Heat trade Roger Mason + cash to Kings for protected second

[SacKingZZZ]

Just fishing for reasons to crap on the new ownership/management. Everything done since last May has been the opposite of Maloof.

I do find it kind of funny. My statement was clearly made somewhat in jest, but honestly, if the Maloofs were still here and this is what the Kings trade deadline looked like, what do you think this thread would be like right now? Seriously.

please tell me what you expected? Teams to take our overpaid Maloof era players for cap space? Draft picks? Sure we moved Thornton but we only saved 1 mil.

The deadline went right about what I thought. No one wanted to pay JT that kind of money. The Landry signing may not even look as bad as it did when it happened as he didnt look half bad in the warriors game. Maybe it does in a season or two, but its too early to tell.

Regardless it's statements like yours that dont make any sense. look at the roster and tell me what you see was possible.

Once again, I explained my reasoning behind my initial post, I have no idea why everyone is getting so butt hurt by it. Anyone that doesn't at least see the irony there is just being waaay too sensitive and trying to search for defense arguments when they aren't even really necessary.

If you can't draw the similarities between this move and the moves the Maloofs were known to be crapped all over for making, then all I can say is whenever you'd like to join me along with the rest of the real world, you're quite welcome.

[SacKingZZZ]

With the Terry deal? Hard to say. The FO already made two very un-Maloofish deals earlier this year, so I think we'd all be fine. Not dealing much at the deadline is less relevant when you've already made two trades during the actual season.


This is something the Maloofs would have done, along with every other owner. Not everything they did was terrible and stupid. Criticizing an owner for getting some money for free is of course ridiculous.

The problem with the Maloofs/Petrie regime was doing this and then not spending big, or taking any risks, and instead filling the team up with mid-level contracts.

Yet, once again, here is the point of this, I find it ironic because what if the Maloofs made the same deal? What would the reaction be? So, it wasn't ridiculous when the Maloofs made similar deals like the Mason one? Personally I wasn't even necessarily bashing this move, or the Thornton one. My opinion on that deal is stated in the other thread, check it out if you'd like. I just think the reaction here is more than a tad hypocritical don't you think?

[pillwenney]

It's not hypocritical because the real criticism of the Maloofs is that that's all they did. Those were their moves. It has to do with the context of the entire body of work. The Maloofs often looked like they were only trying to save money. Trading for Gay is something the Maloofs would have never done, and precisely why the fans are much more okay with a money-saving maneuver like this.

[SacKingZZZ]

It's not hypocritical because the real criticism of the Maloofs is that that's all they did. Those were their moves. It has to do with the context of the entire body of work. The Maloofs often looked like they were only trying to save money. Trading for Gay is something the Maloofs would have never done, and precisely why the fans are much more okay with a money-saving maneuver like this.

Something is either hypocritical or it isn't. Just sayin'. When you blast someone for doing something and then someone does the exact same thing and then you say, "any intelligent person would have done the same" it just cements it even further. I don't disagree with the move, once again, I think it's funny. Bottom line, both moves were to save money or get money, period. The reasons behind it are both the same when it comes down to it. I'm not going to turn this into a Vivek vs. the Maloofs argument, that wasn't the intention. Rather to point out a very obvious and distinct irony.