Salomon Kalou? No, just no.

Salomon Kalou is a conundrum.  Is he any good? Was he ever good?  When he transferred from Feyenoord to Chelsea in 2006, he was coming off two productive years where he scored 42 goals in 80 matches in all competitions.  Interestingly enough, his strike mate at the Eredivisie club was Dirk Kuyt, who scored 61 goals in 82 matches over that same span.

The first season for the 21-year-old Ivorian at Stamford Bridge was mildly successful as he bagged seven goals and assisted on five more in 1931 minutes played.  Though seemingly a 'transition' year, Kalou would fail to improve much on those numbers for his remaining stay with the Blues.  He would only manage 36 goals and 25 assists in 156 league appearances and was let go on a free to Lille.

Unfortunately, Ligue 1 hasn't treated him much better:

	npgp90	gcp90	ccp90	ap90	ccv
2013-14	0.32	0.64	1.57	0.17	11.1
2012-13	0.53	0.7	1.27	0.12	9.7
	pass%	bp%	sacc%	shot%	TTI90
2013-14	75.9	47.9	48.9	17	15.8
2012-13	75.6	45.7	46.5	19.7	17.9
	gap90	gsp90	gop90	tgop	gopd90
2013-14	0.7	1.28	0.58	0.53	0.05
2012-13	0.9	1.76	0.86	0.5	0.36

He has scored 30 goals in 66 matches, 6 of those were penalties though.  His passing is painfully average, he turns over the ball too frequently, and his chance created values are nothing to get excited about.  At 29, Kalou is the poster boy for 'unreached potential'.

The Liverpool is somehow linked to Kalou, but I don't think he's even worth the pitch time on a free.  I'd rather see Ibe get more playing time than waste it on a 29-year-old forward who couldn't prove his worth in six seasons at Chelsea.

Signing Divock Origi is a waste of everyone's time

There are recent reports that we may be after 19-year-old Belgian and World Cup darling, Divock Origi, but I highly doubt it.  There is absolutely no reason to add him to the squad and no logic for him to join.  I'm not saying he isn't good enough, but why sign a 19-year-old who will be our fourth striker (with or without Suarez, we will sign a top replacement if needs be). He will get little playing time, which could hamper his development, and he'll probably be unhappy spending time on the reserves or loaned out to other sides.  It makes no sense to either party.

Furthermore, there's nothing in his statistical output that separates him from what we already have at the club.  Here are his numbers from last season for Lille along with last season's production of fellow 19-year-old Sterling and the player Origi should long to emulate, Daniel Sturridge:

	Origi	Sterling	Sturridge
age	19	19	24
app (sub)	12(18)	24(9)	26(3)
mins	1286	2220	2267
goals	5	9	21
assists	0	5	7
chances	18	51	29
npg90	0.35	0.36	0.83
gcp90	0.35	0.57	1.1
ccp90	1.3	2.06	1.2
pass %	79.1	81.7	79.3
bp %	54.2	46.8	53.4
sacc %	54.2	48.9	42.4
shot %	20.8	20	21.2
TTI90	12.2	12.1	11

First and foremost, Origi primarily starts up front and covers the left side of the pitch.  Overall his numbers are eerily similar to Sterling with two exceptions, chances created and back pass percentage.  Sterling creates nearly a chance more per 90 and passes towards his own goal much less.  

The only thing separating him and Sturridge is goal-scoring rate, which is kind of important when you're a forward.  Their shooting rate is similar, though Origi has the superior shooting accuracy percentage, which tells me he tends to take bad shots and/or fails to challenge the keeper most of the time.

The bottom line is Origi is not what we need and he's not dynamic enough to justify bringing him in for what will probably be a speculative price.  Let him prove himself elsewhere for 4-5 seasons and when Sturridge starts to go in decline then try to sign him.  Right now he's just the victim of the World Cup hype train.