Elf Payton

Should we pursue Elf Payton?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
#31
Bogi and Temple can both handle the ball for 3-5 minute stretches, Bogi even more. Not saying I would take a buy low flyer on payton, something like a 3 year deal in the 9-12MM total range with the 3rd year being a team option, but nothing more than that.
I think that’s more than you will have to pay for Payton. Thinking 3-5M range.
 
#32
I'm telling you guys. Fred VanVleet is the one guy in this whole free agency class who's stock is about to start soaring.

When you look at players that take a year or two to develop, his season last year has all the earmarks of a player that is on a 45* trajectory to start racing up the charts. I would offer him a deal that the Raptors can't match and snatch him away as quickly as possible. He has the potential to be the Kings best player (Bagley and Giles withstanding).
VanVleet can flat out score. id see if we can pry him away but doubt it
 
#33
This scrub doesn't deserve his own thread. I will take Mason over him as a backup PG. We have no use for a slow PG who can't shoot. Only thing he had going for him was his hair now he doesn't even have that.
 
#36
I'm telling you guys. Fred VanVleet is the one guy in this whole free agency class who's stock is about to start soaring.

When you look at players that take a year or two to develop, his season last year has all the earmarks of a player that is on a 45* trajectory to start racing up the charts. I would offer him a deal that the Raptors can't match and snatch him away as quickly as possible. He has the potential to be the Kings best player (Bagley and Giles withstanding).
You and I have the same player pool a lot of the time. Something about great minds :)

But yeah, VanVleet has been on my radar for awhile now. He took an absolute monster leap this year and became one of the Raptors most important players. He's just an absolute quality PG; great shooter, gets his teammates involved, doesn't turn the ball over, runs the offense extremely well. I think he's a dynamite fit next to Fox too offensively; he's great at everything Fox isn't, so there's room for him to see 25+MPG with us. Really, he'd make any of our wing combos a lot better. Everything in the statistical profile just screams "break-out" player:

-Pretty much every advanced stat loves him in a significant sample of minutes. Some of that is playing for a great team, but the On/Off rating and RPM are really eye-popping for a reserve player

-19% USG, 11% TOV, 22% AST, 56% TS, 41% from 3.

To me, these splits show a guy who knows how to effectively play off other ball dominant guys and still find ways to contribute and not hurt the team. Someone you can just plug and not worry about fit is really enticing. There should be room for offensive growth too if he gets a bigger leash and doesn't have to worry about playing next to two massive USG guards.

And the best part is the Raptors are already in the luxury tax without signing him back. If we offer him 7 or 8 mil a year for 4 years (he's a guy we'd want for 4 years), there's just not feasible way they can or would really want to pay that with how much money they have tied into Derozan and Lowry. Everyone else too is going to be looking at bigger fish to fry to start FA off.

I'd be more than down to start FA off making offers to FVV and Kyle Anderson. Just bring in 2 quality young players who absolutely are going to make us better next season, fit with the core, and fit with developmental timeline. And both guys are actually realistic targets for us.
 
Last edited:
#37
You and I have the same player pool a lot of the time. Something about great minds :)

But yeah, VanVleet has been on my radar for awhile now. He took an absolute monster leap this year and became one of the Raptors most important players. He's just an absolute quality PG; great shooter, gets his teammates involved, doesn't turn the ball over, runs the offense extremely well. I think he's a dynamite fit next to Fox too offensively; he's great at everything Fox isn't, so there's room for him to see 25+MPG with us. Really, he'd make any of our wing combos a lot better. Everything in the statistical profile just screams "break-out" player:

-Pretty much every advanced stat loves him in a significant sample of minutes. Some of that is playing for a great team, but the On/Off rating and RPM are really eye-popping for a reserve player

-19% USG, 11% TOV, 22% AST, 56% TS, 41% from 3.

To me, these splits show a guy who knows how to effectively play off other ball dominant guys and still find ways to contribute and not hurt the team. Someone you can just plug and not worry about fit is really enticing. There should be room for offensive growth too if he gets a bigger leash and doesn't have to worry about playing next to two massive USG guards.

And the best part is the Raptors are already in the luxury tax without signing him back. If we offer him 7 or 8 mil a year for 4 years (he's a guy we'd want for 4 years), there's just not feasible way they can or would really want to pay that with how much money they have tied into Derozan and Lowry. Everyone else too is going to be looking at bigger fish to fry to start FA off.

I'd be more than down to start FA off making offers to FVV and Kyle Anderson. Just bring in 2 quality young players who absolutely are going to make us better next season, fit with the core, and fit with developmental timeline. And both guys are actually realistic targets for us.
I completely agree. I think he's about as safe a signing that the Kings could get this offseason but I think they are so enamored with Fox that they won't do it. I mean lets face it, if Fox doesn't go, the Kings aren't going to go and that's regardless what Bagley or Giles do. VanVleet would be the perfect insurance policy to make sure that no matter what happens with Fox, the Kings will be taken care of at the PG position. It's kind of like how Cory Joseph picks up wherever the starting PG left off when they get hurt. Except VanVleet should be even better than Joseph.

Like you said, his stats scream break out player. It's always possible that he goes into next year on whatever team and stinks it up but VanVleet's stats from last year mirror what many players stats look like before they break out. I think he's an extremely safe target and the Kings have leverage with Toronto being in the luxury tax. I think he will be able to do more with less than players like LaVine and Parker.

Kyle Anderson is riskier because his offense is a huge question mark but he would be the best defender the Kings have had since what, Artest? I think I would take the risk there. Good rebounder, passer, stealer and blocker for his position. Also rarely fouls. Basically fouls once per steal he gets. He's an ill fit with Fox if neither of them can shoot but it may be a low risk, high reward type signing. I don't know how much he would command on the market but it shouldn't be a ton since he doesn't have a bunch of flashy stats. He's sort of like an offensively poor mans Otto Porter but if he develops a 3 point shot, he's right up there in the thick of it with Porter.
 
#38
I completely agree. I think he's about as safe a signing that the Kings could get this offseason but I think they are so enamored with Fox that they won't do it. I mean lets face it, if Fox doesn't go, the Kings aren't going to go and that's regardless what Bagley or Giles do. VanVleet would be the perfect insurance policy to make sure that no matter what happens with Fox, the Kings will be taken care of at the PG position. It's kind of like how Cory Joseph picks up wherever the starting PG left off when they get hurt. Except VanVleet should be even better than Joseph.

Like you said, his stats scream break out player. It's always possible that he goes into next year on whatever team and stinks it up but VanVleet's stats from last year mirror what many players stats look like before they break out. I think he's an extremely safe target and the Kings have leverage with Toronto being in the luxury tax. I think he will be able to do more with less than players like LaVine and Parker.

Kyle Anderson is riskier because his offense is a huge question mark but he would be the best defender the Kings have had since what, Artest? I think I would take the risk there. Good rebounder, passer, stealer and blocker for his position. Also rarely fouls. Basically fouls once per steal he gets. He's an ill fit with Fox if neither of them can shoot but it may be a low risk, high reward type signing. I don't know how much he would command on the market but it shouldn't be a ton since he doesn't have a bunch of flashy stats. He's sort of like an offensively poor mans Otto Porter but if he develops a 3 point shot, he's right up there in the thick of it with Porter.
Anderson isn't bad offensively though, like a MKG type, but he's just doesn't seem to use possessions for whatever reason. By all accounts, he has the tools to be a really good offensively player with his handle and passing ability for a wing and he put up good efficiency numbers last year on albeit, his limited attempts. I'm not sure if I've ever really seen something like a 13% USG rate on a guy with his all-around skill-set. Usually, that's reserved for the "garbage or lob" C like Tyson Chandler or some wing you never really want touching the ball like Mbah or MKG. I didn't watch enough Spurs last year to know if it was more scheme oriented from Pop not to give him offensive looks or if he was too unselfish or if he just doesn't ever want to shoot for some reason

But it's everything else he brings that I want on the team and that overall the roster struggles with. He's a 3/4 flex guy, which is worth it's weight in gold in today's NBA, he's a top-tier defender and would far and away be the best defender on the team like you said. He's outstanding on the glass and he adds another secondary playmaker off Fox/Bogdan/Buddy. I think the fit is flawless on offense when so much usage is going to be eaten up by Bogdan/Buddy/Fox/Bagley that getting a guy who can make significant contributions elsewhere makes the fit of the starting 5 that much better.

I think Hezonja is a decent gamble, but Kyle Anderson is just far superior at things we suck at as a team, is a better basketball player and would give a Fox/Buddy(Bogdan)/Bagley/Giles starting 5 a chance to be a pretty damn good defensive unit. The only thing would be is he has to shoot the reliable 3 ball, but is there really anything in that stat profile that you can see where he can't be a 35% guy on 3 3ptA/game if we just tell him "hey dude, shoot more"?
 
Last edited:
#40
Anderson isn't bad offensively though, like a MKG type, but he's just doesn't seem to use possessions for whatever reason. By all accounts, he has the tools to be a really good offensively player with his handle and passing ability for a wing and he put up good efficiency numbers last year on albeit, his limited attempts. I'm not sure if I've ever really seen something like a 13% USG rate on a guy with his all-around skill-set. Usually, that's reserved for the "garbage or lob" C like Tyson Chandler or some wing you never really want touching the ball like Mbah or MKG. I didn't watch enough Spurs last year to know if it was more scheme oriented from Pop not to give him offensive looks or if he was too unselfish or if he just doesn't ever want to shoot for some reason

But it's everything else he brings that I want on the team and that overall the roster struggles with. He's a 3/4 flex guy, which is worth it's weight in gold in today's NBA, he's a top-tier defender and would far and away be the best defender on the team like you said. He's outstanding on the glass and he adds another secondary playmaker off Fox/Bogdan/Buddy. I think the fit is flawless on offense when so much usage is going to be eaten up by Bogdan/Buddy/Fox/Bagley that getting a guy who can make significant contributions elsewhere makes the fit of the starting 5 that much better.

I think Hezonja is a decent gamble, but Kyle Anderson is just far superior at things we suck at as a team, is a better basketball player and would give a Fox/Buddy(Bogdan)/Bagley/Giles starting 5 a chance to be a pretty damn good defensive unit. The only thing would be is he has to shoot the reliable 3 ball, but is there really anything in that stat profile that you can see where he can't be a 35% guy on 3 3ptA/game if we just tell him "hey dude, shoot more"?
I've thought the exact same thing on Anderson. Is he not shooting because he can't shoot? Is it the system? Is the the fact that they usually had better offensive players at the other positions while he was on the court? It's kind of a mystery to me and why I think that he's a bit of a risk because if it's as easy as "hey dude, shoot more" then you have yourself a formidable 3&D player but if there's another reason for it then you have a possible _&D player and those types of guys don't really have a fit in the NBA unless it's in very specific circumstances and San Antonio is usually one of those. Something to think about.