What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
Article from today freshly served for your pleasure. I've made some of these same analogies to various stat inflated Kings throughout the years. Your Antoine Carrs, Lionel Simmons, Spud Webbs.
"Watching the 24-year old point guard perform over the last few games has shaken plenty of fans in the pro-Thomas camp. Despite scoring plenty of points and keeping the Kings close against quality teams, there were too many instances of hero ball and way too many losses.
That is not the feeling that Thomas wanted to portray. He wanted to show the world that without DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay, he could put the Kings on his muscular 5-foot-9 frame and pick up a few much needed wins.
Instead, Thomas has looked single-minded much of the time. He looks like a player trying to fill up the stat sheet, as much as a player looking to will his team to victory. It’s a small sample size, but the look and feel of Thomas in these games said player with inflated stats on a bad team.
That’s a fine line. One that is easier to walk when you are surrounded with players like Cousins and Gay."
- See more at: http://cowbellkingdom.com/2014/02/0...od-player-on-a-bad-team/#sthash.0TZojmtZ.dpuf
"Watching the 24-year old point guard perform over the last few games has shaken plenty of fans in the pro-Thomas camp. Despite scoring plenty of points and keeping the Kings close against quality teams, there were too many instances of hero ball and way too many losses.
That is not the feeling that Thomas wanted to portray. He wanted to show the world that without DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay, he could put the Kings on his muscular 5-foot-9 frame and pick up a few much needed wins.
Instead, Thomas has looked single-minded much of the time. He looks like a player trying to fill up the stat sheet, as much as a player looking to will his team to victory. It’s a small sample size, but the look and feel of Thomas in these games said player with inflated stats on a bad team.
That’s a fine line. One that is easier to walk when you are surrounded with players like Cousins and Gay."
- See more at: http://cowbellkingdom.com/2014/02/0...od-player-on-a-bad-team/#sthash.0TZojmtZ.dpuf
"Point guard is the toughest position in the NBA right now,” one league source told SheridanHoops. “The NBA discriminates against undersized point guards as well. Nate Robinson never made more than $4.5 million per year in his whole career. I’m not saying they’re identical, but just getting my point across.”
http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/0...gency-could-command-full-mid-level-exception/
I think many of us had also had him around the MLE. I wouldn't pay a penny more.
We should also revive the height bias thread while we are at it.
The league source admits it!
http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/0...gency-could-command-full-mid-level-exception/
I think many of us had also had him around the MLE. I wouldn't pay a penny more.
We should also revive the height bias thread while we are at it.
The league source admits it!
At the moment there aren't many super undersized PG's in the NBA. Barea and Nate Robinson immediately spring to mind. Barea is making 4.6 mil, and Robinson is making slightly over 2 mil a year. Jason Terry, who is the resident sixth man in the league is making 5.2 mil a year. Jamal Crawford, 5.2 mil. I just don't see a team going over the 5 mil range for IT. And he may not get that high an offer. As stated earlier, there is a bias against undersized PG's.
It comes down to whether we see IT as our starting PG of the future or not. I don't! I know some do. If you don't, then you don't pay him starting PG money. Much has been made of how we have three players all averaging over 20 points a game. While that's exciting, and probably great for PR, the question is, are we winning? The answer at the moment is, NO! At least not enough to be respectable. So something somewhere isn't working properly. Do you want to get rid of Cousins, or move him to the bench? I think not. How about Gay, you want to move him to the bench? Again no! That leaves Thomas. Now personally I like Thomas. I just don't like him as our starting PG. I like him coming into the game and just doing what he does best. Score! Don't make him go out there and pretend to be something he's not. IT is more of a SG than he is a PG, and he's a damm good one. It's not his fault he's 5'9"
It comes down to whether we see IT as our starting PG of the future or not. I don't! I know some do. If you don't, then you don't pay him starting PG money. Much has been made of how we have three players all averaging over 20 points a game. While that's exciting, and probably great for PR, the question is, are we winning? The answer at the moment is, NO! At least not enough to be respectable. So something somewhere isn't working properly. Do you want to get rid of Cousins, or move him to the bench? I think not. How about Gay, you want to move him to the bench? Again no! That leaves Thomas. Now personally I like Thomas. I just don't like him as our starting PG. I like him coming into the game and just doing what he does best. Score! Don't make him go out there and pretend to be something he's not. IT is more of a SG than he is a PG, and he's a damm good one. It's not his fault he's 5'9"
So IT goes to the bench and is not offered more than 5 million a year. Who starts at PG? Of course it's Ray right now until we get a starting PG. Money for a starting PG? Vasquez in hind sight which doesn't answer. Find him and pay him. Can't draft him because we haven't time before next season to train and vet him. Tough problem. Do we go another year with IT and see if adding a decent as yet unidentified SG can make the difference (we have to do this anyway). Or in the off season do we just go acquire both a starting SG and a starting PG? Each of those tasks is a tough one, and will cost some tough change ($).
I don't have a recommendation but I sure wish them success in their quest. None of this discussion displaces JT from the starting PF job.
I don't have a recommendation but I sure wish them success in their quest. None of this discussion displaces JT from the starting PF job.
Well the whole IT thing is a little tricky. If were going to move him to the bench, then we have to resign him, and I assume we would attempt to do that, for player off the bench money. Now if he gets a better offer from another team, and we don't want to match that offer, then he's gone. If we decide we just want him to hold down the fort until we get a starting PG, then again, we have to resign him. But because were only asking him to be the starter until we get his replacement, or until someone we draft is ready to step in, we probably only offer off the bench money. Regardless of whether we sign him for starting money or bench money, we're probably going to go over the luxury cap. At least for one year. But that one year could be expensive. for instance, if I understand the CBA properly, if we were to sign him for 7 mil and that was to put us 4 mil over the luxury cap, we would have to pay 6 mil in penalty. So for that one year, he would be costing us 13 million instead of 7 million. I realize he wouldn't be getting all that money, but it still has to be paid regardless of who gets it.
We have to keep IT. Look at the PGs that are better thank him at the position. How many would sign with Sac? How many of them can we trade for without damaging our future build? I am coming up with zero potential better alternatives. Hopefully we get him under 8 mil and noone throws him a crazy contract offer or we will have less talent at PG next year.
as always, the kings would not necessarily need a "better" PG with which to replace IT. what they need is a more appropriate fit at the starting PG position, and there are plenty of roleplayers at PG who could effectively function alongside demarcus cousins and rudy gay. if IT is retained at a sixth man's salary, there's no reason the kings can't re-sign him and acquire a starting-caliber PG through a different avenue.
We in fact could survive very well with someone who is worse than IT. It depends on how you define excellence. The standard way to define excellence is to look at how many points a guy scores or any of the advanced analytics numbers that tend to measure the same thing. If scoring is the measuring stick, we don't need some one better than IT. We have adequate scoring in Cuz and Rudy and if we are lucky, our SG may score more without IT on the court.
As defense is a huge problem for our team, it would be helpful if our pg could play defense. The team assist to TO percentage is horrible so a pg that could distribute the ball and not contribute to the TO number would be nice.
Also, we also need to consider finances as if we pay too much, we will handcuff ourselves as a team. If we resign IT at $4-5 mil and pay our 1st round pick, we are in luxury tax territory. In my view, no team as awful as us should be paying luxury tax or something has been terribly mismanaged. Yes, yes, we can blame it all on the Maloofs but we only have 4 players left over from that era.
Why not consider Ray MacCallum? We have him signed for this year and the next two years and have an option for a 4th year all for about a $1 mil. Will Ray be a star? I doubt it but we have two stars and aren't in any desperate need for a star at pg. We need a pg who can play defense, share the ball, and make the occasional basket. So far I have seen nothing that indicates Ray cannot fill that role and in fact his defense may be one of the best on the team.
We have the rest of the year to figure this out and I hope we use Ray as much as possible to help us make the decision if he is the guy to fill the starter role. (I hear gasps of dismay).
Also, as I think the performance of our SG is intricately tied up with the play of our PG, we might even see Ben improve with a different running mate. Is it risky to count on Ray and Ben being "good enough?" Sure but I don't think it is beyond the realms of even a reasonable possibility.
I think this is all more complicated than some are recognizing what with the pg/sg interaction, the ability to play defense, and money. I think an ideally constructed team will have a few players who are bonafied stars making mega money and then the rest making very little so as not to trip the luxury tax lever. We have too many players of unclear ability to contribute who make too much money and I don't want to add another.
As defense is a huge problem for our team, it would be helpful if our pg could play defense. The team assist to TO percentage is horrible so a pg that could distribute the ball and not contribute to the TO number would be nice.
Also, we also need to consider finances as if we pay too much, we will handcuff ourselves as a team. If we resign IT at $4-5 mil and pay our 1st round pick, we are in luxury tax territory. In my view, no team as awful as us should be paying luxury tax or something has been terribly mismanaged. Yes, yes, we can blame it all on the Maloofs but we only have 4 players left over from that era.
Why not consider Ray MacCallum? We have him signed for this year and the next two years and have an option for a 4th year all for about a $1 mil. Will Ray be a star? I doubt it but we have two stars and aren't in any desperate need for a star at pg. We need a pg who can play defense, share the ball, and make the occasional basket. So far I have seen nothing that indicates Ray cannot fill that role and in fact his defense may be one of the best on the team.
We have the rest of the year to figure this out and I hope we use Ray as much as possible to help us make the decision if he is the guy to fill the starter role. (I hear gasps of dismay).
Also, as I think the performance of our SG is intricately tied up with the play of our PG, we might even see Ben improve with a different running mate. Is it risky to count on Ray and Ben being "good enough?" Sure but I don't think it is beyond the realms of even a reasonable possibility.
I think this is all more complicated than some are recognizing what with the pg/sg interaction, the ability to play defense, and money. I think an ideally constructed team will have a few players who are bonafied stars making mega money and then the rest making very little so as not to trip the luxury tax lever. We have too many players of unclear ability to contribute who make too much money and I don't want to add another.
I guess the question I would ask, is better in what way? Scoring, or creating for his teammates? Go sign a Jamal Crawford (just an example) and you have your scoring back through the SG position. Put three good scorers on the floor, and even McCallum might be able to average 6 or 7 assists a night. Maybe! Ideally a PG that can make the right pass at the right time, and play decent to good defense.
That's a much easier question to ask than it is to answer. At least in the short term. There are many PG's that I would like, but that doesn't mean I could acquire them. So there would be no point in listing them all. You seem determined to have IT as the starter with no compromise. If I misunderstand you, I apologize. I like IT, I just think the team is better served with him as the sixth man and not as the starter. So I'm not a so called IT hater! I just have a different opinion than you on how best to utilize him. But the answer to the question as to who I would want as my starter is open ended. I mean I could say I want Chris Paul, and then you could list a million reasons why that's not feasible.
At the moment, I don't know who is obtainable, or what kind of PG the Kings think is best for their system. The best player for the Kings may be playing in europe for all I know, or may be in the coming draft. I loved J. Will when he was here. He made the Kings relevant. He was a nightly highlight on ESPN. He had many flaws, but he was exciting to watch. I was very disappointed when we made the trade for Mike Bibby. J. Will was rainbow sherbet and Bibby was vanilla. But as it turned out, Bibby was the perfect PG for the Kings. So personally, I can't answer the who part of the question, all I can answer is the why.
At the moment, I don't know who is obtainable, or what kind of PG the Kings think is best for their system. The best player for the Kings may be playing in europe for all I know, or may be in the coming draft. I loved J. Will when he was here. He made the Kings relevant. He was a nightly highlight on ESPN. He had many flaws, but he was exciting to watch. I was very disappointed when we made the trade for Mike Bibby. J. Will was rainbow sherbet and Bibby was vanilla. But as it turned out, Bibby was the perfect PG for the Kings. So personally, I can't answer the who part of the question, all I can answer is the why.
seriously? the kings have the most talented center in the league and a top flight SF as a legitimate second option in their starting five. this isn't a situation where you require a steve nash to make all of the moving parts click, and it's not a situation where you need a russell westbrook or a derrick rose to share in the scoring duties. ideally, you'd want a guy like mike conley or kyle lowry or rajon rondo or jeff teague to create an actual, complementary "big three," guys who can score but are generally deferential PG's who also play great defense...
but those are pipe dreams that aren't gonna happen, so i'd be looking at guys like kirk hinrich or darren collison or jeremy lin or mario chalmers. they're all very capable defenders, and they can move the ball effectively. i'd also consider drafting dante exum, if he's in range. i'd even take a flyer on a lesser talent like jerryd bayless or dj augustin or norris cole. hell, beno udrih could effectively play alongside cousins and gay. would i want him to? no. udrih would be a lateral step at best, defensively speaking. but that doesn't change the fact that any number of roleplayers could run an offense with demarcus cousins and rudy gay as the kings' primary scorers...
i don't know why IT jockers are so fixated on the notion that the kings desperately need thomas' scoring in the starting unit; they don't. acquire a starting-caliber PG, get a real contributor at the SG position, then re-sign thomas to a reasonable deal and bring him off the bench as a super sixth man. the roster will benefit from the balance...
but those are pipe dreams that aren't gonna happen, so i'd be looking at guys like kirk hinrich or darren collison or jeremy lin or mario chalmers. they're all very capable defenders, and they can move the ball effectively. i'd also consider drafting dante exum, if he's in range. i'd even take a flyer on a lesser talent like jerryd bayless or dj augustin or norris cole. hell, beno udrih could effectively play alongside cousins and gay. would i want him to? no. udrih would be a lateral step at best, defensively speaking. but that doesn't change the fact that any number of roleplayers could run an offense with demarcus cousins and rudy gay as the kings' primary scorers...
i don't know why IT jockers are so fixated on the notion that the kings desperately need thomas' scoring in the starting unit; they don't. acquire a starting-caliber PG, get a real contributor at the SG position, then re-sign thomas to a reasonable deal and bring him off the bench as a super sixth man. the roster will benefit from the balance...
Someone who knows his role and shuts his mouth.
Seriously, a solid defender and distributor. That's it. If I'm pie in the sky, I'd like Dante Exum, who might be available at our current rate.
Seriously, a solid defender and distributor. That's it. If I'm pie in the sky, I'd like Dante Exum, who might be available at our current rate.
I'm talking about reality. Personally, I'll take CP3. JT for CP3 sounds about right. Make it so, DA.
Who cares whether they're "subpar to IT" in raw talent? They would all be better fits for the team as a starting point guard than Thomas is. I'll gladly take a "subpar" player who can do what I need him to do, over a "better" player who can't.
Point guard is not a position where you need a superstar to win. It's not even a position where you need a star. Give me a "subpar" roleplayer, who won't get in the way of his betters, a hundred times out of a hundred.
Point guard is not a position where you need a superstar to win. It's not even a position where you need a star. Give me a "subpar" roleplayer, who won't get in the way of his betters, a hundred times out of a hundred.
We nonetheless have a problem, which is this: we don't have enough talent. So we are in a position where we can't afford to just downgrade any position in a big way talentwise. Its a conundrum. And maybe Cuz continues his development, comes back next year as a 26-13 HOFer, and maybe we can win despite losing talent. But more realistically Cuz and Rudy aren't enough alone. So yeah, we can get a better fit at PG, but we have to somehow make that up with a major talent infusion elsewhere if we do that.
- First Of All™, I disagree that we don't have enough talent. That's kind of a vague statement, anyway. Enough talent to do what? Win a championship? Of course not, but only three or four teams do. And, stipulating that we don't have enough talent to win a championship, I absolutely challenge the idea that point guard is a position where "stockpiling" talent is important. If anything, I'd use Thomas as an asset to acquire talent to fill much more urgent holes in our roster.
- Gestalt goes a long way: on paper, we has as much or more talent as half the playoff teams in the east, and at least two, possibly three, of the teams currently fighting over the final two spots in the west. We are a team which somehow manages to be significantly less than the sum of its parts.
- And, to the extent that we're even talking about a "downgrade," it's not anywhere near as severe as you seem to be implying. Let's not pretend that going from Isaiah Thomas to, say, Shaun Livingston, would be the same as going from Chris Paul to Shaun Livingston, or even anywhere close.
Precisely!
However, IT apologists like to make it black and white. IT as a player is not a good fit for us as a starting PG. It does not mean that you lose him for a downgrade in talent. It means that you get someone who is a better fit and move IT to a 6th man role or you move him for equal talent that addresses another area of need (eg a shot blocker or a more competent SG).
However, IT apologists like to make it black and white. IT as a player is not a good fit for us as a starting PG. It does not mean that you lose him for a downgrade in talent. It means that you get someone who is a better fit and move IT to a 6th man role or you move him for equal talent that addresses another area of need (eg a shot blocker or a more competent SG).
to begin with, that's not what you asked me. you wanted a more accurate definition of who among roleplayers at the PG position could effectively function alongside demarcus cousins and rudy gay, and i gave a thorough response with the understanding that any roleplayer is likely to be "subpar" to IT in terms of offensive talent. beyond that, does it matter that the players i mentioned could be considered "subpar" to IT? wouldn't thomas' sparkplug-like skills be better suited off the bench, particularly if the kings were able to inject some legitimate defensive acumen into their starting backcourt, as well as generate the possibility of more consistent ball movement when the ball stops at only two major scorers rather than three?