Thoughts on McCallum

Padrino · Jul 21, 2013

no, as i very clearly stated in my initial post, i was "bitching" about the speculation that ray mccallum had been offered a guaranteed contract of three years in length, which would have been a questionable move in my mind, regardless of the total dollar amount of the contract itself. and i qualified that "bitching" with the following statement: "of course, i'm still waiting on official word of mccallum's contract terms." so, while i appreciate you providing a useful source, i'd ask that you climb down ever so slowly from your high horse, y'know, before you hurt yourself...

and yes, landry's contract would have had a lot to do with mccallum's contract had mccallum's contract been guaranteed, as jason jones misreported. it would have been representative of a larger philosophy that i happen to disagree with. why are kings fans so afraid of context? it's not necessary to narrow the boundaries of a given discussion if it is relevant to the health of the franchise at large...

Entity · Jul 21, 2013

I mean even if it was Guaranteed. 2.2 mil over three years??? they will spend more than that on window cleaner over the next 3 years. I mean really??? were we gonna freak out over that? Like OMG we guaranteed him 800k the horror.

Padrino · Jul 21, 2013

Entity said:

who's freaking out? i offered a cogent, well-formulated argument that expressed reasonable concerns about the way the kings' front office chooses to do business. it certainly wasn't a sky-is-falling perspective. i just find myself increasingly skeptical of the new regime's approach, and that was amplified by the speculation that ray mccallum was offered a guaranteed contract prior to stepping onto the court in a single regular season game. the contract itself is peanuts. it hardly matters. what would have mattered is the pile-on effect of short-sighted general managing in the vein of geoff petrie's latter day efforts with the franchise. it's worth keeping on eye on, in my opinion. that's all...

Entity · Jul 21, 2013

Padrino said:

yes freaking out. Im not just talking to you. I invite you to look at the last 35 post on this thread. Yes ALOT of people acting like the sky fell. You get offended because you were 1 of the 20. Its ok its not all about you. others are uniformed as well.

Padrino · Jul 21, 2013

Entity said:

just gave a quick once-over back through this thread. no sky is falling anywhere. mostly just reasonable concerns. you're the only one who seems to be reacting hyperbolically to the expression of those concerns, "uninformed" or not...

anyway, i'm done belaboring the point. as for mccallum, i like him just fine. he wasn't terribly efficient in summer league, but he's got pretty good size for a point guard, and he showed confidence and aggression and a willingness to attack the rim, traits that i value highly in an nba player. i just don't know what the kings plan to do with him, exactly. if he sticks, then great. but we keep inching closer to the start of training camp, and the trade we've all been waiting for that packages some of the kings' extraneous pieces together in order to bring back a greater talent has yet to occur...

that said, i really don't want to see all of thornton, thomas, and fredette on the roster at the start of the regular season. but mclemore is likely not ready to start, which elevates thornton's value to this team, despite his glaring defensive weaknesses. and mccallum will remain a "who knows?" until the trade deadline, at least, so thomas likely sticks around as a change of pace guard off the bench. so that leaves... fredette. and he's not highlighting any trade package the kings put together. i really don't know where they go from here. i'm fully expecting a season of tanking while they figure it out, which is probably better for the long-term health of a post-tyreke kings franchise. i just hope they can somehow manage to keep demarcus cousins calm enough during another losing season...

Entity · Jul 21, 2013

that we can agree on sir. the thoughts of Thornton being our #2 guy scares the hell out of me. I am too waiting for that trade that brings in the #2 looks to be at SF. As far as thornton being valuable as he is the only experienced SG on the team. I am not opposed to putting Salmons there while we wait for Maclemore as long as we get the legit SF as our #2 guy.

Padrino · Jul 21, 2013

Entity said:

i just don't see it happening, to be honest. a great many here at kf.com accused myself and others of overvaluing tyreke evans. but, regardless of one's opinion of evans, the fact remains that he was the second-most talented player on the team, and the kings have thus far failed to adequately replace his talent level. the jury's likely going to be out on ben mclemore for awhile, and summer league did little to dispel the reasonable criticisms of his style of play. as for free agency, that obviously didn't work out wonderfully for the kings. so that leaves the trade block. and i think a great many here at kf.com are overvaluing the kings' potential to turn scrap metal into gold...

the kings' spare parts are very unlikely to bring back the talent level required to elevate the team's overall impact on both sides of the floor. so that means we're essentially "all-in" for next year's draft. it's stacked, and there's a good chance that the kings could come away with a difference maker. but it's going to require a lot of losses, and the new regime is going to have to find a way to make demarcus cousins okay with that in the meantime. otherwise it's back to square one, and i have to believe that vivek ranadive would prefer to at least have this team on the road to winning by the time they open the regular season in a brand new arena. in other words, a lot has to go right if this team hopes to sniff the playoffs anytime soon...

Bricklayer · Jul 21, 2013

Entity said:

That's Petrie thinking.

Its not the $$ figure, its the complete waste of the dollar figure, or rather the lack of necessity of throwing it out. If somebody comes along and wastes $900k of mine I'm going to punch them right in the face. Hard.

Its a philosophical issue in the end. If you claim to be concerned about money management, then you do not offer guaranteed 3rd years to 2nd round picks. 2nd round picks have no leverage. They are far far from guaranteed bets. The odds of one saying no to a contract offer are extremely low. Now if you want to get an option on a 3rd year, then go for it. If that's what we did, then good on us. If we randomly gifted a 3rd guaranteed year to a guy who might scrub out of the league by that time ala Whiteside, then bad.

Fear the Putin · Jul 21, 2013

Glenn said:

Not in the starting lineup, but as a scoring big off the bench, I don't see what's wrong with that. He flourished in GS as that bench big and they had plenty of scorers on those teams. As long as he doesn't start, I'm totally fine with the signing.

We need some scoring punch off the bench. With Thornton starting, McLemore may or may not pan out right away. Isaiah will probably be our second scoring punch off the bench, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities that he may not be ok with that. Who else do you have down low that will be able to score or give you buckets, aside from DMC & JT who will start (at this current moment).

Fear the Putin · Jul 21, 2013

Bricklayer said:

don't compare Whiteside and McCallum. Hassan's head was never in the game. I understand he may have had ADHD, but he wasn't a bright guy either and came off as too entitled.
McCallum is a hard worker and we've seen consistent flashes of what he is capable of doing on the court that will translate into the NBA.

Also, no one is wasting 900K. If McCallum grows into a player that may be worth millions more, not only do you not have to talk extensions with him after the 2nd year, but you would have planted the seed in him that the Kings believed in him from the start, hence the 3 guaranteed rather than 2 and essentially give you an upper hand in negotiations if our cap space becomes limited and others would be able to offer more $.

pshn80 · Jul 21, 2013

Let's see, this is a McCallum thread. To recap: we've added McCallum, McLemore, Landry, Vasquez, and Mbah a Moute. We've lost Evans, Douglas, Johnson and probably Aldrich. We'll lose sme more, I hope, and gain maybe one more. We have a totally new coaching and scouting staff. Regardless of what we have paid for any orb them - I think we're doing pretty well and have been given a sound basis for hoping for improvement. Can't wait for camp to start.

Kingsfan23 · Jul 21, 2013

Fear the Putin said:

Not in the starting lineup, but as a scoring big off the bench, I don't see what's wrong with that. He flourished in GS as that bench big and they had plenty of scorers on those teams. As long as he doesn't start, I'm totally fine with the signing.

We need some scoring punch off the bench. With Thornton starting, McLemore may or may not pan out right away. Isaiah will probably be our second scoring punch off the bench, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities that he may not be ok with that. Who else do you have down low that will be able to score or give you buckets, aside from DMC & JT who will start (at this current moment).

A lot feel, even if they don't have identical games, that you don't need him with PPat

Kingsfan23 · Jul 21, 2013

Dreadnought said:

Personally, and I respect your opinion as good as mine Dreadnought, but I think its time to move on from that. I'm not going to celebrate not having the team stolen from the fanbase just like I wouldn't celebrate 10 dollars not be stolen from my wallet. The fans of this team are going to ***** about moves and the management the same as any other fanbase will

bajaden · Jul 21, 2013

Glenn said:

I'm not sure why everyone thinks he doesn't fit. Yes, he didn't have a good run the last time he was with us, but in his career, were the only team that had him playing 18 feet away from the basket. If you look at Synergy.com, his most inefficient games all took place while with the Kings, and as I said, were the only team that had him playing to his weaknesses and not his strengths. Landry is at his best near the basket! Now if you want to argue that putting him there, interferes with Cuz and crowds the lane, I can see that side of the argument, but for the most part, Cuz has been setting up in the high post. And once again, we can argue that he's better in the low post, but I don't think that's really been proven as yet.

But lets say, that Cuz and Landry aren't good compliments to one another. Then bring Landry off the bench along with JT, and put Patterson next to Cuz. I mean if all were worried about is spreading the floor, then Patterson is the perfect man next to Cuz. And I'm talking about who is on the team, and not some hypothetical shotblocker that we wish we had. I'll admit that Landry isn't my first choice, and I was surprised by the length of the contract, but he's certainly not god awful by any means, and if used properly, he can be a very efficient player. Personally, I think both JT and Landry are, and should be, solid bench players that add depth to the team. My problem with that is, that it appears were putting the cart before the horse. Hopefully there's another move coming.

bajaden · Jul 21, 2013

Padrino said:

I can see your side of the argument until you say the dollar amount doesn't matter. That's where you lose me. Now if McCallums contract was totally guaranteed and it was for 3 or 4 mil a year, then I'm on your side, but it was never going to be for that amount. Sorry, but I'm not going to worry about 800 thousand a year or less. To say lets give Tyreke 11 mil a year for 5 years, is prudent, but giving McCallum a paltry 500 to 800 thousand contract for 3 years is extravagant just doesn't make any sense to me. And I'm not revisiting whether Tyreke deserved it or not, I'm simply talking about the money figures. And I'm not referring to you. I have no idea where you came down on the Tyreke issue.

Personally, I don't think Kings fans are afraid of context. But you've been around here long enough to know that threads get stolen all the time. To my mind, its best to stay on the subject, unless what you intend is metaphorical, and perhaps that was your intent. I certainly do it all the time, but I still try and stay on subject. And because someone wants to stay on subject doesn't mean he's afraid of anything. It just means, at least in my case, that he doesn't want the waters muddied.

Glenn · Jul 21, 2013

Fear the Putin said:

For Evans, a starter, we got a guy who was going to be on the bench for NO and a guy who will come off the bench for us. We have PPat and there was no pressing need to get a bench playing big. This is the problem with being on the wrong end of the numbers in making a two for one trade: we get the bench players and the other team gets what should be starter. Landry was with the team when we had JT and Cuz a very short while back and we traded him quickly. Perhaps this "we need scoring off the bench" idea will work better a few years later but going by past performance. it was a bad signing. That's my opinion. I hope he works out better than he did last time and with a new coach who apparently wanted him, maybe it'll work. Clearly Smart wanted a guard (MT) and Malone wanted a small big. That's fine as the coach should have something to say about who is on his team.

I think it was a mistake and in fact, the biggest mistake of the off season. I don't even think trading Evans was a worse idea. We had more pressing needs and at $7-8 mil a year, there must have been a SF somewhere. If not, hold onto the money or give some aging vet or two a one year contract and use the money for a SF next year. Whatever works with our cap situation. Locking into a 4 year contract for a guy who didn't work out before seems nuts. Hey, I like Landry. He always played well against us.

Glenn · Jul 21, 2013

bajaden said:

I look forward to comparing the play of everyone who played under Smart with their play under Malone. It could be very, very different.

VF21 · Jul 21, 2013

Kingsfan23 said:

Just as an aside, and I know you were talking about this in a different context, we cannot stop our vigilance quite yet. The STOP people are trying to pull the rug out from the arena deal before shovel even hits dirt. We need to keep up the fight, at least as far as making sure the public understands how important the Kings AND the new revitalization of downtown Sacramento are to the entire northern state. Follow CrownDowntown for all the latest info.

/end topic derailment

Padrino · Jul 21, 2013

bajaden said:

again, it's philosophical more than anything else, and i know that i certainly haven't characterized it as "extravagant." a 10th-12th man's 800 thousand a year rookie salary isn't much to sweat as an isolated placeholder within the salary cap. but, as part of a larger front office strategy, it raised my eyebrows a bit to hear that the kings were potentially offering ray mccallum a guaranteed contract at three years in length when there was absolutely no reason to do so...

i like mccallum as a second-round prospect, and i have no problem with the kings actually offering him a non-guaranteed multi-year deal. i simply did not like the speculation i was hearing that mccallum was receiving a lengthy guaranteed contract, especially after the kings let tyreke evans walk, after they lost out on andre iguodala and other impact free agents, and after they signed carl landry to an unnecessarily long-term deal. mccallum is peanuts in that equation, but the rumor of his guaranteed deal fit into a larger narrative of front office activity that i was in disagreement with. since the rumor appears to be unfounded, i am at peace with mccallum's signing. he's certainly a better second-round prospect than most, though i have no idea how he fits into the kings' plans going forward, guard-heavy as they remain...

as for where i come down on "the tyreke issue," i've been very firmly in the camp that believes it was a mistake to let him go. so, my opinion of the front office's moves this offseason, as well as the moves that occur thereafter, will be colored by the view that letting the team's second-best player walk in favor of a roleplayer was a foolish decision. the new regime can certainly get out from under that weight, but i do not predict that it will be easy...

jalfa · Jul 22, 2013

Entity said:

I'm almost positive that you can't structure a deal like that with no guaranteed money. the contract details don't seem to be out yet, so all we have to go on is Jason Jones' assertion that it's three years guaranteed. which would be weird, too.

jpsls · Jul 22, 2013

Glenn said:

For Evans, a starter, we got a guy who was going to be on the bench for NO and a guy who will come off the bench for us. We have PPat and there was no pressing need to get a bench playing big. This is the problem with being on the wrong end of the numbers in making a two for one trade: we get the bench players and the other team gets what should be starter. Landry was with the team when we had JT and Cuz a very short while back and we traded him quickly. Perhaps this "we need scoring off the bench" idea will work better a few years later but going by past performance. it was a bad signing. That's my opinion. I hope he works out better than he did last time and with a new coach who apparently wanted him, maybe it'll work. Clearly Smart wanted a guard (MT) and Malone wanted a small big. That's fine as the coach should have something to say about who is on his team.

I think it was a mistake and in fact, the biggest mistake of the off season. I don't even think trading Evans was a worse idea. We had more pressing needs and at $7-8 mil a year, there must have been a SF somewhere. If not, hold onto the money or give some aging vet or two a one year contract and use the money for a SF next year. Whatever works with our cap situation. Locking into a 4 year contract for a guy who didn't work out before seems nuts. Hey, I like Landry. He always played well against us.

Evans might be coming off the bench in NO so your argument about Vasquez not starting is null. Ppat and Landry are completely different players. Ppat is a stretch 4 while Landry is more effective in the low post so they are not redundant pieces.

kingsnation · Jul 22, 2013

jpsls said:

They're redundant in the fact that they both rebound like they're SGs.

The other problem with the Landry signing is that you're almost forced to start either Landry or Pat. Because if you do start DMC and JT, then your backup center options become Hayes, Landry and Pat which is just not going to be consistently a competitive rotation at the 5.

Kingsfan23 · Jul 22, 2013

jpsls said:

Technically they are different, but do you need two small, non-rebounding, slightly above average pfs in a rotation that includes Cousins, JT, and Hayes? Do you imagine them playing together?

ParniValjak · Jul 22, 2013

bajaden said:

While I am not a fan of the Landry signing, especially at that contract, I can see the method in the madness. I honestly think, Landry has been brought in to provide a scoring punch in the low post off the bench. When Cousins rests, or gets into foul trouble, you can go to Landry for low post scoring. Ideally, I would like a long defender instead but I can see method in the madness.

I think the idea is to run Landry, IT and McLemore off the bench to provide balanced scoring punch and JT will slide over to C and play a fair bit with Landry.

Generally, the 3 big man rotation is used by good teams in the NBA and I suspect we might be looking at Cousins-JT-Patterson trio which might leave Patterson as the odd one out with Hayes of course the new Kenny Thomas flexible piece.

ppine · Jul 22, 2013

At the U of Detroit he was obvioously their best player and develped a game to reflect that. Now he has to learn to distribute the ball much better. He is a raw talent that will take time to develop. His passing looks very average or worse against the SL. He will be turnover prone in the NBA. Lots of competition at the 1.

Darth Divac · Jul 22, 2013

Kingsfan23 said:

Personally, and I respect your opinion as good as mine Dreadnought, but I think its time to move on from that. I'm not going to celebrate not having the team stolen from the fanbase just like I wouldn't celebrate 10 dollars not be stolen from my wallet. The fans of this team are going to ***** about moves and the management the same as any other fanbase will

This!

Hadlowe · Jul 22, 2013

Glenn said:

Quoted for truth. Just looking at the difference a coaching change made (however briefly) when Smart took over for Westphal, a change of head coach will make a big difference just for Boogie, let alone Thornton, Jimmer, Salmons, and who knows how many other players on our roster.

kennadog · Jul 23, 2013

VF21 said:

Repeated for emphasis. Its not over folks. Also go to Crown Downtown's partner at http://downtownarena.org/
(sorry for topic derailment again.)

Kingster · Jul 23, 2013

bajaden said:

I'm not sure why everyone thinks he doesn't fit. Yes, he didn't have a good run the last time he was with us, but in his career, were the only team that had him playing 18 feet away from the basket. If you look at Synergy.com, his most inefficient games all took place while with the Kings, and as I said, were the only team that had him playing to his weaknesses and not his strengths. Landry is at his best near the basket! Now if you want to argue that putting him there, interferes with Cuz and crowds the lane, I can see that side of the argument, but for the most part, Cuz has been setting up in the high post. And once again, we can argue that he's better in the low post, but I don't think that's really been proven as yet.

But lets say, that Cuz and Landry aren't good compliments to one another. Then bring Landry off the bench along with JT, and put Patterson next to Cuz. I mean if all were worried about is spreading the floor, then Patterson is the perfect man next to Cuz. And I'm talking about who is on the team, and not some hypothetical shotblocker that we wish we had. I'll admit that Landry isn't my first choice, and I was surprised by the length of the contract, but he's certainly not god awful by any means, and if used properly, he can be a very efficient player. Personally, I think both JT and Landry are, and should be, solid bench players that add depth to the team. My problem with that is, that it appears were putting the cart before the horse. Hopefully there's another move coming.

Makes sense. Landry didn't work with Tyreke; that's why his performance suffered. Westphal needed to put him outside to provide space for the Tyreke drives.

I agree another move must be coming. This team really needs a backup center.

bajaden · Jul 23, 2013

kingsnation said:

I don't think anyone is going to say that Landry is a great rebounder, but when used properly, he's a decent rebounder. I rounded out his per 36 numbers with the four teams he's played for so far. In Houston he averaged 8.5 rebounds per 36 minutes. With New Orleans, he averaged 7.8 rebounds per 36 minutes. And last season with Golden State he averaged 9.4 rebounds per 36 minutes. He's not Cousins or Griffin, but there are PF's that are far worse. However with the Kings he averaged 6.5 rebounds per 36 minutes. Why? Because they had him playing 18 feet from the basket instead of in the post where not only is he more effective offensively, but he rebounds better.

Who starts or comes off the bench probably depends on what kind of rotation they go with. You could go with a three man rotation, which a lot of teams use. That means you could start Cousins and JT, same as last year, and have Landry as the other rotational player. Cousins comes out for a blow, and JT moves to center, and Landry comes in at PF. Cousins comes back into the game and JT sits with Landry still at PF, and when JT comes back, Landry goes back to the bench. Where that leaves Patterson and Hayes is anyone's guess. You could, with the right match up play Patterson at SF. There are quite a few SF's that Patterson is capable of guarding, that might have trouble gurading him. You could use Patterson to guard some of the smaller, quicker PF's in the league. My point is, I think you can find minutes here and there for Patterson because of his skill set. To my mind, Hayes is the odd man out. And of course, I could be dead wrong!

Thoughts on McCallum

All-Star

Hall of Famer

All-Star

Hall of Famer

All-Star

Hall of Famer

All-Star

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Starter

Starter

Starter

All-Star

All-Star

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Super Moderator Emeritus

All-Star

Starter

Bench

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

Starter

Bench

Starter

Dog On It!

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer