2009/2010

[ICMTM]

Who do you think will ACTUALLY be available? I keep looking at the lists of free agents and the only real possibilities out there IMO are guys who we probably don't want (Dirk, Pierce, JO) or guys that are not going to be free anyway.

I see some things making sense like Kobe Bryant opting out at the end of this year (if hoopshype's ETO is right), but that doesn't mean WE are going to get him (or want him). For this thread you have to state:

1. Who's going to be available
2. Why
3. How the Kings will acquire such player

[pillwenney]

Nobody is definitely going to be available, since there is always the possibility that the player just wants to re-sign and doesn't really look to test the market, but I looked into this before. Unless some unexpected player has a big breakout season, the main options I remember finding were Bynum, Boozer and Granger. Those were the 3 that were talented enough to be worth taking up our cap space, were young enough to be relevant for us.

Bynum probably isn't likely unless we're willing to overpay him in relation to his performance this season (enough to where the Lakers wouldn't match the offer, which would probably have to be pretty high).

Boozer is a possibility because IIRC, Utah has stated that they're worried about staying under the luxury tax and will also have to worry about re-signing Okur next summer, along with a couple others. But still, it's probably pretty likely that he'll be their first priority, and so it's not extremely likely.

Granger--again, the team will probably look to lock him up quite quickly and will likely match most anything we'd offer him. But still, if we happen to be able to create the cap space, it might not be the worst idea.

Of course, we would have to first create the cap space to sign any of these guys, which, contrary to what some may think here, is going to be extremely difficult and pretty unlikely.

[SacKingZZZ]

Marion and Odom will be out there I think. Both could fit with us, depends on who we get in the draft I guess and whether or not we have cap space.

[JoshKingsFan]

I'm assuming you mean the summer of 2010, after the contracts of Miller, Moore, and Thomas expire.

First, I think we should look at who's under contract now, that will be under contract in 2010:

PG - Udrih
SG - Martin/Garcia
SF - Salmons/Greene
PF - Thompson
C - Hawes

There will also be 2 1st rounders from 2009 on the roster (and then at least 1 2010 first rounder). This is interesting, because other than Thompson, this is our opening day roster for 2008/09.

Since this is 2 years (almost) away there are a lot of things that can happen. Obviously the prime target would be LeBron (which is unlikely, but you never know -- the Maloofs are known for taking care of their players -- not that he won't get a Max deal, but I think some players do take ownership into consideration, additionally we may be looking at a new arena).

Other UFA's include Amare Stoudemire (who has an early termination) and Pau Gasol (who would be an interesting fit, depending on the progression of Thompson and Hawes and who our 2009 1st rounders might be).

There are some interesting RFA's, who have a team option (but could be had by trade or be let go depending on that particular team -- impending sale, luxury tax, etc.): Durant, Yialin, Horford, Noah, Brandon Wright, Connely and Oden. We could trade Salmons or Greene and a draft pick and receive a higher salaried player in return. While I don't see us getting Oden, Portland has a lot of young talent and won't be able to afford it all, so when they have to lockup Oden long-term (after they pay Roy and Aldridge) that may mean someone else must go. Similar thing could happen with Horford, Connely or Noah. Again, it's really far away, so a lot of things can happen.

Maybe Petrie isn't targeting a top player, but instead will use the money to lockup our guys (including the 09 1st rounders) and get several veteran role players, but it really depends on the development of our young players, and this year will be interesting. Also, Theus may not even be the coach in 2 years, so the system might change too.

Bottom line is if our youngs develop, we a have system that's working and that players like, the Maloofs keep paying the big $$, and our arena situation works out, we could be fairly attractive for some free agents.

[Smills91]

Nobody is definitely going to be available, since there is always the possibility that the player just wants to re-sign and doesn't really look to test the market, but I looked into this before. Unless some unexpected player has a big breakout season, the main options I remember finding were Bynum, Boozer and Granger. Those were the 3 that were talented enough to be worth taking up our cap space, were young enough to be relevant for us.

Bynum probably isn't likely unless we're willing to overpay him in relation to his performance this season (enough to where the Lakers wouldn't match the offer, which would probably have to be pretty high).

Boozer is a possibility because IIRC, Utah has stated that they're worried about staying under the luxury tax and will also have to worry about re-signing Okur next summer, along with a couple others. But still, it's probably pretty likely that he'll be their first priority, and so it's not extremely likely.

Granger--again, the team will probably look to lock him up quite quickly and will likely match most anything we'd offer him. But still, if we happen to be able to create the cap space, it might not be the worst idea.

Of course, we would have to first create the cap space to sign any of these guys, which, contrary to what some may think here, is going to be extremely difficult and pretty unlikely.

I think Boozer's are guy IF we sign a player AWAY from another team. Personally I think that cap space may be used in a more Marcus Camby like way where we absorb the contract of a player worthy of it, and we even have young/cheap assets to sweeten any deal revolving around the player we target. But back to Boozer. I do think it's VERY reasonable to assume we could move Miller for an expiring deal. He's still a quality Center and teams like Miami, Indy, SA, etc could really use him. I'd say if a deal comes along and we can shed AT LEAST the 12 million from Brad, then we release Mikkie, Shelden, Douby and that'd create somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 million to spend in the summer of 2009. I'm not sure if that would be enough to land a Boozer caliber player, but I just keeping thinking Salmons/Miller to Miami for Marion makes a lot of sense on both sides.

If you had:

C: Hawes/Thompson
PF: Boozer
SF: Garcia
SG: Martin
PG: Beno

and add 2 first round picks(one potentially a lotto pick) that's a pretty good team IMO. You got Martin/Boozer as the main guns...with Garcia being the ultimate role player. Hawes/Thompson as the youngins to continue forward and I really like that line-up.

I'd really target Boozer and move forward with a Boozer/Martin combo.

[_SRV_]

Marion and Odom will be out there I think. Both could fit with us, depends on who we get in the draft I guess and whether or not we have cap space.

Odom is a possibility if we're not aiming for '10 offseason, Moore/SAR/Shelden will be gone, and we'll have Thompson and expiring KT for PFs, MLE for Odom is a possibility (if he takes it).
Marion is iffy he's mainly an athlete and will be in his 30s when he's up for a new contract.
Ben Gordon will be UFA, but unless it's a S&T I don't see any interest.
Boozer S&T can get complicated, and I don't think he'll play in Sac with the published connections to LA and Miami (right?).

[pillwenney]

I think Boozer's are guy IF we sign a player AWAY from another team. Personally I think that cap space may be used in a more Marcus Camby like way where we absorb the contract of a player worthy of it, and we even have young/cheap assets to sweeten any deal revolving around the player we target. But back to Boozer. I do think it's VERY reasonable to assume we could move Miller for an expiring deal. He's still a quality Center and teams like Miami, Indy, SA, etc could really use him. I'd say if a deal comes along and we can shed AT LEAST the 12 million from Brad, then we release Mikkie, Shelden, Douby and that'd create somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 million to spend in the summer of 2009. I'm not sure if that would be enough to land a Boozer caliber player, but I just keeping thinking Salmons/Miller to Miami for Marion makes a lot of sense on both sides.

If you had:

C: Hawes/Thompson
PF: Boozer
SF: Garcia
SG: Martin
PG: Beno

and add 2 first round picks(one potentially a lotto pick) that's a pretty good team IMO. You got Martin/Boozer as the main guns...with Garcia being the ultimate role player. Hawes/Thompson as the youngins to continue forward and I really like that line-up.

I'd really target Boozer and move forward with a Boozer/Martin combo.

I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that at all. Very few teams have enough expirings to match up to Brad's contract. Of those teams, the specific teams have to have a need specifically for a center like Brad, have to be willing to move their expirings (I don't think Indy qualifies--they didn't move JO to cut salary just so they could add that salary back on), and they have to be in a position where they need an extra player to get them over the hump.

I don't think the Miami deal really works too well for either team. Marion's only real value to us is as an expiring, so we're trading two players for whom I would expect more than straight expirings, for what is essentially straight expirings (having Marion for a mere chunk of a season would be nice, I guess, but not ultimately very beneficial). I would also have doubts for Miami. They'd be trading the best player, and Salmons would be a very poor fit next to Wade. I'm not saying they definitely wouldn't do it, but I am saying that that I wouldn't blame them for not doing it, and I don't think I would like it much from our end--at least not unless we were really confident that we could acquire a big time player with that cap space.

Teams with sufficient (8.53mil between two players--since we don't have the roster space for any more), and tradable expirings (so in other words, players more valuable than Brad don't count) for Brad include: Chicago (that's if Gooden or Gordon qualifies as tradable), Cleveland, Dallas, Indiana, Memphis, Minnesota, New Jersey (assuming KVH's deal is still tradable), New York, OKC, Portland, and Toronto (only if they aren't planning on keeping Bargs, which is probably unlikely). Out of those teams, the only ones I could maybe see wanting Brad realistically would be maybe Chicago, maybe New York and maybe Dallas. In Cleveland, pairing Brad with Z would make for the slowest front court ever. Brad doesn't really give Dallas anything they need. Memphis, Minny, New Jersey and OKC are all re-building, and Portland and Toronto already have full front courts (although I think Toronto could potentially have a real interest in Salmons).

[Smills91]

See I gotta disagree with you Mitch...while Salmons/Miller are definitely worth MORE than just expirings, Marion is still a talented expiring which IMO makes for good trade bait, especially if we try to get under the cap for '09 because that gives us a SnT chip to maybe facilitate a deal with, perse, Utah for Boozer.

As for Salmons. He'd be a GREAT fit next to Wade because you could ultimately play Wade and Salmons in the backcourt together. Wade could play the 1 or 2 and same goes for Salmons to create a very dominate backcourt. Salmons versatility next to Wade would be, IMO a seamless fit. Now Miller being a shooter/passer makes it a coup for Miami in terms of fit because he now opens up the cutting/passing lanes. A princeton-like offense would do well with Miller/Haslem up top, with the likes of Beasley, Wade, Salmons on the wings.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Check out my Portland/Sacto/Miami deal on the trade board, I think something along those lines would be somewhat feasible to go down.

[pillwenney]

See I gotta disagree with you Mitch...while Salmons/Miller are definitely worth MORE than just expirings, Marion is still a talented expiring which IMO makes for good trade bait, especially if we try to get under the cap for '09 because that gives us a SnT chip to maybe facilitate a deal with, perse, Utah for Boozer.

As for Salmons. He'd be a GREAT fit next to Wade because you could ultimately play Wade and Salmons in the backcourt together. Wade could play the 1 or 2 and same goes for Salmons to create a very dominate backcourt. Salmons versatility next to Wade would be, IMO a seamless fit. Now Miller being a shooter/passer makes it a coup for Miami in terms of fit because he now opens up the cutting/passing lanes. A princeton-like offense would do well with Miller/Haslem up top, with the likes of Beasley, Wade, Salmons on the wings.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Check out my Portland/Sacto/Miami deal on the trade board, I think something along those lines would be somewhat feasible to go down.

Maybe we can S&T Marion--maybe. But if we can't then we just traded Miller/Salmons for straight expirings and lost some value. Also I don't think two-way S&Ts can happen. Not to mention that I don't think Utah would do it. If they don't re-sign Boozer, it will be for financial reasons, so they won't be taking on an equally large salary (or close to it) for a player that is older and a worse fit for them.

I've never known Wade, Salmons, or Beasley to be particularly adept in a Princeton-type system. All of them are more useful when they have the ball in their hands in more iso-type situations. That's why I couldn't really see it fitting--at least in a way that would fully utilize what all of the players in that lineup could do. Marion is the better fit because he doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. I could still see Miami doing it for the simple fact that their options at Center are very poor right now. I'm just saying that I could also see an argument for why they may want to do something else.

[Smills91]

See I gotta disagree with you Mitch...while Salmons/Miller are definitely worth MORE than just expirings, Marion is still a talented expiring which IMO makes for good trade bait, especially if we try to get under the cap for '09 because that gives us a SnT chip to maybe facilitate a deal with, perse, Utah for Boozer.

As for Salmons. He'd be a GREAT fit next to Wade because you could ultimately play Wade and Salmons in the backcourt together. Wade could play the 1 or 2 and same goes for Salmons to create a very dominate backcourt. Salmons versatility next to Wade would be, IMO a seamless fit. Now Miller being a shooter/passer makes it a coup for Miami in terms of fit because he now opens up the cutting/passing lanes. A princeton-like offense would do well with Miller/Haslem up top, with the likes of Beasley, Wade, Salmons on the wings.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Check out my Portland/Sacto/Miami deal on the trade board, I think something along those lines would be somewhat feasible to go down.

Maybe we can S&T Marion--maybe. But if we can't then we just traded Miller/Salmons for straight expirings and lost some value. Also I don't think two-way S&Ts can happen. Not to mention that I don't think Utah would do it. If they don't re-sign Boozer, it will be for financial reasons, so they won't be taking on an equally large salary (or close to it) for a player that is older and a worse fit for them.

I've never known Wade, Salmons, or Beasley to be particularly adept in a Princeton-type system. All of them are more useful when they have the ball in their hands in more iso-type situations. That's why I couldn't really see it fitting--at least in a way that would fully utilize what all of the players in that lineup could do. Marion is the better fit because he doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. I could still see Miami doing it for the simple fact that their options at Center are very poor right now. I'm just saying that I could also see an argument for why they may want to do something else.

They can, I used to think that, but they are possible, but very tricky. I also think Miller at Center would help Wade be more effective WITHOUT the ball in his hands. There's never been a true 'distrubutor' on a Wade led team.

[cdt3]

True or false Carlos Boozer would be a greatest pickup in Free Agency? Without a doubt arguably true. Because he led Duke to the final four with 18/9/1block season he was a hard guy right. Only Shelden Williams did the same thing, only he was badder than Boozer with a 19/11/4blocks and lost to the championship team UCONN by 1 point in the final four game. They are the same height and near the same weight. If I compared Moore and Miller stats Miller is slightly better player. But Shelden is soft? Boozer did not average 20 a game until his 4th year. He only scored 10 in his first year but he got a lot more minutes than Shelden's first year. This is Shelden'd 3rd year and he averaged 15/10 in summer league in 36min. The summer league team with Williams-Hawes-Thompson had a great record. The Mikki Moore led preseason team 1-7. So we are looking for a 20/10 guy, when we have one better than Boozer on our team already. What is wrong with you stupid people? You are almost as stupid as Atlanta giving him up for a old Mike Bibby. Short term Bibby is better, long term Shelden will be better. Hawes-Williams is my favorite front line right now because they can do everything and get eachother 's and the teams back on defense. Look at the difference between Hawes last year and this year, imagine when Williams is playing with that confidence. Imagine the scoring of the Martin-Greene-Thompson-Hawes-Williams frontline we would be out of no game. Thanks Geoff.

[RoyalCourtJestr]

Shelden Williams is a bust. He was good in college but will never be worth a top 15 pick let alone a top 5.

[cdt3]

Coach K sat Boozer on the bench in the Olympics because he couldn't play defense, and Shelden. Shelden was good enough for HOF and Gold medal winning coach but not the geniuses that run the powerhouse Atlanta franchise who have not had a winning season in 20 years. You aren't aware that Bibby was old and washed up. I loved the guy, but his his dominating time was through.

Do some research first before you call folks busts.
Carlos Boozer first 5 years:
Carlos got to play 4 year for a good post teaching coach Jerry Sloan, he spent one year at Cle who had no post coaching.
10/8 in 25min Cle Bust season16/12 in 35min Utah
18/9 in 35 min Utah
16/9 in 35 min Utah
21/12 in 35 min. Utah

Shelden has gotten 0 post coaching in 2 years in Atlanta, and is improving here where he has descent post coaches.
5/5 in 20 min Atl 2006
5/5 in 16 min Atl 2007
In the summer league 2008 after 1 year with the Kings coaches he averaged 15/10 in 36 min, the same stats as Hawes (and the summer league team had a winning record). If you say Shelden sucks so does Hawes and Carlos Boozer. Shelden is a winner. Mikki Moore played on a last place team at Nebraska the guy is no winner. Hawes played on a ok Washington program he is a pretty good winner. Jason Thomspon led his team to first place he is a winer. Boozer played at Duke and so did Shelden where Shelden had better stats these guys are winners. Williams>Boozer in a couple of year if Theus ever commits minutes to him. There are just too many big athletic guys in the league not to have Shelden's defense. I love Miller but I think down the road, Hawes-Williams and maybe Thomspon replaces Hawes down the road if he can be more clutch. Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan don't look tough at all but the dominated the league year after year.

The Kings went 1-7 in preseason with Mikki as the center of the team.

[cdt3]

Coach K sat Boozer on the bench in the Olympics because he couldn't play defense, and Shelden. Shelden was good enough for HOF and Gold medal winning coach but not the geniuses that run the powerhouse Atlanta franchise who have not had a winning season in 20 years. You aren't aware that Bibby was old and washed up. I loved the guy, but his his dominating time was through.

Do some research first before you call folks busts.
Carlos Boozer first 5 years:
Carlos got to play 4 year for a good post teaching coach Jerry Sloan, he spent one year at Cle who had no post coaching.
10/8 in 25min Cle Bust season16/12 in 35min Utah
18/9 in 35 min Utah
16/9 in 35 min Utah
21/12 in 35 min. Utah

Shelden has gotten 0 post coaching in 2 years in Atlanta, and is improving here where he has descent post coaches.
5/5 in 20 min Atl 2006
5/5 in 16 min Atl 2007
In the summer league 2008 after 1 year with the Kings coaches he averaged 15/10 in 36 min, the same stats as Hawes (and the summer league team had a winning record). If you say Shelden sucks so does Hawes and Carlos Boozer. Shelden is a winner. Mikki Moore played on a last place team at Nebraska the guy is no winner. Hawes played on a ok Washington program he is a pretty good winner. Jason Thomspon led his team to first place he is a winer. Boozer played at Duke and so did Shelden where Shelden had better stats these guys are winners. Williams>Boozer in a couple of year if Theus ever commits minutes to him. There are just too many big athletic guys in the league not to have Shelden's defense. I love Miller but I think down the road, Hawes-Williams and maybe Thomspon replaces Hawes down the road if he can be more clutch. Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan don't look tough at all but the dominated the league year after year.

The Kings went 1-7 in preseason with Mikki as the center of the team.

[pillwenney]

Shelden usually looks pretty damn bad when he's in the post. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that Sloan specifically is teaching Boozer to play in the post. It was well known that Boozer had potential to be a big time post player when he signed with Utah--that's why he got a big time contract.

And again, using summer league stats as a real support for your argument is kind of absurd. You can use it to say "well see, he did well here, so not all hope is lost for him" or something like that, but actually using the stats to project real NBA stats is silly--the same goes for college. You're putting way, way too much stock into this. By your logic, Jay Williams, JJ Redick, Trajan Langdon, Christian Laetner, William Avery and countless other Dukies who never lived up to their college careers in the pros should all be great players. Duke is a great college program. That doesn't mean that it always turns out great NBA players.

There are very clear differences between Williams and Boozer that account for why Boozer has been so much more successful as an NBA player--most notably that Boozer is a much more fluid athlete. That doesn't mean better necessarily--that's he's necessarily faster or a better stand-still leaper or anything (although he probably is, I would guess), but that he is skilled enough to really do things with the ball. When Boozer makes a spin move through the lane, it is graceful, and balanced, and it looks like he knows what he's doing. When Shelden does, he looks like a remote-controlled action figure being controlled by a 5-year-old.

Look, I like Shelden more than most. Most people out there think he's a complete bust and is lucky to be in the league. I think he can be a really solid defensive player that could potentially be quite useful to this team in the future if he can ever kind of put it all together. But I think his ceiling at this point is Kurt Thomas with more shotblocking. He will not be an amazing defensive big in this league (because he's simply not tall, athletic, or it seems intelligent enough), but he can be a very nice one. And if he keeps working on his mid range shot and can develop some semblance of a post game, he can be decent enough offensively to not be a liability. But that's pretty much it.

[RIPskaterdude]

I wouldn't call a rookie who has a 10/8 season in his FIRST year of the NBA a "bust season".

[cdt3]

So how exactly did a bad post guy put up better stats than Boozer in every category. The guy is competitive and playes better on both sides of the ball. He will learn what work and what doesn't work with experience which the Kings have not given the guy the minutes. There are just so many tough big guys in the league that Hawes will be foul trouble daily, Moore is useless, Miller is solid on def but no better. I am just telling you giving Moore or Thomas any minutes that don't give Shelden re is stupid. The guy proved in summer league that with the Kings coahes working with him after being in the crummy Atlanta system he could score as well as Hawes or Thompson and still gets 0 respect. He s a guy who will get better with time. Christian Laetner was a winner even though he was not a #1 on a team and that Elton Brand was pretty good pro also. Only the guys who put up the best stats at a very good program should be solid pros. Shelden was as good a Boozer and would be if he got the minutes. The resason why so many Duke players make it because of Coach K. Jason Thompson is a winner though even though he went to Rider and must have had a good coach there. Coaches make a huge difference.Look at most players in the NBA stats will be similar to their college stats. Some will be better some will be worse but most will be similar. Boozer 20/10 just like in college, Mikki Moore (12/7 in college), David West 20/10), Tim Duncan was 20/10 in college, Chris Webber 20/10, Shaq 21/14, Brad Miller (15/9), Kenny Thomas 16/10, Bobby Jackson 14/5, Bibby 16/3. They were all very close to their college production, why can't Shelden succeed like all these other guys. Do you really think Coach K would put a stupid guy as the heart of his team? Come one this guyt gets paid millions to develop winners. Shelden is just inexperienced at the pro level he is not getting enough minutes. Winners fail then learn from the failure. I remember Kobe Bryant wetting his pants in his first couple of playoff games in a couple of seasons againsts the Kings. I do not believe he will be TD clutch or anything but (neither were Webber or Boozer) definitely keep us in games. Watch a few games and wait until you see the no defense Kings, it will be embarrassing until they play tough in the paint. They should play heavy minutes to Hawes-Williams-Thomspon and see who develops as the best.

[pillwenney]

So how exactly did a bad post guy put up better stats than Boozer in every category. The guy is competitive and playes better on both sides of the ball. He will learn what work and what doesn't work with experience which the Kings have not given the guy the minutes. There are just so many tough big guys in the league that Hawes will be foul trouble daily, Moore is useless, Miller is solid on def but no better. I am just telling you giving Moore or Thomas any minutes that don't give Shelden re is stupid. The guy proved in summer league that with the Kings coahes working with him after being in the crummy Atlanta system he could score as well as Hawes or Thompson and still gets 0 respect. He s a guy who will get better with time. Christian Laetner was a winner even though he was not a #1 on a team and that Elton Brand was pretty good pro also. Only the guys who put up the best stats at a very good program should be solid pros. Shelden was as good a Boozer and would be if he got the minutes. The resason why so many Duke players make it because of Coach K. Jason Thompson is a winner though even though he went to Rider and must have had a good coach there. Coaches make a huge difference.Look at most players in the NBA stats will be similar to their college stats. Some will be better some will be worse but most will be similar. Boozer 20/10 just like in college, Mikki Moore (12/7 in college), David West 20/10), Tim Duncan was 20/10 in college, Chris Webber 20/10, Shaq 21/14, Brad Miller (15/9), Kenny Thomas 16/10, Bobby Jackson 14/5, Bibby 16/3. They were all very close to their college production, why can't Shelden succeed like all these other guys. Do you really think Coach K would put a stupid guy as the heart of his team? Come one this guyt gets paid millions to develop winners. Shelden is just inexperienced at the pro level he is not getting enough minutes. Winners fail then learn from the failure. I remember Kobe Bryant wetting his pants in his first couple of playoff games in a couple of seasons againsts the Kings. I do not believe he will be TD clutch or anything but (neither were Webber or Boozer) definitely keep us in games. Watch a few games and wait until you see the no defense Kings, it will be embarrassing until they play tough in the paint. They should play heavy minutes to Hawes-Williams-Thomspon and see who develops as the best.

He was in college, that's how. You seem to still ignore that plenty of Duke players, and great college players in general don't always translate well to the NBA. Using college stats and summer league stats as anything but the most minor support for your argument is absurd. Sure most great players were great in high school or college, but that doesn't mean that all great high school or college players become great NBA players. It just plain doesn't work like that.

Again, I'm not arguing that the Kings defense will probably really suck this year and I do think that Sheldon can help us in some ways. But to say that he's only not better than Boozer (a multiple time all-star) because he hasn't gotten the opportunity is absurd. That's like saying that the Earth isn't flat because it hasn't gotten a chance to flatten out yet. No. The Earth isn't flat because it's not flat. And Sheldon isn't putting up great stats because he can't--not against real pro competition.