How to situate our backcourt...

#31
Give me a break. I don't care what your misguided feelings are towards IT. Letting him walk over $1million would be far worse than ANYTHING we do relating to Reke. A fringe-starter and potential 6MOY candidate at $1mil is one of the best bargains in the league. If we don't want him, fine, but you sure as hell pick up that team option and go get something for him.
What do you think is available for 1 year of IT at a million bucks? If he isn't in the long turn plans one year is inconsequential to us. At worst it holds us back from getting playtime to a player the see us using in the future. At best, we'll, it doesn't do anything to the goals of the franchise.
 
#32
What do you think is available for 1 year of IT at a million bucks? If he isn't in the long turn plans one year is inconsequential to us. At worst it holds us back from getting playtime to a player the see us using in the future. At best, we'll, it doesn't do anything to the goals of the franchise.
I've never been a fan of IT getting major minutes/control of the offense but I think he's a huge bargain and could help tip a trade to get rid of some of our less desirable pieces. If you tacked him one with any of the other guys we'd like to move, you may find someone willing to bite.
 
#33
Whether you wnat IT starting, or on the team even, is inconsequential to his production relative to our ability to sign him at the option.

IT is a bargain. You don't let bargains walk. Even if you don't want them. You accept the option, then you trade him for pieces you do want. If you can't find a piece, you trade him for a 2nd to someone and wipe your hands clean. That's called keeping your options open. Why anyone would advocate declining a 2nd round option on a player who has started in the league is beyond me. It's incomprehensible.
 
#34
At least get some pick for him. Cutting him is just stupid. He is paid basically minimum, while he's production is certainly better. You don't throw assets away.
 
#35
Like I asked, what do you think you are going to get for a player with one year left on his contract that is worth less than a million? I honestly don't know. Of course you want to get something for him if you can but I don't see anyone offering much for him.

Just one second round pick, is that the value you see him commanding?
 
#36
Like I asked, what do you think you are going to get for a player with one year left on his contract that is worth less than a million? I honestly don't know. Of course you want to get something for him if you can but I don't see anyone offering much for him.

Just one second round pick, is that the value you see him commanding?
Because this forum refuses to see how productive he actually is and is fine calling him "selfish" and a "chucker". Neither of which are true, but thats besides the point.

And are you kidding? We'd have 15 teams ready to take IT off our hands for a 1st round pick. Or you use IT as an incredibly cheap asset to sweeten the pot in a larger deal. Or we use IT to unload a Hayes or Salmons to free up cap room.
 
#37
agreed IT is an asset, he most def isn't a scrub. We don't need him but thinking of shipping him off for nothing is ridiculous. In all honesty id rather send Jimmer away
 
#38
Because this forum refuses to see how productive he actually is and is fine calling him "selfish" and a "chucker". Neither of which are true, but thats besides the point.

And are you kidding? We'd have 15 teams ready to take IT off our hands for a 1st round pick. Or you use IT as an incredibly cheap asset to sweeten the pot in a larger deal. Or we use IT to unload a Hayes or Salmons to free up cap room.
You would give up a first round pick to get a player with one year left on his contract? Interesting. You see teams willing to take on a bad contract/help unload a player for a one year rental? Also interesting.
 
#39
agreed IT is an asset, he most def isn't a scrub. We don't need him but thinking of shipping him off for nothing is ridiculous. In all honesty id rather send Jimmer away
Again, what is the value of a player with one year left on his under 1 million dollar contract? What would you give to get him?
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#40
I think the pick of McCallum is a huge signal that IT will not be with the Kings next year. Whether he is signed and traded or just let go makes no difference to me. I suppose it makes sense to let him battle it out with McCallum but it isn't enough to get heated about. Not for me.
 
#41
Let's see what Robinson gets this summer. I don't think more than $3 million per. If IT is viewed as a member of 8-man rotation, getting him with 25+ pick is pretty good. Average value of draft picks in the twenties is a solid bencher.
 
#42
I think the pick of McCallum is a huge signal that IT will not be with the Kings next year. Whether he is signed and traded or just let go makes no difference to me. I suppose it makes sense to let him battle it out with McCallum but it isn't enough to get heated about. Not for me.
Pretty sure his contract is guarenteed for this coming season.
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#43
Pretty sure his contract is guarenteed for this coming season.
I thought we had to exercise a team option but I sure don't know for sure. I have been operating with the assumption that we have a team option. I still think McCallum was chosen specifically because THIS FO found IT lacking.
 
#44
Pete likes RMC(Ray McCallum) so much, so RMC could come off the bench. he likes Reke and Ben, too.
though of three guard rotation(Reke, Ben and RMC) make sense

MT is a great scorer, that is all he can do as well. paying 8M to the 3rd guard option(even 4th option) is crazy, not make sense.
Kings has to trade him for something, maybe SF or backup big, whatever.
 
Last edited:
#48
Because this forum refuses to see how productive he actually is and is fine calling him "selfish" and a "chucker". Neither of which are true, but thats besides the point.

And are you kidding? We'd have 15 teams ready to take IT off our hands for a 1st round pick. Or you use IT as an incredibly cheap asset to sweeten the pot in a larger deal. Or we use IT to unload a Hayes or Salmons to free up cap room.
I think the bigger issue is that he's a UFA after next season. You wouldn't give up a 1st round pick just to rent him for a year at a good price and then pay him more after that. You'd just wait for a year and then sign him as a FA. No?
 
#49
Assuming Tyreke is kept as a point guard (and that's a IF), I would go with this backcourt :

Starters : T. Evans & B. McLemore
Bench : T. Douglas & R. McCallum

I see Tyreke spending a lot of minutes as a 1/2 so, behind him and McLemore, there would be no many minutes left at the 2 spot. Salmons can fill in if needed (injury).
Point guard sub duty would be split between McCallum and Toney Douglas (very good D, good shooter, cheap).

I think this backcourt would be versatile :
Evans/McLemore => size and offense
Douglas/Evans => defense
Douglas/McLemore => shooting
McCallum/Douglas => small ball

Thomas, Thornton & Fredette have value and should be dealt for a SF (ideally good at defense and passing for helping Evans managing the offense).
 
Last edited:
#52
I am pretty sure that we already picked up IT's option for next season before Vivek bought the team. I recall reading somewhere that we have done this!

For me, I would got Tyreke - McLemore backcourt with IT as the change of pace guard off the bench that can play with either of them and get his 20-25 minutes each game (which is close to his current minutes average). It also gives McCallum a year to get adopted to life in the NBA with a view to take over from IT if we decide not to pay him next year!

Thornton was expandable regardless, even more so now and a chip to use to address the SF and/or the shot blocking/defense at PF.

That is how I would go but I get the feeling the front office is planning on life without Reke! :( :mad:
 
#53
Unbelievable. The same people throwing a hissy fit about Reke are willing to let IT, who will cost $1mi,l walk for nothing.

Nice hypocrisy going on
I agree with this. just letting IT walk would be insane. dunnot what his value is precisely but he does have some in a trade (which seems kinda inevitable at this point).
 
#54
Generally I prefer MT over IT, but Thomas sure looks like the better fit now. Just a better ball handler than MT, and that's what you need with Evans/McLemore.

That being said, MT is going to be harder to move. It and Jimmer should be moveable.

Evans/McCallum
McLemore/Thornton

And Salmons, if he's here, can backup both spots. If this is the route we take, I'd still look at signing Beno and have McCollum ride the bench this season. Udrih would be a great backup plan if something bad happens.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#55
This one is usually most reliable.
Yes, that is true.

Also, one should note, Sham has very specific contract details if you hover your mouse over IT's name. In this he details that if IT played at least 50 games last year and averaged 15 minutes in the 50 that he had the highest minutes, his contract would be automatically picked up. I don't know why Deeks, who appears to have the best contacts in the business, would make up or get falsely fed such specific contract details. I would say odds are very strong that Sham is right and IT's contract has been automatically renewed for next year.
 
#56
The first part of the season if everything remains the same as it is now (which I don't think it will);

PG: IT - Evans - McCallum
SG: Evans - MT - McLemore

Of course this changes once McLemore gets more experience, and it could happen as early as the end of pre-season. But as it stands now, the picks are the last guys on the depth chart for now. I really do like the McLemore pick though.
 
Last edited:
#60
We need a PG that doesn't slow the offense down and Tyreke did that alot last season. I want to keep Tyreke at SG. I really don't care if people don't agree with me. It's just MY opinion.