Kings sign Sessions

[VeeJay24]

I am kind of with SacKingZZZ on this but it is not about trade value. It is about having good young players who need more seasoning by playing but won't get that opportunity because the front office foolishly thinks that they are ready to compete for a playoff spot. Sessions will not get you any closer to the playoffs. I wonder why Sessions was even available; teams that can challenge for the playoffs didn't even bother with him but the Kings do? Maybe I am wrong but it seems that this regime just signs and trades for players; well, just because. You invest in players or take a chance with them because your scouts see potential that is worth the time it takes to develop and harness it. They got it right with McCallum. I truly think McCallum can be a very productive PG whether off the bench or starting. There is a reason the Pistons asked for him and equally a reason the Kings wouldn't give him up. Why prolong that development to gain nothing. What can Sessions bring to this team that Collison isn't already bringing? Now, of course everyone believes in competition and the hope here is that McCallum will shine through but sometimes competition is not simple competition. We don't know if Malone is on solid footing here; maybe he requested that Sessions be brought in because he trusts veterans more and needs to show considerable improvement. I agree with SacKing, if Stauskas is who you came up with as your best pick last year; then, the pick or Mclemore needed to be moved. That didn't happen so it is what it is but you already signed a veteran PG in Collison; there was no need for another one. McCallum, could play and learn from Collison and then Mclemore and Stauskas could play and get better at the 2 until you determined who the future 2 will be. All of this would've been fine because who in their right mind would think that this Kings team could compete in the deep, deep West for a playoffs spot? So, no I don't like the signing; I say give the minutes to the young guys. And to quote the Public Enemy song go ahead guys "Show 'Em Whatcha Got".

[bleeds_purple]

I don't understand this cap space obsession. We have no track record of acquiring star players via free agency. The only signing I could think of off the top of my head was Vlade.

The new management had two ways to go: (1) try to amass draft picks, tank, and build a "grassroots" team, (2) sign what we can and make consolidation trades for better players while making incremental improvement. Its pretty clear the boat has sailed on option one.

A franchise in Sacramento cannot rely on cap space for star quality players. Our only hope is to draft or trade. The latter requires decent players on tradeable contracts.

[SacKingZZZ]

Cap space isn't just about signings, it's also about potential trade value and the ability to basically change your current standing at will without having to rely on equal salary trades alone. Also, this team is heading into a territory where they need to supplement their talent with the right pieces and most good teams do most of that that with cap space, not lottery picks. Drafting based on need when you need talent or drafting a particular talent whether it be for value or otherwise when you don't need them is the slippery slope part. This team has done it's fair share of both for more than a few years and it's negative effects are still being felt. Signing mostly unwanted, or at least not very desirable players with your MLE isn't typically the way to amass trade value either, sure it could happen but not likely. And if the idea is to sign guys to amass trade value you better have an idea on how to get the utmost out of the players on your team and certainly not to stack the same types in the way of eachother. This team has far too many production types that don't really bring too many intangibles to the table to be able to feature them all.