We have/had interest in Wilcox maybe?

[LPKingsFan]

What's all this about? Didn't everyone get Geoff's memo? We're going to improve our rebounding as a team!

 

[Dime Dropper]

Hehe, Entity is taking Bricklayer to school in this thread, I agree with you Entity. If SAR averages 8rpg that would be OK, 8rpg is not crap, whatever you may think, Bricklayer.

 

[Bricklayer]

Hehe, Entity is taking Bricklayer to school in this thread, I agree with you Entity. If SAR averages 8rpg that would be OK, 8rpg is not crap, whatever you may think, Bricklayer.

Your oh so informed opinion is noted and filed appropiately. Its one thing not to know, quite another not to learn.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Your oh so informed opinion is noted and filed appropiately. Its one thing not to know, quite another not to learn.

Right back at ya. Don't be getting annoyed just because I don't agree with you on this matter. As you say "Its one thing not to know, quite another not to learn." because you obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think 8rpg is "crap".

 

[Bricklayer]

Right back at ya. Don't be getting annoyed just because I don't agree with you on this matter. As you say "Its one thing not to know, quite another not to learn." because you obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think 8rpg is "crap".

Well obviously with an incredibly well developed argument like that how could I ever disagree?

 

[Dime Dropper]

Well obviously with an incredibly well developed argument like that how could I ever disagree?

Why would I bother arguing with you when entity has already proved you wrong?

 

[Bricklayer]

And yes Entity, it took you a while but eventually you made it to the obvious conclusion: last year the Kings had exactly TWO acceptable rebounders on the team: Bonzi Wells, and Kenny Thomas. Kenny was a good but not great PF rebounder at about 12.9/48. Up above the 70th percentile. That 12.0 mark is roughly the cutoff for power players BTW. That's 9.0 in 36min. Above that and you are above average heading toward strong. Top 1/3 regardless if you filter for "qualifiied" or not.

That is a good PF rebounder. A guy struggling to get 10 if you play him the whole 48 is not. A guy getting you 10 per 48 is bottom 1/3. Garbage on the glass. And a guy getting you 8.0 in 36 min (10.67/48) is only half a step ahead. Below average (about 40th percentile) and heading for the basement. If you were going to letter grade him, it would be right on the border of a C-/D+.


As an aside, the "Qualified" list is more or less a random and bogus distinction. A line drawn in the sand. Taking it off lets in a few garbage players at the front of the line, but simultaneously adds in a few at the back to balance it out. What changes is that you actually get to include extremely legit NBA players ala a Reggie Evans, Ike Diogu or Kenyon Martin, rather than randomly toss them overboard. The filter does not change relative position at all, just provides a less complete picture.

I normally do not quote myself, but wanted to reintroduce the above just to set up these numbers:

Here's what I'm going to do -- hopefully simple, straightforward, east to follow, and no tricks. I'm going to take the list of all PFs as tallied by espn.com (not just qualified ones*) and then break them down into percentiles by their rebounding per 48.

* Note that the switch from qualified to non-qualified makes little difference to balance -- 10.67rebs/48 for instance places 83rd of 145 total PFs (43rd%) or 30th of 50 qualified PFs (40th%). In fact as you can see there its slightly lower amongst the shorter qualified list.

There are 145 PFs listed at espn.com, so (100% being best, 0% worst):

80% to 100% = 1st to 28th
60% to 80% = 29th to 57th
40% to 60% = 58th to 86th
20% to 40% = 87th to 115th
0% to 20% = 116th to 145th

These are what the per48 rebounding #s look like at each percentile (with who put them up):

29th (80%) = 13.1/48 (S. Randolph)
58th (60%) = 11.5/48 (K.Brown)
87th (40%) = 10.5/48 (D. Granger)
116th (20%) = 9.2/48 (A. Walker)

So, let's give 'em letter grades:

13.1 or higher = A
11.5 to 13.1 = B
10.5 to 11.5 = C
9.2 to 10.5 = D
9.2 or lower = F

Now our mythological 8.0rebs in 36min PF grabs 10.67/48. That puts him in the C- category.

As an aside, our own PFs last year ranked:
Thomas 12.9/48 (30th) = B+
Reef 8.8/48 (124th) = F+

Is 10.67 better than 8.8? Certainly. Is it good? Nope. Can it replace 12.9 per 48? Nope. Which is again why as much as everybody would like to see Kenny traded, we have to be careful. If he goes, and with Bonzi already gone, we absolutely need to pick up at least one major minute "B" or better rebounding type to pick up their slack.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Bricklayer, just incase you think I'm trying to disagree with you, I'm not. 'Reef was a horrible rebounder last year for us. That's the only reason why I think I'd be OK if he averaged 8rpg.

 

[DaMan]

New News on Wilcox. I really don't understand, is it that we have little interest in him or is it that Seattle doesn't like what we are offering. Any why he might sign for the one year tender.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2003174081_soni04.html

 

[NoBonus]

maybe bonzi will run out of suitors and we can convince him to sign for a year.

That would be odd be very nice...

 

[NoBonus]

New News on Wilcox. I really don't understand, is it that we have little interest in him or is it that Seattle doesn't like what we are offering. Any why he might sign for the one year tender.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2003174081_soni04.html

I guess when you are asking for a lot of $$ and are injury prone, your options tend to disappear. One thing I wonder about is why he would re-sign with Seattle if it is only for a one-year, low-money deal; why not a good team with a good chance of winning a championship?

 

[Packt]

He's restricted and the Sonics will match any deal he can possible get from other teams. Most teams would only be able to offer a mid-level anyhow. A mid-level, 5 year deal is right around what Seattle wants to pay him in the first place. He wants more than that.

A one year deal makes him an Unrestricted FA next summer. He can then sign with whomever he wants with out Seattle meddling.

 

[nbrans]

I normally do not quote myself, but wanted to reintroduce the above just to set up these numbers:

Here's what I'm going to do -- hopefully simple, straightforward, east to follow, and no tricks. I'm going to take the list of all PFs as tallied by espn.com (not just qualified ones*) and then break them down into percentiles by their rebounding per 48.

* Note that the switch from qualified to non-qualified makes little difference to balance -- 10.67rebs/48 for instance places 83rd of 145 total PFs (43rd%) or 30th of 50 qualified PFs (40th%). In fact as you can see there its slightly lower amongst the shorter qualified list.

There are 145 PFs listed at espn.com, so (100% being best, 0% worst):

80% to 100% = 1st to 28th
60% to 80% = 29th to 57th
40% to 60% = 58th to 86th
20% to 40% = 87th to 115th
0% to 20% = 116th to 145th

These are what the per48 rebounding #s look like at each percentile (with who put them up):

29th (80%) = 13.1/48 (S. Randolph)
58th (60%) = 11.5/48 (K.Brown)
87th (40%) = 10.5/48 (D. Granger)
116th (20%) = 9.2/48 (A. Walker)

So, let's give 'em letter grades:

13.1 or higher = A
11.5 to 13.1 = B
10.5 to 11.5 = C
9.2 to 10.5 = D
9.2 or lower = F

Now our mythological 8.0rebs in 36min PF grabs 10.67/48. That puts him in the C- category.

As an aside, our own PFs last year ranked:
Thomas 12.9/48 (30th) = B+
Reef 8.8/48 (124th) = F+

Is 10.67 better than 8.8? Certainly. Is it good? Nope. Can it replace 12.9 per 48? Nope. Which is again why as much as everybody would like to see Kenny traded, we have to be careful. If he goes, and with Bonzi already gone, we absolutely need to pick up at least one major minute "B" or better rebounding type to pick up their slack.

This is good analysis, but it's still in the realm of the hypothetical and doesn't necessarily provide a full picture. It's great if you're talking about rebounding-in-a-vacuum and looking at which players who might benefit from more minutes, but if you're talking about a broader rebounding alaysis you have to give weight to the players who were actually good enough to play the minutes and grab the actual rebounds.

Per-48 rebounding numbers have a very limited place in analyzing rebounding strength. If a guy is great at rebounding but sucks so much at everything else that he can't stay in the game (Reggie Evans), who cares about the hypothetical rebounds he might grab if he didn't suck so much?

Your 80-100th percentile is filled with guys who suck and didn't play much. If you want to argue that Michael Bradley (in your 80-100th percentile) is a better rebounder than Jermaine O'Neal (not in your 80-100th percentile) I'd like to see it. Or maybe Maciej Lampe (in) vs. Elton Brand (out)?

What's all this about? Didn't everyone get Geoff's memo? We're going to improve our rebounding as a team!

Actually, that's the only way to improve your rebounding. Look at Phoenix -- Phoenix has three of the top rebounders in the game according to Bricklayer's accounting - Amare Stoudemire (who cares if he didn't play much this past season, he has good per 48 numbers!!), Shawn Marion and Kurt Thomas. But their rebounding differential was -4.1, second worst in the league.

Crediting your team rebounding to one player (i.e. Bonzi) or blaming SAR for everything is foolish. The ball bounces in funny ways, and only a group that rebounds as a team (Miami, Dallas and Utah were the best this past season) will have a good rebounding differential.

 

[Troy]

This is good analysis, but it's still in the realm of the hypothetical and doesn't necessarily provide a full picture. It's great if you're talking about rebounding-in-a-vacuum and looking at which players who might benefit from more minutes, but if you're talking about a broader rebounding alaysis you have to give weight to the players who were actually good enough to play the minutes and grab the actual rebounds.

Per-48 rebounding numbers have a very limited place in analyzing rebounding strength. If a guy is great at rebounding but sucks so much at everything else that he can't stay in the game (Reggie Evans), who cares about the hypothetical rebounds he might grab if he didn't suck so much?

Your 80-100th percentile is filled with guys who suck and didn't play much. If you want to argue that Michael Bradley (in your 80-100th percentile) is a better rebounder than Jermaine O'Neal (not in your 80-100th percentile) I'd like to see it. Or maybe Maciej Lampe (in) vs. Elton Brand (out)?



Actually, that's the only way to improve your rebounding. Look at Phoenix -- Phoenix has three of the top rebounders in the game according to Bricklayer's accounting - Amare Stoudemire (who cares if he didn't play much this past season, he has good per 48 numbers!!), Shawn Marion and Kurt Thomas. But their rebounding differential was -4.1, second worst in the league.

Crediting your team rebounding to one player (i.e. Bonzi) or blaming SAR for everything is foolish. The ball bounces in funny ways, and only a group that rebounds as a team (Miami, Dallas and Utah were the best this past season) will have a good rebounding differential.

It doesn't hurt that Miami has Shaq and Mourning being able to gather those rebounds and Dallas had a nice trio of 7 to near 7 footers. The Kings don't have the physical size to get the job done, but look what 6' 5" Bonzi did with all heart and no fear and what Kenny does at 6' 7" they are our leading rebounds ahead of 7 ft Miller and 6' 9" SAR. While it helps to be tall, it really helps to be hungry for the ball and play with intensity and heart. It also helps to rebound as a team, like one player boxing out the opponent and another collecting the rebound. Rebounding as you know is so important and gives your team another opportunity to score as in an offensive rebound and to defend and maybe get a fast break as in a defensive rebound.

We all know we really need rebounding help and this this isn't being taken care of. What is going on here in Kingsland, are we going to train out tweeners to be rebounding machines???

 

[Kings113]

Just not yet, there's still this month and next month left. Can question things all you want, but you can't deny the time is in favor.

I'll certainly be surprised if we don't get a defensive big on the roster by early October. Then, of course trades all the way until February, which isn't a factor right now.

 

[Entity]

I am not out to prove anybody wrong. I gain info from Brick as i am sure he has gained info from me in the past. that is the beauty of this board. you learn alot of stuff as well as teach some stuff as ppl focus on different things. Now with that being said. Brick i was not arguing that Reef was a good rebounder going by his last years numbers. I was simply disagreeing with the fact that 8 reb per game is crap. I think if you have PF that gets 8 that is just fine as long as your Center is getting at least the same. Most of those top STARTING big min pf didn't have a center that averaged alot. For instance Garnett had no help. Nazr only averaged 5. Now Dirk and Dampier both were in the 8 range.

 

[Rome]

If Musselman can get Brad and Reef to average 8 or more rebounds a game next season than I will be OK with Bonzi and KT leaving. If not than things will suck next season.

 

[kpm308]

I think this would be a good way to get wilcox here for bonzi, bring us some youth and athleticism in the frontcourt, and keep us real close to the luxury tax.

Two trades:

Trade 1

Kings send- Bonzi Wells S&T @6.5 million starting, Vitaly Potapenko
Kings receive- Chris Wilcox S&T @ 8 million starting

Nuggets send- Kenyon Martin, 1st rnd draft pick
Nuggets receive- Bonzi Wells Vitaly Potapenko

Dallas sends- Jerry Stackhouse
Dallas receives- Kenyon Martin

Sonics send- Chris Wilcox
Sonics receive- Jerry Stackhouse, 1st round draft pick

Nuggets get rid of Martin's contract, and it cost them a 1st rounder to replace him with the sg theat they have been wanting.

Dallas was interested in KMart earlier in the offseason so it seems like a good swap for the Mavs to get a guy they want for a guy that is in the last year of his contract.

Sonics don't look like they're going to be resigning Wilcox, so they get a solid backup swingman who has a nice expiring contract and a first rounder.

Kings get Wilcox for Bonzi, who we were goign to lose anyway, and potapenko. We take back about 4.5 million more in salary than right now.
Follow it up with this trade

Kings send: Kenny Thomas
Kings get: Stromile Swift

Nets send: Jason Collins
Nets get: Kenny Thomas

Memphis sends: Stromile Swift
Memphis gets: Jason Collins

Nets get a starting pf in place of a backup c for about the same price, Kenny just having a longer contract. Memphis moves Swift and gets a good backup c.

With the difference between Kenny and Swift's contracts beign about 1.3 million apart, the Kings end up with about 3.2 million salary more than they took on. With the luxury tax at over 65 million, the Kings should stay right at the tax threshold, and would have essentially let Bonzi walk, and then replaced Kenny and Potapenko with Wilcox and Swift. This would bring a lot of athleticism and youth into the frontcourt and some shotblocking with Swift. You would still have SAR on the bench to bring post scoring, and Wilcox will be a good starter next to Brad, although it still leaves little shotblocking other than Swift. Kings still have about 8 million in expirings with Corliss and Hart which will give some breathing room going into next offseason.

 

[Entity]

sure what the hell. I'll take that. Bad part is it would take 3 offseasons to get all the paperwork filled out on that trade.

 

[nbrans]

^It's not a bad framework, but it doesn't work under the cap. Dallas can't send Stack ($8 million) and get back Martin ($11.8 million) without shedding more salary -- maybe add Van Horn to Denver in a S&T?

Also, Wilcox would be BYC and would only be worth $4 million from Seattle's perspective, so they couldn't take on Stack. Not sure how to solve that one.

 

[kpm308]

Hoopshype has Stackhouse making 9.2 million next year, so its really close to making it straight across, off by like 200,000, I just figured that Dallas can throw in anything and it would work okay. I thought that BYC happens after the player is extended, say if this trade was to happen and Wilcox was signed and traded with a new contract, then the Kings would have him all year on BYC status, meaning if they were to try and move him again this year then the salary would only count as half, not now. Maybe I misunderstood it though.

 

[Bricklayer]

The latest on this never-ending saga. Basically it sounds like:
a) that when the parties were said to be $6 mil apart, its not $6mil per year, but $6mil total over a three year deal.
b) Wilcox wants a 3 yr $24 mil deal, Seattle wants a 3yr $19mil deal
c) Wilcox's agent has been actively looking for sign and trades at 3yr $24mil and claims to have sent a number to Seattle's GM, but the Sonics have rejected them all
d) at those kinds of numbers, would not surprise me at all if we were one of the teams that had made a proposal

Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Sonics set meeting with Wilcox
Sonics looking at final pitch to forward for 3-year deal

By GARY WASHBURN
P-I REPORTER

The fate of Chris Wilcox's long-term future in Seattle could be determined by a critical Thursday meeting between the power forward, his agent and Sonics general manager Rick Sund.

It will be just the second time the sides have met face-to-face this summer and perhaps the final time they negotiate before Wilcox decides to accept the team's one-year, $3.7 million qualifying offer.

Wilcox will meet with Sund for the first time since April. It could be one final effort to secure a three-year contract. The sides appear firm on their stance and are about $5 million apart, NBA sources said.

The Sonics have offered $19 million over three years -- more than the league's $5.2 million per year midlevel exception. Jeff Fried, who represents Wilcox, has asked for $24 million. Fried said he has "several" teams who would pay Wilcox that amount if the Sonics agreed to a sign-and-trade deal.

"We're not just going to let this sit anymore," Fried said Monday. "We needed to be respectful of ownership change issues, but each and every offer, Rick Sund is turning down. That doesn't seem to make much sense. If you don't believe in Chris and other teams believe in Chris and other teams are willing to do fair deals all the way around, I am questioning those motives."

A sign-and-trade is a long shot. The Sonics have apparently received just one concrete deal and they quickly rejected Phoenix's package that included aging veteran center Kurt Thomas and the $16.3 million remaining on the final two years of his contract.

The Golden State Warriors also appear interested in Wilcox, but have yet to make the Sonics a sign-and-trade offer.

"Rick doesn't seem to have confidence in Chris as a player," Fried said. "In light of that, we want to have one of these sign and trades. These teams are being aggressive. They are being fair with Chris. The only option would be the one-year qualifying offer."

If Wilcox accepted the Sonics' one-year qualifying offer, he would become an unrestricted free agent next summer. The drawback in that strategy is that if Wilcox, 23, has a subpar season, he would perhaps receive the midlevel exception in free agency, which is less than the Sonics are offering.

Fried would like his client to play somewhere else if Thursday's negotiations don't produce a lucrative deal.

"We've given enough time," Fried said.

Sund would not comment on the Wilcox negotiations.

"As has been with our policy with all negotiations, we would not negotiate in the newspaper," he said. "We continue to have discussions with Chris' agent."

As a restricted free agent, Wilcox is eligible to sign an offer sheet from any NBA club and the Sonics have the first right to match that offer.

NOTE: New Sonics owner Clay Bennett arrived in Seattle on Monday and will spend the next three days discussing the future of the team with Sund, team president Wally Walker and city officials. He will hold an informal news conference on Wednesday.

 

[ParniValjak]

I think 3 year, $24 million deal is quite reasonable for a player of Wilcox's potential. Thats an average of $8million per season and 3 years is not a long deal at all. Another thing is that, whichever team signs him to that deal will have his bird rights when he becomes FA.

I'd be happy if we could get him for $24million for 3 years. Especially if we can get rid off KT's contract in the process.

 

[BigSong]

I think 3 year, $24 million deal is quite reasonable for a player of Wilcox's potential. Thats an average of $8million per season and 3 years is not a long deal at all. Another thing is that, whichever team signs him to that deal will have his bird rights when he becomes FA.

I'd be happy if we could get him for $24million for 3 years. Especially if we can get rid off KT's contract in the process.

Sonics would be more interested in SAR though. Swift and Collison are in the Pollard mold, Rashard can sorta play in the post but is more of a wing type.

 

[Kings113]

I think 3 year, $24 million deal is quite reasonable for a player of Wilcox's potential. Thats an average of $8million per season and 3 years is not a long deal at all. Another thing is that, whichever team signs him to that deal will have his bird rights when he becomes FA.

I'd be happy if we could get him for $24million for 3 years. Especially if we can get rid off KT's contract in the process.

Agreed. I wouldn't really mind if we got Wilcox.

 

[DaMan]

I think 3 year, $24 million deal is quite reasonable for a player of Wilcox's potential. Thats an average of $8million per season and 3 years is not a long deal at all. Another thing is that, whichever team signs him to that deal will have his bird rights when he becomes FA.

I'd be happy if we could get him for $24million for 3 years. Especially if we can get rid off KT's contract in the process.

I really don't see them wanting KT and his contract, that should be more obvious since they turned down the sun's trade for Kurt Thomas who i think has a big but shorter contract. I think that if we give up sar and an exp contract Seattle would do it but would the kings make such an offer is the question? Its the known (sar) vs. the unknown (Wilcox) and Risk Vs. Reward.

 

[Entity]

KT for Joe Smith looks good. then sign and trade Bonzi for Etan Thomas. we would be over the lux tax but be more stable in the front court.

 

[CruzDude]

According to the Seattle times this morning Wilcox meeting with Sund on Thursday, the GM in Seattle, was "meaningful" while his agent said it was "productive". Doesn't sound like the're very close yet. Wouldn't a three team deal involving Bonzi be neat for the Kings to get Wilcox??? hmmm.

 

[Bricklayer]

According to the Seattle times this morning Wilcox meeting with Sund on Thursday, the GM in Seattle, was "meaningful" while his agent said it was "productive". Doesn't sound like the're very close yet. Wouldn't a three team deal involving Bonzi be neat for the Kings to get Wilcox??? hmmm.

Luxury tax.

 

[nbrans]

Just for fun, a kill four birds with one stone, trade:

Sacramento outgoing:
Mike Bibby ($12.5 m)
Corliss Williamson ($6.5 m)
Kevin Martin ($1 m)
Vitaly Potapenko ($3.6 m)
Kenny Thomas & second round pick to Charlotte/Atlanta ($6.7 m)
Total outgoing: $30.3 m

Sacramento incoming:
Ray Allen ($14.6 m)
Earl Watson ($5.4 m)
Chris Wilcox ($8 m)
Total incoming: $28 m

Seattle outgoing:
Ray Allen ($14.6 m)
Earl Watson ($5.4 m)
Chris Wilcox ($4 m BYC)
Total outgoing: $24 m

Seattle incoming:
Mike Bibby ($12.5 m)
Corliss Williamson ($6.5 m)
Kevin Martin ($1 m)
Vitaly Potapenko ($3.6 m)
Total incoming: $23.6 m

If Seattle is rebuilding they clear two big salaries off the books, get a potential young star (Martin), and if Lewis and Bibby opt out in the offseason Seattle will both suck, which will help facilitate their move to OK City, and have tons of cap space.

Your Sacramento Super.. I mean Kings:
PG: Watson/Douby/Price
SG: Allen/Salmons/Garcia
SF: Artest/Garcia/Salmons
PF: Wilcox/SAR/whatever rook makes it
C: Miller/?

^I like that lineup. You have an alpha scorer in Allen, an alpha defensive guy in Artest, dirty work guys in Watson and Wilcox. Bench would be a question mark unless Douby and SAlmons pan out.