CHUCK HAYES

dozencousins · Post #1 » by **dozencousins** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 6:03 pm

Per this article it seems that their is serious mutual interest between the Kings and Chuck Hayes IMO it would be a big mistake getting Hayes he is way undersized as a power forward . The only way I could see him making any sense is to convert him to another position wich I doubt we would do .

Please link to the article and quote no more than 3-4 paragraphs. Thanks.

sacking101 · Post #2 » by **sacking101** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 6:56 pm

JJ hickson, cousins, JT, and possibly Dally. I dont see the need for him. We have to spend money so i wouldnt be surprised though

Jaylee209 · Post #3 » by **Jaylee209** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:02 pm

He may be undersized but he's also one of the best post defenders in the leauge.

twoolfork1 · Post #4 » by **twoolfork1** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:07 pm

I don't really like this signing either. If we're going to sign a big man it needs to be a Center. Not an undersized 4 man.

If we don't, then Cousins and Thompson are both going to see all of the time at Center unless Whiteside is ready.

sacking101 · Post #5 » by **sacking101** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:44 pm

Jaylee209 wrote:He may be undersized but he's also one of the best post defenders in the leauge.

Thats true he would be by far our best post defender.

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #6 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:54 pm

GET SHANE BATTIER

I can not think of a player who better fits what we need who is available.

Post #7 » by **pillwenney** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 10:28 pm

Battier made a ton of sense before we traded for Salmons. I'd certainly still prefer him to Salmons, but I don't see it happening.

As for Hayes, I have my concerns. Not so much with him as a player, but with what it might mean. It better not mean we're not going to go after any other bigs, and especially that we're not going to re-sign Sam.

And if we do, it means Hickson or JT pretty much has to go.

down_el_road · Post #8 » by **down_el_road** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 10:52 pm

Anyone who thinks Hayes is bad for this team is stupid. He's a tremendous defender and was awesome for Houston.

Post #9 » by **KF10** » Sun Dec 4, 2011 11:55 pm

Hayes is a good start if we want veteran leadership. As already noted, he is a pretty damn good defender despite of being 5 inches shorter than most bigs.

He is a really, really, good high post passer. From what I saw with the Rockets, they utilize him in the high post because he passes the ball so well. Kinda like Brad Miller.

But with that said, how does Hayes fit and what is the consequence of him here? As of right now, we have a lot of bigs. So, that pretty much means we either gave up on Sammy and/or we traded a guy like Thompson, Hickson or Whiteside to bring in Hayes. And maybe that means we decided not to enter the "Nene, Gasol, Chandler" sweepstakes. I can't see minutes shared equally, if we had:

Cousins
Hayes
Big FA
Thompson
Hickson
Whiteside

That pretty much means, we have to trade either Thompson or Hickson and have Whiteside rot in the bench.

I hope instead, we go for Gasol, Chandler, Nene first and sort out everything later than going after Hayes and sorting things after.

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #10 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:02 am

Battier brings the leadership that Salmons will never bring. Better defender than Salmons and FAR easier to fit into an offense without that whole ball hog bit John has.

Post #11 » by **City of Trees** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:13 am

With JT, Cousins, and Hickson all capable of playing PF i dont see why the Kings would want Hayes. IMO he is too short for the C postion. IDC if he is a good post defender, depsite what she says, size matters!

Post #12 » by **KF10** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:19 am

Lightning Strike wrote:Battier brings the leadership that Salmons will never bring. Better defender than Salmons and FAR easier to fit into an offense without that whole ball hog bit John has.

I would be in favor in bringing in Battier if we haven't traded for Salmons.

But then again, why would Battier want to be in Sacramento? I think with Salmons, he had familiarity with the Kings/Sacramento in general in the past, and Petrie already had data on him, Salmons might be our best SF available for the Kings. I don't see other SFs at Salmons level would come here unless we overpay bigtime.

Post #13 » by **City of Trees** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:23 am

Battier will not consider Sacramento.

Post #14 » by **KF10** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:25 am

Yep, he is already getting at the age that he wants to win a ring. And money may not be an issue. Dude is a class act and I don't mind if he signed with Miami.

Post #15 » by **pillwenney** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:25 am

Lightning Strike wrote:Battier brings the leadership that Salmons will never bring. Better defender than Salmons and FAR easier to fit into an offense without that whole ball hog bit John has.

I don't disagree. But that's not the reality we're living in right now. We acquired Salmons to make him our current SF.

Also, as KF10 said, Battier has no reason to want to come here unless we really overpay him.

This is kinda bothering me. I really hope we're just settling for lower level guys because we think we've got no hope at all of getting the bigger names.

Post #16 » by **City of Trees** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:32 am

GP never tips his hand.. Im not too worried about all the disappointing rumors.

_SRV_ · Post #17 » by **_SRV_** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:37 am

Pass, I'd rather gamble and overpay for Chandler than squander on small irrelevant contracts.

SacKingZZZ · Post #18 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 1:19 am

KF10 wrote:Hayes is a good start if we want veteran leadership. As already noted, he is a pretty damn good defender despite of being 5 inches shorter than most bigs.

He is a really, really, good high post passer. From what I saw with the Rockets, they utilize him in the high post because he passes the ball so well. Kinda like Brad Miller.

But with that said, how does Hayes fit and what is the consequence of him here? As of right now, we have a lot of bigs. So, that pretty much means we either gave up on Sammy and/or we traded a guy like Thompson, Hickson or Whiteside to bring in Hayes. And maybe that means we decided not to enter the "Nene, Gasol, Chandler" sweepstakes. I can't see minutes shared equally, if we had:

Cousins
Hayes
Big FA
Thompson
Hickson
Whiteside

That pretty much means, we have to trade either Thompson or Hickson and have Whiteside rot in the bench.

I hope instead, we go for Gasol, Chandler, Nene first and sort out everything later than going after Hayes and sorting things after.

That's probably the most important and key ingredient here. Hayes does have intangibles and they are worth far more at a MLE sized deal than Chandler or Nene at the max.

Hayes would be a great pickup and a great fit next to Cousins or as that PF/C swing big off the bench. One area that I thought the Kings struggled most with last year was with the more saavy skilled PF's, Hayes specialty is making those players life HELL! Daly is overrated defensively, I'd argue Hayes has more impact than Dalembert because he understands the nuances of playing D like positioning and moving your feet.

Of course, I probably wouldn't by so hyped if the Kings didn't have Whiteside. I think he at the very least can be the EXACT shotblocking presence this team needs. I'd be just fine if Hayes was here and Daly was out. Also don't forget there are still moves that can be made if the Kings don't blow their space. Space and Hickson/JT/etc. could be a nice package at the deadline for a team looking to rebuild or shed some salary. Cleary, even as is something has to be done and will be done considering both Hickson and JT will be free agents next year.

With the asking prices for Nene, Gasol, and Chandler? They need to go find a rainbow, maybe they'll get lucky and find that pot of gold. :lol:

SacKingZZZ · Post #19 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 1:23 am

pillwenney wrote:
Lightning Strike wrote:Battier brings the leadership that Salmons will never bring. Better defender than Salmons and FAR easier to fit into an offense without that whole ball hog bit John has.

I don't disagree. But that's not the reality we're living in right now. We acquired Salmons to make him our current SF.

Also, as KF10 said, Battier has no reason to want to come here unless we really overpay him.

This is kinda bothering me. I really hope we're just settling for lower level guys because we think we've got no hope at all of getting the bigger names.

That's the issue, look at the "bigger names" and the price tag supposedly involved. GP isn't shortsighted, he knows that the future of this team goes beyond this particular free agency. It's why before the lockout was even over I really started to think the Kings should just stand pat. Now, getting a player like Hayes gives you even more flexibility because you know you have a) a guy that can fit and b) the kind of role player you want to put around your stars.

I feel for the teams actually looking at this FA class to find their "guy". Hayes and Cousins played together this summer and from the video I saw, it can work, that's a lot of beef in the paint too.

dozencousins · Post #20 » by **dozencousins** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 1:24 am

dozencousins wrote:Per this article it seems that their is serious mutual interest between the Kings and Chuck Hayes IMO it would be a big mistake getting Hayes he is way undersized as a power forward . The only way I could see him making any sense is to convert him to another position wich I doubt we would do .

Please link to the article and quote no more than 3-4 paragraphs. Thanks.

Just asking as I am unsure are you saying if you post an article that a sportswriter writes that I need to fix their article to no more than 3 paragraphs ?
I didnt do that because that would alter what they wrote and i thought that was forbidden to do so at the site ?
please explain ? I want to be sure I do not make this mistake again

sorry for the error