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

[LIST][*]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). [/LIST]

[LIST][*]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[/LIST]

[LIST][*]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[/LIST]

[LIST][*]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[/LIST]


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!