Hakim Warrick!

SacKingZZZ · Post #1 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:03 am

See that Memphis withdrew his QO, now THIS is the kind of player Petrie should be making a play for. Hopefully Petrie is taking some notice.

Post #2 » by **KF10** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:10 am

I don't see this as an ideal move for the Kings. His whole mentality is entirely offensive based. Same goes with others i.e. Boozer, Big Baby. Each of these players are just horrid on defense.

Warrick, from what I recall is a selfish player. That is undersized for the power forward position. Reminds me so much of another player such as Al Thornton. (Which he is a blackhole/selfish player)

Warrick is not needed here.

SacKingZZZ · Post #3 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:19 am

I see it as an opportunity to pick up a solid young player who's production could easily exceed his monetary liabilities. That and I think he'd be a perfect SF/PF for a running team like ours. Selfish? Not from what I've seen. He mostly plays the way we'd like to. He can hit the jumper out to 18 feet, and can play off the ball as a legit threat via the lob and he can finish over much bigger players as well.

Don't know what kind of competition for his services there are out there but if the Kings want to bring in another player he'd be the one to look at, need be damned, although I think he does satisfy some needs since he can fit so well. A team with Donte, Warrick, and Thompson out there at the same time would be very fun to watch.

Post #4 » by **KF10** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:32 am

Well, I do agree with you to some extent that some of Warrick's strength can be utilized due to our offense alone. But he is an above average player as of right now with an offensive mentality and little defensive mentality. Yes, he needs the ball in his hands to be effective in general. (Even though, he is a very good finisher around the basket i.e. transition). Warrick is a bad passer in general. Not very good rebounder in the respect as a power forward. He doesn't does anything at a solid rate outside of a high post game. We need players that are diverse in both offense and defense.

Well, I would be ok with Warrick actually if we sign him very cheap though i.e. vet min or bi-annual. But if it is over $2-3 million, I would be disappointed at Petrie.

SacKingZZZ · Post #5 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:43 am

This team isn't going to win with rebounding, and they aren't going to win with defense, at least not right now. This is merely a move of picking up an asset that could possibly fit long term in the frontcourt stylistically speaking and through consistent minutes could become a major asset trade wise, or in making another player or two on this team available thus increasing the teams ability to put together a stronger trade package without depleting too much of it's existing talent base.

RIPskaterdude · Post #6 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:45 am

Considering he gets most of his minutes at SF/PF...where would he play?

Draino · Post #7 » by **Draino** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:50 am

I used to be VERY high on this guy, but now that we have Donte' Greene who is almost identical to warrick... in a way... we don't really need him, but I WOULD like it if we did get him

_SRV_ · Post #8 » by **_SRV_** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:06 am

Yep, we already have a hybrid forward.

diogo_pt · Post #9 » by **diogo_pt** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:17 pm

_SRV_ wrote:Yep, we already have a hybrid forward.

True. He's an ok player, but a tweener ok player

Smills91 · Post #10 » by **Smills91** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:13 pm

I think there are better options out there for our roster needs. For the vet min. Sure, but he'll get more than the vet min.

I'd rather use our cap space in a trade. I'd LOVE to absorb Outlaw(similar to Warrick, but better) and Bayless from PDX so they can go sign one of lee/odom for 6-7 million a year.

KM44 · Post #11 » by **KM44** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:13 pm

I have loved the way warrick played ever since Syracuse, but we already have too many PF. If he was taller, he would be PERFECT, but he isn't, so we need to just move on.

dozencousins · Post #12 » by **dozencousins** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:44 pm

Kings should pass on him !

plain & simple.....

Website · Post #13 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:25 pm

3- Nocioni/Greene/Casspri/Garcia
4- Thompson/Nocioni/Greene/May

Not a big enough talent to add to the glut.

cdt3 · Post #14 » by **cdt3** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:12 pm

This team already has offense up the wazoo! Nocioni, Greene, Garcia and Casspi are all high scoring low rebounding guys also at the 3.

cdt3 · Post #15 » by **cdt3** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:12 pm

This team already has offense up the wazoo! Nocioni, Greene, Garcia and Casspi are all high scoring low rebounding guys also at the 3.

cdt3 · Post #16 » by **cdt3** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

This team already has offense up the wazoo! Nocioni, Greene, Garcia and Casspi are all high scoring low rebounding guys also at the 3.

Post #17 » by **KF10** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:25 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:This team isn't going to win with rebounding, and they aren't going to win with defense, at least not right now. This is merely a move of picking up an asset that could possibly fit long term in the frontcourt stylistically speaking and through consistent minutes could become a major asset trade wise, or in making another player or two on this team available thus increasing the teams ability to put together a stronger trade package without depleting too much of it's existing talent base.

That's ridiculous.

Why are we going to perpetuate the problem with Warrick? Warrick isn't going to improve his trade value with this team. He is going to play fewer minutes in Sacramento then Memphis ever before. He is nothing more than a filler in most trades.

If we are going to add talent/style type of players, we have to consider our weaknesses first not our strengths. Having repetitive multiple skill set of players is redundant. We need rebounding, defense, toughness in general. And Warrick does not provide that.

Draino · Post #18 » by **Draino** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:20 pm

Smills91 wrote:I think there are better options out there for our roster needs. For the vet min. Sure, but he'll get more than the vet min.

I'd rather use our cap space in a trade. I'd LOVE to absorb Outlaw(similar to Warrick, but better) and Bayless from PDX so they can go sign one of lee/odom for 6-7 million a year.

I think that would be the ideal move for this team, to get Outlaw and Bayless and give Portland some cap relief... could work out good for both teams...

Post #19 » by **pillwenney** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:07 pm

yup. Like others have said, he's just too repetitive here for it to be worth it. Decent young player, but this would pretty much guarantee that Brockman and Greene don't see the floor.

SacKingZZZ · Post #20 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:51 pm

kingsfan10 wrote:
Why are we going to perpetuate the problem with Warrick? Warrick isn't going to improve his trade value with this team. He is going to play fewer minutes in Sacramento then Memphis ever before. He is nothing more than a filler in most trades.

If we are going to add talent/style type of players, we have to consider our weaknesses first not our strengths. Having repetitive multiple skill set of players is redundant. We need rebounding, defense, toughness in general. And Warrick does not provide that.

Because there is no perpetuating the problem, the only issue should be picking up assets. There are no players out there that are going miraculously "fix" the problems this team has. The biggest problem/weakness this team has is an abundance of youth and lack of expendable assets. It's both a positive and a negative in a way. A lot of good young talent, but not enough to consolidate it into need for immediate improvement yet.

If he fits better than some other players stylistically speaking he'll play.