Can we talk about trading for Dalembert

by brian_1055 on Jan 4, 2012 8:25 PM PST

First let me start by saying I'm glad Chuck 'Hayes is ok and can play basketball. Now can we trade him for Dalembert? I'm sorry but for someone who was supposed to be valuable to the team it sure hasn't happened. He can't score, can't block shots, stats are bad, and he hasn't even become the overrated "glue" of this team as Kings management suggested. I was very distraught when they let Dalembert go. A big problem we are having this year is no shot blocking presence. Dalembert shut down players last year and altered many many shots when helping. Other teams are walking through our defense. Also we have no one who can convert around the basket like Dalembert could. Chuck Hayes is too short and Demarcus Cousins has like a 2 inch vertical and they are getting stuffed at the basket. We were playing .500 ball last year, I don't get why we would get rid of 2 key players (Dalembert and Beno) and put in some dumb offense which obviously isn't working. Something has to be done, and the lack of effort and poor offense has to be blamed at least partially on the coach.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What on Earth makes you think Houston would do this?

They had a chance to keep Chuck Hayes. They chose not to.

No mikev, no peace
Know mikev, know peace

by Mike Garza on Jan 4, 2012 8:46 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

it's wishful thinking, I'm not expecting it would happen,

but I think we need to trade for someone as close to Dalembert or better. Getting tired of seeing people ease through the lane with no fear to convert layups and seeing our “big men” getting stuffed everytime they get an offensive rebound and go up for a putback.

by brian_1055 on Jan 4, 2012 11:19 PM PST up reply actions

No.

Next thread.

Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen. And for a limited time, every third person who follows me on Twitter (andy_sims) gets a free ice cream cone.

Which I will eat.

by andy sims on Jan 4, 2012 8:47 PM PST reply actions 5 recs

LET'S TRADE THE GUY WE JUST SIGNED TO THE TEAM WHO DIDN'T WANT TO PAY HIM FOR THE GUY WE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY

Brilliant!

No mikev, no peace
Know mikev, know peace

by Mike Garza on Jan 4, 2012 8:49 PM PST up reply actions

Actually we did try

To pay him (Dalembert). We offered him more money than Houston did. He decided to give us the bird and sign with them.

by StevenG on Jan 4, 2012 10:13 PM PST up reply actions

He "decided to give us the bird"

After the Kings renounced his Bird rights, eliminated the chance of him getting a sign and trade deal, and possibly cost him millions of dollars. I would have done the same thing in his place.

No mikev, no peace
Know mikev, know peace

by Mike Garza on Jan 4, 2012 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Eloquent in it's brevity

by betweentheeyes on Jan 4, 2012 9:08 PM PST up reply actions

At least we have Whiteside....

Stay Thirsty My Friends

WONK
Etymology - origin unknown
Function - Noun
Definition - A person preoccuped with arcane details or procedures in a specialized field; broadly, NERD; especially someone young who focuses on one topic or subject to the near exclusion of all other topics.

by Natomaser on Jan 4, 2012 9:42 PM PST reply actions

JJones tweeted…
“Nuggets up to 64 points in the paint. The Grizzlies had 72 last night.”

Wouldn’t happen with Dalembert or comparable defensive big.

by brian_1055 on Jan 5, 2012 12:53 AM PST reply actions

Looks like I'm in the minority here,

But I have to agree with what most of brian said. (I’m assuming he doesn’t seriously think we’d be able to trade Hayes for Dalembert, and just said that to make his point.) Our team just looked a lot more promising at the end of last season when Dalembert and Udrih were in the starting lineup than it does now. I know those guys have their “issues,” but still, with them it looked like we could be at least a .500 team and maybe contend for a playoff spot. At least the team was competitive and more fun to watch than it has been for a while. This season, so far, is looking like a step (or two) backward. While I agree with the majority that a good coach should be able to get better results with the roster we have now than what we have been getting so far, I also have to question the wisdom of a GM who apparently doesn’t see the value of having a point guard type player (even if he isn’t a “true” point guard) that can keep the offense moving, or the difficulties our “twin towers” lineup was apparently creating for opponents. I don’t know what really happened that led to Dalembert signing with Houston, but, to use a dreaded “girlfriend” anology, it appears we basically told him we’d be willing to date him if we couldn’t find anyone better. That generally doesn’t go over too well (or so I’ve been told).

by lemia on Jan 5, 2012 1:52 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

definitely it was to make a point, I really liked how we looked at the end of the year with Dalembert and Beno. I think coaching is part of the problem, and now with today’s news we may eventually see how much of a problem it was. But I think if we can find a player we can trade for who brings to the table what Dalembert did, we should take a look at that.

by brian_1055 on Jan 5, 2012 12:34 PM PST up reply actions