Draft Thread

[Telemachus]

Congratulations. You found the 1 fatal flaw of Synergy statistics. They don't put enough importance (or any for that matter) on sample size with regards to their ranking system. I would much prefer to see something like a 250 possession minimum to qualify for a ranking

In this case though, Beno was indeed, fantastic defensively last season. He had a solid enough sample size to justify that claim

Opponents shot 35% against him overall. Only 23% from the 3pt line. He killed spot-up shooters last season only allowing them 27% overall shooting and 23% from behind the 3pt line.

Again, you really should learn how to analyze stats before blindly bashing them. I'd be happy to help should you want it

I'm sorry, but I don't care what any stats say about Beno's defense. I have watched enough of him to know beyond a doubt that he is a bad defensive player. And a player who has been around as long as Beno doesn't suddenly do a complete reversal on the defensive end in one year.

 

[vikinginferno]

Did he go on a tear? Yes. Is he a good player? YES! Should he be the starting PG on our team? Not if we want to win. Look at the W-L records with him as starting point (Detroit game onwards) last year, despite an easier schedule (weaker opponents, one more game at home, more days off, players that had played together for a while instead of the VERY short training camp and all the injuries early). Before IT started the Detroit game? 11 and 20. After? 10 and 22. Assuming my counting was correct.

Now this isn't a very detailed look at it, but the W-L records show no improvement. That is the big one in my book.

Look, all of these things you said in this post right here are things that I do not necessarily agree with, but are at least fairly valid viewpoints to have. The problem is that is still not what we are talking about. What isn't a valid viewpoint in the least bit was that IT was starting simply because the Maloofs wanted to make a ROY storyline. Are you backing up from that point now? If so, I'll let you go on your merry way and think that IT shouldn't be our starting PG. What I'm not fine is with there being a widely held viewpoint that the Maloofs somehow forced IT to be the starting PG.

Because you mentioned it, though, I have to form a little rebuttal against the points you make here. How can you form your whole basis of whether IT deserves to start based on W-L from a compressed schedule? First of all, it's a 1.5 game difference. Not really any difference there. Second, someone could just as easily take that to say that Salmons should start as the team had a slightly better W-L with him starting. Do you see anyone else making that point?

Also, W-L doesn't show nearly as much as point differential. We were being blown out of quite a number of games before the switch. After it, we were in pretty much every game. The point differential showed this as it changed from -7.82 before the switch to IT under Smart and -3.88 after the switch. There was a definite improvement in the offense as the team improved in assists, FG%, and a number of other areas.

I remember people making the argument that the Heat were better without Dwyane Wade at one point because they were undefeated or something without him. Do you think that means he is worse than the starter who takes his place because the team had a better record?

 

[Telemachus]

Look, all of these things you said in this post right here are things that I do not necessarily agree with, but are at least fairly valid viewpoints to have. The problem is that is still not what we are talking about. What isn't a valid viewpoint in the least bit was that IT was starting simply because the Maloofs wanted to make a ROY storyline. Are you backing up from that point now? If so, I'll let you go on your merry way and think that IT shouldn't be our starting PG. What I'm not fine is with there being a widely held viewpoint that the Maloofs somehow forced IT to be the starting PG.

While I wouldn't be surprised if the Maloofs pushed for IT to start at PG to help him get into the ROY race, I don't think that is why he ended up starting. I think it had more to do with the Kings having no one step up at SF. Not only did all of our SFs not sieze the chance to take over the starting SF position, they all pretty much played as badly as possible. This forced Coach Smart to move Tyreke to SF because even out of position he was a huge improvement over what we had. That opened up a spot at PG. I would point out that Jimmer actually got first crack at that opening (earlier due to injury) and failed. This left IT as our best option at PG, and to his credit he did what all of our SFs couldn't.

 

[The_Jamal]

I'm sorry, but I don't care what any stats say about Beno's defense. I have watched enough of him to know beyond a doubt that he is a bad defensive player. And a player who has been around as long as Beno doesn't suddenly do a complete reversal on the defensive end in one year.

Again, missing the point. Beno was fantastic for the 346 possessions that he guarded someone this season. Who the heck knows if he can repeat this defensive success!

For a fun example, let's take an extreme hypothetical. We all know Boogie can not shoot 3's. Whatsoever. So what if next year, he hits 100-200 3 point shots at a 50% clip next season? It doesn't matter if Boogie then goes on to become the greatest shooting big man ever, or never makes another 3 again. He was and always would have 1 brilliant season of 3pt shooting

 

[vikinginferno]

While I wouldn't be surprised if the Maloofs pushed for IT to start at PG to help him get into the ROY race, I don't think that is why he ended up starting. I think it had more to do with the Kings having no one step up at SF. Not only did all of our SFs not sieze the chance to take over the starting SF position, they all pretty much played as badly as possible. This forced Coach Smart to move Tyreke to SF because even out of position he was a huge improvement over what we had. That opened up a spot at PG. I would point out that Jimmer actually got first crack at that opening (earlier due to injury) and failed. This left IT as our best option at PG, and to his credit he did what all of our SFs couldn't.

Agreed besides that "I wouldn't be surprised if the Maloofs pushed for IT to start at PG to help him get into the ROY race". IT was a 7 ppg/2.5 apg player before the move to starting, he wasn't even considered close to a top rookie yet. There's just no reason to even think that was a possibility.

What do we need to do now? Tyreke needs to move back to guard and we need to have a real full sized SF that can defend and isn't ball dominant. The 3 guard lineup of IT/MT/Tyreke obviously was nowhere close to optimal.

 

[Telemachus]

Agreed besides that "I wouldn't be surprised if the Maloofs pushed for IT to start at PG to help him get into the ROY race". IT was a 7 ppg/2.5 apg player before the move to starting, he wasn't even considered close to a top rookie yet. There's just no reason to even think that was a possibility.

What do we need to do now? Tyreke needs to move back to guard and we need to have a real full sized SF that can defend and isn't ball dominant. The 3 guard lineup of IT/MT/Tyreke obviously was nowhere close to optimal.

It all depends on what we do at SF. If we can get a good defensive SF who can hit spot up 3s, then it is a no brainer moving Tyreke back to his natural position at guard. The question then is at which guard spot. There are benefits to both.

If you start Tyreke at PG, it gives the Kings at good scoring backcourt with more size. It also allows you to bring IT in off the bench as a change of pace PG who helps give you scoring with your second unit (something the Kings desparately needed last year).

If you start Tyreke at SG, it still gives you better size than last season at guard and a PG who is a better distributor in IT. That would also allow you to use MT as your primary scoring option off the bench much like Jason Terry. The question would be whether or not MT would be upset moving to the bench. My guess is that he won't be bothered as long as he gets his minutes and more importantly the Kings are winning games.

I would actually prefer the second senario with the current players. Now if the Kings find a way to get a really good PG through trade or FA, that would change things a bit.

 

[Bricklayer]

The question would be whether or not MT would be upset moving to the bench. My guess is that he won't be bothered as long as he gets his minutes and more importantly the Kings are winning games.

That would be nice, but I actually considerably doubt that. Marcus is competitive, arrogant, and VERY proud of his abilities and accomplishments. He has the classic temperment of a guy who is not going to let anybody diss him, and benching is a diss for a guy like that. Does he want to win? Sure. of course. But he wants the world to know how good he is and for his doubters to all kiss his *** too. He has a healthy self-regard and was very proud of starting to get acknowledged as a top SG last season.

 

[vikinginferno]

That would be nice, but I actually considerably doubt that. Marcus is competitive, arrogant, and VERY proud of his abilities and accomplishments. He has the classic temperment of a guy who is not going to let anybody diss him, and benching is a diss for a guy like that. Does he want to win? Sure. of course. But he wants the world to know how good he is and for his doubters to all kiss his *** too. He has a healthy self-regard and was very proud of starting to get acknowledged as a top SG last season.

That's all well and good, but there comes a point where you forget about babying all of your players and make them realize that you are putting them in the best place for the team. You are the coach and you have all of the power to do that. If they have a bad attitude about it, too bad. That is their problem. If he sees that we start winning games and there is a winning attitude around him, I have a feeling he will be inclined to be more accepting of his role and fit into the positive attitude rather than be a negative influence. He's not Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade. He's nowhere close to being a player that is above his coach.

 

[bajaden]

My two cents: Can IT be the starting PG on a contending or championship team? I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't know. Pound for pound, he probably gives you more for the buck than anyone. But is that enough? This season will be a test. More teams are going to run pick and rolls at him to get him into a switch situation. I suspect he'll find himself getting posted up by some of the bigger PG's in the NBA. So it will be interesting to see how he, and the Kings handle that.

As much as I love listening to Jerry Reynolds, please don't tell me what a great defensive job IT did guarding a 6'10" player in a switch. Oh I have no doubt that he did everything he could. But then, Jimmer wouldn't have fared any better. The truth is, IT is a very good defensive player. His only liability is his height, which he can do nothing about. And with his athleticism, he plays taller than he is. But once again, is that enough? Personally, if we had another PG that was taller, could defend, and run the team efficiently, then I would perfer IT to come off the bench. He's a great change of pace player.

But before we condemn him, I think we should remember players like Calvin Murphy, Tiny Archibald, and Spud Webb. No slouchs there! Bottom line is, he was a great find, and I suspect he'll get better. I perfer Tyreke at the SG position, so that means unless we aquire another PF, IT is our starter. And I'm fine with that. At least for now.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

My two cents: Can IT be the starting PG on a contending or championship team? I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't know. Pound for pound, he probably gives you more for the buck than anyone. But is that enough?

Why not? Over the last few years we have seen:

Mario Chalmers
Derrick Fisher
Rafer Alston
Mo Williams

all playing PG for contending or championship teams.

Wouldn't mind an upgrade over IT and him coming off the bench. But if our other players develop, there's no reason he couldn't be like one of these guys at a minimum.

 

[swisshh]

My two cents: Can IT be the starting PG on a contending or championship team? I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't know. Pound for pound, he probably gives you more for the buck than anyone. But is that enough? This season will be a test. More teams are going to run pick and rolls at him to get him into a switch situation. I suspect he'll find himself getting posted up by some of the bigger PG's in the NBA. So it will be interesting to see how he, and the Kings handle that.

As much as I love listening to Jerry Reynolds, please don't tell me what a great defensive job IT did guarding a 6'10" player in a switch. Oh I have no doubt that he did everything he could. But then, Jimmer wouldn't have fared any better. The truth is, IT is a very good defensive player. His only liability is his height, which he can do nothing about. And with his athleticism, he plays taller than he is. But once again, is that enough? Personally, if we had another PG that was taller, could defend, and run the team efficiently, then I would perfer IT to come off the bench. He's a great change of pace player.

But before we condemn him, I think we should remember players like Calvin Murphy, Tiny Archibald, and Spud Webb. No slouchs there! Bottom line is, he was a great find, and I suspect he'll get better. I perfer Tyreke at the SG position, so that means unless we aquire another PF, IT is our starter. And I'm fine with that. At least for now.

This is an apt and reasonable assessment of IT.

I'll never understand why there is so much debate over IT or so much angst aimed at him. He can be upgraded upon, but the team was much better with him than without him.

 

[Section 101]

My two cents: Can IT be the starting PG on a contending or championship team? I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't know. Pound for pound, he probably gives you more for the buck than anyone. But is that enough? This season will be a test. More teams are going to run pick and rolls at him to get him into a switch situation. I suspect he'll find himself getting posted up by some of the bigger PG's in the NBA. So it will be interesting to see how he, and the Kings handle that.

As much as I love listening to Jerry Reynolds, please don't tell me what a great defensive job IT did guarding a 6'10" player in a switch. Oh I have no doubt that he did everything he could. But then, Jimmer wouldn't have fared any better. The truth is, IT is a very good defensive player. His only liability is his height, which he can do nothing about. And with his athleticism, he plays taller than he is. But once again, is that enough? Personally, if we had another PG that was taller, could defend, and run the team efficiently, then I would perfer IT to come off the bench. He's a great change of pace player.

But before we condemn him, I think we should remember players like Calvin Murphy, Tiny Archibald, and Spud Webb. No slouchs there! Bottom line is, he was a great find, and I suspect he'll get better. I perfer Tyreke at the SG position, so that means unless we aquire another PF, IT is our starter. And I'm fine with that. At least for now.

I don't see them trying to get him in a post up. Very few PG's can post up they just dont work on it.

 

[Telemachus]

That would be nice, but I actually considerably doubt that. Marcus is competitive, arrogant, and VERY proud of his abilities and accomplishments. He has the classic temperment of a guy who is not going to let anybody diss him, and benching is a diss for a guy like that. Does he want to win? Sure. of course. But he wants the world to know how good he is and for his doubters to all kiss his *** too. He has a healthy self-regard and was very proud of starting to get acknowledged as a top SG last season.

I like MT and his "chip on his shoulder" attitude, but if he puts his own success over that of the team as a whole then we should get rid of him right now. If he can't understand how he would still be sucessful (with plenty of minutes) in the role of a 6th man, then I have given him more credit than he deserves.

 

[Bricklayer]

I like MT and his "chip on his shoulder" attitude, but if he puts his own success over that of the team as a whole then we should get rid of him right now. If he can't understand how he would still be sucessful (with plenty of minutes) in the role of a 6th man, then I have given him more credit than he deserves.

It would be a lot easier if we were already a winning team. But asking a guy to give up his dream of averaging 25ppg and going to multiple All Star games is tough when you are a losing franchise and nobody on the whole squad has accomplished anything more than he has. That's asking for a big leap of faith.

 

[Telemachus]

I don't see them trying to get him in a post up. Very few PG's can post up they just dont work on it.

I don't see him having too much trouble being posted up by most PGs, but there are several PGs that are good post up players and they will give him trouble. What I worry about is teams getting switched on the P&R, which would cause him a lot of problems. Teams only got him switched on the P&R 4 times last season, but I would look for that to change if he is starting for us.

 

[Telemachus]

It would be a lot easier if we were already a winning team. But asking a guy to give up his dream of averaging 25ppg and going to multiple All Star games is tough when you are a losing franchise and nobody on the whole squad has accomplished anything more than he has. That's asking for a big leap of faith.

I agree with you there, but that is part of being good coach IMO. Smart has to sell him on the idea of being the 6th man, which would make him the primary scorer most of the time he is on the floor and convince him he will still get 30 mins a game (which should still alllow him to average close to 20pts a game.)

 

[rainmaker]

I agree with you there, but that is part of being good coach IMO. Smart has to sell him on the idea of being the 6th man, which would make him the primary scorer most of the time he is on the floor and convince him he will still get 30 mins a game (which should still alllow him to average close to 20pts a game.)

Question. Would you have any confidence in Smart delivering on getting you 30 mins and 15+ shots per if you were MT, and he told you you were going to come off the bench? Smart's biggest weakness might just be his lack of an ability to have anything near a regular sub pattern and manage a game. His game management was horrible. I'm not even referring to starting lineups, but just how he manages minutes, sub patterns and lineups towards the end of games.

If I'm MT I wouldn't. It's not a case of a Pop or a Brooks or a Carlisle who've coaches some of the best 6th men in recent history, where they know pretty much exactly when they'll come in and when they'll exit. Smarts sub patterns changed game to game, half to half. Zero consistency. So if you're MT, why would you have any confidence in getting your mins and shots if Smart sent you to the bench? MT couldn't even get regular, consistent mins as a starter. A number of times he was red hot in the first, only to be subbed out at about the 2min mark and benched through halftime. That happened to everyone beside Cuz for the most part. If you're MT, you've been red hot as a starter and still benched for no apparent reason. So why would you have any confidence if you came off the bench and lit up the other team you wouldn't just get sent to the bench again for prolonged stretches? Just an honest question.

 

[Telemachus]

Question. Would you have any confidence in Smart delivering on getting you 30 mins and 15+ shots per if you were MT, and he told you you were going to come off the bench? Smart's biggest weakness might just be his lack of an ability to have anything near a regular sub pattern and manage a game. His game management was horrible. I'm not even referring to starting lineups, but just how he manages minutes, sub patterns and lineups towards the end of games.

If I'm MT I wouldn't. It's not a case of a Pop or a Brooks or a Carlisle who've coaches some of the best 6th men in recent history, where they know pretty much exactly when they'll come in and when they'll exit. Smarts sub patterns changed game to game, half to half. Zero consistency. So if you're MT, why would you have any confidence in getting your mins and shots if Smart sent you to the bench? Just an honest question.

It is hard to say. Smart had a fairl regular rotation when he coached GS and how no problem getting his players minutes and keeping them happy. I also thought his rotations were much better the second half of the season than they were the first half. The biggest problem I saw him have was when he was trying to find a player to produce at SF and went through all of his options (without success) in many games.

 

[rainmaker]

It is hard to say. Smart had a fairl regular rotation when he coached GS and how no problem getting his players minutes and keeping them happy. I also thought his rotations were much better the second half of the season than they were the first half. The biggest problem I saw him have was when he was trying to find a player to produce at SF and went through all of his options (without success) in many games.

Kinda disagree. Living here in the Bay Area I watch most GS games and follow them, and the biggest knock on Smart was his sub patterns, namely around Steph Curry. He'd also one game run Beidrens out for 30+ mins at center, and the next play him literally 10-15mins and go small with either Udoh/Radmonovich at center.

Even at the end of our season with MT our and Smart somewhat fixing Reke's rotation, IT would be benched through halftime and TWill was mysteriously dropped from the rotation while Outlaw's mins skyrocketed. Guess we disagree but both in GS and here imo, game management has been Smart's biggest weakness and if I'm MT I woudn't have any confidence I'll get mine, right or wrong, if sent to the bench.

 

[Telemachus]

Kinda disagree. Living here in the Bay Area I watch most GS games and follow them, and the biggest knock on Smart was his sub patterns, namely around Steph Curry. He'd also one game run Beidrens out for 30+ mins at center, and the next play him literally 10-15mins and go small with either Udoh/Radmonovich at center.

Even at the end of our season with MT our and Smart somewhat fixing Reke's rotation, IT would be benched through halftime and TWill was mysteriously dropped from the rotation while Outlaw's mins skyrocketed. Guess we disagree but both in GS and here imo, game management has been Smart's biggest weakness and if I'm MT I woudn't have any confidence I'll get mine, right or wrong, if sent to the bench.

I watch a lot of GS games as well (I'm in an area where I can watch both GS & Sac) and I didn't notice much of a problem with Curry's minutes (especially as the season went on and he was pushing Tyreke for ROY). As for Beidrens, I can't say that I blamed him for givin him inconsistent minutes. You never knew which Beirdrens you were going to get from game to game. The past couple of years, his nickname should have been Jekyl and Hyde.

 

[Telemachus]

I will say this on Coach Smart. I am willing to give him a chance with a full training camp to see what he can do with this team. I don't expect to agree with all of his moves (haven't found a coach yet that fits that bill), but do expect him to put the players in a position for them to have the best chance to suceed and they team as well. I think he has at least earned that much of a chance. Now if Jerry Sloan or Phil Jackson came knocking on our door, I would change my mind very quickly. I don't see that happening though.

 

[mac]

I will say this on Coach Smart. I am willing to give him a chance with a full training camp to see what he can do with this team. I don't expect to agree with all of his moves (haven't found a coach yet that fits that bill), but do expect him to put the players in a position for them to have the best chance to suceed and they team as well. I think he has at least earned that much of a chance. Now if Jerry Sloan or Phil Jackson came knocking on our door, I would change my mind very quickly. I don't see that happening though.

My biggest hope is that Smart can walk the talk, because he's saying all the right things, and truth be told comes across as a very intelligent and personal coach. I give him and his staff credit for at least having an offseason plan for the players, so that each player knows what they have to do and is kept in check by the coaching staff. That's a good start, so I'm hoping that he manages to pull it all together. He does seem hell-bent on a running style (which I don't really think is advisable in the long run), but if he can deliver good results I'm not going to question his methods.

 

[Mass]

There's a main problem when we try to compare MT with Ginobili, Harden or Terry. It's not a matter of who starts the game. It's a matter of who finishes it. San Antonio, OKC, Dallas, they don't have this problem, because those players know that they will be out there at the end of the game. Who are the starters? Danny Green, Tabo Sefolosha, Delonte West and in the past DeShawn Stevenson.
The Kings have Evans. If we assume we'll sign a decent SF, then one between IT and MT will have to sit down at the end of the games. Thornton is a clutch player, but I also believe we need a real PG when the game is on the line. That's why I think it would be hard for MT to accept that role.

Like I said before, I really like MT for many reasons. But, if Houston is still willing to trade Lowry, I'd offer them MT and Hayes and see if they're ok with that.

With a Lowry-Evans-Kirilenko (hopefully)-Robinson-Cosuins lineup, we would be in the playoff discussion next year.

 

[ParniValjak]

There's a main problem when we try to compare MT with Ginobili, Harden or Terry. It's not a matter of who starts the game. It's a matter of who finishes it. San Antonio, OKC, Dallas, they don't have this problem, because those players know that they will be out there at the end of the game. Who are the starters? Danny Green, Tabo Sefolosha, Delonte West and in the past DeShawn Stevenson.
The Kings have Evans. If we assume we'll sign a decent SF, then one between IT and MT will have to sit down at the end of the games. Thornton is a clutch player, but I also believe we need a real PG when the game is on the line. That's why I think it would be hard for MT to accept that role.

Like I said before, I really like MT for many reasons. But, if Houston is still willing to trade Lowry, I'd offer them MT and Hayes and see if they're ok with that.

With a Lowry-Evans-Kirilenko (hopefully)-Robinson-Cosuins lineup, we would be in the playoff discussion next year.

There is always that option of getting Lowry BUT here is the clincher, the Rockets are looking for some sort of cap flexibility so that they can continue living for the day when they trade for a superstar.

MT for Lowry doesn't really fix anything for us because we still have a hole at SF and we still lack that interior shotblocker to anchor the defence. Not to mention we are giving Smart ammunition for small ball with Lowry-Thomas PG duo.

But for them to trade Lowry (approx $5.5million) for MT ($8M) and Hayes ($5M) makes no sense. We are still stuck having traded our biggest trade chip and still have not addressed the holes at SF and a shot blocker especially considering it is highly unlikely any big name FAs sign with Sacramento. We should consider ourselves lucky if we keep JT and T-Will at a reasonable price.

I would LOVE to pair Lowry and Evans but realistically we have more pressing needs (SF, shotblocker) and should be looking to cash in our biggest trade chip (MT) to address those needs.

 

[Kingster]

My two cents: Can IT be the starting PG on a contending or championship team? I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't know. Pound for pound, he probably gives you more for the buck than anyone. But is that enough? This season will be a test. More teams are going to run pick and rolls at him to get him into a switch situation. I suspect he'll find himself getting posted up by some of the bigger PG's in the NBA. So it will be interesting to see how he, and the Kings handle that.

As much as I love listening to Jerry Reynolds, please don't tell me what a great defensive job IT did guarding a 6'10" player in a switch. Oh I have no doubt that he did everything he could. But then, Jimmer wouldn't have fared any better. The truth is, IT is a very good defensive player. His only liability is his height, which he can do nothing about. And with his athleticism, he plays taller than he is. But once again, is that enough? Personally, if we had another PG that was taller, could defend, and run the team efficiently, then I would perfer IT to come off the bench. He's a great change of pace player.

But before we condemn him, I think we should remember players like Calvin Murphy, Tiny Archibald, and Spud Webb. No slouchs there! Bottom line is, he was a great find, and I suspect he'll get better. I perfer Tyreke at the SG position, so that means unless we aquire another PF, IT is our starter. And I'm fine with that. At least for now.

I think the switching argument is overblown and overplayed. Whether you're 5'9" or 6"2 inches, you're not going to be able to guard power forwards or 3s in switching situations. It's up to the team defense to counter that situation. The argument is similar to saying that more teams are going to be trying to put a power forward in isolation situations on defense with their point guard, so we should ding the power forward heavily for not doing well in those situations. If that's truly the worst that will happen with IT, then I will gladly live with it. It's much better than geting reamed by opposing point guards who get to the basket at will with no pressure. Would IT be great coming of the bench? Sure. He's good starting, so I think he'd be excellent off the bench. But right now there's not anyone that close on this team in passing skill, especially in pick and roll situations, and with the big men on this team like Couisns, and now Robinson, that is very important, imo. IT is the best guard this team has in pressuring the ball on defense, passing the ball, overall shooting, 3 pt shooting, running a pick and roll, running a fast break, and breaking a pressure defense bring the ball up the court. Unless we trade for a top 10 guard, I don't see the purpose in not starting him.

 

[Gilles]

Well, Sefolosha will try to hand IT to Westbrook or Harden who do you prefer?

 

[funkykingston]

There is always that option of getting Lowry BUT here is the clincher, the Rockets are looking for some sort of cap flexibility so that they can continue living for the day when they trade for a superstar.

MT for Lowry doesn't really fix anything for us because we still have a hole at SF and we still lack that interior shotblocker to anchor the defence. Not to mention we are giving Smart ammunition for small ball with Lowry-Thomas PG duo.

But for them to trade Lowry (approx $5.5million) for MT ($8M) and Hayes ($5M) makes no sense. We are still stuck having traded our biggest trade chip and still have not addressed the holes at SF and a shot blocker especially considering it is highly unlikely any big name FAs sign with Sacramento. We should consider ourselves lucky if we keep JT and T-Will at a reasonable price.

I would LOVE to pair Lowry and Evans but realistically we have more pressing needs (SF, shotblocker) and should be looking to cash in our biggest trade chip (MT) to address those needs.

The problem Houston has is that they pretty much have to deal Lowry now and everyone knows it. Garcia's ending contract might entice them. Or maybe a gamble on Jimmer. Either way I'd agree that if the Kings are going to trade Thornton I think they have bigger fish to fry in terms of roster holes.

 

[mac]

I think the switching argument is overblown and overplayed. Whether you're 5'9" or 6"2 inches, you're not going to be able to guard power forwards or 3s in switching situations. It's up to the team defense to counter that situation. The argument is similar to saying that more teams are going to be trying to put a power forward in isolation situations on defense with their point guard, so we should ding the power forward heavily for not doing well in those situations. If that's truly the worst that will happen with IT, then I will gladly live with it. It's much better than geting reamed by opposing point guards who get to the basket at will with no pressure. Would IT be great coming of the bench? Sure. He's good starting, so I think he'd be excellent off the bench. But right now there's not anyone that close on this team in passing skill, especially in pick and roll situations, and with the big men on this team like Couisns, and now Robinson, that is very important, imo. IT is the best guard this team has in pressuring the ball on defense, passing the ball, overall shooting, 3 pt shooting, running a pick and roll, running a fast break, and breaking a pressure defense bring the ball up the court. Unless we trade for a top 10 guard, I don't see the purpose in not starting him.

In other words... IT is our best guard on both ends. Now that's just sad for us.

 

[Kingster]

In other words... IT is our best guard on both ends. Now that's just sad for us.

Ahh, you're a glass half empty kind of guy.... Just think if we sold the 60th pick in the draft last year; that would be sad. A Ty Lawson type (and IT is probably a better passer) at the 1 ain't bad in my estimation, especially in comparison to what we've had over the last decade.

 

[bajaden]

Kinda disagree. Living here in the Bay Area I watch most GS games and follow them, and the biggest knock on Smart was his sub patterns, namely around Steph Curry. He'd also one game run Beidrens out for 30+ mins at center, and the next play him literally 10-15mins and go small with either Udoh/Radmonovich at center.

Even at the end of our season with MT our and Smart somewhat fixing Reke's rotation, IT would be benched through halftime and TWill was mysteriously dropped from the rotation while Outlaw's mins skyrocketed. Guess we disagree but both in GS and here imo, game management has been Smart's biggest weakness and if I'm MT I woudn't have any confidence I'll get mine, right or wrong, if sent to the bench.

I think the only answer right now, is no one knows for sure what Smart will do. He did coach under Pops at San Antonio, so its not as though he hasn't seen the right way to manage a team. Essentially, this is a make it or break it year for him. So we'll see! Unfortunately were just spectators, and suffer or enjoy the results, whatever they may be. I certainly agree that some of his substitutions were very strange. All I could chalk it up to, was his trying to see what he had. I'm not saying he was trying to lose, but may have had some indifference about it in lieu of finding out who could do what in combination with whom.

Don't know if thats the case of not, but its the only scenario to me that makes sense, other than he simply didn't know what he was doing. I find the latter hard to believe. He seems like a bright guy, and certainly doesn't lack for confidence. So its his time to shine, or fade like a dying sun. We'll see! I reserve judgement until I see some results. Good or bad!