Samuel Dalembert Free Agent Breakdown Remains Somewhat Of A Mystery

by Tom Ziller on Jan 16, 2012 8:53 AM PST in Free Agency/Trades

The circumstances regarding the failed signing of Samuel Dalembert in December remains a mystery, though The Bee's Jason Jones peered into the situation in a talk with the Haitian Sensation last week. Remember: a deal between Dalembert and the Kings was said to be nearly compete the day after Sacramento was forced to void Chuck Hayes' contract. The next day, the Kings sent out a one-sentence statement announcing that negotiations with Dalembert had been called; within minutes, Dalembert had reportedly reached a deal with the Houston Rockets. The following reports indicated that the Kings had offered more guaranteed salary than Dalembert took in Houston.

Dalembert is still clearly upset about that public statement, though.

"You know that's the business is and sometimes there's bad blood," Dalembert said. "I was expecting a more professional approach but obviously some people handle things differently. To me obviously they were upset and I wasn't wrong. I feel bad, they have a great fan base over there, I loved playing over there but I had the feeling they really didn't want me back. For them to come out and say something like that it shows they really didn't have it in mind to get me back. It's the way it is and it's the way the business is and I've had to deal with it."

In fairness to the Kings, though the statement was really odd and surprising, they were likely reacting in anger to Dalembert apparently stringing them along while negotiating with Houston. It cuts both ways, and it is a business.

There's already some discussion in this FanShot.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Losing Sammy (and Beno) killed us this offseason.

I firmly believe that with those two we’d be in a much better position than we are now. Hayes should not be a starter in this league, and Beno is leaps and bounds ahead of Jimmer and IT. Also, Salmons wouldn’t be around and we likely would have drafted a SF (Leonard?). Ahh.. the beauty of “what ifs”.

by brobro on Jan 16, 2012 9:14 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

I think the Chuck Hayes side of it is even more confusing

because Petrie’s initial media statement when we found out about Hayes heart sure read like it was all over. And then they get in touch with Dally and when he blows them off they write the weird PR thing about Dally and then when the tests clear with Hayes they give him a little more money and act like the deal was always going to be okay with Hayes so long as the tests went alright. Sure looks to me like Hayes tests were positive and they went “Holy crap, get back in touch with his agent now!” yet they tried to dress it up like the Kings were working hand in hand with Hayes and his agent through the whole process.

Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams

Because I'm suave you can suck it, I'll ski on your lunch if I want.

by wallywagon11 on Jan 16, 2012 9:16 AM PST reply actions

My impression was that Petrie truly believed it was all over, and they had to rescind the offer to Hayes.

Then the FO went into freak-out mode and tried to get Dally. Then, at some point, someone (agent) comes up with the idea to get a second opinion on Hayes. Then, when he is cleared, they pull back from Dally. I think this matches your take, Wally.

Perhaps the FO was working with his agent for a second opinion. If I were Hayes’ agent, I would be floating any idea I could to keep my client salvageable. The thought of a favorable second opinion may have seemed like a dim prospect, coming as a complete surprise as they were negotiating with Dally.

The question really is: Were the Kings negotiating in good faith with Sammy?

Without all the information of what went on behind closed doors, we may never fully know the details, until Jerry Reynolds writes his memoirs. Personally, I think they were negotiating with him in good faith, believing they had no shot in Hayes getting a favorable outcome. I think Sammy was negotiating in good faith and was hoping for a return to Sacramento. His feelings were hurt when the Kings pulled their offer.

Nothing to see here, move along folks.

Asked if the Kings had any intention of trading Cousins, basketball president Geoff Petrie said, "No."

by Slam_Dunk on Jan 16, 2012 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

The Kings physician referred Hayes the the Ohio clinic I believe

but yes I do believe they thought Hayes was lost to them all the same. However, a quick breakdown of what Sammy said cuts out a lot of the BS from his side of the thing.

“You know that’s the business is and sometimes there’s bad blood,” Dalembert said. "I was expecting a more professional approach but obviously some people handle things differently. To me obviously they were upset and I wasn’t wrong.

Translation: They caught me using their offer the get something more out of Houston and called me out for it. “I wasn’t wrong” means hate the game not the player.

I feel bad,

Remorse that he got caught, not for the actions he took.

they have a great fan base over there, I loved playing over there but I had the feeling they really didn’t want me back.

Justification for his actions. “He did what he did because he just knew they really didn’t want him back”, even though they tendered him the most guaranteed money out of anyone.

For them to come out and say something like that it shows they really didn’t have it in mind to get me back. It’s the way it is and it’s the way the business is and I’ve had to deal with it."

To Sammy the Kings rescinding of the offer was proof that his previously shady business practices were the right choice. Although the statement was issued after GP smelled what Sammy was cooking.

Sammy may have a heart for Haiti and do great charity work over there, but that doesn’t mean he has a heart of gold and can do no wrong. Sammy manipulated the situation and he got caught. He didn’t like getting called out on it. He says it just business. I say its unethical business. Good faith would have been to lay the cards on the table, however, Sammy withheld information with the intent to deceive.

A brief comparison between Mormonism and Historic Christianity
http://carm.org/comparison-between-christian-doctrine-and-mormon-doctrine

A former atheist's (me) appeal: Creation Science
http://creation.com/creation-answers

by sac_faithful on Jan 16, 2012 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

Interesting take.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Jan 16, 2012 2:48 PM PST up reply actions

Interesting take, but

it isn’t unethical to be dealing with more than one offer. When someone is selling a home, it isn’t unusual for several people to be making offers to buy it. It isn’t unusual for more than one team to be vying for a player. It’s just business.

Asked if the Kings had any intention of trading Cousins, basketball president Geoff Petrie said, "No."

by Slam_Dunk on Jan 16, 2012 3:07 PM PST up reply actions

Sac knew Sammy was talking to Houston

However, as I remember it, Sammy was telling the Kings F.O. that they would get him if they offered him the best money. Then he balked and went with Houston. Its not like he didn’t know what was what in Sacramento already. He didn’t learn any new info and decide to go with Houston. He said what he said to get the Kings to offer him the money so he could try and get Houston to match. To me that is underhanded.

Its not a matter of teams vying for players at the same time. That’s called free agency. And per your real estate example, its like Sammy got and offer on his house for 300K from the Kings and decided to sell to Houston instead for 270K. He had no intention of coming here unless he got an unreal offer.

A brief comparison between Mormonism and Historic Christianity
http://carm.org/comparison-between-christian-doctrine-and-mormon-doctrine

A former atheist's (me) appeal: Creation Science
http://creation.com/creation-answers

by sac_faithful on Jan 16, 2012 5:31 PM PST up reply actions

This is all speculation of course

nobody knows for sure what exactly went down

Sanka....you dead? Ya Man

by prowseinthehouse on Jan 17, 2012 9:06 AM PST up reply actions

I still fail to see what is underhanded when a person is negotiating.

The name of the game is to negotiate the best deal you can for yourself. That is just being smart. There is always some risk when one party or the other tries to play one against the other to get a better deal. Sometimes you just get left holding the bag. Go ask Bonzi Wells about that.

Personally, I think Sammy wanted to come here and is upset the Kings backed out, but your scenario is possible, as well. Either way, I don’t believe anyone was being underhanded.

Asked if the Kings had any intention of trading Cousins, basketball president Geoff Petrie said, "No."

by Slam_Dunk on Jan 17, 2012 9:36 AM PST up reply actions

Not sure I'd say losing either killed us.

Beno is averaging approximately 9 points and 2 assists in about 20 minutes for the Bucks. This is better than Jimmer, at the moment, but this is not the type of stat line that has opposing defenses adjusting their approach to make sure Beno doesn’t come in and take over the game.

Thomas on the other hand does change the tone of the game, at least the pace. I’d argue that he brings more to the game than Beno, at the moment, with his focused and committed man defense.

Sammy? Meh. Sure he killed us. He killed a couple of teams for us last year as well. All this ever does for me is cause me to picture the player that Sammy might have been had he ever chosen to be. His whole career Sammy has been that guy who makes you wonder: why is he not better than he is? Have there been games where we could have REALLY used Sammy’s defensive presence this year? No doubt there have been. Would our record look much different if we had him in the lineup this entire season? Not in my opinion. I say hell no in fact. Should you trust the opinion of a man with zero head coaching experience, zero sports writing web presence and played zero ( I am not really Jim Les, sorry Section) games in the NBA? No.

So check out this story in which Ziller lays out a pretty good argument that Daly in fact did not have a huge impact on the defensive performance of the team.

Always put your right shoe on first, because if you put your left shoe on first then your right shoe will be left...and you will have two left shoes.

by Jim Les on Jan 16, 2012 9:56 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Reply fail.

This was written in response to brobro’s comment above.

Always put your right shoe on first, because if you put your left shoe on first then your right shoe will be left...and you will have two left shoes.

by Jim Les on Jan 16, 2012 9:57 AM PST up reply actions

Chuckwagon or sammy?

I will take sammy.i watch chuck but i do not see what all the fuss over him is?i feel we over paid for him also but look who calling the shots-petrie?i hope chuck shows me and the club why he is here.salmons we are stuck with (another bad contract petire)and if you want jimmer to shoot make tyreke the point guard so he can.GO KINGS!!

by cowboyron96@yahoo.com on Jan 16, 2012 10:49 AM PST reply actions 4 recs

Dalembert deserved more from Sac

He should have been getting 30+ min/game. Dalembert at C, Cousins at PF was easily the best set-up for the Kings last year. Imposing figures down low.

Pretty much every successful team in the NBA has at least one shot altering big man. The Kings have one but he’s playing in Reno.

by swooshrc on Jan 18, 2012 12:20 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

He pretty much did average 30 minutes a night once he got healthy

Remember, he had the abductor issue at the beginning of the season and really wasn’t right until after the all star break. Dalembert averaged 29.8mpg after the break.

Also, my bet is that if Whiteside were ready to make a contribution at the NBA level, he wouldn’t be toiling away in Reno.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jan 18, 2012 9:07 AM PST up reply actions