To the Mail Sac, and fccpw: "Is grabbing Oden a wise choice? The roster right now is very, very weird and it seems like there's just too much logjam in certain position."
I think that right now you sign value where you can find it, regardless of the current roster. Oden would be a very nice pickup, but only at the right price.
Look at the deal that Cleveland gave to Andrew Bynum. Two years at $24m is awfully pricy for an oft-injured player, all-start or not, right? But only $6m of Bynum's deal is guaranteed. The other $6m this year is performance-based, and next year is the team's option. Cleveland basically landed Bynum for a mere $6m. If he never recovers from his knee injuries, so be it. The Cavs are only out $6m. But if he does recover, they landed a great value.
Oden is certainly not in Bynum's talent range, but a deal of half of Bynum's deal would be pretty slick. For example, $6m a year for two years, but the first year is $3m guaranteed and $3m performance-based, with the second year being a team option. That's about as risk-free as you can get for a player of Oden's potential. And if he doesn't pan out, you're out only $3m. Also, it's not as though you're building the franchise around him. He's a piece of the puzzle.
Yes, it would give you six big men, which would mean that at least one of them would be wearing a suit on most game nights. But at that price, Oden is a potential asset. So you add him, and if he pans out, you deal someone else up front (or you deal Oden for other assets).
Right now for the Kings, it's partially about fit, but it's largely about assets and value. If you could get Oden at the right price, you go for it.
Next up, longtime lurker kings4webber: "What do you think about bringing Gerald Wallace back? I read that Boston is looking to trade "Crash" to shed some salary. I know he isn't the same high flyer he was back in his old Kings days but he seems like a big upgrade over having Salmons (who would be amnestied) continue to play small forward. What kind of deal do you think would it take to get him?"
The first challenge here is that the Kings have closed in on the cap, so if you're going to deal for Wallace, Salmons won't be enough to make the salaries work. Salmons and Fredette (for example) would work. But there are a couple of large issues here. Wallace, who turns 31 next week, is due to make over $30m over the next three years. That's fricking steep for a guy whose best years are clearly behind him. There is also the fact that Wallace is really a stretch four at best at this point in his career - small forward is not really a workable position for him at this point.
Salmons has one year left at $7.6m, followed by a $1m buyout. I'll take that over Wallace and his bloated deal.
And from Jon Patrick: "Not counting Mike Malone, who is the best Kings coach post-Adelman?"
This question is full of win. It is frightening and maddening, and my favorite part is that you do indeed need to exclude Malone for fear that everyone would go to this as the default answer, in spite of the fact that he has yet to coach even one game. That sure sums up the past seven years, doesn't it? Brilliant question...you magnificent, evil bastard!
I'm going with Reggie Theus (man, this really is like trying to pick the apple with the fewest worms). Musselman's tenure peaked at his PowerPoint presentation, and he was done by the time his DUI hit before the beginning of the season. Natt was nott, and Westphal and Smart both failed miserably when it came to developing the youth on this team. That leaves Theus, who actually had a decent first year. The team played very hard for him, and the team was worth watching on most nights. But he couldn't stop shooting his mouth off in the off season, and by Christmas of his second season he had completely lost the team. But since I'm calling the 2007-08 season the best season post-Adelman, I'm calling Theus the best coach of that error...I mean era. Yep, Reggie has the firmest handshake in this leper colony.
Pick & Droll: Career Day! Choose your two alternative careers, with one being athletic or in the entertainment field and one being in the more standard career base.
"Now leading off for your San Francisco Giants, the center fielder, #1in your programs and your hearts, section214!" That's all I ever wanted to be from the time that I was six years old to...oh...today.
Of more standard fare, I wanted to be Woodward & Bernstein or Howard Cosell or James Thurber. I wanted to be a journalist or writer of some sort, and if it could be tied to sports, even better.
Careers are a funny thing. Sometimes you seek out your career, and sometimes your career seeks you out. Sometimes it's about what you do, but mostly it's about who you are. In other words, it's not your career that defines you, but you that defines your career. My dad used to say that there was no shame in being a ditch digger, unless you dug crappy ditches. "Be the best ditch digger that you can be and you can sleep soundly," he would say. Of course, he used to say "Pull my finger!" a lot, too...
Send your questions and topic ideas to email@example.com. The thread is now open for jacking, right after you pull my finger.