The way you do that though is you collect assets and trade them for players who are difference makers. Collison while a nice signing is not going to take this team to the next level. If we keep letting talent walk, we'll be signing guys like Carl Landry and Darren Collison for eternity while we scrape towards 8th seed.
IT = Rumor of 3/24 offer from Pistons
- Thread starter John Galt
- Start date
- Status
Rudy had a player option, keeping him for this season was his decision not the team's decision. As for the front office letting Tyreke go and trading for Rudy Gay -- I suppose they have their reasons. Tyreke was seen as a poor fit -- a ball hog who didn't help the team. A lot of us saw that situation differently. He barely touched the ball once we moved him to SF which was a monumentally dumb decision by whoever was running the show at the time (both the coach and the management which allowed it to happen). We had trouble scoring early this season so Rudy was intended I think to try and fit a need at the time. But considering our record didn't improve at all in the exchange, perhaps that was a gaff by the front office after all. I know I'd much rather have Tyreke at $11 million per year right now than either Rudy or IT. Also, strongly disagree on the "IT is a high level talent" bit. He's a good player, he's not "break the bank" good.
I wouldn't really call paying a guy $7-$8 million "breaking the bank" in today's NBA. Not when guys like Meeks are making $6, Carl Landry is making $7 and many of other cases. IT's scoring ability, quickness, dribble penetration is "high level", its not like you're going to just let him go and find a guy that can replicate what IT brings right away. In a vacuum without taking team needs into account IT based on pure talent level is a top 15 PG(in an era filled with high level PG's or an era that facilitates the success of a PG?) whatever the case he is there, and to just let a top 15 player at his position walk for nothing is stupid(especially if the price is fair, which is looking quite possible).
I think we just found a comparable replacement for $5 million a year. (see my post here) Clearly we're so far apart on our impressions of IT that we should agree to disagree.
The thing is, IT is not dumb and eventually the light will come on and he will realise that he doesn't need to put up 20ppg for us to be a better team or for him to be a better player! 16ppg where he pick his spots and 8apg is a better player than 20ppg and 6apg he put up last season. The light will come on
Lets get one thing straight here! IT has worked his tail off but he has done so for himself. He was looking after himself this year because he was in a contract year looking to get paid. He wanted to improve his next contract and no one can blame him. If the team asked him to be a 16/8 player instead of 20/6 he would have scoffed at it because those guys get less $$$ than 20/6! He has it in him to improve himself to be a 16/8 player but his selfish play this season was all about hi putting up the number and getting paid even if its to the detriment to the team.
Other potential employees could not give a flying **** how IT was treated. If they get what they want out of the Kings, they would be happy to stick around, if not they find somewhere where its better for them! Do you think Collison was put off by the way the team supposedly treated IT or JT or even Tyreke? I certainly don't think so!
Other potential employees could not give a flying **** how IT was treated. If they get what they want out of the Kings, they would be happy to stick around, if not they find somewhere where its better for them! Do you think Collison was put off by the way the team supposedly treated IT or JT or even Tyreke? I certainly don't think so!
Guys, we can't match and keep him now. Doing so would just be...
Look we are an actual functioning basketball team. Not a spreadsheet. Resigning a guy, who's pissed at it, who doesn't share your opinion of him, and having him around for what both you and he know is only a few months until you dump him is just a huge HUGE gigantic distraction. It could scuttle your entire season you'd be off to such a wonky start. Nor do agents forget that sort of behavior btw. Now its entirely possible in the background we are trying to work with him and his agent to get a sign and trade done where he gets some money and we get some minor goodies, and that's all fine and normal. But the idea that we can just match and retain a player we pretty clearly don't want/have in our future plans (and I am using "we" here to refer to the front office/team, not to Sactownroyalty or Aaron Bruski) and then keep him around a prisoner basically, and then dump him whenever the earliest dump date is, with teams knowing we need to btw... That just doesn't work. It would throw us wildly off kilter. Either we are playing a guy we don't want to, and asking him to paly like he doesn't want to, and not playing guys who we intended to, and then waiting for months before we could switch to our intended lineup...or we are sitting a guy just for the salary hold...there's no good there.
We have to do the best we can here now, and try very hard to have everybody pulling in the same direction, focused on the same goal by training camp.
Look we are an actual functioning basketball team. Not a spreadsheet. Resigning a guy, who's pissed at it, who doesn't share your opinion of him, and having him around for what both you and he know is only a few months until you dump him is just a huge HUGE gigantic distraction. It could scuttle your entire season you'd be off to such a wonky start. Nor do agents forget that sort of behavior btw. Now its entirely possible in the background we are trying to work with him and his agent to get a sign and trade done where he gets some money and we get some minor goodies, and that's all fine and normal. But the idea that we can just match and retain a player we pretty clearly don't want/have in our future plans (and I am using "we" here to refer to the front office/team, not to Sactownroyalty or Aaron Bruski) and then keep him around a prisoner basically, and then dump him whenever the earliest dump date is, with teams knowing we need to btw... That just doesn't work. It would throw us wildly off kilter. Either we are playing a guy we don't want to, and asking him to paly like he doesn't want to, and not playing guys who we intended to, and then waiting for months before we could switch to our intended lineup...or we are sitting a guy just for the salary hold...there's no good there.
We have to do the best we can here now, and try very hard to have everybody pulling in the same direction, focused on the same goal by training camp.
Detroit's still in the mix for Isaiah Thomas. They were on to Thomas early in free agency & I'm hearing they would be open to a sign&trade.
Kings are still looking to free up their logjam at power forward through a trade. Team has a lot of PFs but they don't address Kings' needs
Kings are still looking for a defender/shot blocker to help the interior defense while freeing up the $20-plus million tied up in PFs now.
I think that there is still a place for IT on this team - obviously, the 6th man. When DC and/or Gay or DMC take a rest we are going to need scoring off the bench. I will not go into it as it has been discussed for about 1 year now. However, if we can get him for 7 or below I think we should do it.
Also, I don't agree with the notion that IT is who he is - a score first PG. He has only played 3 seasons. You see guys mature and change for the better all the time after year 3. I think that once IT realizes that if he becomes a passing threat as well as a scoring threat he will be extremely difficult for teams to handle. He has the potential, and maybe one day the desire, to become a passing threat. I think that he will always be below average defensively.
Also, I don't agree with the notion that IT is who he is - a score first PG. He has only played 3 seasons. You see guys mature and change for the better all the time after year 3. I think that once IT realizes that if he becomes a passing threat as well as a scoring threat he will be extremely difficult for teams to handle. He has the potential, and maybe one day the desire, to become a passing threat. I think that he will always be below average defensively.
That may be the case and it may not be the case. I credit IT with some smarts along with ambition and maybe even self-centeredness. I believe, when he signs with the Kings and if he signs with the Kings, he will adjust to the role the Kings want him in. In this process I see him continuing to start for a period but eventually becoming a willing and productive 6th man. Will this be the outcome? In my view, probably not mainly because of money. I'll be happy either way. In the meantime don't short IT on smarts and integrity. I will be most happy with an early solution one way or the other. I have always cared more about the players on the floor than the economics of it.
Well if we somehow retain IT we definitely are not going to start him at the beginning of the season.
We'll do exactly what we did last year when we brought in Vasquez and started him ahead of IT.
Except this time it will be DC who we actually brought in as a FA instead of Vasquez who was Sign&Trade fodder in the Tyreke deal, so we know the FO wanted DC and they will start him at the beginning of the season.
I agree with you that in the absolute best case scenario...if we did retain IT...that he would fully buy in to a role off the bench as a super scorer to keep the offense moving when we move to the second unit. I mean, I don't think there is a single person who would dispute his ability to do that, and do it with great effectiveness. The problems are all on the mental and chemistry side. Will he buy into that role and play that role to his best ability?
Will he cause team friction as he tries to 'prove' he's the better player and cause issues with the FO-desired hierarchy of:
Starter: DC
Back-up: Ray
Super 6th man: IT
I don't know the answers to that, and that is what is concerning.
We'll do exactly what we did last year when we brought in Vasquez and started him ahead of IT.
Except this time it will be DC who we actually brought in as a FA instead of Vasquez who was Sign&Trade fodder in the Tyreke deal, so we know the FO wanted DC and they will start him at the beginning of the season.
I agree with you that in the absolute best case scenario...if we did retain IT...that he would fully buy in to a role off the bench as a super scorer to keep the offense moving when we move to the second unit. I mean, I don't think there is a single person who would dispute his ability to do that, and do it with great effectiveness. The problems are all on the mental and chemistry side. Will he buy into that role and play that role to his best ability?
Will he cause team friction as he tries to 'prove' he's the better player and cause issues with the FO-desired hierarchy of:
Starter: DC
Back-up: Ray
Super 6th man: IT
I don't know the answers to that, and that is what is concerning.
The difference between trading Outlaw and stretching Terry and trading Terry and keeping Outlaw is about $1.05M this year. All things being equal, I'd rather take that hit this year and keep Outlaw on the bench (where he is at least a bit useful, and a tradeable piece) and save the nearly $4M over the next two years.
The trick is to get Detroit to accept Terry as part of the package when an IT sign-and-trade is also included. When the discussions centered around one of our PFs and Terry to get Smith off their hands, it made sense. Throw Thomas in on top of that and Detroit's flexibility incentive to make the deal goes down quite a bit, I think, so they probably don't want Terry's dead weight.
The trick is to get Detroit to accept Terry as part of the package when an IT sign-and-trade is also included. When the discussions centered around one of our PFs and Terry to get Smith off their hands, it made sense. Throw Thomas in on top of that and Detroit's flexibility incentive to make the deal goes down quite a bit, I think, so they probably don't want Terry's dead weight.
That is why I had Outlaw going instead of Terry. Outlaw, Landry and Thomas puts it in the ballpark of Smith depending on the size of Thomas's salary. Outlaw they could use, Terry probably not. With the team not accepting revenue sharing, I just can't see them going into the tax. They may be willing to spend but there must be a cut off point just like it was with Evan's contract that they won't go beyond (at least that is the presumption that I'm making, could be wrong).
Going off his own public comments, can't say I agree on that.
And I don't want a backup PG going for 16/8 per game either. To do that, we'd have to basically turn the entire offense over to him for every min he's out there and he'd have to be incredibly aggressive. For a backup PG to put up those numbers, Rudy and Boogie would have to take a backseat to him, which is exactly what I want to avoid.
And I don't want a backup PG going for 16/8 per game either. To do that, we'd have to basically turn the entire offense over to him for every min he's out there and he'd have to be incredibly aggressive. For a backup PG to put up those numbers, Rudy and Boogie would have to take a backseat to him, which is exactly what I want to avoid.
I was thinking more about the stretch provision and if they are trying to free up space next year which as of now they'll have some, it makes no sense to stretch an expiring. That will just add salary to the cap next year. If you stretched one of Thompson or Landry (if they can't be traded), they'd be saving 4 million off of next years cap and this years. If they can't get Detroit to take on one of Landry or Thompson then I think they will stretch one of them if they are going to stretch anybody. Stretching Outlaw saves almost nothing.
- Status