Kings signing of Carl Landry has at this point been very puzzling

[andremiller07]

Before I make a rant about the signing (which I initially liked), I would like to say I think Landry is a beast and I love his game and think he's the best PF on the Kings but the move at this point in time makes zero sense. I still think he will be productive but in hindsight the money at this point in time could have been spent way better.

Some points


We already have Jason Thompson and Patrick Patterson on the roster who are roughly on the same level overall as Landry but not quiet as good so it's a slight upgrade (but is it worth 26mil over 4 years upgrade probably not).



Knowing that we have those two guys I would have assumed the Kings were already in the process of dealing one or both of them while in the process of signing Carl which would make sense but has completely turned out not to be true



The Kings two biggest needs were either a shot-blocker at either PF/C to pair with Cousins or a quality STARTING (Luke Richard is a back up) SF none of which we got. At this point I have tried to think of tons of scenarios for a starting level SF but there really just is nothing unless we give up Mclemore and I have not really seen enough of him to make a proper judgment



This leaves the Kings at a log jam at PF and SG where we have a bunch of average talent which on it's own is hard to move



In conclusion unless the Kings manage to pull a rabbit out of the hat I don't really see this move as one that will really help us all that much financially or roster wise moving forward.

Seeing decent/quality PG's getting signed like Jennings and Teague for lower amounts also makes me wonder well before the Evans trade why didn't we go after these guys and offer them something? I much rather have spent 24mil over 3 years on a starting PG like Jennings than giving the money to Landry. The move has left me with more questions than answers about the management I know they want to change the culture but come on Thompson and Patterson are excellent role models + teammates.

[fatboy11]

You think Patrick Patterson is on "roughly the same level" as Carl Landry?

That's probably your problem right there.

(I'm a Rockets fan, by the way.)

[andremiller07]

You think Patrick Patterson is on "roughly the same level" as Carl Landry?

That's probably your problem right there.

(I'm a Rockets fan, by the way.)
Patterson has higher IQ and is a better passer and long range shooter, you Rockets fans have greatly underestimated Patterson. There defense is on the same level not that good and Landry is tougher inside and better around the rim. Landry is better but not by a wide margin.

PPat made the Kings a far better team and the ball flowed with him out on the floor, Landry is more of a ball stopper who will not be able to exist with as well with the guy we are trying to build around. The move is therefore puzzling why add a 4th PF when you have not made a plan to move the others 2? All three are fringe starters served better off the bench so yes they are on the same level regardless if one is slightly better or not.

[fatboy11]

Patterson has higher IQ and is a better passer and long range shooter, you Rockets fans have greatly underestimated Patterson. There defense is on the same level not that good and Landry is tougher inside and better around the rim. Landry is better but not by a wide margin.

PPat made the Kings a far better team and the ball flowed with him out on the floor, Landry is more of a ball stopper who will not be able to exist with as well with the guy we are trying to build around. The move is therefore puzzling why add a 4th PF when you have not made a plan to move the others 2?


Opinions on Patterson aside, Rocket fans have a larger sample size by which to judge him. He's an okay player, but I think most fans would rather have Landry in a heartbeat. It guess it depends on what you want out of your PF.
And looking at the Kings roster, I don't see what the issue is. You need 4 bigs, rights? Cousins and Thompson at Center, Landry and Patterson at PF. Still time to move guys as well. I think you're freaking out over nothing. The Kings now have two PF that give them two different looks. I'm not sure I see where moving any of those bigs is necessary.

[hawkfan]

Andre,

You have daughter's mis-typed under your picture.
Also, they may want to move Jason Thompson.

[andremiller07]

Opinions on Patterson aside, Rocket fans have a larger sample size by which to judge him. He's an okay player, but I think most fans would rather have Landry in a heartbeat. It guess it depends on what you want out of your PF.
And looking at the Kings roster, I don't see what the issue is. You need 4 bigs, rights? Cousins and Thompson at Center, Landry and Patterson at PF. Still time to move guys as well. I think you're freaking out over nothing. The Kings now have two PF that give them two different looks. I'm not sure I see where moving any of those bigs is necessary.

Why sign a player to a position where you are "ok" (we got Chuck Hayes as well and Moute who often plays better as a undersized PF) at to add depth to it unless you are planning to package some of that depth to improve positions you are piss weak in like SF or a shot-blocking big.

The Kings did not need a undersized PF regardless if he's our best PF who can't block shots. I also would want Landry over Patterson but not at 26million over 4 years I would have preferred for them to clear up the log jams at SG rather than adding another log jam @PF. As far as Thompson @C in theory I guess he can but in reality he can't hold his position against most PF's and just bullied out of the way on the boards far to often I don't really see him being a effective C and he will in all likely hood if history is anything to go by be the starting PF again.

[andremiller07]

Andre,

You have daughter's mis-typed under your picture.
Also, they may want to move Jason Thompson.
My mistake thank you for point thing out :(

[hawkfan]

My mistake thank you for point thing out :(

No big deal.
Probably going to move Thompson out for a wing.

[andremiller07]

No big deal.
Probably going to move Thompson out for a wing.
I don't know I have looked and it seems to me like the whole league is pretty much got to many players @ PF, there's just no quality SF's we can get back for him.

Some semi realistic options
Granger: Indi just got Scola who is better than Thompson and a back up PG meaning we can't include Thomas in a deal ethier
Deng: Bulls got Gibson who is similar don't need him and I don't think the Bull would do a Thornton/Thompson deal for Deng +filler
Wilson Chandler: They are stacked @ PF and need Wilson since Gallo is injured
Jeffery Taylor (I think he will be a stud): can't see the Bobcats giving up a talent like him for JT
Qunicy Pondexter: Grizz stacked at PF

There's are just some examples and I've gone through many other's there's just no one really we can get unless we give up way to much in a package with Thompson or Patterson.

[fatboy11]

Why sign a player to a position where you are "ok" (we got Chuck Hayes as well and Moute who often plays better as a undersized PF) at to add depth to it unless you are planning to package some of that depth to improve positions you are piss weak in like SF or a shot-blocking big. The Kings did not need a undersized PF regardless if he's our best PF who can't block shots. I also would want Landry over Patterson but not at 26million over 4 years I would have preferred for them to clear up the log jams at SG rather than adding another log jam @PF.

Have you made up your mind that they aren't going to try to move someone? I mean, you're doing a whole lot of assuming here. New management is going to acquire "their" talent for the future. That happens when there is a change in ownership or management in the business world. They'll figure out what to do with everyone else later, but they have to get their guys when they can. Or maybe they like Patterson and Thompson and Hayes, too, and they want depth. It's entirely possible they could be looking to deal someone and just haven't found the right deal yet.

Also, Hayes is now a non-factor. Sacramento badly overpaid for him (and I love that guy). I wouldn't consider him when deciding to sign a PF. I'd just look at him and wait for his contract to run out.

[andremiller07]

Have you made up your mind that they aren't going to try to move someone?
There have been rumblings that for the most part the new management are staying put with the current roster and I also don't see any realistic deals before the season begins which will land us a quality shot-blocker or SF where we package one of our PF's and SG's.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I agree with OP.

I very much like Landry's game.

But I also found the Kings signing him to be very strange, given their frontcourt log jam. Maybe they're just preparing themselves for Boogie Cousins next inevitable screwup, at which point they'll probably just go ahead and get him the hell out of there.

[hawkfan]

Jason Thompson for Kyle Korver.
Would have to wait until December 15th.
Hawks get Thompson for more depth at the bigs, behind Horford, Millsap and Brand.
The Kings get a shooter to help spread the floor and clear out the logjam at the bigs.

[Levity]

Jason Thompson for Kyle Korver.
Would have to wait until December 15th.
Hawks get Thompson for more depth at the bigs, behind Horford, Millsap and Brand.
The Kings get a shooter to help spread the floor and clear out the logjam at the bigs.

Korver to the Kings? That would be amazing for them. His defense isnt as bad as people often scoff about. In fact, for the hawks last season, his defense was pretty legit. he's also a decent rebounder. but back to what he excels in. his shooting would be amazing for the kings perimeter. vasquez, mclemore, thornton and korver are all good shooters who would spread the floor for DMC. very interesting trade, if the hawks were interested.

As for the topic of the thread. I agree having ppat, thompson and landry is a bit redundant, especially when the kings have other positions/needs they need to address. but i do prefer landry over thompson (his inconsistencies drive me wild) I do believe thompson is/will be on the trading block. and before the cats drafted zeller, i believed that trade would have revolved around thompson and filler for henderson. would have been great too since henderson is only mkaing 6 mil a year.

[Xiao Yao You]

is it worth 26mil over 4 years upgrade probably not


He's worth that kind of money.


At this point I have tried to think of tons of scenarios for a starting level SF but there really just is nothing unless we give up Mclemore and I have not really seen enough of him to make a proper judgment


Marvin Gaye Williams! http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ka3tgz8


This leaves the Kings at a log jam at PF and SG where we have a bunch of average talent which on it's own is hard to move


And building around headcase!


His defense isnt as bad as people often scoff about. In fact, for the hawks last season, his defense was pretty legit.

Legit in the east is not the same as legit in the west. With the Jazz he played hard defensively but he's got serious physical limitations. He's not a starting 3(or 2) in the west that's for sure!

[33teeth]

I think the OP is usually a quality poster but had too many Zimas before this post.

The season is not started yet. For that matter, the trade deadline has not passed and further, this season is not exactly going to be a winning season for the Kings no matter what.

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

In regards to roster spots, it seems puzzling. Kings have 3 PFs who have all shown they deserve major minutes, Kings need a tall defensive C (can still re-sign Aldrich), etc.

But I think it makes sense in regards to roster construction for Mike Malone. Chances are, he already knows who's gonna lose minutes based on his system. The more i think about it and read about (they seem to favor keeping JT, though nothing is concrete obviously), I think Pat Pat is the odd man out here, in regards to floor time. They'll keep him for scrub mins/foul trouble/keep Cousins in check. But I'm almost certain JT and Cousins stay the starters and Landry is the main big off the bench, possibly getting ~25mins/gm like he did w/ GSW. He fits Malone's system too much (high emphasis on rebounding and defense). I think even Chuck may get more mins over Pat Pat (Chuck playing C).

That's the thing about new coaches. You can't just assume they'll play the same players as last year. I ultimately think it'll be Pat Pat who is out of favor of Malone. Obviously not b/c of his personality, Pat Pat seems like an upstanding guy. But I don't know if Malone has a high need or priority for stretch 4s.

[OldSkoolball#52]

In regards to roster spots, it seems puzzling. Kings have 3 PFs who have all shown they deserve major minutes, Kings need a tall defensive C (can still re-sign Aldrich), etc.

But I think it makes sense in regards to roster construction for Mike Malone. Chances are, he already knows who's gonna lose minutes based on his system. The more i think about it and read about (they seem to favor keeping JT, though nothing is concrete obviously), I think Pat Pat is the odd man out here, in regards to floor time. They'll keep him for scrub mins/foul trouble/keep Cousins in check. But I'm almost certain JT and Cousins stay the starters and Landry is the main big off the bench, possibly getting ~25mins/gm like he did w/ GSW. He fits Malone's system too much (high emphasis on rebounding and defense). I think even Chuck may get more mins over Pat Pat (Chuck playing C).

That's the thing about new coaches. You can't just assume they'll play the same players as last year. I ultimately think it'll be Pat Pat who is out of favor of Malone. Obviously not b/c of his personality, Pat Pat seems like an upstanding guy. But I don't know if Malone has a high need or priority for stretch 4s.


Stop saying Pat Pat

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

Stop saying Pat Pat
What's wrong w/ "Pat Pat"?

edit:
Ok, I'll start calling him 2Pat. That looks better, eh?

[Miles and Miles]

The only thing I can think of if they don't move someone is that they are planning on playing one of them out of position at SF. Not entirely sure if that's possible but that's the only thing I can come up with.

[bdreason]

What's more confusing is why they gave Thompson another contract. Guy is straight garbage.

I agree though, seems like the Kings are signing guys just to sign them. They didn't need another PF when they signed Landry, so I assume they plan on moving someone eventually.

[Xiao Yao You]

His numbers aren't bad for garbage.

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

His numbers aren't bad for garbage.
yeah he really isn't all that bad. Inconsistent if anything. Every once in a while he'll put up some 26/14 game w/ some great interior moves and high energy. Then the next 3 games he'll avg 8/5 just settling for jumpers all game. Part of me thinks it was due to team construction and the simple fact Kings just had no real offensive identity.

[andremiller07]

He's worth that kind of money.
In general he is, but for the Kings no he would only warrant that money if:

a). We badly needed a PF (with his skillset)
b). He was a massive upgrade (he's a slight upgrade)


His numbers aren't bad for garbage.
He's not garbage he's a solid bench player, but the problem is he's soft, can't pass to save his life and does not really impact games tbh.

[Burgz V2]

Andre,

You have daughter's mis-typed under your picture.
Also, they may want to move Jason Thompson.

this.

I think competition in training camp will lead to someone falling out of the lineup.

tbh Jason Thompson's extension was more puzzling than Landry's signing. Came at a time of transition so it's hard to fault anyone really.

[Eric Cartman]

He got paid way to much money isn't it obvious? That's why GS had no problem seeing him walk with that contract.

[andremiller07]

Out 3-4 months now.....on top of that Chuck Hayes under the coach Malone system has looked good but yeah this signing was not a good one even if Landry is a good player and now it just got a whole lot worse.

[longtime lurker]

Out 3-4 months now.....on top of that Chuck Hayes under the coach Malone system has looked good but yeah this signing was not a good one even if Landry is a good player and now it just got a whole lot worse.

Yeah dunno what they were thinking. Kings needed to clear the PF glut no add to it.

[qrich]

Depending on how ready Bullocks is, how JJ holds the two guard spot, how much love Doc gives to Willie Green and how often he plays Paul and Collison at the guard spots together, teamed with how well Landry plays, I'd be down for a Crawford for Landry swap with the Kings adding some sort of incentive (a second or two?), simply due to finances as JCraw is only guaranteed for like 2 mil for the final two years, iirc.

[andremiller07]

Now he's out for the rest of the season and has not done shit and we have Reggie Evans who is way better and impacts the game 100 times more and is exactly what we need. Biggest waste of 6.5million I have seen could have signed Drew Gooden on minimum to do what he does at the start of the season.

Now he's heading into his 30's injury prone and making 6.5million making him hard to move and he impacts the game less than Thompson and Evans and he does the exact same thing the guy we are supposedly building around does.

Called at the start of the year ****ing idiotic signing what a waste.

[JohnFreeman]

I don't understand anything the Kings do anymore