PG for the Kings

[bajaden]

I hear Derek is available HAHAHAHA oh Hell NO

Derek Fisher to try comeback as a player?

Ex-New York Knicks coach Derek Fisher hinted at a possible comeback on Tuesday night when he posted a workout video with the hashtag “Imnotdoneyet.” Sources told ESPN Wednesday that Fisher has indeed been “exploring options and expressing interest in playing again.”
– via ESPN

Would we really want Fisher and Barnes in the same locker room together?

 

[Telemachus]

Would we really want Fisher and Barnes in the same locker room together?

Come on! That first practice would be so much fun to watch.

 

[Sac.Kings]

Come on! That first practice would be so much fun to watch.

First and only practice, as half the team would probably be injured in some way or another!

 

[KingMilz]

If the team wants to make the playoffs I think we might have to risk going (if it's financially possible) after Lance Stephenson as the back up PG and trading Ben/Koufos, the team still has zero players aside from Cousins that on a regular basis can breakdown the D off the dribble and Lance despite having tunnel vision is fairly elite at getting to the rim. He also brings that length/size we have got with basically every signing.

Who on the 2nd unit can break down a defense? Mclemore can't dribble/Temple can bring the ball up that's about it, Casspi nah not really he's a off the ball type same as Barnes. I just say give Lance the ball with the 2nd unit and let him go for better and worse. I know he's a idiot but if it's make the playoffs or bust than it's worth a risk.

We need talent/x factor to go with these tough solid vets we got.

 

[ockingsfan]

If the team wants to make the playoffs I think we might have to risk going (if it's financially possible) after Lance Stephenson as the back up PG and trading Ben/Koufos, the team still has zero players aside from Cousins that on a regular basis can breakdown the D off the dribble and Lance despite having tunnel vision is fairly elite at getting to the rim. He also brings that length/size we have got with basically every signing.

Who on the 2nd unit can break down a defense? Mclemore can't dribble/Temple can bring the ball up that's about it, Casspi nah not really he's a off the ball type same as Barnes. I just say give Lance the ball with the 2nd unit and let him go for better and worse. I know he's a idiot but if it's make the playoffs or bust than it's worth a risk.

We need talent/x factor to go with these tough solid vets we got.

Good Idea.

I thought Lance had signed with Indiana already, but apparently not.

If Lance does not have any big money offers, I could definitely see how he would want to be reunited with Coach Joeger, after his resurrection in Memphis.

If Lance is willing to accept the room exception the Kings have, then I would take a chance on Lance to lead the 2nd unit.

 

[Mike]

Good Idea.

I thought Lance had signed with Indiana already, but apparently not.

If Lance does not have any big money offers, I could definitely see how he would want to be reunited with Coach Joeger, after his resurrection in Memphis.

If Lance is willing to accept the room exception the Kings have, then I would take a chance on Lance to lead the 2nd unit.

The issue with Stephenson is where does he fit in?

I don't foresee a starting line up role for him because he isn't a consistent shooter, and considering our lacklustre outside shooting, that would be a problem and would make him an awkward fit unless we made other moves. OK, he brings energy and defense, but I just don't see him being a good fit in our starting line up.

As for a bench role, a sixth man type role could benefit him and he could help lead our 2nd unit. However, we do have two talented shooting guards on the roster that could benefit from those minutes in the rotation. Ben McLemore came into the league with a lot of hype. So far he's arguably been a bust, but he has the potential to be a good player in the right system. Let Joerger work with him and give him an opportunity this year to come off the bench and see what happens, maybe he surprises us... The other contender for some minutes should be Malachi Richardson. He's a talented kid who needs coaching up, but the best place to develop is on the court getting minutes. Let's see what we can get from him. Of course this might not help us make a play off case, but these are two players we have under contract and control their future. Whereas Stephenson would likely be a one year loan unless we pay him, which I would be hesitant at doing.

For me, I'd rather stick with what we've got and see what they have to offer. Though perhaps if we really do have play off aspirations, or decide to trade McLemore in some package for a PG, then maybe Stephenson could fit into a bench role for us.

 

[Jimbob]

I was just watching a workout video of Temple on Bleacher Report. He's not going against competition but I was impressed by his ball handling abilities.
I don't know but just maybe we should not write him off as a secondary PG.

 

[ockingsfan]

The issue with Stephenson is where does he fit in?

I don't foresee a starting line up role for him because he isn't a consistent shooter, and considering our lacklustre outside shooting, that would be a problem and would make him an awkward fit unless we made other moves. OK, he brings energy and defense, but I just don't see him being a good fit in our starting line up.

As for a bench role, a sixth man type role could benefit him and he could help lead our 2nd unit. However, we do have two talented shooting guards on the roster that could benefit from those minutes in the rotation. Ben McLemore came into the league with a lot of hype. So far he's arguably been a bust, but he has the potential to be a good player in the right system. Let Joerger work with him and give him an opportunity this year to come off the bench and see what happens, maybe he surprises us... The other contender for some minutes should be Malachi Richardson. He's a talented kid who needs coaching up, but the best place to develop is on the court getting minutes. Let's see what we can get from him. Of course this might not help us make a play off case, but these are two players we have under contract and control their future. Whereas Stephenson would likely be a one year loan unless we pay him, which I would be hesitant at doing.

For me, I'd rather stick with what we've got and see what they have to offer. Though perhaps if we really do have play off aspirations, or decide to trade McLemore in some package for a PG, then maybe Stephenson could fit into a bench role for us.

I think KingMilz was suggesting using Lance as the backup Point Guard, which would give us a big defensive Point Gurad who can get to the rim.

If Lance were signed as a backup shooting guard, then yes, we would have to move Ben to open some playing time.

 

[Mike]

I think KingMilz was suggesting using Lance as the backup Point Guard, which would give us a big defensive Point Gurad who can get to the rim.

If Lance were signed as a backup shooting guard, then yes, we would have to move Ben to open some playing time.

That's a possibility. He does have ball handling ability, and he'd create some mismatches at PG. Though has he played PG before? If he has, signing him up does offer more upside than the other backup PG options we currently have.

 

[KingMilz]

That's a possibility. He does have ball handling ability, and he'd create some mismatches at PG. Though has he played PG before? If he has, signing him up does offer more upside than the other backup PG options we currently have.

He did for stretches in Memphis and Indiana where he dominated the living crap out of the ball Rondo style minus the passing at the end but attacking the rim which is not a bad thing when your trying to carry a 2nd unit as he would in Sacramento.

 

[King Baller]

He did for stretches in Memphis and Indiana where he dominated the living crap out of the ball Rondo style minus the passing at the end but attacking the rim which is not a bad thing when your trying to carry a 2nd unit as he would in Sacramento.

Lance would not be a bad way to go as a bench scoring threat. The question is Lance OK with that role?

 

[KingMilz]

Lance would not be a bad way to go as a bench scoring threat. The question is Lance OK with that role?

I don't see why not when he loves to dominate the ball and that's exactly what he would do with the 2nd unit.

 

[KingMilz]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-lance-stephenson-may-have-to-play-overseas-next-season/

Says Lance might have to play overseas, at this point If we don't trade Gay (even if we do) I don't see how a team lacking in talent we would not sign him or Ty Lawson as a 1 year risk the team is completely devoid of above average talent (Cousins/Rudy that's it) that can or has produced in the past. Who knows one of them might turn back the clock to a few years back even if unlikely with no actually back up PG (Temple is not a back up PG imo) and Collison up on charges there has to be a risk taken.

 

[ParniValjak]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-lance-stephenson-may-have-to-play-overseas-next-season/

Says Lance might have to play overseas, at this point If we don't trade Gay (even if we do) I don't see how a team lacking in talent we would not sign him or Ty Lawson as a 1 year risk the team is completely devoid of above average talent (Cousins/Rudy that's it) that can or has produced in the past. Who knows one of them might turn back the clock to a few years back even if unlikely with no actually back up PG (Temple is not a back up PG imo) and Collison up on charges there has to be a risk taken.

Its pretty clear that we are recruiting solid locker room glue guys who are all about the team and playing their role for the team. I for the life of me cannot see Lance or Lawson fitting that description. I can understand the intrigue but if Joerger who has coached Lance appears to not want to go there it must tell us something.

 

[KingMilz]

Its pretty clear that we are recruiting solid locker room glue guys who are all about the team and playing their role for the team. I for the life of me cannot see Lance or Lawson fitting that description. I can understand the intrigue but if Joerger who has coached Lance appears to not want to go there it must tell us something.

But Barnes/Afflalo (his actions last season)/Rudy (constant bitching/quitting) and Cousins are?(even DC does not appear as he once did with the allegations) We have enough good guys now with WCS/Temple/AT/KK in terms of character but we need some more talent I understand the risk but it's a one year risk and we can't pretend that the current roster lacks a PG/combo guard who can breakdown a defence.

Hopefully Vlade still has a few cards left to play I will be fairly disappointed if what we have now will be the squad start of the year.

 

[ParniValjak]

But Barnes/Afflalo (his actions last season)/Rudy (constant bitching/quitting) and Cousins are?(even DC does not appear as he once did with the allegations) We have enough good guys now with WCS/Temple/AT/KK in terms of character but we need some more talent I understand the risk but it's a one year risk and we can't pretend that the current roster lacks a PG/combo guard who can breakdown a defence.

Hopefully Vlade still has a few cards left to play I will be fairly disappointed if what we have now will be the squad start of the year.

As has been said previously Lawson does not fit the profile that we are obviously looking for and that is mostly obviously focused on the defensive end.

Lance has been known as a loose cannon on the court while all the guys that you have mentioned have been playing as pros to team concepts throughout their careers. We are not looking for choir boys but there are obviously certain things we are looking for and Lawson definitely doesn't fit that criteria and while Lance fits some of it, the fact that Joerger has not pushed for it tells me there is more to it than meets the eye. As does that Lance has not been signed by anyone and is looking to possibly head overseas.

By comparison, Joerger wanted Barnes so did Cousins. It's not always about talent and in our case we are looking to change the culture into a gritty, tough defensive minded team that doesb't give up. Lance has checked out ever since he got his contract from Charlotte and Lawson has been on a downward spiral for some time now.

 

[KingsFanGER]

In my mind Lance fits the mindset of a gritty, tough, defensive team very well. But you are right - there must be a reason why Joerger doesn't want to sign him. Most likely it's on the offensive side of the court, where Lance is a hero baller more often than not and not a ball mover at all.
But honestly I think we are making a big mistake, when we pass on him. During his Clippers tenure Lance showed, that he can be disciplined and plugged into a lesser role on offense. He still was a gritty defender, but he wasn't handling the ball that much and there weren't that many boneheaded plays. He likes to be the man on the court, but he can be used in a well structured system without imploding.
He is a subpar shooter, but also has more talent in his index finger, than the rest of our guard rotation combined.

 

[Bricklayer]

Joerger got a look at him up close and personal. If he doesn't want him, then no we're not making a mistake.

Stephensen is about as vile as you get in the NBA. You can talk about maturing, but this is a guy with multiple assault/sexual assault charges in his past for groping girls and throwing them down stairs, then multiple cancerous turns in the NBA. If Joerger worked with him and said, yeah, he's come around and I can work with him again, then I would be willing to go with it. He's the one with the direct experience and the one who will have to try to control him again. But I am absolutely not losing a single wink if a guy with Stephensen's history is not wanted by a coach who's actually had to coach him. That's par for the course.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Joerger got a look at him up close and personal. If he doesn't want him, then no we're not making a mistake.

Stephensen is about as vile as you get in the NBA. You can talk about maturing, but this is a guy with multiple assault/sexual assault charges in his past for groping girls and throwing them down stairs, then multiple cancerous turns in the NBA. If Joerger worked with him and said, yeah, he's come around and I can work with him again, then I would be willing to go with it. He's the one with the direct experience and the one who will have to try to control him again. But I am absolutely not losing a single wink if a guy with Stephensen's history is not wanted by a coach who's actually had to coach him. That's par for the course.

Oh I know Lance is most likely not a very nice person. Could be, that he is a complete butthead. I don't know him and I don't know much about the cases you mention outside of 1 or 2 newspaper articles.
The sexual assault took place in 2008, the assault of his girlfriend in 2010. We have 2016 and I'm not aware of more off court incidents. So while I condemn any form of violence, it might be, that he changed his behaviour in that regard.
You are right, that Joerger most likely knows best in this case.
But talentwise Lance Stephenson is on a completely different level than Temple, McLemore or (current) Afflalo and he fits the overall team concept.
Yes talent isn't everything. But from my point of view many talented players don't have the impact they should have on the court, because they are passive and don't go all out. With Lance Stephenson this is not the problem. He is trying too hard to be a star and is doing too much, but he competes and plays hard, when given the chance.
I would take his mindset over a passive guy not willing to go to war with his teammates.
As Sacramento Kings Fans we know, that certain labels are attached pretty fast to some players in the NBA and we know, that those labels might be not entirely correct or fair.

 

[CelticsFan]

Shane Larkin signed a contract overseas. Cross him off the list

 

[Spike]

As Sacramento Kings Fans we know, that certain labels are attached pretty fast to some players in the NBA and we know, that those labels might be not entirely correct or fair.

Lance's label is very accurate and well-earned.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Lance's label is very accurate and well-earned.

This would be the answer of nearly every non Kings fan, when asked about Cousins label.
Like I said - the offcourt incidents are a thing of the past. I'm not aware of anything more recent. Other than that? A bunch of rumors about Stephenson alienating his teammates in Indiana. And? A passionate, sometimes barely controllable player with quite a bit of talent?

 

[pshn80]

This would be the answer of nearly every non Kings fan, when asked about Cousins label.
Like I said - the offcourt incidents are a thing of the past. I'm not aware of anything more recent. Other than that? A bunch of rumors about Stephenson alienating his teammates in Indiana. And? A passionate, sometimes barely controllable player with quite a bit of talent?

You made the case, he's not for me.

 

[beb0p]

This would be the answer of nearly every non Kings fan, when asked about Cousins label.
Like I said - the offcourt incidents are a thing of the past. I'm not aware of anything more recent. Other than that? A bunch of rumors about Stephenson alienating his teammates in Indiana. And? A passionate, sometimes barely controllable player with quite a bit of talent?

I would assume that the Kings think they have already filled all the roles. Putting aside his reputation, adding Stephenson would conflict with Garrett Temple, as they would have the same role (albeit one is more talented than the other). As it currently stands, I don't know how the Kings would fit Lance into the rotation. If the Kings hadn't signed Temple then Lance would make more sense.

I agree with you that his is talented and would be a steal with a minimum deal, but there just isn't a place for him on the team. With that said, I wouldn't mind if the Kings take a flyer on him but that doesn't look likely.
.

 

[Spike]

This would be the answer of nearly every non Kings fan, when asked about Cousins label.

Entirely different. One has a history of domestic violence, the other just "looks mean on the court" and complains about non-calls. Don't try to lump the two together. Demarcus doesn't have a section titled "off-court troubles" in Wikipedia like Lance does. His history isn't just one incident. It's a repeated pattern of behavior. Has he matured? Likely, but I'm not willing to take that risk.

 

[KingsFanGER]

I would assume that the Kings think they have already filled all the roles. Putting aside his reputation, adding Stephenson would conflict with Garrett Temple, as they would have the same role (albeit one is more talented than the other). As it currently stands, I don't know how the Kings would fit Lance into the rotation. If the Kings hadn't signed Temple then Lance would make more sense.

I agree with you that his is talented and would be a steal with a minimum deal, but there just isn't a place for him on the team. With that said, I wouldn't mind if the Kings take a flyer on him but that doesn't look likely.
.

I don't think Temple and Stephenson would cause any problems when playing alongside each other. Both fit the vision of strong, lengthy guards able to defend multiple positions. Both can handle the ball and can make plays for others.
Temple is a very good off the ball player, while Stephenson likes to control the ball a tad too much.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Entirely different. One has a history of domestic violence, the other just "looks mean on the court" and complains about non-calls. Don't try to lump the two together. Demarcus doesn't have a section titled "off-court troubles" in Wikipedia like Lance does. His history isn't just one incident. It's a repeated pattern of behavior. Has he matured? Likely, but I'm not willing to take that risk.

I didn't lump Cousins and Stephenson together. I was talking about asigned labels.
The Kings have to take risks, because we are a bottom of the league team right now. Is Stephenson on a cost controlled short term deal a big risk? I don't think so.

 

[206Fan]

I was just watching a workout video of Temple on Bleacher Report. He's not going against competition but I was impressed by his ball handling abilities.
I don't know but just maybe we should not write him off as a secondary PG.

I think it's okay to write him off when he's been in the league for over 5 years now at age 30 and has not shown any real capability of being a PG throughout all of his years.

Lots of Wiz fans will tell you that you received a great lockeroom guy in Temple, but a terrible PG at the same time.

 

[King Baller]

I think it's okay to write him off when he's been in the league for over 5 years now at age 30 and has not shown any real capability of being a PG throughout all of his years.

Lots of Wiz fans will tell you that you received a great lockeroom guy in Temple, but a terrible PG at the same time.

Link to source please?

 

[206Fan]

Link to source please?

source for what?

Anyone here who thinks Temple could be a legit starting PG is really kidding themselves. He's barely a fringe backup PG. It's insanity. Can't downplay how bad our PG position looks right now.