Do We Want Gay That Badly?

K

KingMilz

Guest
#2
I was hoping that gathering they were having at the airport for him and IT was a farewell, I hope both opt out, nice people good talents but both are lacking that something.
 
#4
Yes. Not because of the $19 million this year, but because of the potential contract afterwards, which will easily be south of 19 million. It'll be easier to resign him the year after if he's already here in Sacramento and loving being Robin to DMC's Batman. He's a bonafide #2, and we do not have one on the roster.

If, for some reason, he doesn't pan out, the $19 million becomes insanely valuable at the trade deadline. The potential assets you can get in return from a team not caring about the contract during their playoff run is worth it. You just don't let that walk away.
 
#5
I think Rudy opting in helps to see if there's really something to the Cousins/Gay duo. Right now, I'm not convinced it's a long term contending core, but I'd prefer to keep his talent around to continue evaluating the fit until the trade deadline, and then move accordingly. If he's working that well with Cousins after a full season +, I don't think he'd walk in 2015 if we wanted him back. (I also like the idea of maintaining flexibility for 2015)
 
#6
Yes. Not because of the $19 million this year, but because of the potential contract afterwards, which will easily be south of 19 million. It'll be easier to resign him the year after if he's already here in Sacramento and loving being Robin to DMC's Batman. He's a bonafide #2, and we do not have one on the roster.

If, for some reason, he doesn't pan out, the $19 million becomes insanely valuable at the trade deadline. The potential assets you can get in return from a team not caring about the contract during their playoff run is worth it. You just don't let that walk away.
or a team looking to clear cap space in advance of the free agent class of 2015, which figures to be rather deep, particularly if lebron james and carmelo anthony decide to opt into the final year of their contracts. there will be many avenues for moving gay should he likewise opt in, provided the kings were interested in trading him...

edit: in all honesty, my guess is gay's expiring deal is as much a part of the reason to convince him to opt in as his actual talent level. it's been well-documented just how much difficulty the kings have in attracting top tier free agents. and the kings' dearth of assets outside of demarcus cousins has also been well-documented...

so, instead of waiting to pursue a player in the deep free agent class of 2015 who likely wouldn't want to sign in sacramento anyway, PDA could potentially dangle gay's massive expiring contract in front of a team who wants cap space to chase one of those big time free agents...

in either case, the kings would be putting themselves in a position to make a splash either at the trade deadline or during the 2015 free agency cycle, when they can roll the dice and see if their purchasing power has increased since the summer of 2013...
 
Last edited:
#7
Why are people complaining if he opts in that is the best case I think. We will get him for a full season to see if his efficiency with DMC was a floke or they go together that good instead of investing 4years with him and finding out he doesn't fit.
 
#8
Interesting that the narrative is that they are trying to convince Gay not to opt out. I figured they'd be encouraging to opt out and resign a 4 year deal at a more reasonable salary.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#9
Yes. Not because of the $19 million this year, but because of the potential contract afterwards, which will easily be south of 19 million. It'll be easier to resign him the year after if he's already here in Sacramento and loving being Robin to DMC's Batman. He's a bonafide #2, and we do not have one on the roster.

If, for some reason, he doesn't pan out, the $19 million becomes insanely valuable at the trade deadline. The potential assets you can get in return from a team not caring about the contract during their playoff run is worth it. You just don't let that walk away.
If a player is overpaid it doesn't make him valuable; just the opposite. Ask Thornton and Thompson.
 
#10
Interesting that the narrative is that they are trying to convince Gay not to opt out. I figured they'd be encouraging to opt out and resign a 4 year deal at a more reasonable salary.
They probably realized or were told that he wasn't interested in going that route, so this is there next best option for their interests with him
 
#11
We don't know for sure what they will be discussing behind closed doors BUT if Rudy opts in and does not make a committment to Sacramento or to FA things could get really messy for him with that massive contract he could end up being traded multiple times this coming season and end up being a Milwaukee Buck or something and having a unproductive season.
 
#12
If a player is overpaid it doesn't make him valuable; just the opposite. Ask Thornton and Thompson.
His point is that Gay represents a huge ending contract that a team could trade for next season at the trade deadline with the intention of creating cap room that next offseason. Thompson and Thornton weren't ending contracts though MT will be one next year.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#13
Like it or not, Gay is the talent now. Lose him and we are one step up from an expansion franchise full of untested kids and random spare parts. So of course we are trying to convince him to stay on long enough that we hope he'll be convinced to make it long term. Asking him to take a leap on faith on a 28win team with a long term deal when he will likely get offers from far better/more decorated franchises, is just a huge risk. So the safest, if limiting, play is to convince him to reup with his $19mil. Then we try to win a little next year, let him settle in, and start thinking of a future with us.
 
#14
If a player is overpaid it doesn't make him valuable; just the opposite. Ask Thornton and Thompson.
In our situation it's valuable. Rudy is worth a lot to a contending team this year, and he's worth a lot to us as a trade asset who makes a lot of money. Meaning we could take back multiple players if things don't work out and the trade deadline is approaching. We could even take multiple players from multiple teams as well if it were more than a two team deal. He's also very valuable for teams wanting to shed salary for a big FA signing in the offseason.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#15
His point is that Gay represents a huge ending contract that a team could trade for next season at the trade deadline with the intention of creating cap room that next offseason. Thompson and Thornton weren't ending contracts though MT will be one next year.
I understand. I just don't know what that is worth exactly. How do you emprically determine the worth of a $19 million contract expiration?
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#16
In our situation it's valuable. Rudy is worth a lot to a contending team this year, and he's worth a lot to us as a trade asset who makes a lot of money. Meaning we could take back multiple players if things don't work out and the trade deadline is approaching. We could even take multiple players from multiple teams as well if it were more than a two team deal. He's also very valuable for teams wanting to shed salary for a big FA signing in the offseason.
So what is Gay worth on a sign and trade deal? Tyreke was worth Vasquez. How do you figure what Gay is worth on a sign and trade if he signs for $19 million? Compare what happens if (1) we just don't resign him and use his cap dollars for a FA versus (2) what happens if we sign and trade. It seems to me the sign and trade stuff doesn't tend to favor the team doing the signing and trading, but maybe I haven't kept up on the great sign and trade deals of the past few years.
 

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#17
YEP!! He is the best at that position since Peja in his heyday. And there are no other 6-9 SF with his ability and experience. Opting in keeps him here for a year at the big bucks that give him and the Kings two options: pay him and see if they can build a playoff team that can become a contender in 2-3 years in his eyes to encourage him to renegotiate his contract to enable getting the final pieces necessary to get there......... and if the Kings can't build around Cuz and Gay and Gay has a contract year, not many other teams will be able to afford him. My way of looking at that situation.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#18
If they're showing him arena renderings and bringing in Mitch Richmond to pitch the virtues of playing in front of Sacramento fans it would be extremely cold and calculating to turn around and flip him a couple weeks or months later. Which means they want him on the team for years to come. Trouble is, the numbers he produced in 55 games last season for Sacramento were by far the best of his career. And that scares the bejeezus out of me. Can you say Marcus Thornton? All of the same advanced stats which said Tyreke Evans wasn't worthy of $11 million per year say the same about Rudy Gay. His career PER doesn't even rank among the top 50 among active players right now. I don't really get it, but it's not my team.
 
Last edited:
#19
Originally I was thinking along the same lines as Padrino. Convince him to stay for next season and all of a sudden we have a huge trade chip, a $19 million expiring contract can garner many assets in return. However from everything we have been hearing from the team it seems that they want Rudy Gay to stay for the long-term. They are rolling out the red carpet at the airport along with showing him 3-D renditions of the new arena which doesn't even open until 2016-17. These are not things done to keep a player for one year, I think they are working on a long-term deal.

If this is true, let's hope that we can get some outside shooting this offseason. Rudy Gay is a ball dominant player whose best work is done within 10 feet of the basket. This description also fits DeMarcus Cousins. The only way we can build a team around these two players is to spread the floor with just about every other position out there.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#20
If they're showing him arena renderings and bringing in Mitch Richmond to pitch the virtues of playing in front of Sacramento fans it would be extremely cold and calculating to turn around and flip him a couple weeks or months later. Which means they want him on the team for years to come. Trouble is, the numbers he produced in 55 games last season for Sacramento were by far the best of his career. And that scares the bejeezus out of me. Can you say Marcus Thornton? All of the same advanced stats which said Tyreke Evans wasn't worthy of $11 million per year say the same about Rudy Gay. His career PER doesn't even rank among the top 50 among active players right now. I don't really get it, but it's not my team.
Gay's numbers have been very consistent for 7 years now. A little up, a little down. This isn't Marcus Thornton suddenly popping up with a 20ppg season. He is who he is. Can he stay this efficient? Maybe, maybe not. But he'll be ballpark until he starts to physically erode.

18-20pts
.450 to.470 FG%
5.5 to .6.5reb
2.0-3.0ast
1.5stl
0.8blk

his production is like taxes. Even last year ended up in that same range after the terrible Toronto and better Sacto periods balanced out.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#21
Gay's numbers have been very consistent for 7 years now. A little up, a little down. This isn't Marcus Thornton suddenly popping up with a 20ppg season. He is who he is. Can he stay this efficient? Maybe, maybe not. But he'll be ballpark until he starts to physically erode.

18-20pts
.450 to.470 FG%
5.5 to .6.5reb
2.0-3.0ast
1.5stl
0.8blk

his production is like taxes. Even last year ended up in that same range after the terrible Toronto and better Sacto periods balanced out.
That's my point though -- everyone seems to be basing their enthusiastic reaction to Rudy Gay off of the near 50% he shot from the field with us this season. Drop that back down to the .450 range and the 16+ shots per game and 3 turnovers really become a problem. If you look past the counting stats, the shooting numbers and TOs kept his PER down in the 16-17 range for most of his career (19.6 with us this season) and his WS/48 below league average in 6 out of 8 seasons. It was an astoundingly bad .021 in Toronto last season before the trade and he was still putting up 20, 7, and 2 just killing his team while he did it. Small sample size and all that, but the entire season before it was .072. Even if you account for different personnel allowing him to score more efficiently, some level of regression is to be expected and at .114 he wasn't that far above league average with us even despite the All-Star PER number.

The stats aren't everything, but considering his value is primarily tied to his offense (he's really not that good of a defender and his DWS were even inflated a bit playing with good defenders in Memphis) the numbers aren't all that encouraging. They say Rudy Gay in most years is a league average player or even a little bit below that being paid (and treated) like an All-Star.
 
Last edited:
#22
Absolutely Gay is worth $19 millions per. Let's count how many millions the Kings have already spend on our middling SFs before Gay:

John Salmons - $7.5 M
Derrick Williams - $5.3 M
Travis Outlaw - 3 M

If you combine their stats and average out to similar minutes as Gay played per game (roughly 34 mins a game), the Kings were paying almost $16 M for three player who combined shot: 37% FG, 10 ppg and 4.7 Rebs. Why wouldn't you pay 3 extra millions for 48% FG, 20.1 ppg and 5.5 rebs? It's a no-brainer.

Furthermore, we DON'T have a replacement for Gay, not only that, we don't even have an NBA calibre SF on the roster (no offense Outlaw and DWill). It makes sense to have one Rudy Gay for $19M than a bunch of Derrick Williams, Travis Outlaw, John Salmons, Francisco Gracia, MbM, etc that combined is not that much cheaper.

Plus, if we lose Gay, imagine what the FO will be forced to do.... That's right, overpay for a Evan Turner/Trevor Ariza/Marvin Williams/(fill in name of average SF) as a desperation to plug a huge hole. None of us want that.

Plus, after this year, we sign him to a more reasonable contract. Win, win.

.
 
Last edited:

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#23
Absolutely Gay is worth $19 millions per. Let's count how many millions the Kings have already spend on our middling SFs before Gay:

John Salmons - $7.5 M
Derrick Williams - $5.3 M
Travis Outlaw - 3 M

If you combine their stats and average out to similar minutes as Gay played per game (roughly 34 mins a game), the Kings were paying almost $16 M for three player who combined shot: 37% FG, 10 ppg and 4.7 Rebs. Why wouldn't you pay 3 extra millions for 48% FG, 20.1 ppg and 5.5 rebs? It's a no-brainer.

Furthermore, we DON'T have a replacement for Gay, not only that, we don't even have an NBA calibre SF on the roster (no offense Outlaw and DWill). It makes sense to have one Rudy Gay for $19M than a bunch of Derrick Williams, Travis Outlaw, John Salmons, Francisco Gracia, MbM, etc that combined is not that much cheaper.

Plus, if we lose Gay, imagine what the FO will be forced to do.... That's right, overpay for a Evan Turner/Trevor Ariza/Marvin Williams/(fill in name of average SF) as a desperation to plug a huge hole. None of us want that.
.
I don't think I have to tell you that the argument you're making doesn't make sense. I think when you typed this you must have already known that. :) Using past mistakes as justification for further mistakes is exactly what we don't want to do. Sure we don't have a replacement for Rudy Gay right now. We also didn't have a replacement for Marcus Thornton 3 years ago and look how well that turned out. Over-committing out of desperation is not the answer. Over-committing for lack of other options is not the answer either (hello Joe Johnson's $119 million extension!) Sometimes you're better off waiting for a better opportunity to come along than trapping yourself into a long-term deal you don't really want.

...obviously some people really do want Rudy Gay. But that's a different argument than the one you're trying to make here.
 
#24
So what is Gay worth on a sign and trade deal? Tyreke was worth Vasquez. How do you figure what Gay is worth on a sign and trade if he signs for $19 million? Compare what happens if (1) we just don't resign him and use his cap dollars for a FA versus (2) what happens if we sign and trade. It seems to me the sign and trade stuff doesn't tend to favor the team doing the signing and trading, but maybe I haven't kept up on the great sign and trade deals of the past few years.
In general sign-and-trade deals haven't ever returned anything of consequence. In essence it's a way for a team about to lose a free agent to get something in return but they have no leverage to get a player or players of real value. In the past they've either been a way for a departing free agent to get a bigger contract from the new team than they could offer based on the CBA rules granting home teams a higher max number or a way to entice a team to deal a free agent to the team of his choice using the threat of signing with a third team who has the cap room to sign him outright. And occasionally it's used with restricted free agents where teams are not looking to match an offer and the S&T just helps grease the wheels a bit to make the deal go through.

In any event Gay's situation is different from Tyreke's. Gay is currently under contract for $19 million next season. Not using his opt out is not the same as him signing a contract so he can't be signed-and-traded. And if he DOES opt out he would be an unrestricted free agent whereas Evans was restricted. He could possibly be signed-and-traded at that point but my guess would be that he'd just leave outright.

If Gay DID opt out and signed with a new team the Kings would be just slightly more than $15 million under the projected salary cap but that's without their draft pick or resigning Isaiah Thomas. Should they keep the #8 pick they'd be down to $12 million. Resigning IT would likely leave them between $4 and $6 million in cap room which is less than the MLE and not enough to sign anyone of value.

Outside of guys with player options the best unrestricted free agents are guys like Luol Deng, Pau Gasol, Lance Stephenson and maybe Trevor Ariza. The best restricted FAs are guys like Eric Bledsoe, Greg Monroe, Gordon Hayward and Chandler Parsons. The first two guys are going to be matched at any dollar amount leaving the Kings in a position of letting IT go in order to have the cash to overpay for the likes of Parson, Hayward or Deng.

Rudy Gay is overpaid by about $10 million at his projected salary for next season. But the Kings have put themselves in a position where having him walk likely hurts more.
 
#25
I don't think I have to tell you that the argument you're making doesn't make sense. I think when you typed this you must have already known that. :) Using past mistakes as justification for further mistakes is exactly what we don't want to do. Sure we don't have a replacement for Rudy Gay right now. We also didn't have a replacement for Marcus Thornton 3 years ago and look how well that turned out. Over-committing out of desperation is not the answer. Over-committing for lack of other options is not the answer either (hello Joe Johnson's $119 million extension!) Sometimes you're better off waiting for a better opportunity to come along than trapping yourself into a long-term deal you don't really want.

...obviously some people really do want Rudy Gay. But that's a different argument than the one you're trying to make here.
Oh com'on! You're grasping for something that isnt' there. I surely don't have to tell you that committing to Gay for $19M for one year is not the same as committing to Gay for $119M for several years!!!??

Honestly, there is several thing wrong with your post, logically. First you said paying Gay $19M is a mistake. Why? It's definitely not a mistake. It's funny you mentioned Joe Johnson, who happened to be the guy carrying the Nets in the later half of the season. Is he overpaid? Maybe, but that's just fine with the Nets because JJ is worth that much to them. You have to consider how much is a guy worth to a team, and yes Gay is worth $19M to the Kings.

I don't know why you mentioned long-term deal. No one is talking about long term deal. Let's just hope Gay opts in first before we even go there.

I'm also puzzled why you brought up Marcus Thorton. We didn't have a replacement for him three years ago... and we still don't. That hasn't turned out well. Now, Thorton WAS overpaid and at the time a bad signing. But there is NO parallel between Thornton and Gay. None. Thornton is Thornton, Gay is Gay. Thorton is an MLE guy at best, Gay is a one of the best SFs in the league, there is no comparison.

Absolutely the dumbest thing a team like Kings can do is to let a talent walks away for nothing. For one single year, I don't care if Gay is paying to get paid $29M, do everything we can do keep him here.
.
 
Last edited:

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#26
Oh com'on! You're grasping for something that isnt' there. I surely don't have to tell you that committing to Gay for $19M for one year is not the same as committing to Gay for $119M for several years!!!??

Honestly, there is several thing wrong with your post, logically. First you said paying Gay $19M is a mistake. Why? It's definitely not a mistake. It's funny you mentioned Joe Johnson, who happened to be the guy carrying the Nets in the later half of the season. Is he overpaid? Maybe, but that's just fine with the Nets because JJ is worth that much to them. You have to consider how much is a guy worth to a team, and yes Gay is worth $19M to the Kings.

I don't know why you mentioned long-term deal. No one is talking about long term deal. Let's just hope Gay opts in first because we even go there.

I'm also puzzled why you brought up Marcus Thorton. We didn't have a replacement for him three years ago... and we still don't. That hasn't turned out well. Now, Thorton WAS overpaid and at the time a bad signing. But there is NO parallel between Thornton and Gay. None. Thornton is Thornton, Gay is Gay. Thorton is an MLE guy at best, Gay is a one of the best SFs in the league, there is no comparison.

Absolutely the dumbest thing a team like Kings can do is to let a talent walks away for nothing. For one single year, I don't care if Gay is paying to get paid $29M, do everything we can do keep him here.
.
However bad Travis Outlaw and John Salmons played for us, that doesn't make Rudy Gay play any better. You bringing that up at all means to me that you're intending to skew the argument away from who Rudy Gay is and instead toward the dismal SF situation on the Kings which preceded his arrival. Sure context is important, but it's also important to rationally assess what a player is actually contributing to your team rather than the emotional effect that filling a huge vacuum creates.

It's naive to think this isn't about a long-term deal. Of course it is. You don't woo Rudy Gay at all if you don't want him around after this season. You don't show him renderings of an arena which won't be finished until 2017. That was the rumor linked in the first post in this topic, that's why I'm discussing it. The one year deal is whatever, I actually think it helps us if he opts in because then we can use his contract in a trade. But the rumor is that our ownership is going all out on a long-term commitment and that's what I don't approve of.

The comparison with Marcus Thornton isn't that they are similar players, just similar situations. Marcus Thornton and Rudy Gay both came to the team in mid-season trades and performed like All-Stars during that shortened tenure. Both then subsequently faced contract issues. In 2011 the team had a lack of depth at the SG position if they let Thornton leave. It would also mean we lost Carl Landry (and by extension Ron Artest) without maintaining any assets (well, okay there was still Donte Greene). If Rudy Gay leaves now we have a lack of depth at the SF position. It would also mean we lost Tyreke Evans without securing any future assets. Petrie ended up overpaying Thornton based on his inflated production and the result was that the team was tied to him for the next three years well past the point where his play on the court justified that commitment. The situation you're envisioning where we pay Rudy Gay $19 million because he's better than Salmons, Outlaw, and Williams put together and the situation hinted at by the initial rumor where we subsequently sign him to a longer extension at whatever the market value may be could result in a similar level of regret down the line.

Not to mention... plenty of people looked at Thornton's 21,3.5, and 5 in his short time with the Kings as evidence that he was on his way toward being one of the best SGs in the league. I distinctly remember Mitch Richmond comparisons. It doesn't make sense to me to start looking around the league and assigning value based on comparisons because it doesn't take much for a top 10 at his position guy to become over paid. Joe Johnson was a great player when he signed his deal but is he even top 10 at his position now? Top 15? This season Wiggins and Parker come into the league as SFs. Next season there's Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and Stanley Johnson. That's already 4 players which are displaced somewhere else or out of the league. There will be options -- up to and until we spend all our cap space on players who don't produce wins.
 
Last edited:

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#27
That's my point though -- everyone seems to be basing their enthusiastic reaction to Rudy Gay off of the near 50% he shot from the field with us this season. Drop that back down to the .450 range and the 16+ shots per game and 3 turnovers really become a problem. If you look past the counting stats, the shooting numbers and TOs kept his PER down in the 16-17 range for most of his career (19.6 with us this season) and his WS/48 below league average in 6 out of 8 seasons. It was an astoundingly bad .021 in Toronto last season before the trade and he was still putting up 20, 7, and 2 just killing his team while he did it. Small sample size and all that, but the entire season before it was .072. Even if you account for different personnel allowing him to score more efficiently, some level of regression is to be expected and at .114 he wasn't that far above league average with us even despite the All-Star PER number.

The stats aren't everything, but considering his value is primarily tied to his offense (he's really not that good of a defender and his DWS were even inflated a bit playing with good defenders in Memphis) the numbers aren't all that encouraging. They say Rudy Gay in most years is a league average player or even a little bit below that being paid (and treated) like an All-Star.

league average efficiency =/= league average player. Very few guys have Gay's skills.

And importantly, Rudy Gay has done his schtick as a #2, in fact one year while Randolph was out, as a #1, for several WC playoff teams who's main weapon was not as good as Cousins is today, let alone going forward. You aren't going adventuring by keeping him here in that role.

In another thread people are working on a Chad Ford rumor finding ways to use our #8 to get Brandon Knight and Larry Sanders out of Milwaulkee.

Doesn't this structure begin to look familiar?

Cousins
Sanders
Gay
<------where's Tony Allen?
Knight

Its not perfect. Nothing is in our position. But Gay is a known entity, and you know in certain structures you can at least compete with him in that role.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#28
league average efficiency =/= league average player. Very few guys have Gay's skills.

And importantly, Rudy Gay has done his schtick as a #2, in fact one year while Randolph was out, as a #1, for several WC playoff teams who's main weapon was not as good as Cousins is today, let alone going forward. You aren't going adventuring by keeping him here in that role.

In another thread people are working on a Chad Ford rumor finding ways to use our #8 to get Brandon Knight and Larry Sanders out of Milwaulkee.

Doesn't this structure begin to look familiar?

Cousins
Sanders
Gay
<------where's Tony Allen?
Knight

Its not perfect. Nothing is in our position. But Gay is a known entity, and you know in certain structures you can at least compete with him in that role.
I know Brick, I commented in that topic and I was the first one to suggest #8 for Brandon Knight. I also started the topic earlier this year about acquiring Larry Sanders which you were nice enough to populate with jokes about weed smokers. And I've had Tony Allen on my wishlist for 5 years. You get me everything else I want, and I'll concede that Rudy Gay is a decent player who's got some rare and unique skills mostly in the area of scoring the ball which we're actually going to need on a team stuffed with elite defensive role-players. Deal? :)
 
#29
However bad Travis Outlaw and John Salmons played for us, that doesn't make Rudy Gay play any better. You bringing that up at all means to me that you're intending to skew the argument away from who Rudy Gay is and instead toward the dismal SF situation on the Kings which preceded his arrival. Sure context is important, but it's also important to rationally assess what a player is actually contributing to your team rather than the emotional effect that filling a huge vacuum creates.

It's naive to think this isn't about a long-term deal. Of course it is. You don't woo Rudy Gay at all if you don't want him around after this season. You don't show him renderings of an arena which won't be finished until 2017. That was the rumor linked in the first post in this topic, that's why I'm discussing it. The one year deal is whatever, I actually think it helps us if he opts in because then we can use his contract in a trade. But the rumor is that our ownership is going all out on a long-term commitment and that's what I don't approve of.

The comparison with Marcus Thornton isn't that they are similar players, just similar situations. Marcus Thornton and Rudy Gay both came to the team in mid-season trades and performed like All-Stars during that shortened tenure. Both then subsequently faced contract issues. In 2011 the team had a lack of depth at the SG position if they let Thornton leave. It would also mean we lost Carl Landry (and by extension Ron Artest) without maintaining any assets (well, okay there was still Donte Greene). If Rudy Gay leaves now we have a lack of depth at the SF position. It would also mean we lost Tyreke Evans without securing any future assets. Petrie ended up overpaying Thornton based on his inflated production and the result was that the team was tied to him for the next three years well past the point where his play on the court justified that commitment. The situation you're envisioning where we pay Rudy Gay $19 million because he's better than Salmons, Outlaw, and Williams put together and the situation hinted at by the initial rumor where we subsequently sign him to a longer extension at whatever the market value may be could result in a similar level of regret down the line.

Not to mention... plenty of people looked at Thornton's 21,3.5, and 5 in his short time with the Kings as evidence that he was on his way toward being one of the best SGs in the league. I distinctly remember Mitch Richmond comparisons. It doesn't make sense to me to start looking around the league and assigning value based on comparisons because it doesn't take much for a top 10 at his position guy to become over paid. Joe Johnson was a great player when he signed his deal but is he even top 10 at his position now? Top 15? This season Wiggins and Parker come into the league as SFs. Next season there's Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and Stanley Johnson. That's already 4 players which are displaced somewhere else or out of the league. There will be options -- up to and until we spend all our cap space on players who don't produce wins.
The problem here is that you dismissed an entire body of evidence just because you said so. Fact: Salmons/Gracia/MbM/DWill/Outlaw highlights the fact that finding a SF in a SF depleted league is tough and even below average SFs are getting paid. That's what I'm getting at, and you don't seem to get it.

Fact: with or without Gay, the Kings still need a SF and one isn't coming. You dismissed this very important point with the flick of a hand.

Fact: signing Gay is not emotional, it's logical - even scrub SFs are getting paid money and no respectable SF is coming our way but we already have a very good SF that we can keep for a little more money than most are comfortable with. So what's the logical move here? Let our SF walk or keep the SF? That's the logical conclusion I hope I could have lead you to with by citing the evidence above, but you seem to take it to a completely different realm.

Fact: No one is talking about giving Gay $119M!!! No one.

Fact: Thornton has very little body of work before he got that contract, he did NOT demonstrated that he could play with our franchise player and a lot of that contract was based on faith. Gay has a long body of work and he HAS shown that he can play alongside our franchise player. The Thornton is NOT the same as the Gay situation.

Oddly enough, you are now claiming that Gay doesn't produce wins. When he was an integral part of the playoff bounded Memphis team.
.
 
#30
I'd rather see jt, Derrick Williams, and Carl Landry gone first. Rudy gay actually played well for us, which is more than I can say for those other 3 guys. However if he ends up leaving you won't see me shedding any tears because Rudy gay isolates too much and we need guys that can move the ball around.