I think Thomas is good off the bench or as a starter. I also think that he's better than those players you mentioned, overall, not just offensively. So if you don't want to decline overall in talent at the pg, I believe you better sign him or there is a likelihood the overall talent at that position won't be as good next year as this year (drafting Exum, notwithstanding). His value shouldn't be determined, among other things, according to the bilateral choice: starter vs. non-starter. Rather, I would substitute "minutes played" instead of the benchmark "starter" or "non-starter". Continuing along those lines, I don't think IT is a 38 minute a game guy, more like 30 minutes a game. He can start or non-start as far as I am concerned, but I'd play him around 30 minutes/game for maximum effectiveness. If I'm playing GM, I would factor that 30 min/game into the salary considerations, not starter versus non-starter.
What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
i suppose it depends on what you mean by "overall," but if you're including defensive ability and physical presence in that assessment, then we're simply never going to reconcile our difference of opinion. hinrich, chalmers, lin, and collison are all full-sized PG's and vastly superior defenders to thomas, with respect to defensive IQ, skillset, effort, and physical ability. there is simply no metric in which isaiah thomas rates better defensively than that particular crop of of players. i mean, with guys like hinrich and chalmers, it becomes a grand canyon of separation between them and IT on that side of the ball...
i'm also not really on board with your "minutes played" measuring stick. the reason i like thomas as a sixth man is because he brings flexibility in such a role as a scorer. scoring is, after all, his natural inclination, so on a night when he's red hot, you give him as many minutes off the bench as you feel like you need to. on a night when you've got more than enough scoring from your primary weapons and your roleplayers, you can limit IT's minutes for the sake of whatever defensive gains you get when he's off the floor. if i'm the gm, i sign him with the complete understanding that he is going to be a sixth man, and that his minutes will be dependent upon utility and necessity rather than some sort of arbitrary number that needs to be achieved in order to justify his salary...
i'm also not really on board with your "minutes played" measuring stick. the reason i like thomas as a sixth man is because he brings flexibility in such a role as a scorer. scoring is, after all, his natural inclination, so on a night when he's red hot, you give him as many minutes off the bench as you feel like you need to. on a night when you've got more than enough scoring from your primary weapons and your roleplayers, you can limit IT's minutes for the sake of whatever defensive gains you get when he's off the floor. if i'm the gm, i sign him with the complete understanding that he is going to be a sixth man, and that his minutes will be dependent upon utility and necessity rather than some sort of arbitrary number that needs to be achieved in order to justify his salary...
$6 million is on the high end for sparkplug, 6th man type guards not named Ginobili but I wouldn't be upset to see IT return at that number in that role.
As far as the ideal PG for a Cousins led team with Gay as a 2nd option? I'd want defense in the backcourt, a guy who can knock down a shot on a kickout, who can effectively run the pick and roll on offense and who can throw a good, solid post entry pass. Who can handle the ball and distribute but who ideally doesn't have to always have the ball in his hands to be effective. Essentially Mike Bibby during his Kings years but better defensively. Or an Earl Watson type with a little more BB IQ on the offensive end.
Rondo can't shoot and is ball dominant but he'd be a true third star and you could fill in around him to compensate for his shortcomings. I love Lowry's defense but not his shooting or the other aspects of his game. Similarly, but better across the board is Eric Bledsoe. Dynamite defender but also too much of a lead guard who doesn't operate with big men well enough to enhance Cousin's game. On the other end of the spectrum is Andre Miller who excels at getting bigs the ball in exactly the right spot but who is too old and a poor shooter & defender. Padrino mentioned Lin & Teague who I wouldn't want at all. But Norris Cole (or even better Mario Chalmers), Darren Collison and Hinrich (though old) would be good fits.
Despite his occasional mental lapses on both ends of the floor I guess I'd say Mike Conley would probably be the best overall fit based on my criteria.
As far as the ideal PG for a Cousins led team with Gay as a 2nd option? I'd want defense in the backcourt, a guy who can knock down a shot on a kickout, who can effectively run the pick and roll on offense and who can throw a good, solid post entry pass. Who can handle the ball and distribute but who ideally doesn't have to always have the ball in his hands to be effective. Essentially Mike Bibby during his Kings years but better defensively. Or an Earl Watson type with a little more BB IQ on the offensive end.
Rondo can't shoot and is ball dominant but he'd be a true third star and you could fill in around him to compensate for his shortcomings. I love Lowry's defense but not his shooting or the other aspects of his game. Similarly, but better across the board is Eric Bledsoe. Dynamite defender but also too much of a lead guard who doesn't operate with big men well enough to enhance Cousin's game. On the other end of the spectrum is Andre Miller who excels at getting bigs the ball in exactly the right spot but who is too old and a poor shooter & defender. Padrino mentioned Lin & Teague who I wouldn't want at all. But Norris Cole (or even better Mario Chalmers), Darren Collison and Hinrich (though old) would be good fits.
Despite his occasional mental lapses on both ends of the floor I guess I'd say Mike Conley would probably be the best overall fit based on my criteria.
Again the real key here is as much as I think Mario Chalmers is all you really need in our situation, you can't go from Isaiah Thomas to Mario Chalmers along with a 35% SG. You can go from 22-8-20-8-20 to 22-8-20-15-10 or somesuch, but you can't go from 22-8-20-8-20 to 22-8-20-8-10. Even if Cuz steps forward and makes it 25-8-20-8-10, your backcourt is then just pathetic.
We created this situation. A couple of years ago we had one of the most talented backcourts in the league. Turns out 3 18+pt type scorers after IT arrived. But catering to IT has destroyed our backcourt now. Now he's the last talented piece in the entire group. Much as he may have ****ed it all up, you can't complete the ruination of your backcourt by simply dropping the last of your talented pieces there. You need talent back, or you have gone form one of the most talented backcourts in the league to maybe the very least talented backcourt in the league. At that point it won't matter what Cuz does up front.
We created this situation. A couple of years ago we had one of the most talented backcourts in the league. Turns out 3 18+pt type scorers after IT arrived. But catering to IT has destroyed our backcourt now. Now he's the last talented piece in the entire group. Much as he may have ****ed it all up, you can't complete the ruination of your backcourt by simply dropping the last of your talented pieces there. You need talent back, or you have gone form one of the most talented backcourts in the league to maybe the very least talented backcourt in the league. At that point it won't matter what Cuz does up front.
You can if:
- You've got 18+ coming from your sixth man off the bench, or
- You've only got 25+ combined from your sixth and seventh men, but you replace that third 20 with guys who can help hold your opponents under 95.
I agree with Slim over Brick. Having three 3 and D roleplayers (well one would be a shotblocking big so I guess not three 3 and D players, but you get the point) around Cousins and Gay works just fine. It's similar to how the Thunder operates. In the 2011-2012 (the year the Thunder went to the finals) their starting lineup averaged 70.6 PPG. Brick's suggestion of 22-8-20-8-10 comes out to 68 PPG. His other suggestion of 25-8-20-8-10 comes out to 71 PPG so technically it can be done. The Thunder did have a man named James Harden who brought a lot of scoring off the bench 16.8 PPG, but that is where Thomas would come in on our team. I'm completely fine rolling with two dominant scorers and 3 defensive roleplayers in the starting unit as long as we have a player, like Thomas, who can come in and put up points at a high rate.
IMO we missed our chance to get value to IT. Sign and trade situations are overrated to me. Getting Vasquez back for Reke is evidence of that. I fail to see how IT would bring back anything of value in a possible sign and trade this summer. The other team has little reason to comply with any wishes of sending back value. In regards to signing IT rather than losing him so we can trade him, I weigh that against killing any cap flexibility we have. Sign him to a contract in July and we're pretty much stuck with our roster assuming Rudy opts in.
If it's me, I'm more than comfortable losing IT for nothing so we have flexibility to add fitting pieces, even if they're of lesser talent. What I don't want to be a part of in any way is Rudy opting in, signing IT, then putting out largely the same failed roster we have now with little flexibility in the hope we can move IT for value down the road. I wanted value for IT, it's why I wanted to move him in Feb, but have since come to terms with the situation we're in and that to likely get value for him down the road we'd have to shoot ourselves in the foot in the short term. I'm not wasting part or all of next year simply for the hope of getting talent in return for a re-signed IT.
If it's me, I'm more than comfortable losing IT for nothing so we have flexibility to add fitting pieces, even if they're of lesser talent. What I don't want to be a part of in any way is Rudy opting in, signing IT, then putting out largely the same failed roster we have now with little flexibility in the hope we can move IT for value down the road. I wanted value for IT, it's why I wanted to move him in Feb, but have since come to terms with the situation we're in and that to likely get value for him down the road we'd have to shoot ourselves in the foot in the short term. I'm not wasting part or all of next year simply for the hope of getting talent in return for a re-signed IT.
That's not entirely true. We would be able to sign someone to the MLE if we don't resign Thomas. We're around 66.5 mil for next year (not including Thomas). The luxury tax is rumored to be 75.7 mil next year. That gives us around 9 mil in space to sign our rookie, sign someone to a MLE contract, and take back a little more salary in an offseason trade if we choose to do so.
You MIGHT be able to if you have 18 coming from your 6th man off he bench...but of course that then implies that IT is retained, we somehow obtain another r starting PG with money we won't have after retaining IT, and the starting PG is good enough to hold back the tension of a clearly inferior player starting in front of IT, who will always be pressing to start. That was uncomfortable and failed just this very season with Vasquez.
Furthermore it STILL can't work with a 35% shooting SG because then you will have no effective spacing. You don't need stars, but you need at least one guy out there who is a threat of some sort. And if the other guy isn't a threat, he'd better be Tony Allen.
Furthermore it STILL can't work with a 35% shooting SG because then you will have no effective spacing. You don't need stars, but you need at least one guy out there who is a threat of some sort. And if the other guy isn't a threat, he'd better be Tony Allen.
You and I may not see eye-to-eye about what constitutes a "clearly inferior" player to Isaiah Thomas. I've said it before, and I stand by it: I think that nearly every team in the league has at least one guy who could do what Thomas does, given minutes and touches. Maybe not as "efficient," but I don't particularly require bench gunners to be efficient, merely productive. So, you let Thomas go, if you can't negotiate an S&T for an actual need, and make a bid for somebody on the end of someone's bench, who's just waiting for a chance to be given the "Pizza Guy" treatment.
It would probably help if we stop letting our better defenders leave for nothing.
It would probably help if we stop letting our better defenders leave for nothing.
I'm sorry, but I had to re-post both of your posts. In your first post, you talk about how we can't go from a guy like Thomas to Chalmers (along with a 35% SG) because we can't reduce our 22-8-20-8-20 to 22-8-20-8-10. You are advocating that we resign Thomas to retain that scoring distribution as well as to not bleed talent.
However, after Slim and I disagreed with you, you specifically bring up the Kings situation and reference how they couldn't make it work because of their money situation and the fact that Thomas might not like coming off the bench. We aren't necessarily arguing the fact that the Kings can acquire those three defensive roleplayers by next season. What we disagree with is that you can't build a winning team with 2 scoring stars and three defensive roleplayers in a starting lineup with a super sixth man coming off the bench. The Thunder have done it already. In 2011-2012, they made it to the finals with that exact team makeup. Now would the Kings be able to get to a similar roster makeup? That's a different discussion entirely.
Just for the sake of it, let's say Gay does opt out and resigns for around 14 mil a year. That puts us at 61 mil next year (14.7 mil under the luxury tax). Going off a rumor that said a GM wouldn't give more than 4-5 mil for Thomas, we're able to sign Thomas for 5 mil a year. That puts us at 66 mil next year (9.7 mil under the luxury tax). Right now, we have the 7th worst record in the league. Let's say we get the 7th pick and draft Vonleh (Draftexpress.com has him going 7th in their mock draft right now). He would be making very similar money to McLemore so that would be 2.9 mil next season bring our payroll to 68.9 mil (6.8 mil under the luxury tax). That allows us to still offer the MLE. Let's say we offered the MLE (5.3 mil) to Chalmers and he accepted it. That would bring our payroll to 74.2 (1.5 mil under the cap). From there, we could either resign Acy, sign a backup C, or sign a backup SG for the veteran minimum. Our team would look like this going into next year:
PG - Chalmers/Thomas/McCallum
SG - McLemore/Terry
SF - Gay/Williams/Outlaw
PF - Vonleh/Landry/Acy
C - Cousins/Thompson/Evans
That's not a bad roster at all. Chalmers and Vonleh would both bring solid defense to our team, and both happen to be very good outside shooters. If McLemore is able to start knocking his shots down like we all thought he would do, this team could do some damage. After all of our expirings come off the book next year, you're left with...
PG - Chalmers/Thomas/McCallum
SG - McLemore
SF - Gay
PF - Vonleh/Landry
C - Cousins/Thompson
Other than Landry, this team would be filled with fitting, valuable players that you could continue to build around going forward. I would push for trying to move Landry at the deadline to free up more cap space for us to work with. If we could move Landry for cap space, we would have a payroll of around 48-50 mil going into the offseason. That would give us at least 12 mil in cap space.
However, after Slim and I disagreed with you, you specifically bring up the Kings situation and reference how they couldn't make it work because of their money situation and the fact that Thomas might not like coming off the bench. We aren't necessarily arguing the fact that the Kings can acquire those three defensive roleplayers by next season. What we disagree with is that you can't build a winning team with 2 scoring stars and three defensive roleplayers in a starting lineup with a super sixth man coming off the bench. The Thunder have done it already. In 2011-2012, they made it to the finals with that exact team makeup. Now would the Kings be able to get to a similar roster makeup? That's a different discussion entirely.
Just for the sake of it, let's say Gay does opt out and resigns for around 14 mil a year. That puts us at 61 mil next year (14.7 mil under the luxury tax). Going off a rumor that said a GM wouldn't give more than 4-5 mil for Thomas, we're able to sign Thomas for 5 mil a year. That puts us at 66 mil next year (9.7 mil under the luxury tax). Right now, we have the 7th worst record in the league. Let's say we get the 7th pick and draft Vonleh (Draftexpress.com has him going 7th in their mock draft right now). He would be making very similar money to McLemore so that would be 2.9 mil next season bring our payroll to 68.9 mil (6.8 mil under the luxury tax). That allows us to still offer the MLE. Let's say we offered the MLE (5.3 mil) to Chalmers and he accepted it. That would bring our payroll to 74.2 (1.5 mil under the cap). From there, we could either resign Acy, sign a backup C, or sign a backup SG for the veteran minimum. Our team would look like this going into next year:
PG - Chalmers/Thomas/McCallum
SG - McLemore/Terry
SF - Gay/Williams/Outlaw
PF - Vonleh/Landry/Acy
C - Cousins/Thompson/Evans
That's not a bad roster at all. Chalmers and Vonleh would both bring solid defense to our team, and both happen to be very good outside shooters. If McLemore is able to start knocking his shots down like we all thought he would do, this team could do some damage. After all of our expirings come off the book next year, you're left with...
PG - Chalmers/Thomas/McCallum
SG - McLemore
SF - Gay
PF - Vonleh/Landry
C - Cousins/Thompson
Other than Landry, this team would be filled with fitting, valuable players that you could continue to build around going forward. I would push for trying to move Landry at the deadline to free up more cap space for us to work with. If we could move Landry for cap space, we would have a payroll of around 48-50 mil going into the offseason. That would give us at least 12 mil in cap space.
Last edited:
Yeah no, I don't think that sort of assessment of his talent is supported by the facts at hand at all. It is clearly an elite microwave style scorer. I won't anoint him with Jamal Crawford status until he does it for a few more years, but he could easily have beaten out Crawford for 6th man of the year this season. He's better than his mentor Nate. Better than Lou Williams. Critically he can play a more credible PG than those guys, who truly can't even pretend. At what he does he's very good indeed. Its just a problematic situation when that is attached to a 5'9" guy you can't play off ball, and hence can't control.
I never said it wasn't good, I said it wasn't special. And it's not. I'm not really sure how you can say authoritatively that Lou Williams or Nate Robinson can't do what Thomas can do, scoring-wise, when they've never been allowed to do what Thomas has been allowed to do. Thomas is likely going to average sixteen shots per game for the season; Williams has never averaged more than twelve. Robinson averaged fourteen, once, and scored seventeen a game that year, in five fewer minutes. There are a bunch of guys in the league whose per-36 production is right on line with Thomas'. So, yeah, I give him credit for making the most of the opportunity he's been given but, short of the opportunity itself, there's nothing particularly unique or special about it.
Does anyone seriously think that a deal for the likes of Kirk Hinrich or Darren Collison or Jeremy Lin or Mario Chalmers or Beverly, et al for IT wouldn't have been made already if DA wanted to do that deal? Come on. That's a freaking no-brainer for any number of teams around the league. If DA wanted that deal done, it would have been done by now. I think that's a 99% certainty. DA doesn't like that deal. He's not undervaluing IT to the extent that some on this board are.
Maybe, just maybe, those coaches and GMs value defense and understand their player's role in good team defense. It takes two to tango, right? Maybe IT has been offered up for those players (or players of a similar ilk), and the response hasn't been great. You can't just assume that if "DA wanted to get it done it would be done."
Last edited:
i'm not sure that anyone in this thread has suggested that the kings should trade isaiah thomas straight up for any one of those guys. i certainly did not make that contention when i mentioned those players above. in fact, it seems to me that most people are theorizing the addition of such a player in tandem with the re-signing of isaiah thomas, so i'm not sure what argument you're attempting to generate out of thin air. while i wouldn't lose nearly as much sleep as many around here if IT were to leave in free agency, i'd much rather see the kings retain him in a sixth man capacity...
find a way to snag a guy like hinrich or chalmers and then bring thomas off the bench as a sparkplug to balance the rotation. it's not an uncommon tactic in the contemporary nba. san antonio does it with manu ginobili. the clippers do it with jamal crawford. the kings themselves did it with bobby jackson, who, in his prime, was averaging 15 ppg off the bench (.464, .379, .846), to go with 4 rebs and 3 asts. those numbers read a lot like what we've seen and would see from thomas in a sixth man's role. he's productive. he has a place on this team. but in configuration with demarcus cousins and rudy gay, it simply makes the most sense to bring IT off the bench, where his leash can be made longer...
find a way to snag a guy like hinrich or chalmers and then bring thomas off the bench as a sparkplug to balance the rotation. it's not an uncommon tactic in the contemporary nba. san antonio does it with manu ginobili. the clippers do it with jamal crawford. the kings themselves did it with bobby jackson, who, in his prime, was averaging 15 ppg off the bench (.464, .379, .846), to go with 4 rebs and 3 asts. those numbers read a lot like what we've seen and would see from thomas in a sixth man's role. he's productive. he has a place on this team. but in configuration with demarcus cousins and rudy gay, it simply makes the most sense to bring IT off the bench, where his leash can be made longer...
Having an undersized point guard on defense who gets relatively few steals, most of the time is just standing and watching, I mean, he'd need to score 30 a game, not 20, for his negative value on defense to make up for what he gives back. It puts your team in a big hole right from the start. The fact he leads the league worst team in assists speaks poorly of him as well. Along with near bottom of the league defense. Add that his rookie sg has regressed since Isaiah got the starting job, and boy, the FO is eating crap right now if they are actually forming a team around Isaiah. We can only hope they're not that stupid but they did sign Landry after all. And the clearing out of 3 of our top 4 guards throughout this season is pointing in a direction that terrifies me. Unless it's just a tank, with Isaiah being tank commander.
Some fans are very confused about isaiah's actual value, and his perceived value around the league. I don't think many teams would start him except out of desperation. Like ours right now. He's a one man tank. Pretty numbers, but not a single time has he led this team to a win minus cousins. Not once. And he's basically choked away the last two.
Some fans are very confused about isaiah's actual value, and his perceived value around the league. I don't think many teams would start him except out of desperation. Like ours right now. He's a one man tank. Pretty numbers, but not a single time has he led this team to a win minus cousins. Not once. And he's basically choked away the last two.
Actually, I see that implied in both Spike and rainmaker's posts above, so I don't think Kingster is necessarily making things up. I'll let those posters speak for themselves, though.
As for me, I think twslam's plan is a reasonable and relatively realistic one. As Brick has implied, a lot actually depends on Ben. If he can start hitting his shots (and here a summer with Jent could prove immensely valuable), that will help balance both spacing on the floor and the scoring load among the key rotation members. That said, I can't find too much fault with those who may be impatient and yearning for some sort of IT or Ben plus D-Will or other package deal to bring back an Afflalo type.
As for me, I think twslam's plan is a reasonable and relatively realistic one. As Brick has implied, a lot actually depends on Ben. If he can start hitting his shots (and here a summer with Jent could prove immensely valuable), that will help balance both spacing on the floor and the scoring load among the key rotation members. That said, I can't find too much fault with those who may be impatient and yearning for some sort of IT or Ben plus D-Will or other package deal to bring back an Afflalo type.
