Do We Want Gay That Badly?

You're messing up somewhere. We were 6-12 before we got Gay, (I guess you'd call that IT/Cuz but IT wasn't starting). There were 2 games before Gay came over where IT/Cuz started together. We beat up the Mavs and got beat up by Utah. Might be other times as well, but certainly not 2-20

No my numbers said 8-14 with IT/Cuz.

2-20 was the combined of IT/Gay, IT alone, Cuz alone, Cuz/Gay.

I suspect the mistake was that I probably counted Gay's last game that he missed in Toronto, before he missed his first two after the trade with us. Probably.
 
Full breakdown:

Game #
1 IT/Cuz W 1-0
2 IT/Cuz L 1-1
3 IT/Cuz L 1-2
4 IT/Cuz L 1-3
5 IT/Cuz L 1-4
6 IT/Cuz L 1-5
7 IT/Cuz W 2-5
8 IT/Cuz L 2-6
9 IT/Cuz L 2-7
10 IT/Cuz W 3-7
11 IT/Cuz W 4-7
12 IT/Cuz L 4-8
13 IT/Cuz L 4-9
14 IT/Cuz L 4-10
15 IT/Cuz L 4-11
16 IT L 0-1
17 IT/Cuz L 4-12
18 IT/Cuz W 5-12
19 IT/Cuz W 6-12
20 IT/Cuz L 6-13
21 IT/Cuz/Gay L 0-1
22 IT/Cuz/Gay W 1-1
23 IT/Cuz/Gay L 1-2
24 IT/Cuz/Gay L 1-3
25 IT/Cuz/Gay L 1-4
26 IT/Cuz/Gay W 2-4
27 IT/Cuz/Gay L 2-5
28 IT/Cuz/Gay W 3-5
29 IT/Cuz/Gay L 3-6
30 IT/Cuz/Gay W 4-6
31 IT/Cuz/Gay L 4-7
32 IT/Cuz/Gay L 4-8
33 IT/Cuz/Gay W 5-8
34 IT/Cuz/Gay W 6-8
35 IT/Cuz/Gay W 7-8
36 IT/Cuz/Gay L 7-9
37 IT/Cuz/Gay W 8-9
38 IT/Cuz/Gay L 8-10
39 IT/Cuz/Gay L 8-11
40 IT/Cuz/Gay W 9-11
41 IT/Cuz/Gay L 9-12
42 IT L 0-2
43 IT L 0-3
44 IT L 0-4
45 IT/Gay L 0-1
46 IT/Gay L 0-2
47 IT/Gay L 0-3
48 IT/Cuz/Gay W 10-12
49 IT/Cuz/Gay W 11-12
50 IT/Cuz L 6-14
51 IT/Cuz/Gay L 11-13
52 IT/Cuz/Gay L 11-14
53 IT/Cuz/Gay W 12-14
54 IT/Gay L 0-4
55 IT/Cuz/Gay W 13-14
56 IT/Cuz/Gay W 14-14
57 IT/Cuz/Gay L 14-15
58 IT/Gay L 0-5
59 IT/Cuz/Gay L 14-16
60 IT/Cuz/Gay W 15-16
61 IT/Cuz/Gay W 16-16
62 IT/Cuz/Gay L 16-17
63 IT/Cuz/Gay L 16-18
64 IT/Cuz/Gay L 16-19
65 IT/Cuz/Gay W 17-19
66 IT/Cuz/Gay L 17-20
67 IT/Gay L 0-6
68 IT/Cuz/Gay W 18-20
69 IT/Cuz/Gay L 18-21
70 IT/Cuz/Gay W 19-21
71 Cuz/Gay L 0-1
72 Cuz/Gay L 0-2
73 Cuz/Gay L 0-3
74 Cuz/Gay W 1-3
75 Cuz/Gay W 2-3
76 Cuz/Gay L 2-4
77 Cuz/Gay L 2-5
78 Cuz L 0-1
79 Cuz L 0-2
80 Cuz/Gay L 2-6
81 IT/Cuz W 7-14
82 IT/Gay L 0-7


Ok, so under that count, again unless I screwed up, it would be:
IT/Cuz/Gay = 19-21
IT/Cuz = 7-14
Cuz/Gay = 2-6
IT/Gay = 0-7
Cuz = 0-2
IT = 0-4
------------
28-54 so think that's the count.

and anyway, point being IT/Gay/Cuz, when all available, = 19-21, a just sub-.500 team. And that was with McClemore and Thornton and the PFs of the week really stinking it up.

Our problem was that the trio played in less than half of the season's games together.
 
Just to address Chupacabra, I have no agenda other than trying to get you to look at things a little differently than normal, to attempt to think outside the box, outside of the group think. I feel that I've made some very valid points, not just with the WS/48 stat that doesn't always apply. If you are going to accuse me of having some agenda then at least do me the courtesy of reading my post and actually think about what I'm saying. The Rudy Gay supporters seem to only say, "Rudy Gay is great, Rudy Gay is great!" However they have no arguments as to why that actually is other than the fact that is the common thought, everyone should just accept that Rudy Gay is great, it is what is, you just have to believe! He is the best SF we've had since Ron Artest so he must be worth $19 million!

I'm challenging that common thought. You see a player with a perfect basketball body, excellent athleticism, makes plays look easy, and hits clutch shots from time to time. That's not bad, I'll give you that. I see that too, but what I also see is a player who averages 20 points and 6.5 rebounds a game (there are a lot of players capable of that or slightly lower with better efficiency), a player who has an assist/turnover ratio lower than 1.0, a player who has never made players better around him, but has made them worse (Time in Toronto), and has almost always played on teams with losing records.

I will repeat, I'm not saying he's worthless! I'm saying that it isn't good business to give that type of player $19 million for one year or $14 million a year for a long-term deal. It isn't practical. Now for $8 million a year or so I'm all over it, now we have value. Anything higher and you take the chance of jeopardizing your franchise. Rudy Gay is not going to blow up into some star player, he's been in the league too long, we know what we are getting.
 
Full breakdown:

Game #
1 IT/Cuz W 1-0
2 IT/Cuz L 1-1
3 IT/Cuz L 1-2
4 IT/Cuz L 1-3
5 IT/Cuz L 1-4
6 IT/Cuz L 1-5
7 IT/Cuz W 2-5
8 IT/Cuz L 2-6
9 IT/Cuz L 2-7
10 IT/Cuz W 3-7
11 IT/Cuz W 4-7
12 IT/Cuz L 4-8
13 IT/Cuz L 4-9
14 IT/Cuz L 4-10
15 IT/Cuz L 4-11
16 IT L 0-1
17 IT/Cuz L 4-12
18 IT/Cuz W 5-12
19 IT/Cuz W 6-12
20 IT/Cuz L 6-13
21 IT/Cuz/Gay L 0-1
22 IT/Cuz/Gay W 1-1
23 IT/Cuz/Gay L 1-2
24 IT/Cuz/Gay L 1-3
25 IT/Cuz/Gay L 1-4
26 IT/Cuz/Gay W 2-4
27 IT/Cuz/Gay L 2-5
28 IT/Cuz/Gay W 3-5
29 IT/Cuz/Gay L 3-6
30 IT/Cuz/Gay W 4-6
31 IT/Cuz/Gay L 4-7
32 IT/Cuz/Gay L 4-8
33 IT/Cuz/Gay W 5-8
34 IT/Cuz/Gay W 6-8
35 IT/Cuz/Gay W 7-8
36 IT/Cuz/Gay L 7-9
37 IT/Cuz/Gay W 8-9
38 IT/Cuz/Gay L 8-10
39 IT/Cuz/Gay L 8-11
40 IT/Cuz/Gay W 9-11
41 IT/Cuz/Gay L 9-12
42 IT L 0-2
43 IT L 0-3
44 IT L 0-4
45 IT/Gay L 0-1
46 IT/Gay L 0-2
47 IT/Gay L 0-3
48 IT/Cuz/Gay W 10-12
49 IT/Cuz/Gay W 11-12
50 IT/Cuz L 6-14
51 IT/Cuz/Gay L 11-13
52 IT/Cuz/Gay L 11-14
53 IT/Cuz/Gay W 12-14
54 IT/Gay L 0-4
55 IT/Cuz/Gay W 13-14
56 IT/Cuz/Gay W 14-14
57 IT/Cuz/Gay L 14-15
58 IT/Gay L 0-5
59 IT/Cuz/Gay L 14-16
60 IT/Cuz/Gay W 15-16
61 IT/Cuz/Gay W 16-16
62 IT/Cuz/Gay L 16-17
63 IT/Cuz/Gay L 16-18
64 IT/Cuz/Gay L 16-19
65 IT/Cuz/Gay W 17-19
66 IT/Cuz/Gay L 17-20
67 IT/Gay L 0-6
68 IT/Cuz/Gay W 18-20
69 IT/Cuz/Gay L 18-21
70 IT/Cuz/Gay W 19-21
71 Cuz/Gay L 0-1
72 Cuz/Gay L 0-2
73 Cuz/Gay L 0-3
74 Cuz/Gay W 1-3
75 Cuz/Gay W 2-3
76 Cuz/Gay L 2-4
77 Cuz/Gay L 2-5
78 Cuz L 0-1
79 Cuz L 0-2
80 Cuz/Gay L 2-6
81 IT/Cuz W 7-14
82 IT/Gay L 0-7


Ok, so under that count, again unless I screwed up, it would be:
IT/Cuz/Gay = 19-21
IT/Cuz = 7-14
Cuz/Gay = 2-6
IT/Gay = 0-7
Cuz = 0-2
IT = 0-4
------------
28-54 so think that's the count.

and anyway, point being IT/Gay/Cuz, when all available, = 19-21, a just sub-.500 team. And that was with McClemore and Thornton and the PFs of the week really stinking it up.

Our problem was that the trio played in less than half of the season's games together.

What is being shown here is that our best team was when Thomas, Gay, and Cousins were all healthy and played together with a 19-21 record, on pace to have a record of 39-43. Definitely a much better record than we had, I can't argue with that. However I just want to ask if you are advocating that we keep both Gay and Thomas for the long-term then? Is that a team capable of contending if better players are put around them? So the most likely long-term pay breakouts would be as follows:

Thomas: $8 million/year
Gay: $14 million/year
Cousins: $16 million/year
Total: $38 million/year

Assuming a salary cap of $58 million or so (I'm not sure of the exact figure) that leaves around $20 million to fill out the remaining 9-11 players on the roster. Do you think we could actually get enough quality role players as well as paying our rookies with that amount of money? That seems highly unlikely to me. This is kind of the basis for my wanting to let Rudy Gay go argument. He's not a bad player, it's just we have to be careful with the salary cap and I'm not sure this setup can get it done for us.
 
zWp26e-y_normal.jpeg
Jason Jones@mr_jasonjones · 27m
DeMarcus Cousins on Rudy Gay: "He knows that I want him back. I need him on this ride."

Im with Cuz.
 
If those numbers are right then overall we'd be:

IT/Gay/Cuz = 18-20 (39 win pace)

IT/Cuz = 8-14
IT/Gay = 0-8
Cuz/Gay = 2-6

Cuz alone = 0-2
IT alone = 0-4
Gay alone = N/A
------------------
All partials except IT/Cuz = 2-20


Except that I'm pretty sure that Cuz only missed 11 games, so I am off by one somewhere.

Anyway, you get the idea. All 3 together = we were competitive.

Yes, 39 win pace sure looks like we were competitive after all the seasons of less than 28-games wins.

But is that competitive enough to ensure a playoff berth and pass the chance to acquire more impactful players and do better than 39 wins?

I mean, the inept Petrie is gone and so are the frugal Maloofs. It is a new era in Sacramento. We have a very active GM now who is not afraid to use his phone and negotiate. And we have a very supportive owner. We also have an exciting personality on board in Shaq. I am pretty sure we can do better now recruiting an impactful and better-than-Rudy player at a cost of 19M, especially that there will be a LOT of movement of star players from one team to another.

The opportunity right now is just too much to pass, if indeed Rudy will opt out of that 19M. 19M plus the projected IT salary is just too big to swallow just so we can experiment some more on a not-so-impactful Rudy and a one-way short player and defensive liability IT. It is tiring to see the never-ending iso-plays that we are accustomed to play as a result of the playing style of our core players.

Gay and IT's brand just won't translate to a championship team.

I'd rather gamble that money now on rising stars like Bledsoe or Lowry (who are crystal clear impact players on both ends of the floor) and add another less expensive piece like Afflalo or Parsons or another less expensive defensive big.
 
Yes, 39 win pace sure looks like we were competitive after all the seasons of less than 28-games wins.

But is that competitive enough to ensure a playoff berth and pass the chance to acquire more impactful players and do better than 39 wins?

I mean, the inept Petrie is gone and so are the frugal Maloofs. It is a new era in Sacramento. We have a very active GM now who is not afraid to use his phone and negotiate. And we have a very supportive owner. We also have an exciting personality on board in Shaq. I am pretty sure we can do better now recruiting an impactful and better-than-Rudy player at a cost of 19M, especially that there will be a LOT of movement of star players from one team to another.

The opportunity right now is just too much to pass, if indeed Rudy will opt out of that 19M. 19M plus the projected IT salary is just too big to swallow just so we can experiment some more on a not-so-impactful Rudy and a one-way short player and defensive liability IT. It is tiring to see the never-ending iso-plays that we are accustomed to play as a result of the playing style of our core players.

Gay and IT's brand just won't translate to a championship team.

I'd rather gamble that money now on rising stars like Bledsoe or Lowry (who are crystal clear impact players on both ends of the floor) and add another less expensive piece like Afflalo or Parsons or another less expensive defensive big.


You have to remember that there were other variables involved and you can probably conclude that the pace would be more than 39 wins under normal circumstances. There was high turnover of players. IT, Cuz and Gay were learning to play together. Shooting guards were being shuffled in and out of the starting line-up for various reasons. Given some stability and an off-season to work together, I think it's safe to conclude that we could be better than a 39 win team. Not a championship team, but better than what was shown last year.
 
You have to remember that there were other variables involved and you can probably conclude that the pace would be more than 39 wins under normal circumstances. There was high turnover of players. IT, Cuz and Gay were learning to play together. Shooting guards were being shuffled in and out of the starting line-up for various reasons. Given some stability and an off-season to work together, I think it's safe to conclude that we could be better than a 39 win team. Not a championship team, but better than what was shown last year.
The gaping hole at shooting guard cost us about seven more wins according to analytics too... couple that with natural progression of Cousins/IT as they head into their primes and we're looking like a fairly solid team if everything works out and everyone stays healthy. That's why I'm in favor of resigning IT and drafting Stauskas.
 
You have to remember that there were other variables involved and you can probably conclude that the pace would be more than 39 wins under normal circumstances. There was high turnover of players. IT, Cuz and Gay were learning to play together. Shooting guards were being shuffled in and out of the starting line-up for various reasons. Given some stability and an off-season to work together, I think it's safe to conclude that we could be better than a 39 win team. Not a championship team, but better than what was shown last year.
Exactly my point.

The team could be better, but still not a championship team after paying 24-27M (19M for Gay, 5-8M for IT) and wasting the chance to land a sure impact player like Bledsoe or Lowry.

I have a question for you: If you can get one of Bledsoe or Lowry plus an extra 10-12M that can be used to land one (defensive big) or two other good role-players, would you be willing to let go both Gay and IT?
 
Exactly my point.

The team could be better, but still not a championship team after paying 24-27M (19M for Gay, 5-8M for IT) and wasting the chance to land a sure impact player like Bledsoe or Lowry.

I have a question for you: If you can get one of Bledsoe or Lowry plus an extra 10-12M that can be used to land one (defensive big) or two other good role-players, would you be willing to let go both Gay and IT?

Pray do tell how you're getting this math down.

I do love when people automatically assume that if we don't spend money on Player X, Player Y will surely take the same money and run. It's much easier to sign a guy already on your team than acquire a restricted free agent or a guy who's probably going to have the Raptors throw all their money at him.

If those Bledsoe for IT and #8 rumors are some how doable, wouldn't you rather have Cuz/Bledsoe/Rudy than Cuz/Bledsoe/nothing?
 
While we were 19-21 with IT/Gay/Cousins those were all pressure free games which really counted for nothing since by the time Gay came we were completely out of the playoff picture and the games had no meaning really. The 19-21 looks nice but if you actually watched us play the defense and ball movement will at best result in a first round exit with those 3 as your main guys.

I really don't give much attention to bad teams that start to play well after they have been eliminated anyone can play well with nothing at all on the line, poor defense, poor ball movement and poor IQ/questionable effort won't take you far at all. Everyone on here was going wild about Tyreke Evans at the end of the year how he was dominating for the Pelicans but same thing games meant nothing not impressed do it when it actually matters.
 
Amick was on the radio yesterday said most people expect Rudy to opt out.
I've got no doubt he will but the question is where does he sign? I am hoping he signs here on a 4 year $44-48M deal and we somehow get Bledsoe. Highly unlikely on bledsoe but I get the feeling that we are a solid chance to keep Gay.
 
I've got no doubt he will but the question is where does he sign? I am hoping he signs here on a 4 year $44-48M deal and we somehow get Bledsoe. Highly unlikely on bledsoe but I get the feeling that we are a solid chance to keep Gay.

The Kings org was hoping Gay would opt in for the $19 million; that doesn't sound like an organization that believes they are at all close to be able to resign him for a longer deal.
 
The Kings org was hoping Gay would opt in for the $19 million; that doesn't sound like an organization that believes they are at all close to be able to resign him for a longer deal.

I agree. If he opts in you can test the waters a little bit. Give him an entire offseason with the team and then start the season from scratch and see how it goes. If things don't go well the Kings have a $19 million expiring contract to trade which is extremely valuable. Perhaps that's what the front office had wanted all along, convince him to stay just to have that trade chip, that would be a low class move, but shrewd, this is a business after all.

Although Rudy Gay has stated that he wants the feeling of testing free agency since he never got the chance before. Maybe he looks around, doesn't get the interest he expected and comes back to the Kings anyway and in that scenario I'm sure the deal would be more in the Kings favor. I would think this is a possibility.
 
If Gay stays then great, we have a good 2nd option and a partner for Cuz. If Gay leaves, it won't be the end of the world either for we will suddenly have a lot of wiggle room financially this offseason (Bledsoe maybe?) and possibly target trades. Whatever the case may be, I would hope Gay notifies the team of his intentions prior to the draft so the team can draft/trade appropriately.
 
If Gay stays then great, we have a good 2nd option and a partner for Cuz. If Gay leaves, it won't be the end of the world either for we will suddenly have a lot of wiggle room financially this offseason (Bledsoe maybe?) and possibly target trades. Whatever the case may be, I would hope Gay notifies the team of his intentions prior to the draft so the team can draft/trade appropriately.
I disagree that having lots of money to spend will result in us signing top free agents. When given the choice they always go somewhere else. PDA seems to realize this.
 
Although Rudy Gay has stated that he wants the feeling of testing free agency since he never got the chance before. Maybe he looks around, doesn't get the interest he expected and comes back to the Kings anyway and in that scenario I'm sure the deal would be more in the Kings favor. I would think this is a possibility.

It would certainly be the biggest risk/reward option this offseason. The Kings may end up signing Gay long term on a better deal, or he will bolt and we end up with nothing, meaning we'll likely overspend more for IT, and in my eyes, that would be quite a few backwards steps. I'm hoping Gay surfs around and sees that the money just isn't there - not as many teams looking for his services at his price (I hope) other than Sacramento.
 
I disagree that having lots of money to spend will result in us signing top free agents. When given the choice they always go somewhere else. PDA seems to realize this.

History has shown this to be true - unless we overspend for mediocre talent.
 
Just to address Chupacabra, I have no agenda other than trying to get you to look at things a little differently than normal, to attempt to think outside the box, outside of the group think. I feel that I've made some very valid points, not just with the WS/48 stat that doesn't always apply. If you are going to accuse me of having some agenda then at least do me the courtesy of reading my post and actually think about what I'm saying. The Rudy Gay supporters seem to only say, "Rudy Gay is great, Rudy Gay is great!" However they have no arguments as to why that actually is other than the fact that is the common thought, everyone should just accept that Rudy Gay is great, it is what is, you just have to believe! He is the best SF we've had since Ron Artest so he must be worth $19 million!

I'm challenging that common thought. You see a player with a perfect basketball body, excellent athleticism, makes plays look easy, and hits clutch shots from time to time. That's not bad, I'll give you that. I see that too, but what I also see is a player who averages 20 points and 6.5 rebounds a game (there are a lot of players capable of that or slightly lower with better efficiency), a player who has an assist/turnover ratio lower than 1.0, a player who has never made players better around him, but has made them worse (Time in Toronto), and has almost always played on teams with losing records.

I will repeat, I'm not saying he's worthless! I'm saying that it isn't good business to give that type of player $19 million for one year or $14 million a year for a long-term deal. It isn't practical. Now for $8 million a year or so I'm all over it, now we have value. Anything higher and you take the chance of jeopardizing your franchise. Rudy Gay is not going to blow up into some star player, he's been in the league too long, we know what we are getting.
What youre pointing out isnt outside of the box. Its pretty common Stephen A. Smith-esque drivel. Its the same type of reasoning that casual sports fans and beat writers use to make all star game selections. The Kings are terrible. Is Demarcus Cousins less of a player because his team is bad? No. The answer is always no. Which is why that point always loses. Its a fact that you never said hes worthless. You said "slightly above average", which is pure, rich and creamy nonsense.
 
What youre pointing out isnt outside of the box. Its pretty common Stephen A. Smith-esque drivel. Its the same type of reasoning that casual sports fans and beat writers use to make all star game selections. The Kings are terrible. Is Demarcus Cousins less of a player because his team is bad? No. The answer is always no. Which is why that point always loses. Its a fact that you never said hes worthless. You said "slightly above average", which is pure, rich and creamy nonsense.

You still have given no reason as to why Rudy Gay is better than "slightly above average". You disagree, you call it drivel, you call it nonsense, yet you can't logically argue why you're right and I'm wrong. Just because what I believe disagrees with what you do doesn't make it drivel, you may be wrong just as I may be wrong. All I'm asking is you tell me why Rudy Gay is better than "slightly above average", that's it.

Also I don't think my only argument was that he's less of player just because he has been on losing teams. Although comparing Cousins with that is unfair, Cousins has only been on the Kings, a losing team every year with very little talent to support him. Gay has a track record of losing and has had better talent around him, look at Toronto, they were bad, he was traded and all of a sudden they are very good. If the Kings traded Cousins I don't think they would make the same transition and all of a sudden become very good, so Cousins doesn't fit that argument.

My reasoning put in the most simple terms is this. I don't want to pay $19 million or $14 million a year for a long-term deal to a ball dominant SF who does the majority of his scoring within 10 feet of the basket (we have Cousins for that), who only shoots 34% from 16-24 feet, who only shoots 33% from 3-point range, who has a 0.97 assist/turnover ratio, doesn't make players better around him, and is a below average defender. That style of play doesn't usually translate to winning. You could even throw out all of this and say it's not about stats, it's about the little things he does. If he played on winning teams then that might hold some water, but he's usually not so it doesn't.

Are there any examples of paying big money to a player like this has actually worked. If there is somebody please tell me because I can't think of one.
 
I disagree that having lots of money to spend will result in us signing top free agents. When given the choice they always go somewhere else. PDA seems to realize this.
Before Vivek I would have agreed with you, but now with a billionaire as an owner, a new arena, and the prospect of India supporting the Kings and NBA on a different scale than before, we aren't exactly throwing out a horrible pitch to free agents. Times are changing.
 
If those Bledsoe for IT and #8 rumors are some how doable, wouldn't you rather have Cuz/Bledsoe/Rudy than Cuz/Bledsoe/nothing?
If we are not going to break the bank on Rudy so we can still acquire that other two-way impact player to form our "great triumvirate" with Cousins and Bledsoe, why not?

This is very good first step forward. Replacing the deceptively good IT as early as possible and before we are forced to overpay him out of desperation.
 
If we are not going to break the bank on Rudy so we can still acquire that other two-way impact player to form our "great triumvirate" with Cousins and Bledsoe, why not?

This is very good first step forward. Replacing the deceptively good IT as early as possible and before we are forced to overpay him out of desperation.

I don't think it even comes down to a Big 3, I would rather not have a Big 3. The original question was isn't it better to have Cousins/Bledsoe/Gay rather than Cousins/Bledsoe/Nothing. On the surface, yes. However I look at it like this, rather than having Cousins/Bledsoe/Gay I would rather have Cousins/Bledsoe/Better Role Players. Having two ball dominant players is enough, three is too many in my opinion.
 
I disagree that having lots of money to spend will result in us signing top free agents. When given the choice they always go somewhere else. PDA seems to realize this.
That was before.

Time has changed.

New CBA is being enofrced which makes money harder to find around.

And with a lot of player movement and team restructuring going on now, it is fair to say we have a good shot at getting better by replacing one of Gay or IT as our main guy.

We have a very supportive owner in Vivek who wants to win. The Maloofs are gone. We have a very active and hardworking GM in PDA. The lazy Petrie is history now. Shaq is on board which makes Sacramento more interesting. And we have a very awesome piece to boast in Cousins, which in Bledsoe's case might be the difference in deciding whether to join the Kings.
 
Last edited:
Exactly my point.

The team could be better, but still not a championship team after paying 24-27M (19M for Gay, 5-8M for IT) and wasting the chance to land a sure impact player like Bledsoe or Lowry.

I have a question for you: If you can get one of Bledsoe or Lowry plus an extra 10-12M that can be used to land one (defensive big) or two other good role-players, would you be willing to let go both Gay and IT?
If Rudy Gay opts out and the Kings don't resign Isaiah Thomas AND declined the option on Quincy Acy the team would have just under $16 million in salary cap space assuming the cap raises $5 million to $63.2 million as projected. Even if somehow the Kings and Phoenix decided to do the never before seen double sign-and-trade deal (and assuming both IT and Bledsoe agree to such a thing) I can't imagine Bledsoe signing for less than $9 or $10 million per. That wouldn't leave the Kings with an extra $10-12 million. It would leave them with an extra $6-7 million to spend on one more player (or two) and then fill out the roster with minimum salary players. Is Bledsoe/Cousins better than IT/Gay/Cousins? I don't know and that's even with me being a pretty big Bledsoe fan.

But I can't fathom why this IT/Bledsoe rumor has gained so much traction in the first place. The odds of it happening have to be minuscule given the high number of moving parts involved.

Lowry is a more realistic target since he's an unrestricted free agent but if his goal is winning he may well join the Heat and if his goal is money then we'd have to outbid the Raptors who want him back and who I believe have his Bird rights. Personally I like Lowry but I see him as a nice piece, not a core building block. And again, unless he came at a bargain the Kings wouldn't have the money to lure another major piece. Lowry and Cousins would have to be a winning core. And I don't think they are.

I've said before that I was jealous of what Philadelphia did over the last year. Traded Holiday for two first rounders, drafted Noel and MCW and dealt away every other piece to leave the team with cap room and lottery picks to rebuild with. They'll land Parker/Wiggins/Embiid/Exum with their first pick and Saric/McDermott/Stauskas/Nurkic etc with that second first rounder. They've even got 5 2nd rounders to package or gamble on depth with. Assuming good drafting (and so far so good with Hinkie who was my first choice for Kings GM) and that team should be on the rise quickly.

Contrast that with the Kings that currently look rudderless, lack cap room and have few options to make real improvement.

If D'Alessandro manages to put a winning team on the floor next season I'll be highly impressed.
 
You still have given no reason as to why Rudy Gay is better than "slightly above average". You disagree, you call it drivel, you call it nonsense, yet you can't logically argue why you're right and I'm wrong. Just because what I believe disagrees with what you do doesn't make it drivel, you may be wrong just as I may be wrong. All I'm asking is you tell me why Rudy Gay is better than "slightly above average", that's it.

Also I don't think my only argument was that he's less of player just because he has been on losing teams. Although comparing Cousins with that is unfair, Cousins has only been on the Kings, a losing team every year with very little talent to support him. Gay has a track record of losing and has had better talent around him, look at Toronto, they were bad, he was traded and all of a sudden they are very good. If the Kings traded Cousins I don't think they would make the same transition and all of a sudden become very good, so Cousins doesn't fit that argument.

My reasoning put in the most simple terms is this. I don't want to pay $19 million or $14 million a year for a long-term deal to a ball dominant SF who does the majority of his scoring within 10 feet of the basket (we have Cousins for that), who only shoots 34% from 16-24 feet, who only shoots 33% from 3-point range, who has a 0.97 assist/turnover ratio, doesn't make players better around him, and is a below average defender. That style of play doesn't usually translate to winning. You could even throw out all of this and say it's not about stats, it's about the little things he does. If he played on winning teams then that might hold some water, but he's usually not so it doesn't.

Are there any examples of paying big money to a player like this has actually worked. If there is somebody please tell me because I can't think of one.
I just had a post almost ready to go until I realized that there's no point in arguing with you. This is a problem with understanding market value and a failure to realize that the Kings can't buy free agents.
 
If Rudy Gay opts out and the Kings don't resign Isaiah Thomas AND declined the option on Quincy Acy the team would have just under $16 million in salary cap space assuming the cap raises $5 million to $63.2 million as projected. Even if somehow the Kings and Phoenix decided to do the never before seen double sign-and-trade deal (and assuming both IT and Bledsoe agree to such a thing) I can't imagine Bledsoe signing for less than $9 or $10 million per. That wouldn't leave the Kings with an extra $10-12 million. It would leave them with an extra $6-7 million to spend on one more player (or two) and then fill out the roster with minimum salary players. Is Bledsoe/Cousins better than IT/Gay/Cousins? I don't know and that's even with me being a pretty big Bledsoe fan.

But I can't fathom why this IT/Bledsoe rumor has gained so much traction in the first place. The odds of it happening have to be minuscule given the high number of moving parts involved.
I agree it is a long shot, but it is possible and it will be worth the gamble to get that one important piece of the puzzle. Yes, it won't transform the team instantly to a championship team, but it is a very important first step to do NOW towards that goal.

Bledsoe or Lowry.

I'm okay with either one, especially if it means getting rid of IT (and to a lesser extent Gay) as our MAIN guys.

Replacing Rudy and IT with a two-way stud player like Bledsoe or Lowry (who happens to be good facilitators too) will suddenly change the way we play basketball. Finally, we will have a MAIN guy who works hard at both ends of the floor, facilitates well, and that can inspire others to do the same. It will be worth the MONEY.

Rudy and IT just aren't cut to be the MAIN guys on a championship team. Do not overpay them.
 
Last edited:
If Rudy Gay opts out and the Kings don't resign Isaiah Thomas AND declined the option on Quincy Acy the team would have just under $16 million in salary cap space assuming the cap raises $5 million to $63.2 million as projected. Even if somehow the Kings and Phoenix decided to do the never before seen double sign-and-trade deal (and assuming both IT and Bledsoe agree to such a thing) I can't imagine Bledsoe signing for less than $9 or $10 million per. That wouldn't leave the Kings with an extra $10-12 million. It would leave them with an extra $6-7 million to spend on one more player (or two) and then fill out the roster with minimum salary players. Is Bledsoe/Cousins better than IT/Gay/Cousins? I don't know and that's even with me being a pretty big Bledsoe fan.

But I can't fathom why this IT/Bledsoe rumor has gained so much traction in the first place. The odds of it happening have to be minuscule given the high number of moving parts involved.

Lowry is a more realistic target since he's an unrestricted free agent but if his goal is winning he may well join the Heat and if his goal is money then we'd have to outbid the Raptors who want him back and who I believe have his Bird rights. Personally I like Lowry but I see him as a nice piece, not a core building block. And again, unless he came at a bargain the Kings wouldn't have the money to lure another major piece. Lowry and Cousins would have to be a winning core. And I don't think they are.

I've said before that I was jealous of what Philadelphia did over the last year. Traded Holiday for two first rounders, drafted Noel and MCW and dealt away every other piece to leave the team with cap room and lottery picks to rebuild with. They'll land Parker/Wiggins/Embiid/Exum with their first pick and Saric/McDermott/Stauskas/Nurkic etc with that second first rounder. They've even got 5 2nd rounders to package or gamble on depth with. Assuming good drafting (and so far so good with Hinkie who was my first choice for Kings GM) and that team should be on the rise quickly.

Contrast that with the Kings that currently look rudderless, lack cap room and have few options to make real improvement.

If D'Alessandro manages to put a winning team on the floor next season I'll be highly impressed.

Excellent analysis, Funky. Personally, I don't like the deal that PDA did with Gay because it puts him in a vulnerable dependent position, not what you want when you're trying to build a team. In the case of Philly, they've managed to accumulate a great number of assets with no dagger above their head, which in turn allows for maximum flexibility going forward. With the Kings, everything is dependent on the one lynchpin - Gay. He controls them, not the other way around. I'd love to be the Philly GM right now, but not D'Alessandro.
 
Back
Top