Kings active in trade talks?
- Thread starter The_Jamal
- Start date
- Status
You, sir, are dealing with hypotheticals. I am dealing with facts.
You are insinuating that if the Kings drafted MCW that he would be the third PG in the rotation because we wouldn't have been patient with him. You said he would get "rookie minutes" which are "limited minutes." McLemore has been averaging 23 minutes a game and has played very poorly this year. 23 minutes is not limited and considering if he was playing halfway decent this year, he would be logging a lot more minutes. The way MCW is playing this season, I'm sure he would have earned more than 23 minutes a game.
What I look at is that MCW is a good player RIGHT NOW. Would MCW be the third PG on our depth chart RIGHT NOW? No, he wouldn't. He would be the starter. It's crazy to me that you think he should be in the D-League. You can speculate on what WOULD have happened all you want. It's a safe argument because nobody can technically prove you wrong, but I like to deal with the facts. Please watch MCW. Like really watch him. He's a top candidate for rookie of the year and does a lot of things well. If we were to trade for him today, he would be our starting PG because he is a good fit and a good player. That's a fact. I'm not sure why he would get such limited minutes on a team that is last in the western conference. You think he would be put in a similar situation here compared to Philly. What are they doing there that makes them develop players so much better than us? I would argue nothing. We have a lack of talent like them. MCW is a talented guy. Therefore, MCW would see a lot of floor time. It's as simple as that. Now if he went to a contender who has a great PG or PG combo, then I can see him being stashed away. (e.g. the Thunder - Westbrook/Jackson)
I know you want to argue this point because it can also apply to your guy, Fredette. To me, it's like you're saying "If Fredette had free reigns over a team, he would look just as good." That would be false. We have all seen enough of Fredette (2533 minutes to be exact. That would be an average of 31 mpg in one season.) to know his skillset and what he brings to the table. Giving him extra minutes isn't going to turn him into this Godly player we never knew we had.
Really? He hasn't gotten more minutes because he hasn't played well. You give him 20+ minutes a game against opposing teams second units to get him some experience and get his confidence up against weaker opponents. Once he has proved himself against that level of competition, you can begin increasing his minutes and possibly begin to start him. We started McLemore for 26 games and he looked overmatched so we dialed it back on him to put him in the best opportunity to succeed. MCW has looked good in 34 MPG so there is no need to limit his minutes. He showed that he was ready to compete against starting caliber players in the NBA when he was given his chance. Again, McLemore showed he wasn't ready and MCW did hence MCW gets more minutes.
Do you mean to tell me if McLemore came in as a rookie and was knocking down jumpers left and right and defending the perimeter well he wouldn't be getting more minutes against starting caliber players? That's insane! If your rookie shows he can compete at a high level, he is going to get big minutes. You rarely see teams that are low in the standings not give their rookies a chance because they are simply a rookie. Again, if they can compete, they get more minutes. If they can't, their minutes get dialed back. It's as simple as that.
You are insinuating that if the Kings drafted MCW that he would be the third PG in the rotation because we wouldn't have been patient with him. You said he would get "rookie minutes" which are "limited minutes." McLemore has been averaging 23 minutes a game and has played very poorly this year. 23 minutes is not limited and considering if he was playing halfway decent this year, he would be logging a lot more minutes. The way MCW is playing this season, I'm sure he would have earned more than 23 minutes a game.
What I look at is that MCW is a good player RIGHT NOW. Would MCW be the third PG on our depth chart RIGHT NOW? No, he wouldn't. He would be the starter. It's crazy to me that you think he should be in the D-League. You can speculate on what WOULD have happened all you want. It's a safe argument because nobody can technically prove you wrong, but I like to deal with the facts. Please watch MCW. Like really watch him. He's a top candidate for rookie of the year and does a lot of things well. If we were to trade for him today, he would be our starting PG because he is a good fit and a good player. That's a fact. I'm not sure why he would get such limited minutes on a team that is last in the western conference. You think he would be put in a similar situation here compared to Philly. What are they doing there that makes them develop players so much better than us? I would argue nothing. We have a lack of talent like them. MCW is a talented guy. Therefore, MCW would see a lot of floor time. It's as simple as that. Now if he went to a contender who has a great PG or PG combo, then I can see him being stashed away. (e.g. the Thunder - Westbrook/Jackson)
I know you want to argue this point because it can also apply to your guy, Fredette. To me, it's like you're saying "If Fredette had free reigns over a team, he would look just as good." That would be false. We have all seen enough of Fredette (2533 minutes to be exact. That would be an average of 31 mpg in one season.) to know his skillset and what he brings to the table. Giving him extra minutes isn't going to turn him into this Godly player we never knew we had.
Really? He hasn't gotten more minutes because he hasn't played well. You give him 20+ minutes a game against opposing teams second units to get him some experience and get his confidence up against weaker opponents. Once he has proved himself against that level of competition, you can begin increasing his minutes and possibly begin to start him. We started McLemore for 26 games and he looked overmatched so we dialed it back on him to put him in the best opportunity to succeed. MCW has looked good in 34 MPG so there is no need to limit his minutes. He showed that he was ready to compete against starting caliber players in the NBA when he was given his chance. Again, McLemore showed he wasn't ready and MCW did hence MCW gets more minutes.
Do you mean to tell me if McLemore came in as a rookie and was knocking down jumpers left and right and defending the perimeter well he wouldn't be getting more minutes against starting caliber players? That's insane! If your rookie shows he can compete at a high level, he is going to get big minutes. You rarely see teams that are low in the standings not give their rookies a chance because they are simply a rookie. Again, if they can compete, they get more minutes. If they can't, their minutes get dialed back. It's as simple as that.
S
Judging by the activity of the Kings so far. Trading Evans, then Landing Luc, Then trading Luc for Williams, then Rudy Gay. Its highly likely that the Kings are gonna make a move before the deadline. The one constant is that the Kings have been referred to as being "very active" by a lot of sources.
right now is just the calm before the storm. right now GM's are just figuring out who is and isn't available.
FYI there was zero warning about the Rudy Gay trade and all the other moves. they just happened. this front office seems to be much more secretive about its conversations and dealings than the last FO.
right now is just the calm before the storm. right now GM's are just figuring out who is and isn't available.
FYI there was zero warning about the Rudy Gay trade and all the other moves. they just happened. this front office seems to be much more secretive about its conversations and dealings than the last FO.
Not exactly true. The leaks about our potential trades, etc. never came from Kings sources. They were almost always from the other team, from agents, etc. Petrie ran a very tight ship in that regard. IIRC the only time a trade leak occurred was when one of the Brothers Who Shall Not Be Named let the cat out of the bag about Peja-Artest.
Look at the Bucks for worse. Of course it can get worse.
Williams at #1 is a helluvalot worse than Thomas. I'd make that deal in a nonosecond if I'm NJ. We're not talking about Williams of four years ago; he's a relic. Rose is done. Of course Chicago needs IT. They can't bank on Rose more than you can bank on a lottery ticket. Same with OKC. They could easily use IT, with Westbrook coming off of 3 surgeries. Both Houston guards aren't as good as IT. And that's just for starters.
Williams at #1 is a helluvalot worse than Thomas. I'd make that deal in a nonosecond if I'm NJ. We're not talking about Williams of four years ago; he's a relic. Rose is done. Of course Chicago needs IT. They can't bank on Rose more than you can bank on a lottery ticket. Same with OKC. They could easily use IT, with Westbrook coming off of 3 surgeries. Both Houston guards aren't as good as IT. And that's just for starters.
One of the rumors doing the rounds is the Magic are trying to shop Nelson and Davis as a package. Not sure if we have the cap space, or what we'd have to let go to do it, but it would give the team two solid starters at PG and PF. Two guys that could also help defensively.
Another alternative, would the team be able to make a deal for Afflalo? He could slot in nicely at SG and improve the team defensively. I think he would probably be the better addition than Nelson/Davis.
Would either interest the Kings?
Another alternative, would the team be able to make a deal for Afflalo? He could slot in nicely at SG and improve the team defensively. I think he would probably be the better addition than Nelson/Davis.
Would either interest the Kings?
This is very comical to me. You're desperately trying to find more teams that would be interested in Thomas as a STARTING PG, yet you pick 4 teams that have no need for him in that role. Your bias seeps through tremendously. It's astonishing to me.
Williams is owed approximately $80 mil over the next four seasons. He is greatly overpaid for the player he is now, but he is still a viable starting PG in this league. With that being said, would the Nets really want to add another PG who would start over him at 7-10 mil a year? I would think not. That would mean they are giving approximately $30 mil to two players who play the same position. That's not very smart if you want to balance out the remainder of your roster.
Rose is done? Really? Done? This is an MVP you're talking about. Players come back from injuries all the time. If you want to write him off because he has had two knee injuries, be my guest. I think most people on this forum would agree with me when I say that I would trade Thomas for Rose in a heartbeat. I'm not so sure the Bulls would be willing to give up on their 25 year old MVP. Are you?
Same scenario with Westbrook. He is a proven star player. If you switch out Westbrook with Thomas, is that team nearly as successful. Hell no! I don't see the Thunder on the phone trying to swing a deal for Thomas because Westbrook injured himself. Come on now. You're better than this.
Beverley and Lin are both good PGs. Can they score like Thomas? No. But can they be what Houston needs them to be? Yes. I don't know if you are aware, but Houston has a player called James Harden. Harden is a very ball dominant player. He is a great ballhandler, passer, and pick & roll player. He needs a PG who can defend, spread the floor, run the offense when needed, and not dominate the ball next to him to be successful. Oh would you look at that! Thomas happens to be a poor defender and dominates the ball. Shucks! We were so close to finding a good team for Thomas too.
Seriously, take a look at the teams and their situations before you make such asinine claims.
Thomas is a good player as a sixth man. I happen to think he would be very useful in the right scenario, but is he a building block. Absolutely not. Now, again, that's not to say he can't provide value to a team, he's just not the type of player you want running your team in the first unit.
Williams is owed approximately $80 mil over the next four seasons. He is greatly overpaid for the player he is now, but he is still a viable starting PG in this league. With that being said, would the Nets really want to add another PG who would start over him at 7-10 mil a year? I would think not. That would mean they are giving approximately $30 mil to two players who play the same position. That's not very smart if you want to balance out the remainder of your roster.
Rose is done? Really? Done? This is an MVP you're talking about. Players come back from injuries all the time. If you want to write him off because he has had two knee injuries, be my guest. I think most people on this forum would agree with me when I say that I would trade Thomas for Rose in a heartbeat. I'm not so sure the Bulls would be willing to give up on their 25 year old MVP. Are you?
Same scenario with Westbrook. He is a proven star player. If you switch out Westbrook with Thomas, is that team nearly as successful. Hell no! I don't see the Thunder on the phone trying to swing a deal for Thomas because Westbrook injured himself. Come on now. You're better than this.
Beverley and Lin are both good PGs. Can they score like Thomas? No. But can they be what Houston needs them to be? Yes. I don't know if you are aware, but Houston has a player called James Harden. Harden is a very ball dominant player. He is a great ballhandler, passer, and pick & roll player. He needs a PG who can defend, spread the floor, run the offense when needed, and not dominate the ball next to him to be successful. Oh would you look at that! Thomas happens to be a poor defender and dominates the ball. Shucks! We were so close to finding a good team for Thomas too.
Seriously, take a look at the teams and their situations before you make such asinine claims.
Thomas is a good player as a sixth man. I happen to think he would be very useful in the right scenario, but is he a building block. Absolutely not. Now, again, that's not to say he can't provide value to a team, he's just not the type of player you want running your team in the first unit.
Last edited:
oh yea, to poop all over your argument, he had 27mins tonight and gave 24pts with over .500 shooting. And all your arguments suck. You've repeated teh same thing over and over and over again. I've replied to you with the same response. Fredette isn't my guy... where the hell did you get that from?
You don't understand my point. HOW THE HELL DO WE KNOW HOW MCW WOULD DO WITH THE KINGS? AGAIN, IF THE KINGS DRAFTED KOBE, HE WOULDN'T BE THE KOBE HE IS TODAY. JEREMY LIN WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE LEAGUE IF NOT FOR THE SMALL STUNT/GAMES HE PULLED OFF AT NY. MCW would not get the opportunity and space here than he has with the Sixers. Even on that sixers team, none of his numbers look impressive other than his steals. He would essentially be a poorman's Tyreke. He'd probably be a better passer, but that would be it.
You don't understand my point. HOW THE HELL DO WE KNOW HOW MCW WOULD DO WITH THE KINGS? AGAIN, IF THE KINGS DRAFTED KOBE, HE WOULDN'T BE THE KOBE HE IS TODAY. JEREMY LIN WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE LEAGUE IF NOT FOR THE SMALL STUNT/GAMES HE PULLED OFF AT NY. MCW would not get the opportunity and space here than he has with the Sixers. Even on that sixers team, none of his numbers look impressive other than his steals. He would essentially be a poorman's Tyreke. He'd probably be a better passer, but that would be it.
You're really going to use one game as evidence? Really? One game? You must not be a statistician or else I am deeply concerned where the world is headed.
Fredette is not a starting caliber PG. He is a great shooter who can get it going (which we saw tonight), but he's not a guy you want leading your first unit. To anyone who disagrees with that, raise your hand! Nobody? Okay, let's move on...
If they are so bad, why not tear them apart? It makes you look lazy, childish, and incompetent when you cop out and just say "All your arguments suck." Show some effort buddy.
Have I though? I thought I made numerous points, but since you don't like to reference anything directly from my post, I can't comment on the matter.
Oh but I do understand your point. You are arguing in a hypothetical situation (that nobody can prove or prove wrong) that MCW would not be as successful if he were drafted by the Kings. You mentioned that he would hypothetically be designated to rookie minutes right off the bat and thus not be as good of a player because he wouldn't get as many minutes since he would be behind Fredette (wait you really think that?) or in the D-League (okay now you're just being silly!).
For some reason, you think his minutes would be limited because he is a rookie. Coaches don't do that. If a rookie has shown he can compete at a high level, he will get minutes. The fact that he is a rookie won't change things. A good player will play and a bad player won't. It's that simple. How is this so hard to understand?
More hypotheticals... You don't know for a FACT that any of these statements are true. Hell, Kobe could have been better if he was drafted by the Kings! Go ahead and try to prove me wrong. You can't just like I can't prove you wrong. Lin would be out of the league? You don't know that. Just like I don't know if he would be in the league. It's very concerning that you make these statements like they are facts.
Now I'm not questioning that the way a person develops would be different if he was drafted by another team (different coaches/diferent vets to learn from). But as a rookie (when you have barely had time to begin any of your NBA development), I don't see how this applies. If a rookie can compete in the NBA right away (like MCW) then they will see significant floor time, whether he continues to develop into a better player or, in Kobe's case, one of the best players will depend on his raw potential, work ethic, coaching staff, environment, etc.
This is what I'm trying to say with MCW. He came into the league able to compete at a high level. The development stage isn't even something that should be discussed right now. He came into the league ready to play some ball. If you have a player like that (no matter the destination) he is going to see floor time. The Sixers didn't crack the code to unleash his success this season. They were fortunate to draft a guy who was ready to log significant minutes.
Why? The guy has shown that he is a good player (fact). What makes you think he wouldn't get the opportunity in Sacramento? Why would our coach pull him after two mistakes? Considering he is a good player, I'm sure he would be doing a lot of things right to make up for those two mistakes. When a guy like Fredette isn't hitting his shots and he is making mistakes then he is costing the team because he can't really contribute too much in any other area of the game, so if he's shooting poorly AND making mistakes then yeah it makes sense to pull him. MCW is a good ball handler, passer rebounder, and defender. If he is making mistakes, he's more than likely making up for it in other ways. That is why the leash is longer with more talented players. Easy enough to understand, right?
I never made him out to be a star caliber player, but he is a good young player who has shown he can be a good starting PG in this league already.
17 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 6.4 APG, 2.1 SPG, 0.7 BPG, and 3.6 TPG are pretty good numbers for a rookie PG. Granted he hasn't been efficient scoring the ball, but like I have mentioned before, he makes up for it in other ways.
The point I am trying to make is that a solid, good fitting PG (who could be a rookie or a vet) would get minutes and mostly likely starters minutes on our team. From what we've seen from him in Philadelphia, he is a good PG who would fit in well as our starter. There's no evidence or reason to believe otherwise.
Fredette is not a starting caliber PG. He is a great shooter who can get it going (which we saw tonight), but he's not a guy you want leading your first unit. To anyone who disagrees with that, raise your hand! Nobody? Okay, let's move on...
If they are so bad, why not tear them apart? It makes you look lazy, childish, and incompetent when you cop out and just say "All your arguments suck." Show some effort buddy.
Have I though? I thought I made numerous points, but since you don't like to reference anything directly from my post, I can't comment on the matter.
Oh but I do understand your point. You are arguing in a hypothetical situation (that nobody can prove or prove wrong) that MCW would not be as successful if he were drafted by the Kings. You mentioned that he would hypothetically be designated to rookie minutes right off the bat and thus not be as good of a player because he wouldn't get as many minutes since he would be behind Fredette (wait you really think that?) or in the D-League (okay now you're just being silly!).
For some reason, you think his minutes would be limited because he is a rookie. Coaches don't do that. If a rookie has shown he can compete at a high level, he will get minutes. The fact that he is a rookie won't change things. A good player will play and a bad player won't. It's that simple. How is this so hard to understand?
More hypotheticals... You don't know for a FACT that any of these statements are true. Hell, Kobe could have been better if he was drafted by the Kings! Go ahead and try to prove me wrong. You can't just like I can't prove you wrong. Lin would be out of the league? You don't know that. Just like I don't know if he would be in the league. It's very concerning that you make these statements like they are facts.
Now I'm not questioning that the way a person develops would be different if he was drafted by another team (different coaches/diferent vets to learn from). But as a rookie (when you have barely had time to begin any of your NBA development), I don't see how this applies. If a rookie can compete in the NBA right away (like MCW) then they will see significant floor time, whether he continues to develop into a better player or, in Kobe's case, one of the best players will depend on his raw potential, work ethic, coaching staff, environment, etc.
This is what I'm trying to say with MCW. He came into the league able to compete at a high level. The development stage isn't even something that should be discussed right now. He came into the league ready to play some ball. If you have a player like that (no matter the destination) he is going to see floor time. The Sixers didn't crack the code to unleash his success this season. They were fortunate to draft a guy who was ready to log significant minutes.
Why? The guy has shown that he is a good player (fact). What makes you think he wouldn't get the opportunity in Sacramento? Why would our coach pull him after two mistakes? Considering he is a good player, I'm sure he would be doing a lot of things right to make up for those two mistakes. When a guy like Fredette isn't hitting his shots and he is making mistakes then he is costing the team because he can't really contribute too much in any other area of the game, so if he's shooting poorly AND making mistakes then yeah it makes sense to pull him. MCW is a good ball handler, passer rebounder, and defender. If he is making mistakes, he's more than likely making up for it in other ways. That is why the leash is longer with more talented players. Easy enough to understand, right?
I never made him out to be a star caliber player, but he is a good young player who has shown he can be a good starting PG in this league already.
17 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 6.4 APG, 2.1 SPG, 0.7 BPG, and 3.6 TPG are pretty good numbers for a rookie PG. Granted he hasn't been efficient scoring the ball, but like I have mentioned before, he makes up for it in other ways.
The point I am trying to make is that a solid, good fitting PG (who could be a rookie or a vet) would get minutes and mostly likely starters minutes on our team. From what we've seen from him in Philadelphia, he is a good PG who would fit in well as our starter. There's no evidence or reason to believe otherwise.
Afflalo has a lot of the traits you could like as our SG...but not if IT is the PG. That's the rub at this deadline. It is absolutely completely 100% worthless to trade for any player for whom double figure scoring is part of the attraction, unless we swap out one of the Big Three in the process. If we keep all three (and Cuz is obviously staying, and you would certainly think so is Gay, so the only little question might be Isaiah) then all there is room for are pure defensive specialists, and maybe a pass first backup to IT.
Now assuming you moved IT, or moved him to the bench? Sure, Afflalo, as long as you valued him as a 16ppg 3rd option, not a 20ppg 1st/2nd, is a good fit there. He can shoot, he can defend. But in order to make space for him there you have to sacrifice two players who might or might not be sacred cows in IT and Ben (whom obviously would no longer be in the future plans at SG).
Now assuming you moved IT, or moved him to the bench? Sure, Afflalo, as long as you valued him as a 16ppg 3rd option, not a 20ppg 1st/2nd, is a good fit there. He can shoot, he can defend. But in order to make space for him there you have to sacrifice two players who might or might not be sacred cows in IT and Ben (whom obviously would no longer be in the future plans at SG).
Oh yeah it's why T-Rob was NBA ready on the kings and Drummond would be raw-many kings fans. You don't understand player development.. MCW would have a short leash just like Jimmer does. If he makes a mistake or 2, he'll get pulled because he's the pg. How can pgs who have short leash get anything going? I guess that could be an argument for Jimmer fans, but in limited minutes, all rookies are going to look bad. MCW as I've said many many times before. He would not get the opportunity to play like he does for Philly then he would here. As a rookie, he plays top tier in minutes. He's the main ball handler in that team, sometimes Evans. They don't have effiicent scorers on their team. Thad Young has had a good year, but hasn't been as efficient as he was last year. MCW scores 17pts...on under .400 shooting. No way would he get that many shots here with Cuz, Gay, and IT. Especially if he shoots at such a terrible rate.
Um, this Kings team played Isaiah Thomas 25 mpg and started him in over half the games as a rookie. Not only that, a rookie that was drafted with the very last pick in the 2nd round. And if Malone had a short leash for PGs then IT would be yanked a lot more often for some of his highly questionable plays & decisions.
I get the feeling that the underlying subtext to all of this back and forth is a still held belief that Jimmer would break out if only given more minutes/starts and that it's the Kings' lack of player development that is to blame for him not being a star or at least a starter.
But Malone has started McLemore and lived with his growing pains for a LONG stretch before going back to Thornton. Clearly he'll start and play whoever he thinks will best help the team.
If MCW were on the Kings and Malone thought he gave the team the best chance to win he'd likely be getting the same minutes and role he has in Philly. Do I know that for sure? Of course not, every situation is different, but the signs absolutely don't point to the scenario you've created.
I get the feeling that the underlying subtext to all of this back and forth is a still held belief that Jimmer would break out if only given more minutes/starts and that it's the Kings' lack of player development that is to blame for him not being a star or at least a starter.
But Malone has started McLemore and lived with his growing pains for a LONG stretch before going back to Thornton. Clearly he'll start and play whoever he thinks will best help the team.
If MCW were on the Kings and Malone thought he gave the team the best chance to win he'd likely be getting the same minutes and role he has in Philly. Do I know that for sure? Of course not, every situation is different, but the signs absolutely don't point to the scenario you've created.
Last edited:
This a dreadful argument that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Robinson was projected to be NBA ready, but when given minutes, he showed he wasn't ready. Drummond was projected to need time to develop, but when given minutes, he showed he was NBA ready. A players projection before he plays has nothing to do with what we are arguing about.
Why would he have a short leash? I already explained in my previous post why he wouldn't have a short leash compared to Fredette, yet you choose to disregard my argument and say he "would have a short leash like Jimmer does" (like a fact) without any evidence to support your claim other than "because Jimmer gets a short leash." I already proved that argument wrong, yet you keep trying to revisit it.
Just so we're clear, this is what I said in my previous post to debunk your "short leash" argument:
Do you notice a trend here? You keep claiming hypotheticals as if they are facts. You don't know that. It's very possible he would get the opportunity to play like he does in Philly. If we drafted MCW that would mean Evans would have been on his way out as they would not be a very good complimenting backcourt. That means our depth chart at the start of the year would have been...
PG - Carter-Williams/Thomas/McCallum
SG - Thornton/Fredette
SF - Salmons/Moute/Outlaw
PF - Thompson/Patterson/Landry
C - Cousins/Hayes/N'Diaye
Is there really that much talent on this team that he would be deferring to others? Other than Cousins, he would be the main guy in the starting lineup. And he could easily get 34 MPG with a team that consists of this roster. It would be a 3 guard rotation of MCW, Thornton, and Thomas. There would be plenty of minutes to split between the three of them. MCW would most likely handle the majority of the ball on this team even when Thomas is in. Thomas could be our mini SG while MCW would be our big PG.
Both Young and Turner have been good scorers this year. The Kings would have two good scorers as well (Cousins and Thomas).
You're right. He wouldn't get that many shots, and that would be a good thing! Why is that an argument against him? I've already called out that he hasn't been efficient scoring the ball, but he has been good at other aspects. Basketball isn't just about scoring the ball, you know? If you give me a guy would score 8-12 PPG, 5 RPG, 7-8 APG, 2 SPG who plays good defense. He would be a good fitting PG for this team. Why is it a knock on him that he wouldn't take as many shots with our roster? He's not one dimensional. If anything, it would make him look even better because he would be more selective with his shots (thus increasing his efficiency).
On another note, you didn't take into account variable change. If MCW was on this team, it would have been before Gay arrived. Who knows if we would have been able to trade for Gay since one of the pieces we sent them was Vasquez. Would we have done a sign and trade to bring Vasquez aboard after drafting MCW? Who knows, but if we're going to have this debate, you can't act like Gay would be on the team because we have no idea if things would have unfolded in the same way.
MCW only averaged 10 shots a game in 35 minutes in his last year at Syracuse. I'm sure he is fine with (and probably prefers) deferring his shots to more talented scorers. Like you said, Philly lacks scorers. They have Young and Turner who both average 17 PPG, but that's about it. If you put him on a team with Cousins, Gay, and Thomas. I'm sure he would be happy to revert back to his Syracus ways and become that Jason Kidd or Andre Iguodala type player who plays good defense, distributes, and fills up the stat sheet.
Why would he have a short leash? I already explained in my previous post why he wouldn't have a short leash compared to Fredette, yet you choose to disregard my argument and say he "would have a short leash like Jimmer does" (like a fact) without any evidence to support your claim other than "because Jimmer gets a short leash." I already proved that argument wrong, yet you keep trying to revisit it.
Just so we're clear, this is what I said in my previous post to debunk your "short leash" argument:
Do you notice a trend here? You keep claiming hypotheticals as if they are facts. You don't know that. It's very possible he would get the opportunity to play like he does in Philly. If we drafted MCW that would mean Evans would have been on his way out as they would not be a very good complimenting backcourt. That means our depth chart at the start of the year would have been...
PG - Carter-Williams/Thomas/McCallum
SG - Thornton/Fredette
SF - Salmons/Moute/Outlaw
PF - Thompson/Patterson/Landry
C - Cousins/Hayes/N'Diaye
Is there really that much talent on this team that he would be deferring to others? Other than Cousins, he would be the main guy in the starting lineup. And he could easily get 34 MPG with a team that consists of this roster. It would be a 3 guard rotation of MCW, Thornton, and Thomas. There would be plenty of minutes to split between the three of them. MCW would most likely handle the majority of the ball on this team even when Thomas is in. Thomas could be our mini SG while MCW would be our big PG.
Both Young and Turner have been good scorers this year. The Kings would have two good scorers as well (Cousins and Thomas).
You're right. He wouldn't get that many shots, and that would be a good thing! Why is that an argument against him? I've already called out that he hasn't been efficient scoring the ball, but he has been good at other aspects. Basketball isn't just about scoring the ball, you know? If you give me a guy would score 8-12 PPG, 5 RPG, 7-8 APG, 2 SPG who plays good defense. He would be a good fitting PG for this team. Why is it a knock on him that he wouldn't take as many shots with our roster? He's not one dimensional. If anything, it would make him look even better because he would be more selective with his shots (thus increasing his efficiency).
On another note, you didn't take into account variable change. If MCW was on this team, it would have been before Gay arrived. Who knows if we would have been able to trade for Gay since one of the pieces we sent them was Vasquez. Would we have done a sign and trade to bring Vasquez aboard after drafting MCW? Who knows, but if we're going to have this debate, you can't act like Gay would be on the team because we have no idea if things would have unfolded in the same way.
MCW only averaged 10 shots a game in 35 minutes in his last year at Syracuse. I'm sure he is fine with (and probably prefers) deferring his shots to more talented scorers. Like you said, Philly lacks scorers. They have Young and Turner who both average 17 PPG, but that's about it. If you put him on a team with Cousins, Gay, and Thomas. I'm sure he would be happy to revert back to his Syracus ways and become that Jason Kidd or Andre Iguodala type player who plays good defense, distributes, and fills up the stat sheet.
Last edited:
- Status