Ahh, well thanks for the clarification. So you have your Chalmers, or Lynn, or Beverly, or Collison or whomever, and you're bringing IT off the bench. How many minutes do envision IT playing on average? See, I thought this was the plan when Vasquez came here. He was supposed to take over and be the pass first pg and take the majority of minutes and IT was supposed to come off the bench and have far few minutes. But what was supposed to have happen didn't happen, did it? See, I envision that if you bring in one of those guys, or someone of the same ilk, do you know what's going to happen? IT is going to be the guy. He's going to get most of the minutes, just like what happened to Vasquez. Why? Because he's better. So I'm curious how you see this end game playing out.
What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
Didn't Vasquez start until the day he was traded? Obviously, we know he struggled, but the Raptors trade wasn't about Vasquez or IT, it was about Rudy Gay. For the same reason that Brick shot me down once when I mentioned that Jimmer "worked" his way into a rotational player, IT became the starter out of necessity.
I agree with Brick though that I don't see Ray taking his starting spot... By sheer will, IT is now a team leader/essential piece, and as a byproduct the spot is his.
I agree with Brick though that I don't see Ray taking his starting spot... By sheer will, IT is now a team leader/essential piece, and as a byproduct the spot is his.
Don't think I implied we should or should have traded IT straight up for anyone, but rather value, and we missed our chance at the deadline. I actually have long said trading IT straight up wouldn't work given his contract. Would have packaged him with one of DWill/Ben or both. Thought going towards the deadline that was our best package based around young talent with upside and an attractive overall salary as all three are on rookie contracts.
Right. I guess I wasn't looking at your post regarding what the team should have done, but rather what the team should do moving forward, and that, if I recall, was that it would be worth it to let IT walk to get a guy with the MLE (like a Chalmers, I'm assuming) who would be a better fit. Thus, by necessary implication, swapping IT straight up for one of those guys.
If that was an incorrect reading, my mistake.
If that was an incorrect reading, my mistake.
I see him playing similar to what he was playing when Vasquez was here which is 25-28 minutes.
This is completely wrong. Nobody thought Vasquez was going to come in and log 35 mpg at PG leaving Thomas with 13 MPG. You're naive if you think that. What Vasquez was brought into to do was to run the offense, get Cousins the ball, and stay out of the way. The only problem was that we only had one legitimate scoring threat on the floor (Cousins). If we traded for Gay and kept Vasquez, I think the team flow on offense would be much better. You would have two legitimate scoring threats on the floor with a pass first, deferring PG to get them the ball and run the offense. Thomas would come in off the bench and produce points in the second unit either with a Thomas/Gay or Thomas/Cousins tandem.
Is Thomas a better player than Vasquez? I would say yes. Is Thomas a better fitting PG than Vasquez with the current starting lineup? I would say no. The starting PG doesn't have to be "better" than Thomas. He has to a "better fit" for our starting lineup. It's that simple.
And I don't know if you mean to come off this way, but you're making it sound like "Vasquez got traded so Thomas won! He's the best!" That might be a little bit of an exaggeration, but I can argue that basic premise. We didn't trade Vasquez because we realized Thomas is the starting PG we've been looking for. We traded Vasquez to take a shot at finding that second option next to Cousins.
This is completely wrong. Nobody thought Vasquez was going to come in and log 35 mpg at PG leaving Thomas with 13 MPG. You're naive if you think that. What Vasquez was brought into to do was to run the offense, get Cousins the ball, and stay out of the way. The only problem was that we only had one legitimate scoring threat on the floor (Cousins). If we traded for Gay and kept Vasquez, I think the team flow on offense would be much better. You would have two legitimate scoring threats on the floor with a pass first, deferring PG to get them the ball and run the offense. Thomas would come in off the bench and produce points in the second unit either with a Thomas/Gay or Thomas/Cousins tandem.
Is Thomas a better player than Vasquez? I would say yes. Is Thomas a better fitting PG than Vasquez with the current starting lineup? I would say no. The starting PG doesn't have to be "better" than Thomas. He has to a "better fit" for our starting lineup. It's that simple.
And I don't know if you mean to come off this way, but you're making it sound like "Vasquez got traded so Thomas won! He's the best!" That might be a little bit of an exaggeration, but I can argue that basic premise. We didn't trade Vasquez because we realized Thomas is the starting PG we've been looking for. We traded Vasquez to take a shot at finding that second option next to Cousins.
I don't think we had any trouble trading Greivis -- he flopped here, and has proven even more illusory than I feared. Just a disaster for him, as he probably cost himself $20 million with his play this season.
But Greivis wasn't traded so IT could start. Malone has seemed uncomfortable with IT starting all season long. The best you could say is that IT's strong bench play made it possible to trade Greivis, in a way that we maybe could not have if Jimmer was the only backup. We had redundancy.
But Greivis wasn't traded so IT could start. Malone has seemed uncomfortable with IT starting all season long. The best you could say is that IT's strong bench play made it possible to trade Greivis, in a way that we maybe could not have if Jimmer was the only backup. We had redundancy.
And that's why DA and Malone and I agree to disagree with you. IT was better than Vasquez, both individually and as a complementary piece. That's why Malone played IT the minutes and not Vasquez. That's why DA traded Vasquez over IT. It's as simple as that. Wasn't it obvious that the team played better with IT than with Vasquez? It was to me.
I like how you try to throw in DA and Malone as evidence to your claims (like they have come out and said exactly what you're preaching). Good tactic, but I'm not buying it. Hopefully, the rest of KF isn't so short minded as well.
(Speaking strictly about offense) I would argue that without a second option on the team, Thomas would be a better starting option than Vasquez. However, if Thomas is your second option, your team is not going anywhere fast. When you have a legitimate second option in the starting lineup (let's say his name is Rudy Gay), Vasquez is the better starting option.
Either way you're looking at it, you're not going to be too well off. Pre Rudy Gay, your second option is Thomas (that's a bummer), or post Rudy Gay, you don't have that PG who defers to your top two options (that's a bummer). Having said all of that, I would have much rather given up Vasquez in the trade over Thomas to get Rudy Gay. Do you know why? Because I think Thomas is better and has more value than Vasquez, but again, just because he's better and has more value, doesn't mean I want him in my starting lineup.
You said that Thomas was better than Vasquez both individually and as a complementary piece. I agree he is the better player than Vasquez, but I'm not sure which scenario you think he would be a better complimentary piece in? Do you think he is a better compliment Pre Rudy Gay? Post Rudy Gay? Both? Like I mentioned earlier in my post, I think he was a better compliment Pre Rudy Gay, but after getting that second "star," Vasquez becomes more attractive as a starting guard (not more attractive as a player). Do you know why I think that? Because we should be going to Cousins and Gay more often than not, getting them the ball in places they like, and running the offense through them. Rather than having a PG who is out there looking to get his. You need balance in a roster, and a more unselfish, pass-first, deferring PG helps tremendously with that balance.
This is a very, very weak argument. Vasquez played 25:50 minutes a game while in Sac. Thomas played 27:40 minutes a game while Vasquez was on the team. Is that really a drastic difference to you? Especially considering Vasquez was coming off an injury?
And this is a point I agree with you on. Thomas was a better compliment than Vasquez pre Rudy Gay so I have no problem with him getting more minutes.
DA traded Vasquez over Thomas because Thomas is the more valuable player. You try to hold on to your more valuable players when in trade negotiations. It is a best practice to surviving as a GM. He didn't trade Vasquez away because he thought Thomas - Gay - Cousins would be a good fit in the starting lineup. We're far from a finished product. This wasn't that "last move" that says "alright our team is good to go now!" It was simply a trade to add value to our team. To look into it any deeper than that is foolish.
Yep, I agree the team played better with Thomas out there because we didn't have a second option on the team at that time. Again, once we got that 2nd option type player, Vasquez becomes the better fit in the starting lineup with Thomas doing his thing off the bench. I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend.
(Speaking strictly about offense) I would argue that without a second option on the team, Thomas would be a better starting option than Vasquez. However, if Thomas is your second option, your team is not going anywhere fast. When you have a legitimate second option in the starting lineup (let's say his name is Rudy Gay), Vasquez is the better starting option.
Either way you're looking at it, you're not going to be too well off. Pre Rudy Gay, your second option is Thomas (that's a bummer), or post Rudy Gay, you don't have that PG who defers to your top two options (that's a bummer). Having said all of that, I would have much rather given up Vasquez in the trade over Thomas to get Rudy Gay. Do you know why? Because I think Thomas is better and has more value than Vasquez, but again, just because he's better and has more value, doesn't mean I want him in my starting lineup.
You said that Thomas was better than Vasquez both individually and as a complementary piece. I agree he is the better player than Vasquez, but I'm not sure which scenario you think he would be a better complimentary piece in? Do you think he is a better compliment Pre Rudy Gay? Post Rudy Gay? Both? Like I mentioned earlier in my post, I think he was a better compliment Pre Rudy Gay, but after getting that second "star," Vasquez becomes more attractive as a starting guard (not more attractive as a player). Do you know why I think that? Because we should be going to Cousins and Gay more often than not, getting them the ball in places they like, and running the offense through them. Rather than having a PG who is out there looking to get his. You need balance in a roster, and a more unselfish, pass-first, deferring PG helps tremendously with that balance.
This is a very, very weak argument. Vasquez played 25:50 minutes a game while in Sac. Thomas played 27:40 minutes a game while Vasquez was on the team. Is that really a drastic difference to you? Especially considering Vasquez was coming off an injury?
And this is a point I agree with you on. Thomas was a better compliment than Vasquez pre Rudy Gay so I have no problem with him getting more minutes.
DA traded Vasquez over Thomas because Thomas is the more valuable player. You try to hold on to your more valuable players when in trade negotiations. It is a best practice to surviving as a GM. He didn't trade Vasquez away because he thought Thomas - Gay - Cousins would be a good fit in the starting lineup. We're far from a finished product. This wasn't that "last move" that says "alright our team is good to go now!" It was simply a trade to add value to our team. To look into it any deeper than that is foolish.
Yep, I agree the team played better with Thomas out there because we didn't have a second option on the team at that time. Again, once we got that 2nd option type player, Vasquez becomes the better fit in the starting lineup with Thomas doing his thing off the bench. I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend.
The trade would still have worked salarywise if we had sent IT instead of Vasquez. We received $21.4M, so we had to send out $16.4M to get it. With Vasquez we sent out $18.6M, had we substituted IT for Vasquez we would have sent out $17.3M. So salary matching didn't factor into it. Presumably we included GV instead of IT because one of the two teams preferred the trade that way. I'd wager we preferred to send Vasquez, but that's just my own best guess.
For that matter I wish PDA had pushed for Outlaw to be a part of that package instead of Vasquez. Nobody else was touching Rudy Gay and that albatross of a contract so why not force him to take an extra million of salary this year and an extra year of $3 million when clearly Ujiri wanted to dump him?
Yay causation=correlation! Didn't yo math teacher tech you nuthin?
Ball movement has stalled for 2 reasons. Cuz is exactly 0.3% away from being the highest USG player in the league. Rudy Gay and Isaiah's USG closely resemble where most #1 option offensive options should be. Basically, you want to cut roughly 3% off everyone's total. Have Cuz hover around 28% and Rudy/IT around 22%, if they are to remain in the same starting 5 together.
Reason 2 is we don't have anyone who makes shots outside of those 3 guys. We actually don't even have anyone who takes 3s, outside of IT, Rudy and Ben. McCallum is under 1 attempt/game, Outlaw doesn't play consistently, D-will doesn't take many but is atrocious at 3pt shooting anyway. So the 31% 3pt shooting of Ben is the only role playing shooting were currently getting currently. And really, the 35% from IT is the only passable rate on the team. Not a single elite 3pt shooter on the team is a serious issue.
When you're built like we are, you have to follow the Miami, 07-08 Boston, Thunder model for team construction. Arm your team with an army of low USG, elite, spot-up shooters, who are extremely comfortable off-ball. Miami is consistently top 5 in offensive efficiency because of 1. LeBron video game numbers and B. They have 6-7 guys on the team who you can't leave open after LeBron or Wade penetration.
Ball movement has stalled for 2 reasons. Cuz is exactly 0.3% away from being the highest USG player in the league. Rudy Gay and Isaiah's USG closely resemble where most #1 option offensive options should be. Basically, you want to cut roughly 3% off everyone's total. Have Cuz hover around 28% and Rudy/IT around 22%, if they are to remain in the same starting 5 together.
Reason 2 is we don't have anyone who makes shots outside of those 3 guys. We actually don't even have anyone who takes 3s, outside of IT, Rudy and Ben. McCallum is under 1 attempt/game, Outlaw doesn't play consistently, D-will doesn't take many but is atrocious at 3pt shooting anyway. So the 31% 3pt shooting of Ben is the only role playing shooting were currently getting currently. And really, the 35% from IT is the only passable rate on the team. Not a single elite 3pt shooter on the team is a serious issue.
When you're built like we are, you have to follow the Miami, 07-08 Boston, Thunder model for team construction. Arm your team with an army of low USG, elite, spot-up shooters, who are extremely comfortable off-ball. Miami is consistently top 5 in offensive efficiency because of 1. LeBron video game numbers and B. They have 6-7 guys on the team who you can't leave open after LeBron or Wade penetration.
Hey, hard to blame PDA for a trade that lopsided talentwise. Yeah, adding Outlaw would have meant we got rid of all of our worthless junk at once, but that's just being greedy methinks. Greivis was an ender, and at the time Toronto was looking at possibly moving Lowry as well. I don't think his presence in that trade was completely random.
I'd disagree.
Sacramento Rudy has been surprisingly good but still not worthy of his contract. Toronto Rudy? That guy was toxic on the floor and to the team's salary cap. I don't remember a single news source or major NBA reporter or commentator who thought the Kings did well to get Gay. The team was widely hammered for trading for him at all, regardless of the pieces that we actually used to land him. Ujiri was seemingly desperate to unload him for anything resembling salary relief just as he was with Bargnani. I suppose I should be grateful that PDA wasn't as dumb as to throw in a 1st round pick on a guy Toronto was shopping hard and cheap but I still think D'Allesandro could have gotten a slightly sweeter deal which would have meant a bit more cap flexibility.
Then again, my first choice for GM was Sam Hinkie and I'm jealous of the potential for a quick and effective rebuild they have going in Philly right now.
Sacramento Rudy has been surprisingly good but still not worthy of his contract. Toronto Rudy? That guy was toxic on the floor and to the team's salary cap. I don't remember a single news source or major NBA reporter or commentator who thought the Kings did well to get Gay. The team was widely hammered for trading for him at all, regardless of the pieces that we actually used to land him. Ujiri was seemingly desperate to unload him for anything resembling salary relief just as he was with Bargnani. I suppose I should be grateful that PDA wasn't as dumb as to throw in a 1st round pick on a guy Toronto was shopping hard and cheap but I still think D'Allesandro could have gotten a slightly sweeter deal which would have meant a bit more cap flexibility.
Then again, my first choice for GM was Sam Hinkie and I'm jealous of the potential for a quick and effective rebuild they have going in Philly right now.
The Strange Case of Isaiah Thomas
Normally I would start a separate thread for something like this, but since this one has been perking along so nicely, I'll just dump it in here.
Earlier exchange with Mr. Slim got me poking around basketball-reference. What I was looking for were IT comparisons to other players in surrounding weight classes. I will highlight and note the areas I think significant in trying to figure out what he is and is not.
Everything will be done per36 to keep the focus sharply on production. All of the players looked at have averaged between 23 and 33 min a game in their career, so should be limited distortion.
First, IT vs. the tweener guard bench gunners (all of whom have also on and off started). Career per36s:
JCrawford 15.1FGA 17.8pts (.412 .352 .854 (.530TS%)) 2.8reb 4.3ast 1.1stl 0.3blk 2.3TO
NRobinso 15.1FGA 17.8pts (.427 .364 .800 (.536TS%)) 3.8reb 4.7ast 1.4stl 0.1blk 2.3TO
IsaiahTho 14.3FGA 19.0pts (.447 .362 .859 (.574TS%)) 3.1reb 5.9ast 1.2stl 0.1blk 2.6TO
LWilliams 14.6FGA 18.2pts (.418 .344 .805 (.534TS%)) 3.2reb 4.9ast 1.3stl 0.3blk 2.2TO
so as you can see, IT has been outgunning the guns in his early career, with notable advantags in shooting % and notable assists. He's barely a PG, but its another level from the true bench gunners. P.S. They must play a real crap brand of ball of in the Pacific Northwest -- 3 of the 4 guys on that list are from Washington State.
So then I took the same numbers for a sampling of midlevel veteran starting true PGs:
MkConley 12.0FGA 14.2pts (.440 .374 .797 (.532TS%)) 3.1reb 6.2ast 1.7stl 0.2blk 2.3TO
TyLawson 12.8FGA 16.8pts (.475 .376 .783 (.571TS%)) 3.4reb 7.1ast 1.4stl 0.1blk 2.6TO
KyleLowry 11.1FGA 14.4pts (.417 .349 .791 (.549TS%)) 4.8reb 6.8ast 1.6stl 0.3blk 2.5TO
JamNelson 13.3FGA 15.5pts (.443 .376 .817 (.538TS%)) 3.8reb 6.6ast 1.2stl 0.1blk 2.7TO
IsaiahTho 14.3FGA 19.0pts (.447 .362 .859 (.574TS%)) 3.1reb 5.9ast 1.2stl 0.1blk 2.6TO
and what you find is a group of guys who gun less, pass more, and defend better (with the possible exception of Lawson). IT's shooting percentages fit more in with this group than the bench gunners though, and Lawson might be the only one as explosive offensively.
And so all of that leaves Isaiah Thomas neither fish nor fowl. More than just a bench gunner, but less than a real well rounded PG. He's somewhere in between, and that creates issues. Especially given that his size doesn't allow you to play him at SG the way the Clips have Crawford or Atlanta has Williams. As much as IT was holding Tyreke back, this is another guard for whom the decision to let Tyreke go looms. Who do you need next to Isaiah Thomas? You need a big physical combo guard who can run some point and let IT play more as gunner. You clearly can't have a kid who can't dribble or contribute to passing/ballhandling.
Normally I would start a separate thread for something like this, but since this one has been perking along so nicely, I'll just dump it in here.
Earlier exchange with Mr. Slim got me poking around basketball-reference. What I was looking for were IT comparisons to other players in surrounding weight classes. I will highlight and note the areas I think significant in trying to figure out what he is and is not.
Everything will be done per36 to keep the focus sharply on production. All of the players looked at have averaged between 23 and 33 min a game in their career, so should be limited distortion.
First, IT vs. the tweener guard bench gunners (all of whom have also on and off started). Career per36s:
JCrawford 15.1FGA 17.8pts (.412 .352 .854 (.530TS%)) 2.8reb 4.3ast 1.1stl 0.3blk 2.3TO
NRobinso 15.1FGA 17.8pts (.427 .364 .800 (.536TS%)) 3.8reb 4.7ast 1.4stl 0.1blk 2.3TO
IsaiahTho 14.3FGA 19.0pts (.447 .362 .859 (.574TS%)) 3.1reb 5.9ast 1.2stl 0.1blk 2.6TO
LWilliams 14.6FGA 18.2pts (.418 .344 .805 (.534TS%)) 3.2reb 4.9ast 1.3stl 0.3blk 2.2TO
so as you can see, IT has been outgunning the guns in his early career, with notable advantags in shooting % and notable assists. He's barely a PG, but its another level from the true bench gunners. P.S. They must play a real crap brand of ball of in the Pacific Northwest -- 3 of the 4 guys on that list are from Washington State.
So then I took the same numbers for a sampling of midlevel veteran starting true PGs:
MkConley 12.0FGA 14.2pts (.440 .374 .797 (.532TS%)) 3.1reb 6.2ast 1.7stl 0.2blk 2.3TO
TyLawson 12.8FGA 16.8pts (.475 .376 .783 (.571TS%)) 3.4reb 7.1ast 1.4stl 0.1blk 2.6TO
KyleLowry 11.1FGA 14.4pts (.417 .349 .791 (.549TS%)) 4.8reb 6.8ast 1.6stl 0.3blk 2.5TO
JamNelson 13.3FGA 15.5pts (.443 .376 .817 (.538TS%)) 3.8reb 6.6ast 1.2stl 0.1blk 2.7TO
IsaiahTho 14.3FGA 19.0pts (.447 .362 .859 (.574TS%)) 3.1reb 5.9ast 1.2stl 0.1blk 2.6TO
and what you find is a group of guys who gun less, pass more, and defend better (with the possible exception of Lawson). IT's shooting percentages fit more in with this group than the bench gunners though, and Lawson might be the only one as explosive offensively.
And so all of that leaves Isaiah Thomas neither fish nor fowl. More than just a bench gunner, but less than a real well rounded PG. He's somewhere in between, and that creates issues. Especially given that his size doesn't allow you to play him at SG the way the Clips have Crawford or Atlanta has Williams. As much as IT was holding Tyreke back, this is another guard for whom the decision to let Tyreke go looms. Who do you need next to Isaiah Thomas? You need a big physical combo guard who can run some point and let IT play more as gunner. You clearly can't have a kid who can't dribble or contribute to passing/ballhandling.
Last edited:
That's just not realistic at a certain point. The whole world was coming down on Rudy in Toronto. And why? Because they are sheep. I barely even follow Toronto, but I could tell just from the 3 or 4 games I watched that it was how they were using him. I'm sure Ujiri could as well, no matter how many bloggers wanted to squeal. Outlaw's contract runs through next year. So does Salmons (buyout maybe, I forget?) and Hayes. So at the point you are stuffing Outlaw into deals, you are trying to convince Ujiri to give up a very talented player for a load of complete crap, with a grand total of $3mil savings for one season from the only worthwhile player (Patterson) in the bunch. I think the flexible pieces myth went out of usage when Petrie retired.
Talentwise we won that trade by a BUNCH.
I am no PDA apologist. The little gerbil was an unqualified accountant who got bumped up, didn't have a clue of the team he was taking over, and yes to all you numbuts out there, promptly ****ed up the initial summer. Overwhelmed, did not know what he was getting into, did not know our personnel. Let the wrong guy go, signed the wrong guys, drafted a kid who is not ready and may never be. Dumped Robin Lopez for no reason. Thanks gerbil, you guaranteed our failure before we even began. But after the season began he plucked two low hanging everybody knows they are going to be traded fruit for just stacks of those mediocre nothing players the Kings have been stacking up for years. That's hard to ignore. Still doesn't prove he can manufacture a good trade with a reluctant trading partner, but he certainly massively cleaned up the roster with those moves. Seems churlish to demand that he clean out every single one of Petrie's heroes in a single move. If he just hadn't have ****ed us over the summer, we'd be even further along.
Last edited:
Ujiri DID give up Gay for a load of complete crap. Salmons, Vasquez, Patterson and Hayes are all rentals. Vasquez & Patterson are enders and I'll be surprised if either returns to Toronto. Salmons has a $1 million buyout that essentially makes him an ender and I am almost certain he won't return. Hayes has one more year left. But even if Ujiri wouldn't have taken back Outlaw, why not deal swap Jimmer for Vasquez? By dealing the guy starting at PG it pushed super sixth man IT into a starting role and inflated his value in a contract year. That's just a lack of vision. Good teams don't put themselves in tough positions like that. It's why San Antonio dealt George Hill (a guy they groomed and developed but couldn't afford as a FA the next summer) for the draft pick that became Kawhil Leonard.
As for letting Tyreke walk I think the FO botched that in two ways. One was that I think they let Cousins weigh in on the decision (I don't think the two were buddy buddy off the court) and the other is that they let him seek out other offers instead of making a big push to keep him which could well have meant getting him back at a slight discount compared to what he signed for. Letting a talented guy test the market and hoping you don't have to match a big offer just does not work in the NBA. Somebody will throw out big dollars.
Still, is a Tyreke/Cousins core better than Gay/Cousins. For that matter, the Gay trade could still have gone through with a resigned Tyreke. It just would have meant Jimmer (or IT) thrown in instead of Vasquez. Is a Tyreke/Gay/Cousins core enough to win? Evans would have to play PG and the SG would have to be a lights out shooter for it to have a chance. IT/Evans/Gay/Cousins would be a train wreck of epic proportions.
I didn't have a serious problem with Tyreke walking instead of being resigned for $11 million until Carl Landry was signed for $6,750,000. Rebuilding I was okay with. Retooling with bad parts? No thanks. That was the first sign of a lack of direction
As for letting Tyreke walk I think the FO botched that in two ways. One was that I think they let Cousins weigh in on the decision (I don't think the two were buddy buddy off the court) and the other is that they let him seek out other offers instead of making a big push to keep him which could well have meant getting him back at a slight discount compared to what he signed for. Letting a talented guy test the market and hoping you don't have to match a big offer just does not work in the NBA. Somebody will throw out big dollars.
Still, is a Tyreke/Cousins core better than Gay/Cousins. For that matter, the Gay trade could still have gone through with a resigned Tyreke. It just would have meant Jimmer (or IT) thrown in instead of Vasquez. Is a Tyreke/Gay/Cousins core enough to win? Evans would have to play PG and the SG would have to be a lights out shooter for it to have a chance. IT/Evans/Gay/Cousins would be a train wreck of epic proportions.
I didn't have a serious problem with Tyreke walking instead of being resigned for $11 million until Carl Landry was signed for $6,750,000. Rebuilding I was okay with. Retooling with bad parts? No thanks. That was the first sign of a lack of direction
1) yes, but 1/2 of the crap he took back was enders. You are asking/wishing that he for some reason would have been willing to trade Rudy away for almost no financial advantage and just 4 random bodies, three of whom were unplayable. And critically, like I say at the time they were not planning on this resulting in winning. they were tearing it down, and Lowry was rumored to be next. So getting a starter back made some sense. I'd be considerably surprised if we didn't try to make Jimmer the extra body if for no bigger reason than that Greivis likely had more trade value around the league, but I think as we saw by the trade deadline, Jimmer it turns out had basically no trade value whatsoever by this point.
2) and of course from our side, Greivis flat sucked for us. His defense in particular was just hopeless. Its been a long season again and its easy to go all rose colored glasses on that but no, he sucked. And so did we.
3) I don't disagree with the effect on IT's value. I have fretted about that myself. But the chance to get a talent of Rudy's level for absolutely nothing we had any plans for was a fairly obvious move. 20pt scorers don't grow on trees.
4) speaking of which, yeah, I'll take that Reke/Rudy/Cousins trio, and I'll beat the living crud out of teams inside. And I'll be able to afford a starting PG too, because at that point my ideal starting PG is Steve Blake or Mario Chalmers. As an aside, you know why that would work? Because Reke might be the single most UNselfish SG type in the entire league. His critics have been asinine on that point for years. You know how many assists Reke is averaging, as a SF/SG combo this year? 8.4 per 48 minutes. LeBron averages 8.2 per 48 minutes. Goran Dragic averages 8.3 per 48 min. There is exactly one (1) SG/SF type in the entire NBA averaging more ast/48 than Reke this year, and that's Manu Ginobili. Kobe actually did so in about 15 games as well, but he spent some of them at PG. Anyway, that future is lost now. I have to content myself to being mildly amused at all the anti-Rekeites scurrying about wandering how come when we got rid of him all of a sudden we're averaging even fewer assists/have gotten even more selfish. I do admit to checking it at PelicansReport from time to time, where they have begun to get reasonably excited about how well Reke works with their own young big man up front, because notably Reke uses his talents to set him up. Here's my team right now: Cousins/Drummond/Gay/Reke/shooter (I am adopting the Gay trade here, but not something I would have thought possible to even ask about for our crap at the point it was made). IT would still be a 6th man. that "shooter" might even have been Jimmer this year, except I would have broken his hand the first time he made Jerry squeal by pulling up for a 28 footer off his dribble. Spot up and shut up would have been his job.
2) and of course from our side, Greivis flat sucked for us. His defense in particular was just hopeless. Its been a long season again and its easy to go all rose colored glasses on that but no, he sucked. And so did we.
3) I don't disagree with the effect on IT's value. I have fretted about that myself. But the chance to get a talent of Rudy's level for absolutely nothing we had any plans for was a fairly obvious move. 20pt scorers don't grow on trees.
4) speaking of which, yeah, I'll take that Reke/Rudy/Cousins trio, and I'll beat the living crud out of teams inside. And I'll be able to afford a starting PG too, because at that point my ideal starting PG is Steve Blake or Mario Chalmers. As an aside, you know why that would work? Because Reke might be the single most UNselfish SG type in the entire league. His critics have been asinine on that point for years. You know how many assists Reke is averaging, as a SF/SG combo this year? 8.4 per 48 minutes. LeBron averages 8.2 per 48 minutes. Goran Dragic averages 8.3 per 48 min. There is exactly one (1) SG/SF type in the entire NBA averaging more ast/48 than Reke this year, and that's Manu Ginobili. Kobe actually did so in about 15 games as well, but he spent some of them at PG. Anyway, that future is lost now. I have to content myself to being mildly amused at all the anti-Rekeites scurrying about wandering how come when we got rid of him all of a sudden we're averaging even fewer assists/have gotten even more selfish. I do admit to checking it at PelicansReport from time to time, where they have begun to get reasonably excited about how well Reke works with their own young big man up front, because notably Reke uses his talents to set him up. Here's my team right now: Cousins/Drummond/Gay/Reke/shooter (I am adopting the Gay trade here, but not something I would have thought possible to even ask about for our crap at the point it was made). IT would still be a 6th man. that "shooter" might even have been Jimmer this year, except I would have broken his hand the first time he made Jerry squeal by pulling up for a 28 footer off his dribble. Spot up and shut up would have been his job.
Last edited:
Come on now. If we're going to play the what if game it's nice to go back and grab Drummond (and since I readily admit when I am wrong I can gloat a bit when I say I was stumping for either Drummond or the trade down with Houston that could have netted Lowry and Henson) I don't think we need to go back into the Maloof era to fix this team.
I said this summer that the Kings had two options. One was to go scorched Earth (ala Philly who ironically has the GM I wanted most) and just ship out absolutely everything (including DMC) for cap space and picks. If Jrue Holiday netted a lottery pick, so would Cousins and the Kings could start with the rookies from last summer and two more lottery picks in a nice draft as a new core. I wouldn't want to go that route because DeMarcus will be the best big man in the league next season if he isn't already, but at least I'd understand the strategy.
But if the idea was to retool on the fly around the big fella then it could have been done SO much more effectively. And this isn't even hindsight. It starts with moves I advocated for on this board last offseason:
You match offers on Tyreke. Yeah, it's a chunk of change but here's the sad part. Signing Landry and trading for Mbah a Moute only cost $400k less. And after the Luc for DWill swap the Kings are paying over $200k MORE for those two. And next year when Evans' contract goes DOWN slightly and Williams' goes UP the Kings will be paying over $2million MORE for Landry and Williams than Tyreke. Ouch.
So you match on Tyreke and then you draft a guy that compliments him. I was advocating for CJ McCollumn and I'd still go that way. MCW is far better but he and Tyreke are a terrible shooting backcourt and Burke is ball dominant and honestly I didn't see either playing as well as they have this season. But still McCollum isn't the best talent but he's a nice fit. I wanted either Withey or McCallum in the second round but gives a McCollum/McCallum duo so let's go that route.
Then you sign Dorrell Wright and Anthony Morrow to just a bit over what Portland and New Orleans gave them respectively to give you backup shooters on the wings.
And then you make the same two good moves PDA has made in dealing for Gay and shipping out MT. Sure, Jimmer has to replace Vasquez in the Gay deal but otherwise you can still deal Thornton who would either be starting with Tyreke or being the third guard playing major minutes behind IT and Reke (who swings to the point) for Evans and Terry. You can still help out the Heat by taking Mason Jr off their hands.
All of that leaves you with a payroll just $2 million or so above what the Kings have now both for this season AND next season.
Ready for the best part? With all the upheaval and turnover the Kings still likely end up with a lottery pick. Maybe 10th or 11th instead of in the top seven but with that pick and the ending contracts of guys like Outlaw and Terry and maybe one more you deal for Larry Sanders. Maybe IT walks or maybe you sign him for high end 6th man money. If it's the latter the Kings are right at the luxury tax threshold with this roster:
C Cousins/Thompson/Cheap emergency Big (Gray, N'Diaye, etc)
PF Sanders/Thompson/Evans
SF Gay/Wright/Emergency wing
SG Evans/Morrow
PG McCollum/Thomas/McCallum
And if IT walks then you have Ray as the backup PG and the MLE to bring in another combo guard and/or third PG
Either way, that's a big, balanced, nasty roster built for the playoffs.
And other than the Sanders deal being iffy (maybe the Kings just draft Willie Cauley-Stein instead?) those moves aren't even difficult to pull off.
Sigh.
I said this summer that the Kings had two options. One was to go scorched Earth (ala Philly who ironically has the GM I wanted most) and just ship out absolutely everything (including DMC) for cap space and picks. If Jrue Holiday netted a lottery pick, so would Cousins and the Kings could start with the rookies from last summer and two more lottery picks in a nice draft as a new core. I wouldn't want to go that route because DeMarcus will be the best big man in the league next season if he isn't already, but at least I'd understand the strategy.
But if the idea was to retool on the fly around the big fella then it could have been done SO much more effectively. And this isn't even hindsight. It starts with moves I advocated for on this board last offseason:
You match offers on Tyreke. Yeah, it's a chunk of change but here's the sad part. Signing Landry and trading for Mbah a Moute only cost $400k less. And after the Luc for DWill swap the Kings are paying over $200k MORE for those two. And next year when Evans' contract goes DOWN slightly and Williams' goes UP the Kings will be paying over $2million MORE for Landry and Williams than Tyreke. Ouch.
So you match on Tyreke and then you draft a guy that compliments him. I was advocating for CJ McCollumn and I'd still go that way. MCW is far better but he and Tyreke are a terrible shooting backcourt and Burke is ball dominant and honestly I didn't see either playing as well as they have this season. But still McCollum isn't the best talent but he's a nice fit. I wanted either Withey or McCallum in the second round but gives a McCollum/McCallum duo so let's go that route.
Then you sign Dorrell Wright and Anthony Morrow to just a bit over what Portland and New Orleans gave them respectively to give you backup shooters on the wings.
And then you make the same two good moves PDA has made in dealing for Gay and shipping out MT. Sure, Jimmer has to replace Vasquez in the Gay deal but otherwise you can still deal Thornton who would either be starting with Tyreke or being the third guard playing major minutes behind IT and Reke (who swings to the point) for Evans and Terry. You can still help out the Heat by taking Mason Jr off their hands.
All of that leaves you with a payroll just $2 million or so above what the Kings have now both for this season AND next season.
Ready for the best part? With all the upheaval and turnover the Kings still likely end up with a lottery pick. Maybe 10th or 11th instead of in the top seven but with that pick and the ending contracts of guys like Outlaw and Terry and maybe one more you deal for Larry Sanders. Maybe IT walks or maybe you sign him for high end 6th man money. If it's the latter the Kings are right at the luxury tax threshold with this roster:
C Cousins/Thompson/Cheap emergency Big (Gray, N'Diaye, etc)
PF Sanders/Thompson/Evans
SF Gay/Wright/Emergency wing
SG Evans/Morrow
PG McCollum/Thomas/McCallum
And if IT walks then you have Ray as the backup PG and the MLE to bring in another combo guard and/or third PG
Either way, that's a big, balanced, nasty roster built for the playoffs.
And other than the Sanders deal being iffy (maybe the Kings just draft Willie Cauley-Stein instead?) those moves aren't even difficult to pull off.
Sigh.
Last edited:
i see thomas averaging about 20-25 mpg as a sixth man, as bobby jackson did through most of his prime with the kings. some nights, IT will shoot lights out and log the majority of the PG minutes. other nights, the kings won't require his scoring ability as much, and he'll log considerably less minutes in favor of defense or balance or whatever. again, thomas' utility becomes flexible in this role. it would be the ideal situation, in my mind, where the kings' starting PG is a willing passer, a capable defender, and a solid spot shooter who knows how to stay out of the way in order to create better balance in the first unit. then you bring isaiah thomas off the bench where his style of play can exist mostly unfettered, thus maximizing his talent as a scorer when he isn't being shoved into a logjam for shots alongside demarcus cousins and rudy gay. it doesn't matter to me a bit that "he's better." a good coach has the discipline to achieve a more balanced, team-oriented environment by effectively distributing his scorers across the rotation...
now, if you're asking me how i actually see the "end game" playing out, then i'd say that the kings will likely re-sign isaiah thomas, [eventually] recognize that a starting unit featuring three 20 ppg scorers who are, to varying degrees, rather weak defenders will not lead to consistency, chemistry, balance, or wins, and will [ultimately] decide to either supplant thomas in the starting unit or trade him altogether. i've bracketed a couple of words in the preceding evaluation for the sake of qualifying them a bit: it could very well be that pete d'allesandro and michael malone do not agree with you in the ways that you think they do. they may already have designs to shift thomas back into a reserve role as quickly as this offseason. whether or not thomas is willing to accept such a role as he makes a decision on his next contract is entirely up to him, but once again, malone has certainly seemed uncomfortable with the role he's thrust thomas into by virtue of the utter lack the kings are experiencing in their backcourt rotation...
i mean, you bring up greivis vasquez's time with this team as if it's substantial enough to comment on in any meaningful way. vasquez played in and started in exactly 18 games for a kings team with only one offensive weapon in their starting unit and a rookie head coach implementing a new system with a fundamentally flawed roster on his hands. i'd hardly say that vasquez was given a fair shake. i wasn't his biggest fan, he was a tremendously weak defender, and he played poorly in his brief time here, but we'll never know if he might have become "the pass first pg" who could "take the majority of [the] minutes" at the PG position. he absolutely was not traded because of some perceived failure on his part; he was traded in a talent grab during what has long been considered a transition season. PDA saw an opportunity to buy low on rudy gay, and he shipped out the necessary pieces to acquire him...
of course, there's another necessary qualifier in this whole mess of an evaluation: i have no idea how the kings envision rudy gay with respect to their long term plans. they may very well attempt to move him now that his reputation has been restored to some degree. much depends on the upcoming draft, if we're being perfectly honest. if the kings are able to snag a guy like dante exum, then perhaps thomas' future value to the team diminishes. and if they're able to snag one of andrew wiggins or jabari parker, then perhaps gay's future value to the team diminishes. who knows how they want to continue in this rebuild, or who they want their "guys" to be going forward, outside of demarcus cousins. but my suspicion is that, after the fiasco of ben mclemore's rookie season, the new regime will have learned a bit of caution when it comes to their draft night selection. so we may not see any major shake-ups on the isaiah thomas and rudy gay fronts until next season's trade deadline, when the kings have a better idea of how the disparate talents they've collected to that point fit together, or if they can fit together at all...
now, if you're asking me how i actually see the "end game" playing out, then i'd say that the kings will likely re-sign isaiah thomas, [eventually] recognize that a starting unit featuring three 20 ppg scorers who are, to varying degrees, rather weak defenders will not lead to consistency, chemistry, balance, or wins, and will [ultimately] decide to either supplant thomas in the starting unit or trade him altogether. i've bracketed a couple of words in the preceding evaluation for the sake of qualifying them a bit: it could very well be that pete d'allesandro and michael malone do not agree with you in the ways that you think they do. they may already have designs to shift thomas back into a reserve role as quickly as this offseason. whether or not thomas is willing to accept such a role as he makes a decision on his next contract is entirely up to him, but once again, malone has certainly seemed uncomfortable with the role he's thrust thomas into by virtue of the utter lack the kings are experiencing in their backcourt rotation...
i mean, you bring up greivis vasquez's time with this team as if it's substantial enough to comment on in any meaningful way. vasquez played in and started in exactly 18 games for a kings team with only one offensive weapon in their starting unit and a rookie head coach implementing a new system with a fundamentally flawed roster on his hands. i'd hardly say that vasquez was given a fair shake. i wasn't his biggest fan, he was a tremendously weak defender, and he played poorly in his brief time here, but we'll never know if he might have become "the pass first pg" who could "take the majority of [the] minutes" at the PG position. he absolutely was not traded because of some perceived failure on his part; he was traded in a talent grab during what has long been considered a transition season. PDA saw an opportunity to buy low on rudy gay, and he shipped out the necessary pieces to acquire him...
of course, there's another necessary qualifier in this whole mess of an evaluation: i have no idea how the kings envision rudy gay with respect to their long term plans. they may very well attempt to move him now that his reputation has been restored to some degree. much depends on the upcoming draft, if we're being perfectly honest. if the kings are able to snag a guy like dante exum, then perhaps thomas' future value to the team diminishes. and if they're able to snag one of andrew wiggins or jabari parker, then perhaps gay's future value to the team diminishes. who knows how they want to continue in this rebuild, or who they want their "guys" to be going forward, outside of demarcus cousins. but my suspicion is that, after the fiasco of ben mclemore's rookie season, the new regime will have learned a bit of caution when it comes to their draft night selection. so we may not see any major shake-ups on the isaiah thomas and rudy gay fronts until next season's trade deadline, when the kings have a better idea of how the disparate talents they've collected to that point fit together, or if they can fit together at all...
That article and those stats don't being to tell the whole story and I'd go as far to say it's an insult to the other nine guys on that list to compare IT to them. The larger picture and IT's fit has been debated from numerous angles around here so no point in going into it all yet again. But it's quite a one-sided article and doesn't touch on fit or obvious weaknesses. This is a great example of simply looking at stats being entirely misleading.
Aykis has been on of IT's biggest fans for awhile now. STR bans members who aren't on the IT train. There's a reason Reynolds and STR have a working relationship. Also a reason why Aykis and Bruski are good friends. Cut from the same cloth in regards to overvaluing stats and in drawing comparisons between IT and All Stars/HOFers.
If IT was as good as those stats suggest and as good as Aykis/Bruski believe, he'd had received a helluva lot more interest at the deadline.
I still say he's largely a 6th man, probably a top 5 6th man in the right situation or a guy who could have some success starting for a handful of teams around the league in the right situation. That situation isn't as a starter next to Rudy/Boogie though.
What are we, 0-10 without Boogie when IT starts? That doesn't happen with any of the other 9 players in that list.
Aykis has been on of IT's biggest fans for awhile now. STR bans members who aren't on the IT train. There's a reason Reynolds and STR have a working relationship. Also a reason why Aykis and Bruski are good friends. Cut from the same cloth in regards to overvaluing stats and in drawing comparisons between IT and All Stars/HOFers.
If IT was as good as those stats suggest and as good as Aykis/Bruski believe, he'd had received a helluva lot more interest at the deadline.
I still say he's largely a 6th man, probably a top 5 6th man in the right situation or a guy who could have some success starting for a handful of teams around the league in the right situation. That situation isn't as a starter next to Rudy/Boogie though.
What are we, 0-10 without Boogie when IT starts? That doesn't happen with any of the other 9 players in that list.
I'm in the same boat with you in regards to Tyreke and Landry. I didn't want to see Tyreke go, but at the same time, I wouldn't have paid him 11 mil a year. Some decisions should have been made on Tyreke before the trade deadline, but with the team in the middle of being sold, that wasn't going to happen. The Landry deal befuddles me. I didn't get it at the time and I still don't, and I have nothing against Landry. I just didn't see a need. It was almost as though they missed on a couple of deals that they wanted, so the did the Landry deal just to show they did something. Hopefully they have some magic master plan for the summer that clear away the smoke and mirrors, and give us a vision of what they're trying to accomplish. The only break I'll give PDA, is that he had little time to prepare, and had to hit the ground running.
Since I wasn't aware (nor do I really care 
) about the STR backstory, I simply posted the link to the article. It brings up some points that are, I think, worthy of discussion/debate. If Aykis is, in fact, that much of an IT jocker, there are at least a couple of participants in this thread who should be happy to have another positive IT take.
) about the STR backstory, I simply posted the link to the article. It brings up some points that are, I think, worthy of discussion/debate. If Aykis is, in fact, that much of an IT jocker, there are at least a couple of participants in this thread who should be happy to have another positive IT take.