Cleveland/ Kings
- Thread starter CaminoChaos
- Start date
It also depends on whether or not the new ownership would want to re-sign IT after next season. If we think he is not worth what he will get, then we can always make the move now because his value will only decrease as a player that becomes UFA after the season.
Pick 19 is a decent return and we might eve be able to get pick 13 from Dallas. Either way, if this pick gets us a shot blocker I am all for it. It also goes a fair way to clearing the overloaded mess in the backcourt.
Pick 19 is a decent return and we might eve be able to get pick 13 from Dallas. Either way, if this pick gets us a shot blocker I am all for it. It also goes a fair way to clearing the overloaded mess in the backcourt.
As best I understand it, a trade of IT for 13 or 19 CAN get us at least a moderately good shot blocker and that is a helluva lot better than a mini-chucker. I am not putting down chuckers in general but we don't need any. Why have a horrendous overbalance in this area. We have a far bigger need for shot blockers. Aldrich is the proof. Our defense changed far more than you would expect when he was inserted. BTW, I hope we resign him also.
It might be apples and oranges. If you could find a good post defender to put along side Cousins, thats also limited on offense, he just might be a bigger step in the right direction, while limited overall, than IT is, while being a better all around player. I can't guarantee you that we could get that player at the 13th spot. At least not immediately, but there are a few players that might fill the bill. Its never without some risk. Hey, were going to sign Chris Paul, so why worry about IT.
We are in solid agreement. You know I can remember back to the early days when we lost every year. When that happens, fans start to live in a bubble thats somewhat removed from reality at times. Back then fans fell in love with players like Anthony Bonner, Michael Smith, Jim Les, Randy Brown, Mike Peplowski, and Pete Chilcutt. I remember when Dennis Hopson came to the team and a lot of people definitely wanted him resigned. He just might be the next Michael Jordan. OK, I exaggerate, but you get what I'm saying. These players, while talented, were overvalued by the fans. I like IT, but personally, I don't care if we keep him or not. That doesn't mean I want to just give him away, but if I can find a player that is a better fit while fixing a need, then I'd trade him. If not, then I keep him.
I think the word weak is being used a little too liberally. I think the 19th pick in this draft will match up quite well with the 19th pick in last years draft. The difference is at the top. Most drafts have 2 or 3 so called can't miss players at the top of the draft, and around 5 to 7 very good players with a lot of upside. Of course it doesn't always work out that way. There are busts every year, and players taken in the second round or the bottom of the first round that end up being better than many taken above them. Chandler Parsons being a perfect example of that. My point is, I think there are some very good players in this draft, and some are in the middle to bottom of the first round. In some cases, it may take a year or two to reap the benefits. In other cases, they might be 22 or 23 years old already. Some may be somewhat one demensional, as in being only good at defense.
Where a player is picked, is just a number that someone alloted to that player. If you have a player targeted in the draft that you think can solve some of your defensive liabilities, then maybe you go ahead and make that trade. When your near last in the league in defense, and points allowed, I think you have to take steps to correct it.
Where a player is picked, is just a number that someone alloted to that player. If you have a player targeted in the draft that you think can solve some of your defensive liabilities, then maybe you go ahead and make that trade. When your near last in the league in defense, and points allowed, I think you have to take steps to correct it.
I'll second VF21, I haven't looked into this rumor but for the 19th pick alone I wouldn't pull the trigger.. IT is a guy who makes up a large part of the heart in the locker room, is a spark plug that changes games around with his energy, and is a guy already loved by the community.. How many other players can we say this about on this roster?
Yep.
I know it's not popular to talk about the intangibles when discussing a player's future, but IT has a LOT of fans in the community and he gives his all every time he steps onto the court.
I do not want to see us grabbing a bunch of draft picks that aren't NBA ready. There is value on our roster that hasn't been properly utilized. I do realize trade talks are always the main topic of discussion before draft day, so I'll probably just bow out of this one. I guess I'm just not good at "what if" and speculation. Carry on...
I know it's not popular to talk about the intangibles when discussing a player's future, but IT has a LOT of fans in the community and he gives his all every time he steps onto the court.
I do not want to see us grabbing a bunch of draft picks that aren't NBA ready. There is value on our roster that hasn't been properly utilized. I do realize trade talks are always the main topic of discussion before draft day, so I'll probably just bow out of this one. I guess I'm just not good at "what if" and speculation. Carry on...
It's interesting to view this as an intellectual exercise but its hard to believe there's anything to this rumor. For starters trades for draft picks are generally conditional based on the player the team wants being on the board at that slot. And of course the Kings haven't picked a GM so it's hard to believe that they've already populated their draft board AND targeted a player they believe will be available at #19.
Mindless rumor IMO.
Mindless rumor IMO.
You cannot judge the present by what was said in the past. LOTS of players have had less than flattering things to say about Sacramento, and I honestly couldn't blame them. Our team was a mess, our owners were an embarrassment, and it looked like we were on the way out...
There's a new ownership group in town, a new arena on the way, revitalized fan base, etc. I don't think you'll see as many negative comments as there were before.
And, once again, we can't condemn someone because he doesn't want to come to Sacramento. Once they're here, they generally find out how wrong they were.
There's a new ownership group in town, a new arena on the way, revitalized fan base, etc. I don't think you'll see as many negative comments as there were before.
And, once again, we can't condemn someone because he doesn't want to come to Sacramento. Once they're here, they generally find out how wrong they were.
I have no idea with Jack. But he is now in NorCal, and his old coach and old owner have opened up shop 90 miles down the road. Sounds to me like a reasonable possibility
As for the "other team" signing Jack. In this case the other team is Cleveland, and so no, they aren't going to sign him. Here's what you have to remember, in theory we would be able to offer him:
1) a starting job, at PG
2) within 90 miles of his current home
3) playing for his old coach/defensive coordinator from last year
4) to a contract with one of his old owners from last year.
No other team in the league can boast all those advantages.
Now others can boast other things, but Cleveland isn't one of them (Cleveland's tally: a backup spot behind a 38min a night PG, new coach, new owner, across country, in city derided as often as Sacto).
Anyway, its a thought. Jack's numbers last season are largely on the same plane as IT's, except Jack is known as a good full sized defender. He would cost you more than IT...but only for a year as IT is due for a big pay bump in a year. And if you believed you could get a shotblocker in the draft with that pick, one who could play rotation minutes, then that shotblocker is going to be MUCH cheaper than buying one on the open market, where they are at a premium. Again, assuming there was a guy sitting there you thought we could plug in, and assuming you were confident in pursuing Jack...but those are big assumptions of course.
As for the "other team" signing Jack. In this case the other team is Cleveland, and so no, they aren't going to sign him. Here's what you have to remember, in theory we would be able to offer him:
1) a starting job, at PG
2) within 90 miles of his current home
3) playing for his old coach/defensive coordinator from last year
4) to a contract with one of his old owners from last year.
No other team in the league can boast all those advantages.
Now others can boast other things, but Cleveland isn't one of them (Cleveland's tally: a backup spot behind a 38min a night PG, new coach, new owner, across country, in city derided as often as Sacto).
Anyway, its a thought. Jack's numbers last season are largely on the same plane as IT's, except Jack is known as a good full sized defender. He would cost you more than IT...but only for a year as IT is due for a big pay bump in a year. And if you believed you could get a shotblocker in the draft with that pick, one who could play rotation minutes, then that shotblocker is going to be MUCH cheaper than buying one on the open market, where they are at a premium. Again, assuming there was a guy sitting there you thought we could plug in, and assuming you were confident in pursuing Jack...but those are big assumptions of course.
I'm on board with Jarret Jack as a starting PG. He is a better fit with Tyreke in a defensive-minded backcourt. He is a little more of a gunner than I want, but he can spot up for the three well, and can defend the point and most shooting guards in the league. That would just leave us in search of a 3 and D small forward and a rim protecting big.
K
Jarret Jack is not defensive minded at all, he's a ball stopper (good at it tho) who primary scores of isolation while he's a huge uprade over IT (much better passer/scorer)imo hes not the perfect fit next to Reke or even close to it. Imo as a fit Tony Douglas is better but hes not the player Jack is + he's gonna command good money after having a great season. Jack is heading into his 30's as well no point signing him imo we should ethier go young or try sign Beno/Douglas for cheap since as fits they are better.
With Jack you are paying for a few things that don't necessarily show up on the stat sheet. Things you can't quantify .. things that Douglas just doesn't have.
He's a true veteran. Played on winning teams, played on losing teams. Played for a few different teams, different coaches, different roles ... Douglas is just too young and inexperienced to bring those intangibles (or the shooter / passer Jack is), and Calderon isn't as responsible defensively.
Like I mentioned in another thread, Jack is well versed in playing 'second guard' in terms of shots and scoring. He averaged far less FGA than Curry or Thompson. Not only do I like Jack as a better pair with Evans than Thomas, but I think Jack works much better with Thornton, and Jimmer which may be even more important. I'd still expect to see a lot of Evans / Thornton or even Evans / Jimmer if we were to bring Jack in.
So I like the move in theory, but I would have to see the $$$ Jack gets first.
He's a true veteran. Played on winning teams, played on losing teams. Played for a few different teams, different coaches, different roles ... Douglas is just too young and inexperienced to bring those intangibles (or the shooter / passer Jack is), and Calderon isn't as responsible defensively.
Like I mentioned in another thread, Jack is well versed in playing 'second guard' in terms of shots and scoring. He averaged far less FGA than Curry or Thompson. Not only do I like Jack as a better pair with Evans than Thomas, but I think Jack works much better with Thornton, and Jimmer which may be even more important. I'd still expect to see a lot of Evans / Thornton or even Evans / Jimmer if we were to bring Jack in.
So I like the move in theory, but I would have to see the $$$ Jack gets first.