Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: USA TODAY on T-Rob over Liliard choice

  1. #1
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,630

    USA TODAY on T-Rob over Liliard choice

    According to three people with knowledge of the situation who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, part of the reason the Kings drafted forward Thomas Robinson fifth overall out of Kansas in June instead of Rookie of the Year frontrunner and Weber State point guard Damian Lillard (who went sixth to Portland) was because of internal doubt about ownership's ability or willingness to pony up for restricted free agent forward Jason Thompson.






  2. #2
    Thank You Maloofs










    http://bourgeoiscreme.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/D-Cousins.jpg

  3. #3
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Well they paid Thompson.

    They've paid most good players they've had. (Martin, Garcia, Udrih, Thornton). They just haven't had great ones.

    Or in Thornton's case, he regressed.













  4. #4
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Also, superstars (such as what Lillard could be) are rarely in danger of not getting paid by the original team.

    It's the average players (Lin) that are more questionable.

    So one shouldn't be concerned about Lillard getting paid, if he's a superstar. It's guys like Casspi or Thornton that are bigger questionmarks, but as I mentioned above, the Kings paid almost all of their FAs or RFAs.

    The remaining ones like Terrence Williams, will he had other issues, and is still a FA, for a reason.













  5. #5
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,630
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    Well they paid Thompson.

    They've paid most good players they've had. (Martin, Garcia, Udrih, Thornton). They just haven't had great ones.

    Or in Thornton's case, he regressed.
    Times change and so have the Maloofs. They have had a tighter lock on the payroll, and according to sources over the past few years as the one above they haven't been willing to make investments in signings Petrie has wanted. The sad part is....when the Kings recently resigned Thornton they were still below the minimum cap. They had to sign Hayes and Outlaw to be safely above it.

    Its also telling that there is a deep concern within the front office about the Maloof's willingness to pay guys. Even if they did agree to pay JT...we don't know how willing they were to do so. Then what else did they do? They haven't been active at all for years. Again lets review what they've done over the past few years:

    Signed Wright, Jeter, and Head. WHOOPIE
    Signed Hayes and Outlaw. Resigned an overpaid Thornton. WHOOPIE.
    Resigned JT. Signed Brooks.

    That's not an ownership group willing to pay and giving effort to grow their product. That's an ownership group that HAS to pay someone to stay above the minimum which they have flirted with a lot recently. If they signed nobody...and drop below...the NBA steps in and investigates the team tanking. Signing your own average players is convenient since they can't go anywhere while restricted. So too does signing players nobody else wants.






  6. #6
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,630
    Though I should say the Maloofs would be willing to keep a true superstar if they had one like Lebron...its just they won't make the overtures to try and find one. They want to keep the Kings affordable for themselves even if it means staying bad






  7. #7
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Quote Originally Posted by bloatedmaniac View Post
    Times change and so have the Maloofs. They have had a tighter lock on the payroll, and according to sources over the past few years as the one above they haven't been willing to make investments in signings Petrie has wanted. The sad part is....when the Kings recently resigned Thornton they were still below the minimum cap. They had to sign Hayes and Outlaw to be safely above it.

    Its also telling that there is a deep concern within the front office about the Maloof's willingness to pay guys. Even if they did agree to pay JT...we don't know how willing they were to do so. Then what else did they do? They haven't been active at all for years. Again lets review what they've done over the past few years:

    Signed Wright, Jeter, and Head. WHOOPIE
    Signed Hayes and Outlaw. Resigned an overpaid Thornton. WHOOPIE.
    Resigned JT. Signed Brooks.

    That's not an ownership group willing to pay and giving effort to grow their product. That's an ownership group that HAS to pay someone to stay above the minimum which they have flirted with a lot recently. If they signed nobody...and drop below...the NBA steps in and investigates the team tanking. Signing your own average players is convenient since they can't go anywhere while restricted. So too does signing players nobody else wants.

    I was as disappointed as anyone that they didn't get Boozer or Lee in 2010, or a few better options than Thornton in 2011.


    I'm just saying, the fear of resigning own FAs hasn't proven true though. It's outside ones, or willingness to pursue them (Boozer, Lee, Humphries) that's the issue.


    It's a little like saying Sterling didn't resign his players 10-20 years ago. Not accurate, he resigned his stars (Brand, Maggette, Kaman). It's the questionable players the he didn't resign (Olowokandi, Jaric) or the players that had been underpaid before, like 3-point specialists.

    Owners resign stars, because those are the money makers.

    They can be more conscious of the average players and whether to resign them.

    Back to the Kings case, I am 100% sure that if the Kings had a star at hand, such as Lillard, he would be resigned. Even looking back at their own FAs, they resigned them.

    But it's the willingness to pursue outside FAs that's been detrimental. I can't comment on prior to 2010, because there wasn't any cap space. And I can't comment on 2012, because there was only $6.1 M, and that can't get you a good player unless you get lucky or make a shrewd move.

    But I can hold 2010, when Boozer and Lee could have been had IMO, and 2011, when Humphries and maybe 1-2 others, were available.

    To be fair, if Thornton had been the two-way player he had been when he first came over, we wouldn't be looking at Thornton as a bad signing, but a valuable one.

    But regardless of 2011, 2010 was a huge miss because players like Boozer and Lee don't become available every year. Lee isn't a superstar, but he is an All-Star, who needed healthier pieces around him (Curry) to translate into more wins.

    Boozer, while not quite as consistent, can still be a double-double guy, and had 31 points and 11 rebounds, which is better than future acquisitions Thornton, Johnson, and Brooks.













  8. #8
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,630
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    I was as disappointed as anyone that they didn't get Boozer or Lee in 2010, or a few better options than Thornton in 2011.


    I'm just saying, the fear of resigning own FAs hasn't proven true though. It's outside ones, or willingness to pursue them (Boozer, Lee, Humphries) that's the issue.


    It's a little like saying Sterling didn't resign his players 10-20 years ago. Not accurate, he resigned his stars (Brand, Maggette, Kaman). It's the questionable players the he didn't resign (Olowokandi, Jaric) or the players that had been underpaid before, like 3-point specialists.

    Owners resign stars, because those are the money makers.

    They can be more conscious of the average players and whether to resign them.

    Back to the Kings case, I am 100% sure that if the Kings had a star at hand, such as Lillard, he would be resigned. Even looking back at their own FAs, they resigned them.

    But it's the willingness to pursue outside FAs that's been detrimental. I can't comment on prior to 2010, because there wasn't any cap space. And I can't comment on 2012, because there was only $6.1 M, and that can't get you a good player unless you get lucky or make a shrewd move.

    But I can hold 2010, when Boozer and Lee could have been had IMO, and 2011, when Humphries and maybe 1-2 others, were available.

    To be fair, if Thornton had been the two-way player he had been when he first came over, we wouldn't be looking at Thornton as a bad signing, but a valuable one.

    But regardless of 2011, 2010 was a huge miss because players like Boozer and Lee don't become available every year. Lee isn't a superstar, but he is an All-Star, who needed healthier pieces around him (Curry) to translate into more wins.

    Boozer, while not quite as consistent, can still be a double-double guy, and had 31 points and 11 rebounds, which is better than future acquisitions Thornton, Johnson, and Brooks.
    I agree if the Kings had a bonafide star that the Maloofs would resign them. Hell they'd probably blow their star every night just to keep him happy so they can profit off of him. JT doesn't fit the star description so the Maloofs might not of ponied up to keep him. Lets say they've been having the front office keep their payroll at a low fixed amount. Signing JT would require going beyond that, so if such orders were present, or if the Maloofs were sending negative vibes about JT or spending money...than that would be their dilemma forcing them to take T-Rob. Based on how this team has been operating lately, and how the Maloofs seem eager to move the team to a rent free arena AND be paid for the move....I'd go with the assumption that the front office had very valid concerns in this regard. The Maloofs have not given us any reason to not suspect them of being cheap douchebags.

    4-5 years ago I doubt this would of been a concern, we'd sign JT without worry while enjoying Liliard over Aaron Brooks. Now...their is just too many misgivings with the ownership to not doubt anything they do or plan to do.






  9. #9
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Now that I think about it, if the Kings had signed Lee, the same year they drafted Cousins, he could have been a nice vet to have around.

    And, they would have completely remade their starting frontcourt over summer, while having Thompson off the bench.













  10. #10
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,630
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    Now that I think about it, if the Kings had signed Lee, the same year they drafted Cousins, he could have been a nice vet to have around.

    And, they would have completely remade their starting frontcourt over summer, while having Thompson off the bench.
    but things worked out....because they got Hayes and Outlaw. Can't ask for better than that. They are like superheroes.






  11. #11
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,165
    I don't mind taking Thomas over Lillard - but the fact that they weren't on the same page is disgusting.











  12. #12
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,165
    Also, as far as free agents, not sure how truthful he was being but Petrie says he does make a significant amount of calls but rarely hears back.











  13. #13
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    Also, as far as free agents, not sure how truthful he was being but Petrie says he does make a significant amount of calls but rarely hears back.
    Interesting.

    Maybe he doesn't have the trust factor, for whatever reason, that he used to?

    I've also noticed that certain teams like to trade with each other more than others.

    * Kings-Philly have been in several trades the past 6-8 years.

    * Houston - Phoenix

    * Washington - Dallas


    I had a longer list in my head but I forgot some of it, and I don't want to think about it anymore.

    But doesn't it seem like certain teams are more likely to trade with some teams more than others?













  14. #14
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    Also, as far as free agents, not sure how truthful he was being but Petrie says he does make a significant amount of calls but rarely hears back.
    Do you always call the GM of the other team, or can you call the agent?

    For example, if you're trying to trade for a player via sign-and-trade, (let's use David Lee in this example), do you have to call Dolan, or can you call Lee's agent himself?













  15. #15
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,165
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    Do you always call the GM of the other team, or can you call the agent?

    For example, if you're trying to trade for a player via sign-and-trade, (let's use David Lee in this example), do you have to call Dolan, or can you call Lee's agent himself?
    Think you could do either, honestly - though I'm sure most GM's prefer you call them over the agent.

    I wish I could remember - Petrie said he called a couple name free agents (Dwight was one I do recall) but said his reps never returned Petrie's phone calls.











  16. #16
    Super Moderator nuraman00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    33,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Eze View Post
    Think you could do either, honestly - though I'm sure most GM's prefer you call them over the agent.

    I wish I could remember - Petrie said he called a couple name free agents (Dwight was one I do recall) but said his reps never returned Petrie's phone calls.
    You mean Dwight as a trade acquisition, right?

    If it was something like Cousins for Dwight (provided Dwight signed an extension), that would have been something worth making.













  17. #17
    Administrator Eze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,165
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    You mean Dwight as a trade acquisition, right?

    If it was something like Cousins for Dwight (provided Dwight signed an extension), that would have been something worth making.
    Yeah - they tried to see if he'd be interested, which of course he wouldn't, but they were just "doing their job" - if you will.

    I can't find the pieces where Petrie said he makes calls, but I do remember distinctly reading it.











  18. #18
    Forum Master bloatedmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,630
    Quote Originally Posted by nuraman00 View Post
    Interesting.

    Maybe he doesn't have the trust factor, for whatever reason, that he used to?

    I've also noticed that certain teams like to trade with each other more than others.

    * Kings-Philly have been in several trades the past 6-8 years.

    * Houston - Phoenix

    * Washington - Dallas


    I had a longer list in my head but I forgot some of it, and I don't want to think about it anymore.

    But doesn't it seem like certain teams are more likely to trade with some teams more than others?
    Thats a good point and it seems true in most sports. GMs/front offices get familiar with each other, and may like the ease of negotiating deals without any horseshit.

    As far as Petrie making calls and never hearing back....thats kind of sad. If true that means that Petrie is pretty bad at making the Kings look like a nice spot to sign and that Sacramento itself is far from ideal. He might also be targetting the wrong crowd. Who knows, but that is not a good sign.






Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •