Heuge
Starter
I do care about Green being there. 3 M in roster space for the next 3 years is important.
As stated above and I agree I would not take the pick by itself with Green for nothing, though I would gladly take the pic for Jimmer.
Chad Ford says Pacers and Kings discussing Jimmer Trade
- Thread starter t-rex
- Start date
As stated above and I agree I would not take the pick by itself with Green for nothing, though I would gladly take the pic for Jimmer.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
No one WANTS GG, that is the point. He is the turd in a sandwich you choke down because you do want someone at the 23 pick. I personally don't see it but I am not that well versed on this draft class, so maybe there is a diamond in the rough that could be available.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
You nearly lost me on the first clause of the first sentence. This "agenda" jargon is just BS, meant to impugn the poster in some manner that remains mysteriosly undefined. Do think I'm hired by someone to impugn Tyreke's reputation, to smear him so that another team might pluck him from our mitts for next to nothing? How dastardely of me. Or maybe the sinister me is out for some unknown revenge for an unknown wrong that Tyreke or one of his peeps has done to me.
Look, you (and Brick) raise up these stats as if they necessarily mean something. They don't. High FG% does not necessarily infer that a player should in fact take more shots. One does not necessarily follow the other. It can be just the opposite. It may mean that the guy is taking EXACTLY the number of shots he should be taking so that he in fact can have a high FG%. It's a cause-effect problem. You raise the issue of FG% ==> # of Shots Taken. To me they are numbers that don't have any necessary connection to them whatsoever. If a guy is shooting 70% from the field do I want him to take more shots? Not necessarily. He may be a putback artist getting his points off of offensive rebounds. If he starts taking 10-footers to get more shots it could be detrimental to winning because now he is taking much lower percentage shots. Similarly, if Tyreke starts taking additional shots that are intermediate runners, you can bet I don't want him taking those shots. And that logic is why I can't stand this notion that Player A must take a certain number of shots and Player B has to take a certain number of shots.
And that leads in to your next additional question. You only want to have a guy shoot more good shots, period. If a guy is shooting exactly 48.000000% from the field and then on average he takes one additional shot per game that is on average "bad", he's taken one too many shots per game. I repeat: Shooting percentage does not necessarily determine that more shots should be taken. Otherwise, just double the number of shots for the top ten FG% leaders in the league for - voila! - a winning team. And no that's not a straw man. That's just taking your fallacious logic to its extreme.
And I don't assume that more shooting would be bad. That's the freaking point. I'm not assuming it one way or another. What I'm doing is contradicting your conclusion that high FG% necessarily confers that more shots must be taken. It does nothing of the sort.
jalfa
Starter
it's two years, which also means it aligns with Thornton, Hayes and Outlaw. it's unlikely they'd still be on the team then, but if you trade them for contracts with the same length that's quite a volume of enders at the same time and would put the Kings in a good position to make a splash in that season. the same season, significantly enough, that the new arena would open.
Padrino
All-Star
generally speaking, high FG% does not necessarily mean that more shots should be taken by a given player. but c'mon now, the argument is not about whether general player X should be taking additional shots. obviously it is a case by case scenario, and so, thusly, the argument is about whether or not tyreke evans, a player notorious for efficiently getting to the rim (ya know, the highest percentage shot in the nba) should continue to get more of those extremely high percentage shots. seriously, you're on the dodge ball court as the rubbery red balls whizz by, just doing your best not to get blasted in the face right now...
and don't respond with that "defenses have responded to tyreke" nonsense. if he wasn't up to the challenge of overcoming the adjustments of opposing defenses, his percentages wouldn't have continued to climb. he's already adding a serviceable three-point shot to his arsenal. that is tangible evidence of growth and adjustment. the defenses may have adjusted to tyreke's dribble-drive, but tyreke has responded in kind, as well. he's a growing player who is expanding his game in light of the very criticisms you level at him that no longer apply. keith smart was, of course, the idiot who decided to stifle that growth in favor of... well, i haven't the faintest idea, really. explaining that man's MO is like attempting nuclear physics...
Last edited:
Padrino
All-Star
hahahahaha, i like how chad ford literally just confirmed that his initial report of the pacers' interest in acquiring jimmer fredette was an invention. he's connecting the obvious dots and hoping to score on pure speculation. again, i'd be all for it if the kings could move jimmer for a mid-to-late first rounder (without taking back someone like gerald green's contract, of course), but i'm not convinced it's any kind of possibility. just because larry bird loves jimmer's ability to shoot doesn't mean he's about to trade a draft pick for a tweener guard whose game is so full of holes at the professional level (unless bird really wants to dump gerald green's contract, of course)...
sidney
Starter
And as bad as Green is, he's roughly as good as our starting SF the last two years. Sad.
I would be pretty amazed if this went down as is. Take on 7M in salary and give up on Jimmer just for the #23 pick this year? That's expensive for a low pick
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I almost responded to your earlier post, did not want to take the time, and backed off. Now I will respond however.
1) yes, depending on the player and type of shots they are getting every extra shot could be a lower percentage shot. DeAndre Jordan cannot maintain his high FG% if you start calling clearouts for him. That 40% three point shooter who takes 5 shots a game isn't going to keep hitting 40% of them if you start throwing the ball to him and making him create, rather than just kicking it to him for spot up threes.
2) but this is Tyreke Evans we are talking about. Amusingly derided by Kings fans for having too many of the 1 on 1 skills that guys like LeBron do. He is not shooting 48% on putback dunks and spot up shots. His assisted shots percentage is 40.2%, and its only that high because the idiot coach insisted on trying to make him into an off the ball player despite dynamic with the ball skills. The only non-PGs in the league with a lower percentage of assisted shots are not surprisingly Kobe and Harden. So what does that tell us? Well nothing we shouldn't know form just watching the games. Tyreke creates much of his own offense. And he creates it at a 48% clip. Meanwhile he operates on a team where an idiotic 5 different players, including 3 fellow guards who shot .429 (Thornton), .421 (Jimmer) and .440 (IT), take more shots per minute than he does, and no fewer than an absoilutel insane FOURTEEN different players averaged 10+ shots per 36 minutes. for comparison even the notoriously democratic Spurs only had 11, the two time champion Heat 8.
So, Tyreke Evans lowered shot attempts aren't because he used up all the easy ones and anything else would be lower percentage. Its because you throw it to him and he shoots 48%...except a bunch of chucking idiots who hopefully are soon going to be ex-Kings were told by their idiot coach that they had the right to chuck up shots rather than give it to Tyreke for another 48% attempt.
At no point did I argue that Tyreke can retain his 48% shooting all the way up Kobe territory. But given that the restriction on his shot attempts and points was nothing more than not being given the ball enough times, he is likely to retain a very high percentage for at least the 4-5 more shots a game it takes him to get into 20+ppg territory. Which is to say All Star territory in this oncoming SGless age.
Last edited:
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
is cleveland interested in IT?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
They've got some PG there...can't remember his name....
They need a SF, which of course so do we. And they seem to have been very active trying to peddle that #1 into a superstar big man. Since its apparent we are committed to Cousins, I'm not worried about that one. As far as guards...would seem to be down their list, but who knows. IT always puts on good shows against Kyrie. Maybe their front office works on the Geoff principle and thinks that's enough to go get a guy just because he played well against them.
Call the G.M.
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
Indiana needs a bench. IT, MT, hayes or fish for granger.
We aren't going to get Granger for chump change.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Not exactly chump change. I've suggested that package myself. Gives them the extra ballhandling and starting/scoring SG they were lacking, all for a player who basically wasn't even on the roster last year. Course they may not look at it like that.
Uncia03
Starter
It's funny...I was going to post the exact same thing.
I don't disagree with Kingster's premise that just because a player shoots a high percentage that means he should take more shots. He is accurate in his assessment that you just don't make sweeping generalizations.
However, his argument is completely invalid in this case because we are not making a broad sweeping generalization. We're speaking about a specific player in Tyreke who has shown improvements in both his shooting and shot selection. There were a lot of players on the Kings who were less efficient than Tyreke last year...and it would make sense to give them fewer shot opportunities in favor of increasing his shot opportunities. To me, that's just common basketball sense.
The vibe I get from PacersDigest is a lot of fans are convinced Granger could have gotten them past the Heat.
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
he isn't exactly a sexy piece right now. big contract, coming off injury. nobody is going to break out their shiniest pieces for him. they showed they can almost get to the finals without him. they need scoring off the bench. last year, that is what they lacked in the eastern conference finals
DesertFox
Starter
If you're willing to eat 2 years of Gerald Green, the following works:
MT/Jimmer/Salmons
for
Granger/Green/pick
Indiana replaces Granger with MT, which keeps Paul at his natural 3 spot. And they can use Salmons to replace Green's garbage time, and get Jimmer, who they have their eye on.
Sac takes a flyer on Granger, and possible dead weight in Green, but frees up 5 mil in future cap space that would have otherwise gone to Jimmer/Thornton. And an additional young pick who can fit the team's new direction.
MT/Jimmer/Salmons
for
Granger/Green/pick
Indiana replaces Granger with MT, which keeps Paul at his natural 3 spot. And they can use Salmons to replace Green's garbage time, and get Jimmer, who they have their eye on.
Sac takes a flyer on Granger, and possible dead weight in Green, but frees up 5 mil in future cap space that would have otherwise gone to Jimmer/Thornton. And an additional young pick who can fit the team's new direction.
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
Id agree with that. Not benching Hibbert for one play could have gotten them past the heat. Or Paul George not overplaying the last play on lebron could have aswell
KingsCitizen
Starter
Gerald Green's contract is actually tradable. He'll be an ender next season.
If we pick McCollum, then trade Jimmer for Greene and pick which could be a guy like Dieng.
I think that's still a good draft for us.
We get 2 guys that have seasoned enough in college to actually contribute right away.
PG - McCollum/IT/Toney D.
SG - Evans/Thornton
SF - Green/Salmons/Outlaw
PF - JT/Hayes/
C - DMC/Dieng
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
^U forgot Patrick Patterson
