RealGM

what kind of sign and trade do you think could be worked out?

i dont get why sac would be going after another scoring guard or a player with a scorers/shoot first mentality....

PaKwAn wrote:i dont get why sac would be going after another scoring guard or a player with a scorers/shoot first mentality....

+1 The Kings are no longer targeting Brooks. Our next target is a marquee big to play along side DCuz.

under pip-swawking

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baske ... tml?page=1

Don't believe the hype. Besides, if you think Brooks is a "playmaking PG" then may I introduce you to Jimmer Fredette!

Yeah I read from numerous sources that we plan on making a pitch to Brooks. I still don't get why over the years we have been so enamoured with Brooks, I just don't get it.

SacTown Kings wrote:Yeah I read from numerous sources that we plan on making a pitch to Brooks. I still don't get why over the years we have been so enamoured with Brooks, I just don't get it.

It isn't numerous sources, it is all reposts based on an unsourced speculation from a NY rag that has zero ties to the Kings in any way, shape, or form. If it was Sam Amick saying we had interest in Brooks I would take it more seriously, but it doesn't make any sense on any level.

In fact, it goes against everything we have heard about what the Kings want to do going forward. They got the backcourt they want for now as long as they are able to re-sign Thornton. There was a time a year or two ago when Aaron Brooks may have made some sense on this team, but that time has passed. We have plenty of offense at the guard positions now, so why would we add a small offensive-oriented guard who is a mediocre outside shooter and poor defender.

I refuse to believe this is true. Why the hell would we want another point guard? You dont use your lotto pick on a PG, then go spend FA on another PG. Not to mention your star plays PG as well... umm did GP kick it with Kahn recently?

You can say whatever you want about some of the moves Petrie makes, but at least they typically make some sense. Like picking up John Salmons, you may like or not, but it at least makes SOME sense.

Would I bring Brooks in if we can get him cheap, sure.
Would I get into a bidding war with some other team over him, absolutely not

Actually, I forgot to even mention that there is little motivation for Brooks to even want to sign an offer sheet with us right now. We already have a stacked guard rotation, so he would probably see it as harmful to his career to sign an offer sheet with this team when he wouldn't be starting and would likely not even be the first guard off the bench. We would pretty much have to far overpay him to even get him to consider signing here.

Doesn't make sense for the Kings, doesn't make sense for Brooks, and the only reason it is even being brought up is because of a throwaway one-liner from a NY rag. Sounds to me like the author either made the rumor up, or he is getting played by Brooks' agent to try and make other teams think there is more competition for him.

We don't need another scoring point now, it's seriously redundant. We couldn't play Tyreke/Thornton/Jimmer/Brooks enough minutes at guards, let alone the spotly minutes Thomas/Pooh might get.

I think Thomas will be an excellent benchie, personally, I really think he could be a steal of the second round. Love to see him seriously embrace a Bobby Jackson role as Mr. Irrelevent.

Still, we do need another guard, but not one that needs the 30+ minutes Brooks requires. An experience vocal veteran PG leader who can play 10-20 minutes a game would do. Rather dump all our cash at resigning Thornton and getting Gasol.

Lightning Strike wrote:We don't need another scoring point now, it's seriously redundant. We couldn't play Tyreke/Thornton/Jimmer/Brooks enough minutes at guards, let alone the spotly minutes Thomas/Pooh might get.

I think Thomas will be an excellent benchie, personally, I really think he could be a steal of the second round. Love to see him seriously embrace a Bobby Jackson role as Mr. Irrelevent.

Still, we do need another guard, but not one that needs the 30+ minutes Brooks requires. An experience vocal veteran PG leader who can play 10-20 minutes a game would do. Rather dump all our cash at resigning Thornton and getting Gasol.

If we resign thorton I dont think there is any need for another gaurd. Him tyreke jimmer and garcia are more than enough. I think our main priority should be a big man. Gasol has got to be the most desirable FA. I actually see a lot of similarities between cousins and Z-Bo's game so I think it would work.

Bac2Basics wrote:Would I bring Brooks in if we can get him cheap, sure.
Would I get into a bidding war with some other team over him, absolutely not

+1

You guys ARE aware that the CBA ain't gonna change the fact you can play with only 1 ball right?

boogie-reke wrote:You guys ARE aware that the CBA ain't gonna change the fact you can play with only 1 ball right?

I'm kind of tired of this 1 ball comment and ball dominant roster thing brought up on here and in the media. If you're a good basketball player you should know when to pass, shoot, dribble, etc and if you have trouble determining when to do those things that's where the coach steps in. The issue is we have young guys still learning how to play winning basketball.

No thank you.

PetrieUnderstudy wrote:

boogie-reke wrote:You guys ARE aware that the CBA ain't gonna change the fact you can play with only 1 ball right?

I'm kind of tired of this 1 ball comment and ball dominant roster thing brought up on here and in the media. If you're a good basketball player you should know when to pass, shoot, dribble, etc and if you have trouble determining when to do those things that's where the coach steps in. The issue is we have young guys still learning how to play winning basketball.

I really don't have power to dig into statistics, but i'm sure someone hwo has can find them and proove your theory wrong, in regards to the usage rate/shots needed for Evans, Thornton, Salmons, Cousins, Fredette, AND Brooks to play like they can and co-exist.

boogie-reke wrote:

PetrieUnderstudy wrote:

boogie-reke wrote:You guys ARE aware that the CBA ain't gonna change the fact you can play with only 1 ball right?

I'm kind of tired of this 1 ball comment and ball dominant roster thing brought up on here and in the media. If you're a good basketball player you should know when to pass, shoot, dribble, etc and if you have trouble determining when to do those things that's where the coach steps in. The issue is we have young guys still learning how to play winning basketball.

I really don't have power to dig into statistics, but i'm sure someone hwo has can find them and proove your theory wrong, in regards to the usage rate/shots needed for Evans, Thornton, Salmons, Cousins, Fredette, AND Brooks to play like they can and co-exist.

Only way we will know is by watching the team play together. Players can learn and adapt to new roles with new teams...