. These guys have shown potential, but they are still mostly young and unproven, and I certainly wouldn't say that they are ready for a starting role, especially on a team that is looking to climb back into contention. I would be happy to have them on the bench, however, in the capacity that I have mentioned.

You state that the Kings won't have a problem on offense, simply because the organization said so. Okay. And the Clippers said they will make the playoffs, so they don't have to make any moves to get better, right? And if Petrie says our offense is good enough, let's just unload all our offense, bring in defensive players, and we'll still magically score 100 per night.

You say JJ is irrelevent. I'm not saying that he's as good as Evans or Griffin, but the justifications you use for them apply equally to James. You say Evans had a bench role because he played on a deep bench (which somehow makes him instantly good...) but you ignore that James played on that very same bench. So, unless you look at the player individually, which you have not done, you're argument justifies giving JJ a fat contract.

So here's the bottom line: Sar has proven he can be an all-star caliber player, and a consistent one at that, logging big minutes. He can score, he can rebound, he can fit our offense. These other guys are unproven commodities and liable to break down over a long season after having to play 30+minutes per night, assuming you give them a starters job, as you seem to want to. Taking that unproven young kid who, even if he pans out, is just a rebounder and a rebounder alone, over a proven all-star player in Reef is just stupid.

I already stated and have made known why I'd take Evans/Griffin over SAR all over this board, and in this thread. Go and look.

With more minutes Evans/Griffin would be better, I think we'll have a good back-up PF.

I also stated the Kings won't have a problem on offense because of our current starting 4/5 (even if one of the core is traded, we'd get someone good back or someone suitable to replace that player), and bench to be balanced with offense/defense solidly. The current guys already slated for the bench show that, with the other back-up spots to be filled of course.

Evans was the starter on the Sonics, and they had a very deep bench. James was the starter for the Sonics, he took over the center spot when Potapenko went down in the first week of the season. Evans wasn't crap all season like James was (till the fluke series vs. the Kings). James is irrelevant in the subject of being our PF, or even on our roster, he's signed with the Knicks.

I never said we'd just have to sign either, either one could be had from trades. Evans is the least likely to be out-right signed, Griffin is the more likely who could be signed as a free-agent.

Evans/Griffin aren't just rebounders. Both bring what the Kings lack - overall size, toughness, rebounding, shotblocking (Griffin), hustle, and dirty play (Evans). Evans rebounding skills are fantastic. So, it wouldn't be "stupid", especially from Petrie/Maloofs aspirations POV.

It's not that I dislike/hate SAR, I just would put others (not that many, realistically) ahead of him who bring more of what we need and lack, for a PF too. There are always trades too (which I think is how we will get our PF). Also your idea of getting SAR, but having the bench as you and I suggested, which I thought was a decent idea.

I think we've established our opinions and feelings on all of this.

 

[Evilmav2]

I think a potential Kings aquisition of Shareef Abdur-Rahim might well prove to be a tremendous boon for y'alls team. Considering just how impressively the respective assist production of Vlade Divac, Chris Webber, and Brad Miller (not to mention Kenny Thomas) all greatly improved after those players joined the Adelman offense, I can't help but imagine that a skilled finesse forward like Shareef might also find a lot of room to grow as a passer in Sacramento.

Additionally, assuming that Petrie currently intends to continue building the Kings roster around y'alls occasionally sensitive franchise cornerstone Peja, it seems plausible to me that even if Shareef comes in and significantly impacts y'alls offense (taking shots away from teammates, thus potentially stepping on those teammate's toes), it's likely that the soft-spoken Rahim might well prove to be relatively moderate and constrained in his personal relations with his teammates, and thus any recurrence of disruptive, Peja-Webber style lockerroom feuding of King's past might prove to be quite unlikely...

 

[Bricklayer]

So here's the bottom line: Sar has proven he can be an all-star caliber player, and a consistent one at that, logging big minutes. He can score, he can rebound, he can fit our offense. These other guys are unproven commodities and liable to break down over a long season after having to play 30+minutes per night, assuming you give them a starters job, as you seem to want to. Taking that unproven young kid who, even if he pans out, is just a rebounder and a rebounder alone, over a proven all-star player in Reef is just stupid.

It is an equally stupid move taking the big name because ooohhh, he is a big name. It just shows ignorance of how you win in basketball. It reminds me of the stupidity down in Lakerland two years ago when they picked up Malone and Payton and oohhh, now we've got 4 20pt scorers! No. No you don't. Only in fantasy ball.

Did people learn nothing from the Doug Christie years? Why do you think it is that Miami resigned Udonis Haslem rather than SAR (who they instead targeted in the current Walker 6th man role)? Why hasn't Seattle been scrambling to get Rahim over Evans? Why isn't Chicago chasing him over Chandler? How do you explain Bruce Bowen? Ben Wallace. Rick Fox. Robert Horry. Dennis Rodman. Etc. Etc. Etc. Its because the teams care about how players FIT. Its not about how big their name is. Its NOT about how many pointts they score. Its about whether they give you what you need.

NO serious team EVER tries to throw out 5 scorers on the floor. The good ones ALWYS have one or more defensive roleplayers in the mix to take care of the dirty work. Even the Showtime Lakers had Rambis/Green and Cooper as the 6th man. They also had a supreme past first PG who constantly set the table regardless of his own points.

You can NOT win big by simply outscoring your opponent. CANNOT. You can overwhelm weak teams. But then you are stopped when you run into someone serious. EVERY time. EVERY team that has tried it. Works on xbox. Sounds good when you are 14. Does not work out in the real world. And there is a reason for it -- there is ONE ball. One ball, and a limited number of opportunities to shoot it. Last year the Kings, running a fast paced offense, averaged 85 total shots a game. You throw a SAR into the lineup along with 4 other players already expecting to average 15+ points and you end up underutilizing EVERY single one of them offensively. NOBODY gets the shots they should to justify their presence on the court. And then you have a bunch of scorers out on the floor not scoring. And you would never have them out on the floor together for other purposes.

As for our offense -- we were as potent as ever last year. We came roaring down the stretch scoring 105ppg with a garbage frontline and a pile of mismatched shooters. So long as Rick Adleman is the coach, we will score. And again people amusingly ignore the Sacramento Kings very own recent history when they make silly arguments about how we are the first team in history to "need" or even want 5 big scorers in the starting lineup. Forget every championship team who ever lived, its not how WE ourselves became an elite team. We became an elite team on the backs of two primary scorers (Webb/Peja), a third lesser scorer (Bibby) and two guys more interested in other things who only scored when needed (Vlade/Doug). And now all of a sudden people either develop instant amnesia, or just simply didn't understand the connection between our winning and the balance of those teams. Dallas had more softy scorers. Oddly we kept on beating them. Why was that?

As an aside, SAR is a decent rebounder. He was 20-10 ONCE and once only. As a SF half a decade ago. Never gotten above 9.4since that time. Weaker than old injured Webb on the boards. Weaker than Kenny Thomas ont he baords. Weaker than Dirk Nowitzki on the boards.

 

[Kings113]

It is an equally stupid move taking the big name because ooohhh, he is a big name. It just shows ignorance of how you win in basketball. It reminds me of the stupidity down in Lakerland two years ago when they picked up Malone and Payton and oohhh, now we've got 4 20pt scorers! No. No you don't. Only in fantasy ball.

Did people learn nothing from the Doug Christie years? Why do you think it is that Miami resigned Udonis Haslem rather than SAR (who they instead targeted in the current Walker 6th man role)? Why hasn't Seattle been scrambling to get Rahim over Evans? Why isn't Chicago chasing him over Chandler? How do you explain Bruce Bowen? Ben Wallace. Rick Fox. Robert Horry. Dennis Rodman. Etc. Etc. Etc. Its because the teams care about how players FIT. Its not about how big their name is. Its NOT about how many pointts they score. Its about whether they give you what you need.

NO serious team EVER tries to throw out 5 scorers on the floor. The good ones ALWYS have one or more defensive roleplayers in the mix to take care of the dirty work. Even the Showtime Lakers had Rambis/Green and Cooper as the 6th man. They also had a supreme past first PG who constantly set the table regardless of his own points.

You can NOT win big by simply outscoring your opponent. CANNOT. You can overwhelm weak teams. But then you are stopped when you run into someone serious. EVERY time. EVERY team that has tried it. Works on xbox. Sounds good when you are 14. Does not work out in the real world. And there is a reason for it -- there is ONE ball. One ball, and a limited number of opportunities to shoot it. Last year the Kings, running a fast paced offense, averaged 85 total shots a game. You throw a SAR into the lineup along with 4 other players already expecting to average 15+ points and you end up underutilizing EVERY single one of them offensively. NOBODY gets the shots they should to justify their presence on the court. And then you have a bunch of scorers out on the floor not scoring. And you would never have them out on the floor together for other purposes.

As for our offense -- we were as potent as ever last year. We came roaring down the stretch scoring 105ppg with a garbage frontline and a pile of mismatched shooters. So long as Rick Adleman is the coach, we will score. And again people amusingly ignore the Sacramento Kings very own recent history when they make silly arguments about how we are the first team in history to "need" or even want 5 big scorers in the starting lineup. Forget every championship team who ever lived, its not how WE ourselves became an elite team. We became an elite team on the backs of two primary scorers (Webb/Peja), a third lesser scorer (Bibby) and two guys more interested in other things who only scored when needed (Vlade/Doug). And now all of a sudden people either develop instant amnesia, or just simply didn't understand the connection between our winning and the balance of those teams. Dallas had more softy scorers. Oddly we kept on beating them. Why was that?

As an aside, SAR is a decent rebounder. He was 20-10 ONCE and once only. As a SF half a decade ago. Never gotten above 9.4since that time. Weaker than old injured Webb on the boards. Weaker than Kenny Thomas ont he baords. Weaker than Dirk Nowitzki on the boards.

Like I said, Brick's good guy.

 

[nbrans]

You can NOT win big by simply outscoring your opponent. CANNOT. You can overwhelm weak teams. But then you are stopped when you run into someone serious. EVERY time. EVERY team that has tried it. Works on xbox. Sounds good when you are 14. Does not work out in the real world. And there is a reason for it -- there is ONE ball. One ball, and a limited number of opportunities to shoot it. Last year the Kings, running a fast paced offense, averaged 85 total shots a game. You throw a SAR into the lineup along with 4 other players already expecting to average 15+ points and you end up underutilizing EVERY single one of them offensively. NOBODY gets the shots they should to justify their presence on the court. And then you have a bunch of scorers out on the floor not scoring. And you would never have them out on the floor together for other purposes.

As for our offense -- we were as potent as ever last year. We came roaring down the stretch scoring 105ppg with a garbage frontline and a pile of mismatched shooters. So long as Rick Adleman is the coach, we will score. And again people amusingly ignore the Sacramento Kings very own recent history when they make silly arguments about how we are the first team in history to "need" or even want 5 big scorers in the starting lineup. Forget every championship team who ever lived, its not how WE ourselves became an elite team. We became an elite team on the backs of two primary scorers (Webb/Peja), a third lesser scorer (Bibby) and two guys more interested in other things who only scored when needed (Vlade/Doug). And now all of a sudden people either develop instant amnesia, or just simply didn't understand the connection between our winning and the balance of those teams. Dallas had more softy scorers. Oddly we kept on beating them. Why was that?

You're right, Bricklayer, there's one ball on offense. And that ball has to move. It can't get stuck when it goes to the post because your power forward doesn't know what to do with it. It needs to go in the hole. Best you have a power forward who knows how to put it there.

I don't buy all this talk about SAR not fitting in here. Why is that? You're acting like a scoring power forward can't fit with the current team. Excuse me? Didn't the Kings play half of the season with Chris Webber last year? Didn't it make Bibby and Peja better, not worse, to have a low post threat? Weren't the Kings at their greatest when they had strong players at the power forward and center positions, playing high low, getting open looks for Peja and Bibby and keeping the offense flowing? Now suddenly five scoring players can't coexist? Huh?

So yeah, there's one ball on offense. But there are also 5 players on defense. Not one. Five. One player is not going to make a difference on defense. 5 PLAYERS have to play defense. It starts at the point guard position and it ends at the hoop. Sure, a shot blocker can help prevent layups. But it takes all five players working together to be a good defensive team. One player isn't suddenly going to change that themselves.

Ah, but wait you say, it takes a difference-maker on defense, someone who is going to set the tone and be a shotblocker and do the little things and board and dive for loose balls, etc. etc. Who might this player be? Because I sure as heck don't see one of those available. Why not get someone who is going to keep the offense going?

SAR has had to carry the offensive load on every team he's been with. Who knows, with some more help on the offensive end he might just have the energy to do those little things and get the rebounds and be a difference-maker on defense. And if not, at least he's an upgrade over Kenny Thomas.

 

[funkykingston]

I'm still all for a signing of Reef and a Peja for Chandler swap. . .

 

[bye_bye_bjax24]

Evans and Griffins would make sense if the Kings had a dominant superstar. They dont, so forget them. Kings need ballers, not these bricklaying bums.

As far as being soft on the interior, and needing an answer at the "4", and in lieu of a player of equal caliber, IMHO the way you slow down guys like KG and Amare, etc. is to swarm them, send doubles on the catch or on the first dribble, etc. With our improved length along the guard line w/ Cisco and Hart we can send more effective help. All these remaining FA castoffs would do is get in foul trouble, miss shots, and ride the end of the bench, and be the next Ostertag, V2.

Additionally if you get more efficient on offense by adding a real talented offensive player like SAR, then you have fewer bad offensive possessions, more scores, which makes for better transition "D". Offense and defense are two sides of the same coin/court, in my mind. If you put the ball in the hoop, or at least run a good half-court set, you get back and set your D. A lot of the Kings defensive patheticness last year stemmed from bad and hurried shots that left them vulnerable to leak outs by the opponent. A slow footed banger does not solve this problem.

If Petrie swoops in and lands SAR, it will be a nice coup.

I can see GP offering the Nets their choice of Big Nasty, Darius, Mo Evans in a S&T. I think they would like to keep KT and Skinner around.

 

[Kings113]

Evans/Griffin aren't "bums". They'd bring what the Kings are aiming to add. I'd welcome them quite well.

Nets wouldn't want Evans, they already have Antoine Wright to back-up Carter. They'd want Songaila or Thomas.

Before we start thinking about getting SAR, the Nets and him have to sort their thing out first. Nets haven't even had their main side yet.

 

[dukeswh]

I'm still all for a signing of Reef and a Peja for Chandler swap. . .

I totally agree. I can understand Brick's point, he almost got me swayed with his last post. But right now, imho, there is no available player in the FA market that can fill the kings' need in rebounding/defense in the PF spot. Evans and Griffin are both great rebounders and plays good defense too. But will they really make that great of an impact once they start with the kings? I believe we can only get a truly legit PF by trading one of our "core" players. And i would trade peja for chandler plus change in a heartbeat.

 

[ParniValjak]

I totally agree. I can understand Brick's point, he almost got me swayed with his last post. But right now, imho, there is no available player in the FA market that can fill the kings' need in rebounding/defense in the PF spot. Evans and Griffin are both great rebounders and plays good defense too. But will they really make that great of an impact once they start with the kings? I believe we can only get a truly legit PF by trading one of our "core" players. And i would trade peja for chandler plus change in a heartbeat.

Evans is NOT a good defender. In fact he is a pretty average defender who happens to be a very good rebounder. If you want a defender then Evans is NOT it. If you want rebounding then Evans is IT. Quite simple.

Evans also happens to be undersized for his position, has no other skill apart from rebounding. People are saying how we have one dimentional players and how thats a negative but want to get a one dimentional player to the team just because he fits one criteria that they like.