Kings active in trade talks?
- Thread starter The_Jamal
- Start date
- Status
No, he's certainly not. BUT the fact that we are pursuing Miller is encouraging to me. The fundamental notion it seems to reaffirm is that PDA sees what I see - that a steady, pass first PG who keeps the offense moving and plays some defense is what the starting lineup needs. This has the second (very big) benefit of making IT as sixth man/sparkplug off the bench which I think is the role is best suited for.
Instead of three high usage, volume shooters in the starting lineup you have two and one on the bench. If Malone stays true to his statement that he always wants to have either Gay or Cousins on the floor then it means the Kings can have a one-two punch at all times whether it is Gay/Cousins, Cousins/Thomas or Gay/Thomas. Best of all, all three of those pairings represent a good, complementary duo.
Andre Miller isn't the long term answer (and while he's an upgrade on IT, he's not a defensive stalwart by any means), but at least it appears that D'Allessandro is trying to put the right TYPE of players in place to support the talent that this team has rather than simply accumulating talent without regard to fit.
Instead of three high usage, volume shooters in the starting lineup you have two and one on the bench. If Malone stays true to his statement that he always wants to have either Gay or Cousins on the floor then it means the Kings can have a one-two punch at all times whether it is Gay/Cousins, Cousins/Thomas or Gay/Thomas. Best of all, all three of those pairings represent a good, complementary duo.
Andre Miller isn't the long term answer (and while he's an upgrade on IT, he's not a defensive stalwart by any means), but at least it appears that D'Allessandro is trying to put the right TYPE of players in place to support the talent that this team has rather than simply accumulating talent without regard to fit.
A lot of people here seem to think that Andre Miller is the back-up PG after the deal. To me this defeats the purpose of trading for a PG. I've seen it suggested that the wise-old sage that Andre Miller is (not the malcontent demanding playing time of course) would be able to come in and teach IT a thing or two about playing PG. But they are fundamentally different players, so I don't see how this benefits IT that much. That, and do we know that Andre Miller is going to be good for chemistry at this point in his career?
I see Miller as a much better fit in Sacramento than Denver because (1) our best players are better geared for a halfcourt offense and (2) there are clear go-to-guys which benefit a pass first PG.
His role with the Kings would be the same as Vasquez - start the game, establish the offensive flow and then give way to IT who can provide scoring off the bench.
If he mentors Thomas that's great, but to me his value is as a patch who establishes the type of play the Kings need from their starting PG.
His role with the Kings would be the same as Vasquez - start the game, establish the offensive flow and then give way to IT who can provide scoring off the bench.
If he mentors Thomas that's great, but to me his value is as a patch who establishes the type of play the Kings need from their starting PG.
Regarding Miller, it would reaffirm the fundamental principle that Jimmer ain't cutting it as the backup. They need a guard for 15-20 minutes per game to sub for IT.
Also, it would reaffirm they don't see the pg as much of a defensive liability. Of all the players to get in the NBA, you get Miller, a guy who couldn't keep a chair in front of him at this point in his career? If this goes through, it reaffirms the notion that offense rules in management's mind. Here Malone is preaching defense and the Kings are averaging over 112 points a game allowed over the last 10 games and they are going out in the market to get more offense? Seriously? Every-single-game Malone talks about defensive inadequacies on this team, and they are going to bring in Miller? Seriously?
Also, it would reaffirm they don't see the pg as much of a defensive liability. Of all the players to get in the NBA, you get Miller, a guy who couldn't keep a chair in front of him at this point in his career? If this goes through, it reaffirms the notion that offense rules in management's mind. Here Malone is preaching defense and the Kings are averaging over 112 points a game allowed over the last 10 games and they are going out in the market to get more offense? Seriously? Every-single-game Malone talks about defensive inadequacies on this team, and they are going to bring in Miller? Seriously?
Oh, c'mon. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that the Kings are trying to shed the MT and JT contracts and Miller is available. Nothing more.
The way I see it, Miller for Fredette and a 2nd rounder is a bad trade. At this point, I think Jimmer is the better player of the two, if not the better point guard so the trade would be a downgrade in talent. Jimmer is cheap, expiring, and young. If you're giving him up, you do it for a future pick or another young project player that fits the team needs. You don't do it for an over-the-hill veteran who costs twice as much and you have to pay $2 million next year to not play a minute. Jimmer you can let walk at the end of the year or resign for less than that $2 million as end-of-bench insurance.
Miller for Thornton or JT you can justify on salary grounds. Miller for Fredette you can't.
The way I see it, Miller for Fredette and a 2nd rounder is a bad trade. At this point, I think Jimmer is the better player of the two, if not the better point guard so the trade would be a downgrade in talent. Jimmer is cheap, expiring, and young. If you're giving him up, you do it for a future pick or another young project player that fits the team needs. You don't do it for an over-the-hill veteran who costs twice as much and you have to pay $2 million next year to not play a minute. Jimmer you can let walk at the end of the year or resign for less than that $2 million as end-of-bench insurance.
Miller for Thornton or JT you can justify on salary grounds. Miller for Fredette you can't.
The Bee in an article today, linked below and here, denies we are after Miller by offering Thornton or Fredette.
Jason Jones is not best source for what's happening inside Kings organization based on his track record. But what he does say here is Kings have inquired about Miller's availability but have not made any formal offer. Could just mean that PDA is waiting to hear back from Denver on what they might want that's reasonable.
It's interesting how many interpretations of this potential deal are circulating. Yours, mine, funkykingston, et al. One interpretation: they want a pass first pg; another; they need a ballhandler better than Jimmer to give IT a breather; another that IT may learn something from Miller; another that all that it is is simply shedding the MT and JT contracts. Doesn't that tell you something? It tells me it's not quite as clear-cut as what you imagine. C'mon.
P.S. If it's simply a contract flush, why not accomplish it by getting somebody you need on your team as they have defined (defense) rather than someone at the opposite extreme?
P.S. If it's simply a contract flush, why not accomplish it by getting somebody you need on your team as they have defined (defense) rather than someone at the opposite extreme?
Because a big part of being a good small-market GM is properly managing player salaries. Because PDA would happily dump any non-Cousins Petrie era salary for a bag of chips.
But, most importantly, because there are two sides to a transaction. I'd love to trade JT for a good defensive power forward, but, shockingly enough, most teams aren't eager to trade those guys away. Miller is widely publicized as being available, is cheaper long-term than either Thornton or JT, and fits a paper need for the Kings. He doesn't solve any defensive problems at all. If you have a way to convince Milwaukee to trade us Sanders or Henson for a combination of JT/Jimmer/MT, I'd love to hear it.
I find it hard to fathom how me saying that a Miller trade is viable as a salary dump in any way validates your statement that pursuing Miller obviously proves that IT's defense doesn't suck because Miller's defense also sucks.
I'll put it to you in a hypothetical. I am bleeding from two wounds. One to the abdomen, and one to the femoral artery. I decide to patch the wound on my femoral artery first because I have the materials available to make a tourniquet. A doctor walks by and says, "Because he's tending to the femoral wound, I suppose the abdominal bleeding isn't that bad."
But, most importantly, because there are two sides to a transaction. I'd love to trade JT for a good defensive power forward, but, shockingly enough, most teams aren't eager to trade those guys away. Miller is widely publicized as being available, is cheaper long-term than either Thornton or JT, and fits a paper need for the Kings. He doesn't solve any defensive problems at all. If you have a way to convince Milwaukee to trade us Sanders or Henson for a combination of JT/Jimmer/MT, I'd love to hear it.
I find it hard to fathom how me saying that a Miller trade is viable as a salary dump in any way validates your statement that pursuing Miller obviously proves that IT's defense doesn't suck because Miller's defense also sucks.
I'll put it to you in a hypothetical. I am bleeding from two wounds. One to the abdomen, and one to the femoral artery. I decide to patch the wound on my femoral artery first because I have the materials available to make a tourniquet. A doctor walks by and says, "Because he's tending to the femoral wound, I suppose the abdominal bleeding isn't that bad."
No it doesn't. Could just as easily mean they want to move IT back to 6th man where he belongs and bringing in a steadier presence at PG.
It doesn't solve our defensive issues but it does solve other issues and given Andre wouldn't be a longterm solution, it'd be more a stopgap solution to solve a few problems, defense not being one of them. Doesn't mean they don't see defense at PG as an issue. You'd need to be blind/deaf not to have noticed Malone's repeated statements regarding our terrible perimeter defense which starts with both our guards.
It doesn't solve our defensive issues but it does solve other issues and given Andre wouldn't be a longterm solution, it'd be more a stopgap solution to solve a few problems, defense not being one of them. Doesn't mean they don't see defense at PG as an issue. You'd need to be blind/deaf not to have noticed Malone's repeated statements regarding our terrible perimeter defense which starts with both our guards.
Not trade related but still interesting. From insider, but I don't currently have insider so don't know the full context.
The Kings' biggest need is at the point guard position, but sources say the Kings would be reluctant to pull the trigger on either Smart or Exum with the No. 1 pick. The team did just trade for Rudy Gay, but the early returns aren't great and the chances they would re-sign him long-term aren't great. Besides, in virtually every way, Parker would be an upgrade from day one and bring the sort of high-character, team-first player to the roster that the team desperately needs.
The Kings' biggest need is at the point guard position, but sources say the Kings would be reluctant to pull the trigger on either Smart or Exum with the No. 1 pick. The team did just trade for Rudy Gay, but the early returns aren't great and the chances they would re-sign him long-term aren't great. Besides, in virtually every way, Parker would be an upgrade from day one and bring the sort of high-character, team-first player to the roster that the team desperately needs.
Our guards have no Defensive Liabilities ?? They are all playing the Marcus Thorton Bayou Defense. They either stand still or get picked and the opposing guard just goes BY YOU. They need a defensive presence at the guard position. I have to agree that Miller is not that presence. But then who is available who is? If I hear one more Rondo rumor, my brain is going to explode. Not gonna happen. Best to go with what we have and see what they can get in the draft or the off season.
I'm not sure how they can say the early returns aren't great. Gay is scoring the most points per game of his career on the fewest shots per game (excluding his freshman season with more limited minutes). He's shooting .508, the first time in his career he has been over .500 (and he has rarely come close), and his TS% is also the highest of his career. He's getting to the line a bit more than he ever did and shooting well above his career average there. All of his other numbers are pretty much in line with his career, though his defensive rebounding, 3PT%, and TOs are a bit worse. Still, he has only been with the team for 1/3 of the season, and he's already #3 on total win shares on the team.
What is this "not great"? I don't get it.
That said, I wouldn't draft Smart at #1 in this draft, and I haven't seen Exum so I can't comment. But having seen Parker, having seen Embiid, having seen Randle (not the best fit next to Cousins, but still), and knowing the book on Wiggins (haven't really seen much out of him so far) - those guys are the guys you look at with the #1 overall. Smart is a tier down in my book, and I wouldn't be surprised to put Exum in the next tier as well had I seen him. At #5, Smart and Exum are in play. But not at #1.
What is this "not great"? I don't get it.
That said, I wouldn't draft Smart at #1 in this draft, and I haven't seen Exum so I can't comment. But having seen Parker, having seen Embiid, having seen Randle (not the best fit next to Cousins, but still), and knowing the book on Wiggins (haven't really seen much out of him so far) - those guys are the guys you look at with the #1 overall. Smart is a tier down in my book, and I wouldn't be surprised to put Exum in the next tier as well had I seen him. At #5, Smart and Exum are in play. But not at #1.
What's the date on this? What's wrong with Rudy? That confuses me. Once you've got a great player, why let him go without a struggle? I agree about Parker but are they saying if we get Parker (ain't gonna happen) we would just let Rudy go? What's wrong with having two all around great wingmen? I know we have been scouting Parker but this just left me confused.
As an addition, I put Exum on a par with Embiid draftwise so it depends in whether you want a 7 foot monster at PF/center or a 6'6" monster at PG.
As an addition, I put Exum on a par with Embiid draftwise so it depends in whether you want a 7 foot monster at PF/center or a 6'6" monster at PG.
the ESPN pack of rats has even more know nothings than the NBA pack of rats, in particular for a little left coast berg like Sacto. Or more precisely many of them played roles in Gay's reputation rundown, so again, they aren't going to back off that until we start winning. Aside from the anonymous "sources say" you will note that the entire "returns aren't great and unlikely to resign" stuff comes as a separate editorial statement, not a "sources say that the Kings don't think early returns are great etc.." Wash in the general assumption Parker is the #1, and voila.
Last edited:
1) You don't know that. Again, this is an interpretation based on what exactly?
2) That's just convoluted and a strawman to boot. First, I never said your interpretation wasn't valid; just that it was one among many speculations where reasonable people could disagree; ergo, your interpretation may be right, or it may be wrong. Second, I don't know where you dreamed up that "pursuing Miller obviously proves that ITs defense doesn't suck because Miller's defense sucks" rationale. That's not even remotely what I said or what I mean.
All I'm saying is that if anybody wants so confidently to interpret what a potential Miller move means, why not come up with this rationale: offense rules. A Miller trade certainly doesn't connote that defense is a high priority (at least for the time being). It may be there are several motivations, but it is safe to conclude that if Miller is the guy, they aren't bringing him in here to play D. You think it's a salary dump, I think it's to give IT a breather, Funky thinks it's to get more of a pass first guard. NOBODY thinks it's for more D. That's one thing we can all agree on.
2) That's just convoluted and a strawman to boot. First, I never said your interpretation wasn't valid; just that it was one among many speculations where reasonable people could disagree; ergo, your interpretation may be right, or it may be wrong. Second, I don't know where you dreamed up that "pursuing Miller obviously proves that ITs defense doesn't suck because Miller's defense sucks" rationale. That's not even remotely what I said or what I mean.
All I'm saying is that if anybody wants so confidently to interpret what a potential Miller move means, why not come up with this rationale: offense rules. A Miller trade certainly doesn't connote that defense is a high priority (at least for the time being). It may be there are several motivations, but it is safe to conclude that if Miller is the guy, they aren't bringing him in here to play D. You think it's a salary dump, I think it's to give IT a breather, Funky thinks it's to get more of a pass first guard. NOBODY thinks it's for more D. That's one thing we can all agree on.
ESPN writers and national media in general follow the Heat, Knicks, Nets, Bulls, Lakers and are content to look at some boxscores wins and losses and call it a day for the rest of the league(not to mention a small market in the West like us). For instance they would look at Cousins stats, look at our record and decide player gunning on a bad team. They only care about teams that will get them "hits". I give credit to a guy like Bill Simmons who at least tries to do some research on all teams, and knows his stuff in general despite clearly being a dork.
Unlike you, I've always liked Miller. I would have liked to have had him 5 or 6 years ago. And yes, while he's not the best defender in the league at his position, he is a crafty defender and knows how to play team defense. As to the reason for pursuing Miller, well like everyone else, I have my opinion, but also like everyone else, I'm not capable of the Vulcan mind meld. So I can't speak with complete accuracy. However, they did pursue Calderon, and did acquire Vasquez. They've apparently spoken with the Celtics, along with everyone else, about Rondo, so it appears to my aging and withered mind, that they're looking to add a pass first PG, and I doubt its to come off the bench. I also doubt it has anything to do with Jimmer, other than perhaps he's part of the trade. I agree with Funky, that having a pass first PG on the floor with Cousins and Gay is their objective. It might also benefit either Thornton or McLemore, whomever of the two is starting.
I don't like Smart. He's hardly a pass first PG, and his outside shot has returned to earth, and is very similar to last year. Plus, I think the Kings are looking for an experienced PG. That's not to say they wouldn't entertain drafting one if that's all that's left of the top tier players. But I'd take Exum 10 times out of 10 over Smart. And I have seen him play.
If I had to take a stab, I'd say the fact the kings still aren't winning is the reason it hasn't been great. In Espns view.
I don't think that statement, while generally kinda asinine, really had anything to do with Rudy but the team. I also question whether they even looked at the numbers. Saying the trade hasn't been great makes some kind of assumption that all we needed was one piece and we'd dominate and that was the expectation. Clearly, not the case. Not sure anyone who seriously or even semi seriously follows this team thought they'd immediately be an elite team. "Unlikely to sign?" Really? I'm fairly sure the FO has no idea at this point. That's just a completely unsubstantiated opinion.
ESPN's reporting generally can barely be called reporting. Some of it has been downright appalling, especially during the Seattle/Sacramento battle. They had it a done deal to Seattle how many different times? Even up till the final hour.
Nevermind that in another article they said our PG is the #8 PG in the league. Then they say PG is our biggest need? Huh?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10262795/nba-chris-paul-heads-top-10-point-guard-rankings
I don't think that statement, while generally kinda asinine, really had anything to do with Rudy but the team. I also question whether they even looked at the numbers. Saying the trade hasn't been great makes some kind of assumption that all we needed was one piece and we'd dominate and that was the expectation. Clearly, not the case. Not sure anyone who seriously or even semi seriously follows this team thought they'd immediately be an elite team. "Unlikely to sign?" Really? I'm fairly sure the FO has no idea at this point. That's just a completely unsubstantiated opinion.
ESPN's reporting generally can barely be called reporting. Some of it has been downright appalling, especially during the Seattle/Sacramento battle. They had it a done deal to Seattle how many different times? Even up till the final hour.
Nevermind that in another article they said our PG is the #8 PG in the league. Then they say PG is our biggest need? Huh?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10262795/nba-chris-paul-heads-top-10-point-guard-rankings
- Status