Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Is Adebayor About To Become A Full-Time Spur?

Dreams of David Lee

The Kings need help on the defensive boards, and also need another scorer who can finish around the rim. David Lee is one of the league's best defensive rebounders, he is an extremely efficienct scorer and he is a restricted free agent this summer. I'm not here to argue that he's a better option than Shock or Hawes, or that a three big rotation featuring Spencer Hawes, Jason Thompson and Lee is the future. But is a Lee acquisition via free agency feasible?

Star-divide

* The Pistons are on track to be $22 million under the cap. Players signed for 2009-10: Stuckey, Hamilton, Prince, Amir Johnson, Maxiell, Afflalo, Kwame Brown, Walter Sharpe. The frontcourt would obviously be a massive need. There have been rumors, though, that Detroit wants to nab one of the big '10 free agents; Chris Bosh's name has been really prominent. Detroit would have to renounce rights to Allen Iverson and Rasheed Wallace or wait for them to sign elsewhere before signing Lee to a big offer sheet.

* Memphis should have ungodly amounts of cap space (maybe $30 million) as well as a gaping hole in the frontcourt. Lee's agent is rumored to have killed a prospective Grizz-Knicks swap last June by telling Memphis Lee wouldn't sign an extension there, and that he did not want to play for the Grizz.

* The Thunder should have more than $20 million in cap space. Jeff Green currently plays power forward, the team recently signed Nenad Krstic to a three-year deal, and everyone on the planet expects the team to pick Blake Griffin if OKC lands the top pick, which they are currently the favorites to do.

* The Hawks might have a lot of cap space. But Mike Bibby is a free agent, the team has no other starting point guard, and Atlanta seems set in the starting frontcourt with Al Horford and Josh Smith. The team also has to deal with Marvin Williams' restricted free agency, and possibly Josh Childress.

* Despite the Darius Miles saga, Portland should have enough cap space to sign Lee (barring a truly massive contract for the kid). But with Joel Przybilla, Greg Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge on the roster, and potential needs at point guard and small forward, I can't see a Lee signing happening.

* Letting Shawn Marion expire would get Miami near the cap space level required to play with Lee. But would a Lee/Beasley frontcourt work long-term? Miami would also be really susceptible to being slightly outbid by another team with cap space, and it looks likely that the Heat will postpone its cap space one year by taking on a longer contract before the deadline.

* Chicago would have to lose one of their larger contracts (Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Hughes) for an expiring contract or ship out Tyrus Thomas for almost nothing to get involved in any free agent market above the midlevel. There's also the Ben Gordon situation -- it'd have to be settled one way or the other before signing a Lee offer sheet. Lee seems like a great fit on paper, though.

* Minnesota would have to create a bit more cap space to make a run at Lee. They'd also have to figure out how to play three power forwards who can't guard the rim all at once.

* Indiana would be a decent fit, but they'd have to really trim some salary. The Bobcats would be a less-decent fit, and they would also have to trim salary.

***

To have enough space for Lee, the Kings just need to trade Brad Miller for an expiring contract.

Losing Brad and assuming the Kings pick within the top five and between #20-30 (Houston's pick), the Kings would have about $13 million under the cap. The max for Lee is just under $14 million -- I assume he will not get offered that much by any of the above teams nor any other teams out there in a sign-and-trade situation (nor the Knicks). Offering a starting salary of $10 million would seemingly knock out all other non-Knicks competitors; if Miami blows its wad over the next couple weeks, you might get Lee to bite at $9 million or slightly less.

What will the Knicks match, though? Never believe the New York papers, but it's been written recently that the team (meaning Walsh and D'Antoni) have decided they love Lee after watching him in the Seven Seconds or Less offense.

The Knicks want 2010 cap space. Four players are under contract (or a no-brainer team option) for 2010-11: Eddy Curry, Jared Jeffries, Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallinari. That's $24 million. Let's assume a $62 million salary cap. Without Lee on the books, that's almost enough room to conceivably sign two max-level free agents in 2010. It's certainly enough to sign one plus a slightly lower-dollar free agent (like Steve Nash). Add Lee at $9 million. That's $34 million locked up -- still enough for a max player and a Nash-level player. What about Lee at $10 million? Ditto. $11 million? Ditto. You'd basically need to max out Lee -- almost $14 million in starting salary -- to leave the Knicks unable to match, sign a max player, and sign a less-than-max #2 star. Whether the Knicks would want to pay Lee $14 million is another story, just as is the question of whether you'd want to pay him that much. (I'd say no.)

This blows up further if Walsh finds some mark to take Curry for '10 expiring contracts. Losing Curry with no '10-11 obligations in return would mean the Knicks could conceivably sign Lee this summer and two max players in '10, or forgo Lee and sign two max players and Nash in '10. !!!

Comment 72 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Sactown Royalty

Preview: Kings at Knicks

Feb 2010 by Tom Ziller - 136 comments

Preview: Knicks at Kings

Nov 2009 by Tom Ziller - 112 comments

Comments

Display:

First off....

Should have drafted Lee instead of Cisco. Yes, still pissed.

But a S&T is a hazy possibility as well.

It’s complicated because of BYC stuff, but I agree with you that 1) there aren’t many teams in the position to sign him outright, particularly if Boozer goes to Detroit and Millsap re-signs in Utah and 2) NYC might not want to sign him up to a big deal to complicate their 2010 run.

Miller or Mikki plus some young asset (one of the ’09 picks or possibly Hawes if we consider him disposable) might be enough to get it done.

by nbrans on Jan 22, 2009 6:21 PM PST reply actions  

I disagree with you Ziller
I’m not here to argue that he’s a better option than Shock or Hawes, or that a three big rotation featuring Spencer Hawes, Jason Thompson and Lee is the future.

Actually, a backcourt trio of those three would be our future… unless a Howard/Bosh type big man comes crawling our way. But those three together would be incredibly solid. It’s not a huge stretch to believe that all three could average a double double. Lee’s done it off the bench before and Thompson’s only going to get better. It might be asking too much of Spence to want him to average 10 boards, but he’ll make up for that with assists.

www.mancancook.net

by vfettke on Jan 22, 2009 6:27 PM PST reply actions  

Lee is great offensively. Superbly efficient. Do you remember his 30 points with 14/14 in the rookie challenge? His FG% can be close to that almost every night. Very mediocre defensively. Less blocks than Curry (hard to achieve this when you play so close to the rim).

Overall I think his a great fit to the Kings’ mentality. Along with Martin, Shock, Hawes, Salmons (?), Donté, (oh and Beno), the potential ability of the core looks promising. If these guys prove in 09-10 that we have something special then…

We’ll have one more year with K9’s and Moore’s contracts (does Reef’s still count in the books? I don’t remember) and I assume will have enough space in 2010 (around 15mil?) to sign one more (close-to-)all-star level player.

But what if Miller is not traded before the deadline? :-/

by ZenBaller on Jan 22, 2009 8:17 PM PST reply actions  

Reef does not count on the books

And as far as Lee’s defense, I think he could be like Spence in a way. All Spencer heard when he came here was about his lack of defense. And he’s worked on it and puts a ton of effort in on the defensive end and it’s paid off. He’s no Dikembe Mutombo or Dwight Howard on defense, but he works his ass off.

www.mancancook.net

by vfettke on Jan 22, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Lee/Thompson/Hawes isn't scaring anyone defensively or on the glass

Lee/Thompson/Thabeet on the other hand…….

I’m just sayin’.

by nbrans on Jan 22, 2009 8:42 PM PST up reply actions  

You're right -

That scares the livin’ sh*t out of me.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jan 22, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Haha.. (and rec'd)

Better to be scared than bored, I always say

by nbrans on Jan 22, 2009 8:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah -

It would be nice to use just the edge of my seat again. I’ve been using the seat back an awful lot this year.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jan 22, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Thompson/Hawes/Lee

32 minutes for each one of these guys up front, and each of these guys could play with any of the others (Thompson/Hawes, Thompson/Lee, Hawes/Lee). And you still have your draft picks to select whomever you please.

Interesting…

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jan 22, 2009 8:35 PM PST reply actions  

Please, Please, Please, let this happen

The Mavericks are clearly willing to trade Josh Howard, the enigmatic forward, before he does something else to lower his value. Because there is a team option on the final season of his contract in 2010-2011, his deal is especially attractive to franchises looking to clear cap space for the summer of 2010. The Mavericks have shown interest in Sacramento’s Brad Miller and Miami’s Marion.

by nothingbutnet on Jan 22, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions  

I love "Josh Howard, the enigmatic forward"!

It may not be Shawn “The Matrix” Marion, but it’s damn good!

Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.

by Holmdel on Jan 22, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd take that trade...

if we could get rid of Salmons in some other trade as well.

by Aykis16 on Jan 22, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Question

Is Josh Howard any better than John Salmons? Slightly better rebounder, slightly worse passer. Salmons is generally a good defender and a better shooter. Seems like a bit of a wash to me.

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 22, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Well...

According to the stats, you might as well keep John

Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% PPG

Josh Howard 25 24 32.6 .438 .359 .724 17.8

John Salmons 41 41 36.9 .478 .415 .814 18.7

Not a big fan of Salmons game, but much respect for the man as a professional. He appears to be a good character guy, which Howard is not. All in all, John isn’t the problem. Brad Miller is the problem, and until he is gone the Kings will continue to lose. The Layup drill will not end until Miller is GONE. Funny how people are so quick to defend the B52 Bummer, but blind to his obvious deficiencies on defense. Miller is not an NBA caliber player on the defensive end anymore. It is the reason they are unable to get RID of him no matter how hard they have tried in the last 3 years. Massive contract, Can’t and Wont play D. Any team that took Miller on has to have a solid defense to make up for Miller’s complete lack of defense. With Miller on the floor, you are playing 5 on 4 on defense. Watch the first quarter of ANY game the Kings lost this season and you will see the Layup Drill, parading right by #52 to the tin. He is a 7’ tall mound of DUNG. Hated when he arrived and cant wait for the day he leaves. Pot smoking waste of oxygen. Dumping Miller would be a case of addition by subtraction. If they got back a rack of balls and 2 stadium dogs for Miller, they would be thieves. Hoping this is the year I don’t have to curse at the deadline that this garbage is still on the team. Come on Petrie, find someone to take that Dung Pile..

by FaStRmAn on Jan 23, 2009 12:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Really?

I’m not sure anyone could have figured out your aversion to Brad Miller. And your amnesia has erased the years were Brad was a very important part of the high-post offense that took this team to the playoffs repeatedly.

Try to follow me, because this might prevent you from having a stroke the next time you think about Brad Miller: Brad is not part of the long-term solution for this team, that much is clear. He will either be traded or Petrie will let his contract expire and not resign him. Brad will be gone.

Feel better now?

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

by otis29 on Jan 23, 2009 4:45 AM PST up reply actions  

I wouldn't have stated it the same way

But I too believe that Brad is a major part of the problem, especially on Defense. I do recognize the work he did when the team was good.

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 23, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Lee's a bit small

I like him, but for our big rotation to be Lee/Hawes/Thompson means either one of those guys becoming a defensive stopper or letting teams abuse us in the paint.

Lee is 6-9, Thompson is 6-11, Hawes 7-1.

Lee’s a bit small to play center, so Thompson would probably have to learn to play a little center which is a bit out of position for him.

Also, who would you start? Lee/Thompson? Lee/Hawes? Shock and Hawes? It’s an interesting theory. Those bigs would be deadly on the boards though.

And for a really interesting lineup: Hawes, Lee and Thompson all starting. Probably wouldn’t happen though.

Overall, I wouldn’t be averse to picking up Lee in the offseason. I think he’s a great player. We’ll just need a coach who will be able to use the pieces.

by Aykis16 on Jan 22, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions  

I like him, but for our big rotation to be Lee/Hawes/Thompson means either one of those guys becoming a defensive stopper or letting teams abuse us in the paint.

Umm… they already do

www.mancancook.net

by vfettke on Jan 23, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions  

True...

I just don’t want it to continue like that.

by Aykis16 on Jan 23, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions  

So

what happens if we get the #1 pick? Hawes, JT, K9, Lee, Griffin. LOGJAM

by kingme on Jan 22, 2009 9:18 PM PST reply actions  

K9?

What kind of log are you talking about?

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jan 22, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions  

I believe

He is talking about a dog log.

Sorry for taking the obvious joke.

by rockrichmond2 on Jan 23, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions  

what happens if we get the #1 pick? Hawes, JT, K9, Lee, Griffin. LOGJAM

Fixed.

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 22, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Oops
what happens if when we get the #1 pick? Hawes, JT, K9, Lee, Griffin. LOGJAM

Missed something the first time. Fixed.

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 22, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Love the idea of having Lee

The guy is a double-double machine and rebounding is what this team needs. We would have to overpay to get him here so I’m not sure if I would be down for that. On paper it sounds like a good idea.

JT and Hawes are both going to grow physically and that will help them imprve in the defensive end. They already have the energy and hustle, it’s not crazy to think they could become good defenders in a couple years. Add Lee’s rebounding and I like the frontcourt of the future.

by eduardo_m7 on Jan 22, 2009 10:43 PM PST reply actions  

I like ANY front court...

That doesn’t include the B52 Bummer…

by FaStRmAn on Jan 23, 2009 12:10 AM PST up reply actions  

lack of defense?

there’s some talk about how a front line of hawes, thompson, and lee wouldn’t scare anyone defensively. well, how many front lines in the NBA really do?

i would happy if we brought lee in, and whoever takes over as coach really preaches team defense. give effort, stay in front of your man, make good rotations, have good position/spacing, etc.

that would work for me.

by sactoreg on Jan 23, 2009 5:20 AM PST reply actions  

Maybe

You add a fourth big to the puzzle who is more of defensive specialist to complement what you get with the other three. So instead of playing 32 minutes a game, they play 25-30 and the Big Eraser gets 15-20 minutes a game just to keep teams honest.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Jan 23, 2009 11:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Declining Contract?

If one of the big concerns is NYK matching an offer to Lee, one way to use this as an advantage would be to sign a Declining Contract, in which he’d make the most money in the first year instead of the last (see: Bulls, Chicago).

This also would free up a little cap space later in his deal to pick up another piece when the team is presumablyhopefully contending.

by smgmatt on Jan 23, 2009 7:37 AM PST reply actions  

But ...

… you have to convince Lee that’s a good idea, too. And he may not necessarily want to leave N.Y. for Sacramento if the salary difference in total in negligible.

by Tom Ziller on Jan 23, 2009 7:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Oh

I wasn’t suggesting a different offer, just a change in the structure of it so that it’s harder for NYK to match.

To oversimplify: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

If he accepts an offer from Sacramento in the first place ($X over Y years), then he would already have indicated a willingness to play here.

by smgmatt on Jan 23, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions  

You'd probably want that 5 in the second year,

to maximize his money in 2010.

There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru

by moproblemz on Jan 23, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Can't do that

There’s a limit to the salary difference from year-to-year (15%?), to prevent teams from signing players to a deal that starts at the minimum (to fit under the cap) and jumps up $10M (for example).

Basically, the options for year 2 in my previous explaination would be: 2, 3, or 4 (as shown below).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Increasing)
3, 3, 3, 3, 3 (Equal)
5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Decreasing)

A decreasing salary structure would maximize the 2010 cap hit, as well as minimize the cap hit in the later years. The only downside to a contract like this is that it’s entirely front-loaded, so you have to have the cap space sign the deal in the first place. Other than that, I don’t know why more teams don’t do it (especially for their own Free Agents).

The players don’t generally mind because it gets them more money in their hands now (almost like a signing bonus).

by smgmatt on Jan 23, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions  

if teams expect the cap to grow

the incremental plan makes their life easier.

Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'

by iashwash on Jan 23, 2009 11:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I think Petrie hasn't bothered with this in part

Because he’s always been able to deal players like Webber & Bibby when they were expensive.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....

by pookeyguru on Jan 24, 2009 5:49 AM PST up reply actions  

We need a REAL Center

as much as I like DLee’s game, we need a stopper in there. Thats how you build a championship team. At least thats the easiest path.

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth....and teach them how to war.
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Jan 23, 2009 9:38 AM PST reply actions  

Define "REAL", and then define "easiest"

In the last 30 years, there have only been, what, 5* NBA Champions with a “REAL” Center?

(Finals MVP)
Shaq (4 rings, *2 teams), David Robinson, Hakeem (2 rings), Bill Laimbeer(?) (2 rings)

Take a look. Maybe I’m being too literal, or too stingy . . . but less than 1/3 of Championship teams needed a “REAL” Center to win a championship. I guess that 1/3 may be the “easiest” path to get there (what other obtainable characteristic of championship teams might have better odds?), but 4 players in 30 years is a needle in the haystack to say the least.

Other notable bigs who may have logged time at the 5:
KG – PF
Duncan – PF, sometimes plays C (not a “REAL” C though)
Ben Wallace – Listed as a 6’9" F-C
Sheed – PF

Again, that’s 4 guys in 30 years . . . not so easy in my opinion.

To be fair, if you go farther back (just over the arbitrary 30 years I used), the Lakers had Kareem and the Celtics had Parish.

by smgmatt on Jan 23, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Tim Duncan

Yeah, they often play him next to another big guy, but Duncan plays a center’s game and center defense. I think you have to count him.

The real problem isn’t positional. It’s that you need a Hall of Fame level player to have any chance at a title. The only real exception is the Detroit team from a few years back.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/12/19/weekly.countdown/

If you don’t have a HOF player, you’re not winning a championship.

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 23, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Agree to Disagree?

Duncan plays the 5 simply because he’s such a great player that he can. Do you want Nazr Mohammed on the court, or Robert Freaking Horry? What’s great about Duncan is that he’s so good even playing out of his natural position.

The real problem isn’t positional. It’s that you need a Hall of Fame level player to have any chance at a title.

I agree completely, which is what I was getting at (in a far-too-roundabout way).

I was never discrediting Duncan, just stating that he wasn’t a “REAL” Center.

by smgmatt on Jan 26, 2009 7:55 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I agree!!!!!!!

(Great points about Duncan.)

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....

by pookeyguru on Jan 26, 2009 8:12 AM PST up reply actions  

you list duncan as a maybe, but

he pretty much plays at center. that would only make it 5 guys in 30 years, which does seems slight…but if you look at it in terms of championships, these guys’ teams are responsible for a pretty significant portion of those.

one of the things that recent championship teams have had is a dominant post player….spurs had duncan (and i guess robinson), lakers had shaq, rockets had hakeem, and the bulls had jordan (who was a great post player).

(if a team didnt have a dominant post guy, they had excellent team defense, e.g. pistons, celtics. exception being miami, who still had a decent shaq…and were this close to losing to dallas, who had dirk)

i don’t know if its a defensive stopper or an offensive guru manning the paint, but it seems we do need a great big man.

by sactoreg on Jan 23, 2009 11:04 AM PST reply actions  

Fair enough

I agree with the statement that the Kings need a post player, I just question the need for a specific type of Center.

I think Duncan is the perfect example of this, because he’s probably the greatest PF in the history of the NBA. He’s so good that he can slide over and play some 5, but he’s really a 4.

Centers on those Spurs Championship teams: Elson, Ely, Mohammed, Nesterovic, & Robinson.

by smgmatt on Jan 23, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

understood

what kinda post player do you think we need? better question…do you think hawes or thompson fit the bill?

by sactoreg on Jan 23, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Hawes and Thompson

Nice young prospects. But they are not Tim Duncan, and never will be . Sorry.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Jan 23, 2009 11:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Would a rebounder/shot blocker like Camby work?

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Jan 23, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions  

More than rebounding

though thats a given. A Defensive Center who can change players ideas about driving to the bucket.
Camby is an overachiever at the position (great, but an overachiever) you can’t count on developing that. Too old for us. Besides, against big Centers he does get pushed around a litle too much.

Limit the opponents options, thats bigger than scoring 20 from the position. Hawes and JT, they’re gong to be good players, but do they have that in them?

We all know who I think we should (probably) take a calculated risk on.

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth....and teach them how to war.
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Jan 23, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Preliminarily

I try to get Thabeet (no suprise) and Teague. Teague because we need a game changer at the point, he’s alittle reckless now, but we could use some reckless abandon.

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth....and teach them how to war.
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Jan 23, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions  

teague is a game changer

but is he a game changer at the point? i’ve only seen a couple of his games, and he definitely has some skills. he does quite well on the break and in transition, which is good…and he seemed able to go by some defenders off the dribble and attack the basket, which is also good.

but i didnt really see him do a lot out of the half-court. i am currently wary of combo guards (which i believe teague is)…from what you’ve seen does teague handle running the team well?

by sactoreg on Jan 23, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions  

I watched one game recently

and he looked great. He’s aggressive (which I long for) – but probably is a bit of a combo. He does seem to really lead the team, be thier engine.

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth....and teach them how to war.
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Jan 23, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions  

We don't need a

one-dimensional player drafted at the top of the draft. We do need at least one post player who is capable on both sides of the court.. Then you can surround him with one-dimensional (defensive, rebounding, non-scorers) players.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Jan 23, 2009 11:27 PM PST up reply actions  

we need to acquire Dwight Howard

if we can’t acquire LeBron.

The champions of the next ten years are going to be the teams with either of those two. Everybody else is going to be on the outside looking in.

So let’s forget about all of these elaborate Plan B’s. What dominos do we need to set up to get from here to Dwight Howard?

Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.

by Holmdel on Jan 23, 2009 2:31 PM PST reply actions   1 recs

We need to be not Sacramento

No way Dwight Howard is giving up a great Orlando team for a crappy Kings team that is in Northern California. And the only way we’d get him would be free agency since Orlando wouldn’t trade him.

by Aykis16 on Jan 23, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions  

so when does he become a free agent?

or how do we work things so that Orlando WANTS to trade him? And to us? It might take a few years…but we’ve GOT a few years…

Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.

by Holmdel on Jan 23, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions  

we can crack this puzzle if we focus our collective energy on it

Who cares about David Lee’s contract status. Wasted energy. I want us to focus on: has DHoward developed an irrational Stevie Francis-Cat Mobley man-crush on Hedo? If so, let’s overpay Hedo to come here. Don’t tell me about Ricky Rubio. Wasted energy. Tell me about the two things D Howard absolutely hates about JVG and let’s figure out how we play on that. Will Kenny Natt figure out late-game rotations? Farthest thing from my mind. I want to know how we remind D-How every day that the dunk contest was the most fun he had all last year and yet fat bastard JVG dissed him publicly for wasting his time with it.

Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.

by Holmdel on Jan 23, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

yep, sorry

Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.

by Holmdel on Jan 24, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Here it is

Trade Machine link

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jan 23, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

That's just sad

The amount of money the Kings have tied up in mediocrity. Bang-up job, Petrie. How many fewer games would the Kings have won this season without the MLE contracts of Shareef, Salmons, Moore and Udrih?

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 23, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd have gone for Bosh

but the trade machine only allows 4 teams.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jan 23, 2009 7:53 PM PST up reply actions  

truthfully though

Lebron’s defense is overrated. I might rather keep the lock-down defense of Salmons. Plus, his contract is alot more manageable.

Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'

by iashwash on Jan 24, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions  

+1

You’re exactly right. Unless another, similar talent comes along, Howard and James are going to win all the titles.

Shut up and Coach

by Carl on Jan 23, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Here's the problem as I see it TZ

If you’re New York, and you want him for say, 6.5 to 8 million a year, then you sign him next year. If you don’t want him, then you let him walk in 2009. DX has reported Lee’s cap hold in 2010 to be just over 8 million a year after signing the tender offer.

I think it’s a catch 22 for New York, and the bigger problem, for the rest of the league. Is Lee the type of a guy I would sign to a tender offer though? Yeah, I would do it.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....

by pookeyguru on Jan 23, 2009 7:02 PM PST reply actions  

Oui clarifications needed

Sac would sign Lee to an offer sheet, not a tender offer. ( Only New York could do that, and it’s a one shot deal. It’s what Ben Gordon did this past summer if you need a reference.)

By next year, I mean this summer.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....

by pookeyguru on Jan 23, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions  

No thanks...

Lee is a slightly-above average player, who has a RFA we would likely need to overpay to get. Sure, I’d rather have him then Miller, but that’s not enough of a reason to give him $8mil/year.

by cabz on Jan 23, 2009 10:55 PM PST reply actions  

I like David Lee

But he’s not worth $10 million a year. Signing a mid-level player to that contract makes about as much sense as most of our MLE signings in the past few years. Pass. Maybe if it’s $7-$8 million a year I get more interested.

I like the idea of building a young front line of three players, but I’d rather go with a draft pick or possibly a different , cheaper option like Tyrus Thomas.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Jan 23, 2009 11:05 PM PST reply actions   1 recs

Agree

rec’d

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jan 23, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions  

i agree as well, but the David Lee's of the league are beacons of light for the darkly downtrodded

His worth is more than his statistics. His effort is infectious for the disease called complacency, and that is worth $. Maybe not $10 million, but it is an argument.

by betweentheeyes on Jan 24, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Sactown Royalty, the best community of Sacramento Kings fans in the universe. That's not my opinion; it's scientific fact.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Tyreke Evans, Selling Low, or Selling high?

Recent FanPosts

Small
Francisco Garcia Wallpaper/Illustration (UofL days)
Kings_sports_illustrated_small
Funny story
Small
As I sit here and watch the OKC Thunder come back against the Lakers
Waymantisdale-tz-150_small
the owners called down the thunder
Chief_petty_officer_small
Maturity in Sacramento Debacle
Small
Ryan Anderson to the Kings - Petrie's Gotta Give It A Thought
Chief_petty_officer_small
Open letter to the Maloofs
Small
Middle Ground on the Roster Situation
Chief_petty_officer_small
A Perspective on KHTK
Small
Terrence Ross Watch

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editor

Loofie_small Tom Ziller

Joe_kleine_small section214

Demarcus_thornton_small Aykis16

Associate Editor

Coachie_small rbiegler

Banana2_small Exhibit G