[Grades] Grades v. Blazers 4/9/2-014

[Bricklayer]

I know it's unpopular, but that's exactly what I'm saying. I think a team built around these youngsters could, before Cousins' contract is up, develop into a better team than one built around three high-usage volume scorers. Cousins is actually better I think when he doesn't have to fight with the other two for shots. There's no reason why he can't average 30 a game in the near future like Shaq in his prime. Our turnovers go down as well because only one guy is trying to create shots against double-teams. One high usage, high turnover guy is fine. Every team has one. Three though is problematic. And we've seen that this season. When everything clicks we can beat anyone, but we had a negative assist to turnover ratio for more than a month. When those tough low-percentage shots aren't falling we're a mess. You have to remember, Gay and Thomas pretty much are who they are. Ray, Ben, Derrick, and even DeMarcus are just starting their careers. All of them should get better. And having all of them get better together could result in that elusive mixing factor that makes a team better than the sum of it's parts, chemistry.

Or it could result in team with one lonely star surrounded by 3 kids who will never be good enough to start on good teams, which directly leads into one disgruntled star.

Youth is habitually overvalued as a rule, but fans at least. Young = unknown, so we constantly fill in the unknown with our hopes. But more often than not that doesn't pan out. In this case we are suggesting surrounding Cousins with 3kids shooting .370, 373. and .437 and thinking he's going to be anything but pissed about it. If Cousins was a rookie himself then sure, you have time, as we did with the Cousins/Reke pairing. You try to develop it and figure you've got a few years for things to come together. Or not. But when your centerpiece is now ready to emerge on the national stage, you simply cannot take the risk of failing him anymore. If we can't surround Cousins with the sort of ready to win NOW talent to at least get us into a late season hunt for the playoffs next year, trouble will follow.

 

[hrdboild]

Or it could result in team with one lonely star surrounded by 3 kids who will never be good enough to start on good teams, which directly leads into one disgruntled star.

Youth is habitually overvalued as a rule, but fans at least. Young = unknown, so we constantly fill in the unknown with our hopes. But more often than not that doesn't pan out. In this case we are suggesting surrounding Cousins with 3kids shooting .370, 373. and .437 and thinking he's going to be anything but pissed about it. If Cousins was a rookie himself then sure, you have time, as we did with the Cousins/Reke pairing. You try to develop it and figure you've got a few years for things to come together. Or not. But when your centerpiece is now ready to emerge on the national stage, you simply cannot take the risk of failing him anymore. If we can't surround Cousins with the sort of ready to win NOW talent to at least get us into a late season hunt for the playoffs next year, trouble will follow.

If Cousins is averaging 28 and 12 next year and an All-Star and the team shows significant progress, I wouldn't be worried. What constitutes significant progress is subjective, but when we've briefly seen this group play together this season they've shown signs that they could be developing team chemistry. We don't need to be a team that averages 105 points per game. We could be a team that scores just enough to win 50% of the time next year with a team wide commitment to working together on defense. Then we build from there. Furthermore I think it's a mistake to over-commit to a group of players who haven't proven they can win yet. Ray, Derrick, and Ben are still on their rookie deals. If the team implodes we'd have a truckload of cap space to reverse course and try a veteran rebuild instead. Alternatively, if IT/Rudy/Cousins implodes next year and we've signed them all to long-term deals we have no choice but to wait nervously while Cousins ponders his options elsewhere. The impatient option might actually be the riskier course of action here.

 

[Padrino]

I know it's unpopular, but that's exactly what I'm saying. I think a team built around these youngsters could, before Cousins' contract is up, develop into a better team than one built around three high-usage volume scorers. Cousins is actually better I think when he doesn't have to fight with the other two for shots. There's no reason why he can't average 30 a game in the near future like Shaq in his prime. Our turnovers go down as well because only one guy is trying to create shots against double-teams. One high usage, high turnover guy is fine. Every team has one. Three though is problematic. And we've seen that this season. When everything clicks we can beat anyone, but we had a negative assist to turnover ratio for more than a month. When those tough low-percentage shots aren't falling we're a mess. You have to remember, Gay and Thomas pretty much are who they are. Ray, Ben, Derrick, and even DeMarcus are just starting their careers. All of them should get better. And having all of them get better together could result in that elusive mixing factor that makes a team better than the sum of it's parts, chemistry.

well, in your scenario, big cuz would be staring down triple-teams on the regular. you've really gotta have a legitimate second option on offense to give him some relief out there, otherwise opposing defenses will smother demarcus and happily dare mclemore and mccallum to beat them. you also need a legitimate second option as insurance in case demarcus gets into foul trouble or suffers an injury. demarcus + spare change is just as imbalanced as demarcus + rudy + isaiah...

 

[Spike]

I don't know that the impatient option implies building around IT/Gay/Cousins. If Gay opts in and doesn't work, we have a massive expiring. I'm not sure that the FO will match whatever IT gets, given McCallum's play. That leaves the potential to plug in better fitting vet pieces by the start of training camp. Ideally, Gay signs long term here for not-an-obscene amount of money, leaving space to help balance a little more.

The only sure thing I see next fall is Cousins. This will be an interesting offseason for sure.

 

[hrdboild]

well, in your scenario, big cuz would be staring down triple-teams on the regular. you've really gotta have a legitimate second option on offense to give him some relief out there, otherwise opposing defenses will smother demarcus and happily dare mclemore and mccallum to beat them. you also need a legitimate second option as insurance in case demarcus gets into foul trouble or suffers an injury. demarcus + spare change is just as imbalanced as demarcus + rudy + isaiah...

I seriously doubt any NBA team is going to triple team the paint. Our kids are young and raw, but they're still NBA players. All 3 of them have shown flashes of scoring ability. Ray has already had scoring nights of 22, 23, and 27 points in just 9 starts. He's not a scrub. In limited opportunities DWill has produced 2 26pt games and a 31pt game this season. Ben is usually good for about 15 a night when he's getting shots and he isn't rushing everything. The patient part would be waiting for them to do it consistently but we're not talking about unskilled players here. I don't see that lineup as DeMarcus plus spare change. I see it as 3 lottery picks and an early second round pick getting a chance to prove themselves. And if we manage to plug in an effective defensive big in the other front court position, I think that lineup could surprise some people as early as next season.

The impatient option is falling into the "win now" trap as an excuse to jettison young players and acquire stop gap veterans instead. I think giving IT a 4 or 5 year contract at the market rate for a starting PG would be a mistake. Similarly, signing Rudy Gay to a 3 or 4 year extension north of $10 million a year would be a mistake. Those might be market value deals, but that doesn't mean they'll be easy to move if something goes wrong. Going forward with a core group that can't even win 30 games together and then patching the holes with our other trade-able assets sounds like settling for mediocre. Trading McLemore because he's not All-NBA his rookie year and going after a role-player like Sefolosha sounds like settling for mediocre. Smart teams develop talent.

We don't need to make the playoffs next season, we just need to position ourselves where making the playoffs the season after that feels like a foregone conclusion. That's where a young team wants to be -- on the cusp of the playoffs right when everyone has adjusted to the league and is entering their prime.

 

[KingMilz]

I seriously doubt any NBA team is going to triple team the paint. Our kids are young and raw, but they're still NBA players. All 3 of them have shown flashes of scoring ability. Ray has already had scoring nights of 22, 23, and 27 points in just 9 starts. He's not a scrub. In limited opportunities DWill has produced 2 26pt games and a 31pt game this season. Ben is usually good for about 15 a night when he's getting shots and he isn't rushing everything. The patient part would be waiting for them to do it consistently but we're not talking about unskilled players here. I don't see that lineup as DeMarcus plus spare change. I see it as 3 lottery picks and an early second round pick getting a chance to prove themselves. And if we manage to plug in an effective defensive big in the other front court position, I think that lineup could surprise some people as early as next season.

The impatient option is falling into the "win now" trap as an excuse to jettison young players and acquire stop gap veterans instead. I think giving IT a 4 or 5 year contract at the market rate for a starting PG would be a mistake. Similarly, signing Rudy Gay to a 3 or 4 year extension north of $10 million a year would be a mistake. Those might be market value deals, but that doesn't mean they'll be easy to move if something goes wrong. Going forward with a core group that can't even win 30 games together and then patching the holes with our other trade-able assets sounds like settling for mediocre. Trading McLemore because he's not All-NBA his rookie year and going after a role-player like Sefolosha sounds like settling for mediocre. Smart teams develop talent.

We don't need to make the playoffs next season, we just need to position ourselves where making the playoffs the season after that feels like a foregone conclusion. That's where a young team wants to be -- on the cusp of the playoffs right when everyone has adjusted to the league and is entering their prime.

I pretty much completely agree with your last two posts, to me the Cousins/IT/Gay trio has a really low ceiling that is going to cost an absurd amout of money and won't allow you to play a style of basketball that makes lesser players better or a style that will work in the playoff against any decent defence.

I'm not sold on Derrick as the starting SF his motivation/hunger is just not there for me if we could get a Trevor Ariza on a decent deal or someone like that imo would be a fantastic fit. I would give Gordon Hayward 10 million but or even Chandler Parsons if the Rockets go after Melo/Durrant as there have been rumours.

 

[miltonap]

In the future:

McCallum/IT
Ben/unkown
D-Will/unknown
Cauley Stein or different shot blocker/Evans/Acy
Cousins/unknown

Honestly, this is probably what our roster is going to look like in the future. Only thing that might change is that IT is gone and Gay stays. I'd prefer that Gay leaves if I had my choice. Gay is really talented but I don't like his style of play very much. I also really hope the front office is smart enough not to keep both.

imo, this is a very good lineup. There is a lot of balance, and most importantly, it works offensively and defensively. Obviously Ben has to improve which I think he will. I think D-Will's problem is not playing with the right group. I believe he would fit in with this group. He tore it up before Rudy Gay joined the team and he started sucking because the bench crew was awful.

 

[Bricklayer]

I seriously doubt any NBA team is going to triple team the paint. Our kids are young and raw, but they're still NBA players. All 3 of them have shown flashes of scoring ability. Ray has already had scoring nights of 22, 23, and 27 points in just 9 starts. He's not a scrub. In limited opportunities DWill has produced 2 26pt games and a 31pt game this season. Ben is usually good for about 15 a night when he's getting shots and he isn't rushing everything. The patient part would be waiting for them to do it consistently but we're not talking about unskilled players here. I don't see that lineup as DeMarcus plus spare change. I see it as 3 lottery picks and an early second round pick getting a chance to prove themselves. And if we manage to plug in an effective defensive big in the other front court position, I think that lineup could surprise some people as early as next season.

The impatient option is falling into the "win now" trap as an excuse to jettison young players and acquire stop gap veterans instead. I think giving IT a 4 or 5 year contract at the market rate for a starting PG would be a mistake. Similarly, signing Rudy Gay to a 3 or 4 year extension north of $10 million a year would be a mistake. Those might be market value deals, but that doesn't mean they'll be easy to move if something goes wrong. Going forward with a core group that can't even win 30 games together and then patching the holes with our other trade-able assets sounds like settling for mediocre. Trading McLemore because he's not All-NBA his rookie year and going after a role-player like Sefolosha sounds like settling for mediocre. Smart teams develop talent.

We don't need to make the playoffs next season, we just need to position ourselves where making the playoffs the season after that feels like a foregone conclusion. That's where a young team wants to be -- on the cusp of the playoffs right when everyone has adjusted to the league and is entering their prime.

There is no "everyone". You seem determined to make our kids into keepers, and we may keep them. But they certainly haven't proven they can be winning starters, or anything close to it. ray's the only one not working on a "disappointment" label right now, and that is partially because he was a second round pick with limited expectations. Even if they were to suddenly magically blossom, how much financial advantage are we supposed to be gaining here if these kids, all with contracts ending in the next 1-3 years, are blowing up so big they replace IT and Rudy? We'll just have to pay them the same money anyway, and frankly the odds of getting even one 20pt scorer out them ain't high.

There is a "one". And that's fine btw.

The puzzling thing is that since we already have Rudy and IT on the team, along with all the kids, in theory we could in fact keep Rudy/It AND still have all these kids as reserves who are supposedly so talented they would make us win by themselves as starters. Certainly if these kids are such hot stuff that they are going to launch us into 45-50 win territory within a couple of years, then having them around AND 3 20pt scorers should make us pretty damn epic. Except that's not who are kids are. And its not what we are.

P.S. Hiring seasoned winning professionals is hardly settling for anything. Dear Thabo, you are good enough to start on 60win Finals teams, but we would never settle for you?

 

[Bricklayer]

In the future:

McCallum/IT
Ben/unkown
D-Will/unknown
Cauley Stein or different shot blocker/Evans/Acy
Cousins/unknown

Honestly, this is probably what our roster is going to look like in the future. Only thing that might change is that IT is gone and Gay stays. I'd prefer that Gay leaves if I had my choice. Gay is really talented but I don't like his style of play very much. I also really hope the front office is smart enough not to keep both.

imo, this is a very good lineup. There is a lot of balance, and most importantly, it works offensively and defensively. Obviously Ben has to improve which I think he will. I think D-Will's problem is not playing with the right group. I believe he would fit in with this group. He tore it up before Rudy Gay joined the team and he started sucking because the bench crew was awful.

this is the West, not the East. I don't want any part of Philly's shiny new record.

 

[pshn80]

Your "grass is greener" plans are like steps to permanent mediocrity. We've lived with revolving doors (or no doors at all) for too long. Let's stick with what we have until we can get a piece that's clearly better. You and I don't have to figure out how to divide the money. Fortunately that is taken care of for us. Like you I'm looking forward to the off-season and how all these things shake out. Brick did a good job of laying out the decision can or might be made. At least this year we have a cadry in place ready and able to make these decisions.

 

[hrdboild]

There is no "everyone". You seem determined to make our kids into keepers, and we may keep them. But they certainly haven't proven they can be winning starters, or anything close to it. ray's the only one not working on a "disappointment" label right now, and that is partially because he was a second round pick with limited expectations. Even if they were to suddenly magically blossom, how much financial advantage are we supposed to be gaining here if these kids, all with contracts ending in the next 1-3 years, are blowing up so big they replace IT and Rudy? We'll just have to pay them the same money anyway, and frankly the odds of getting even one 20pt scorer out them ain't high.

There is a "one". And that's fine btw.

The puzzling thing is that since we already have Rudy and IT on the team, along with all the kids, in theory we could in fact keep Rudy/It AND still have all these kids as reserves who are supposedly so talented they would make us win by themselves as starters. Certainly if these kids are such hot stuff that they are going to launch us into 45-50 win territory within a couple of years, then having them around AND 3 20pt scorers should make us pretty damn epic. Except that's not who are kids are. And its not what we are.

P.S. Hiring seasoned winning professionals is hardly settling for anything. Dear Thabo, you are good enough to start on 60win Finals teams, but we would never settle for you?

Ah the fallacy of the scorer. Piling on more and more scorers does not make a team better. Rudy and IT have some flashy numbers but it's what's underneath those numbers that scares me. It's the usage rate and the turnover rate and the relative defensive value they produce along with their point totals. I've been making this point all year -- a big part of the reason why McLemore and Williams and what do you know, even McCallum it turns out, aren't really succeeding in their current role is that their current role more often than not has required them to stand around and watch either Cousins, Gay, or Thomas create offense. When Williams was given a chance to start and relied upon to score the ball, he was producing. McCallum's numbers are arguably better than Thomas' in his limited time as a starter (though the mpg are obviously a factor). Just because we've had them on the bench or on the floor standing around while their teammates dominate the ball and wins did not result doesn't mean we know that a team which chose to rely on them as key parts of the offense couldn't succeed.

It's not so much that I think paying market value for talent is a problem. If these kids play well enough to earn starters money, that's great. But we've already had Rudy and Thomas starting the bulk of the season and we're mostly pretty terrible. I don't want us to commit max money to anyone because we're afraid of moving backwards with a 27 win team. There is no backwards to go right now. Cousins alone makes us better than the 3 or 4 worst teams in the East every year. Rudy and IT are not working out. Let's try trusting the team game and giving opportunities to talented youngsters who may be better than Rudy and IT when all is said and done. Better not in the sense of scoring 20 points per game, but in the sense of winning games a lot more than they lose them.

 

[Bricklayer]

Ah the fallacy of the scorer. Piling on more and more scorers does not make a team better. Rudy and IT have some flashy numbers but it's what's underneath those numbers that scares me. It's the usage rate and the turnover rate and the relative defensive value they produce along with their point totals. I've been making this point all year -- a big part of the reason why McLemore and Williams and what do you know, even McCallum it turns out, aren't really succeeding in their current role is that their current role more often than not has required them to stand around and watch either Cousins, Gay, or Thomas create offense. When Williams was given a chance to start and relied upon to score the ball, he was producing. McCallum's numbers are arguably better than Thomas' in his limited time as a starter (though the mpg are obviously a factor). Just because we've had them on the bench or on the floor standing around while their teammates dominate the ball and wins did not result doesn't mean we know that a team which chose to rely on them as key parts of the offense couldn't succeed.

It's not so much that I think paying market value for talent is a problem. If these kids play well enough to earn starters money, that's great. But we've already had Rudy and Thomas starting the bulk of the season and we're mostly pretty terrible. I don't want us to commit max money to anyone because we're afraid of moving backwards with a 27 win team. There is no backwards to go right now. Cousins alone makes us better than the 3 or 4 worst teams in the East every year. Rudy and IT are not working out. Let's try trusting the team game and giving opportunities to talented youngsters who may be better than Rudy and IT when all is said and done. Better not in the sense of scoring 20 points per game, but in the sense of winning games a lot more than they lose them.

how you can say Rudy and It aren't working out, but our pretty damn bad kids, who've probably cost us a dozen victories this season with their play, are working out...just continues to baffle me.

When I'm not a fan of IT as the starting PG going forward, its still with a recognition that when teamed Cuz/Rudy/IT have been almost .500, and that's in a chaotic season with the wrong roleplayers around them. We've started Ben most of the season, and there's every chance he's been the very worst starting guard in the league. We went the final 3/4 of the season without an NBA caliber backup PG, until Ray finally emerged in March. We have no shotblocker. Now history says that the three 20pt scorer formula is not sustainable and not elite in the long run. Tops out about 45 wins. But there's plenty of evidence that that sort of win total might be possible here, especially since DeMarcus Cousins is going to be a greater player than any of the Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, Xavier McDaniel, Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, Stephen Jackson types that normally form these trios. We'll never be elite with our Three Tops, but we have next to no evidence we'll ever be anything but terrible with the kids. Neither Rudy not IT are old or decrepit. While I would prefer a change, its a change stepping forward, not back again.

 

[fanop]

In the future:

McCallum/IT
Ben/unkown
D-Will/unknown
Cauley Stein or different shot blocker/Evans/Acy
Cousins/unknown

Honestly, this is probably what our roster is going to look like in the future. Only thing that might change is that IT is gone and Gay stays. I'd prefer that Gay leaves if I had my choice. Gay is really talented but I don't like his style of play very much. I also really hope the front office is smart enough not to keep both.

imo, this is a very good lineup. There is a lot of balance, and most importantly, it works offensively and defensively. Obviously Ben has to improve which I think he will. I think D-Will's problem is not playing with the right group. I believe he would fit in with this group. He tore it up before Rudy Gay joined the team and he started sucking because the bench crew was awful.

Today I've come to this site just to look at the draft prospect, but I've looked into more. I don't understand all the love for McCallum. IT puts up similar numbers as people on here despise him for his chucking ways. IT has shut down many players before including 6'4 John Wall the last time they met, while McCallum has yet to shut any premier pgs down. Ray has potential, but he's basically a 1/2 ft taller, less athletic, same par defender, and less efficient IT. That lineup you put up(no offense), is horrible. We'd be worse than we are now. D-Will is a serious problem for defense. He has not shown any of us a game where he could defend decently. We all know that he has the ability to score, but all of his other attributions to the team are useless.

HOWEVER, I do agree with your other posts. We will NOT win with a team of Cuz/IT/Gay. All 3 are way too ball dominant for this team to win anything. When we play opposing team, it's always strange to see how great of a ball movement they have every other play because that's something we see every other game. We obviously are building our core around Cuz. IT's problem is that sometimes he decides that a certain play is "his" play and he doesn't call in for a player, instead dribbles down the clock shot and takes one. Gay's problem is that when he gets the ball, that's exactly when you know ball movement is dead.

Gay might average a few assist per game, but he's such a low bball iq player. He's a me type of a player that always looks for his shot even if they're bad shots. Gay is not a point forward. I do not want Gay on this team next year even though I was really excited that we traded for him, but he just doesn't fit. Gay stops ball movement.

Or it could result in team with one lonely star surrounded by 3 kids who will never be good enough to start on good teams, which directly leads into one disgruntled star.

Youth is habitually overvalued as a rule, but fans at least. Young = unknown, so we constantly fill in the unknown with our hopes. But more often than not that doesn't pan out. In this case we are suggesting surrounding Cousins with 3kids shooting .370, 373. and .437 and thinking he's going to be anything but pissed about it. If Cousins was a rookie himself then sure, you have time, as we did with the Cousins/Reke pairing. You try to develop it and figure you've got a few years for things to come together. Or not. But when your centerpiece is now ready to emerge on the national stage, you simply cannot take the risk of failing him anymore. If we can't surround Cousins with the sort of ready to win NOW talent to at least get us into a late season hunt for the playoffs next year, trouble will follow.

The kings are far from the playoffs even with our current roster. We can surround Cousins with as much talent as we want, but it doesn't mean they will all click together. The kings have a talented roster right now, but they still have a losing record. The only way I think they can get into the playoffs next year is if they can make valuable trades. Pete has shown that he can make any player expandable which is a great sign. The draft will be key if we make the playoffs or not. The kings will not win with Rudy Gay. He demands the ball too much for a team that plays their offense through their Center. Gay is like a Melo. Both are talented players that can score, but they do not improve your team. Gay needs a system where he gets a limited role and less shots. I think Memphis utilized Gay very well which is why he thrived and was a part of their success. I do not understand why Malone continues to play Gay as Point Forward with the 2nd lineup when this was the formula that produced chucking Rudy.

The kings need changes next season. There are too many scorers on this team and not enough of everything else. The biggest change I'd like to see next season is moving IT back to the bench. I think the team is better with him coming off the bench. I think McCallum might be better suited as a SG next to IT. The kings will not win period with our current roster.

 

[hrdboild]

Your "grass is greener" plans are like steps to permanent mediocrity. We've lived with revolving doors (or no doors at all) for too long. Let's stick with what we have until we can get a piece that's clearly better. You and I don't have to figure out how to divide the money. Fortunately that is taken care of for us. Like you I'm looking forward to the off-season and how all these things shake out. Brick did a good job of laying out the decision can or might be made. At least this year we have a cadry in place ready and able to make these decisions.

Here's why we disagree -- as a fan of the Oakland A's I've scoffed time and time again as the GM ships away every talent we manage to develop and somehow, more often than not, the unknown players he brings in to replace them are better. It's happened so often at this point that I've had to give up and admit that it works. The whole motto of the Oakland A's is to never pay for past performance. Never. That's the golden rule. When you look at a guy who just put up an MVP caliber season -- .320 avg, 35 HRs, 30 SBs -- you don't offer him a contract based on those numbers you offer him a contract based on how likely he is to produce those numbers the next season. And the one after that. Better yet, you offer him a contract based on how likely you are to replace that production, or close to it anyway, with other (cheaper) players. Everything that has happened in the past is relevant only in the sense that it helps you predict what will happen next season.

So when I look at IT and Rudy Gay I see players who are going to be overpaid in the very near future. They're going to be overpaid because they have what's called a proven track record of success. But how likely is it that Thomas scores 20ppg again on a team where he isn't the second or third option (ie a better team which is presumably what we want)? Does it make sense to pay Rudy Gay All-Star money to be a second option who isn't a defensive difference maker? What I'm trying to say is that their production is imminently replaceable. I don't know for sure that Williams, McCallum, and McLemore are going to be the guys who replace them but I like our chances of developing at least one of them and then acquiring another player either through the draft or free agency to make up the difference. If we bite the bullet and overpay for past production on the big numbers guys, we have no chance of replacing their production for less money.

And I suppose I should also address the saving money point which you brought up. The idea of "saving money" for me isn't to give Vivek and his partners a break. The idea is to get the most value from your roster. Money saved in one area is money that can be spent in another area. Perhaps overpaying for an interior defender for instance, who are typically in such short supply and high demand in the NBA that you have to overpay for them.

So perhaps you see my plans as "steps to permanent mediocrity". I'm not sure where the permanent part of that label comes from, but I'll admit that I'm mostly pushing unproven players. It's okay that we disagree. It's just a difference in philosophy I suppose. I like proven players too, but only proven players who are so good at one thing or so unique and ideal for our situation that it makes sense to overpay a bit because we're unlikely to get that production any other way. That's where my "Gay for Mayo and Sanders" idea came from. Those are guys who are under-performing in one situation but may be perfect fits for us. It's a little bit outlandish, but everything is when you're trying to predict future performance and find hidden value.

And yeah I suppose everything is a "grass is greener" plan when the status quo is a treadmill of repeated failure (primarily Maloofian that it may be). If that's the label you've got for me than I'll gladly own it. One person's crackpot is another person's genius I say.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

]Now history says that the three 20pt scorer formula is not sustainable and not elite in the long run. Tops out about 45 wins.

Well, it really tops out at 60 wins ('66-'67 Celtics). There have been 26 seasons in NBA history (active franchises only, counting this year's Kings) with three 20-pt scorers and 6 of those have been at 50 wins or better, and 10/26 (38.5%) have done better than 45 wins. I don't think that I'd call that topping out at 45 wins. These teams are 13-13 on whether they beat .500 or not, and their distribution of wins looks remarkably similar to the distribution of wins across the NBA this year. With the formula only tried 26 times (and only twice in the last 20 years) I'm not really sure history says much at all about triple-20 teams except that they don't seem to trend much differently than other teams in their small sample size.

 

[Bricklayer]

Well, it really tops out at 60 wins ('66-'67 Celtics). There have been 26 seasons in NBA history (active franchises only, counting this year's Kings) with three 20-pt scorers and 6 of those have been at 50 wins or better, and 10/26 (38.5%) have done better than 45 wins. I don't think that I'd call that topping out at 45 wins. These teams are 13-13 on whether they beat .500 or not, and their distribution of wins looks remarkably similar to the distribution of wins across the NBA this year. With the formula only tried 26 times (and only twice in the last 20 years) I'm not really sure history says much at all about triple-20 teams except that they don't seem to trend much differently than other teams in their small sample size.

I strongly suspect you are talking ancient history, but frankly I could not find a database that would let me run combined stat searches within the same team, and was working off memory. Who did you use?

 

[Bricklayer]

Ugh, I had to muscle it on through in fugly fashion on the b-r database. Upon a quick search of Atlanta it confirmed for me that the great majority of those cases were probably going to be form the 50s and 60s when pace and scoring were much higher, and hence 20ppg was less of a strain on overall possession per game.

So here was my fugly team by team search for squads with 3 20pt scorers in a season, restricted to 1979-80 onward, so last 35 years of the modern era:

Atlanta: no seasons
Boston: no seasons
Brooklyn: no seasons
Charlotte: no seasons
Chicago: no seasons
Cleveland: no seasons
Dallas: no seasons
Denver: 1979-80 (30-52), 1980-81 (37-45), 1981-82 (46-36), 1982-83 (45-37)
Detroit: no seasons
Golden State: 1982-83* (30-52), 1990-91 (44-38), 2007-08 (48-34) -- *1982-83 is a cheat because World B. Free only played 19 games
Houston: no seasons
Indiana: no seasons
L.A.Clippers: no seasons* (*1993-94 does not count because they traded Manning for Nique, each averaged 20ppg in his half season)
L.A. Lakers: 1980-81* (54-28) (*borderline case as Magic only played in 37 games)
Memphis: no seasons
Miami: no seasons
Milwaulkee: no seasons
Minnesota: no seasons
New Orleans (Charlotte): no seasons
New York: no seasons
OKC (Seattle): 1986-87 (39-43), 1987-88 (44-38)
Orlando: no seasons
Philadelphia: 1983-84 (52-30)
Phoenix: 1988-89 (55-27)
Portland: no seasons
Sacramento: this year (27-52) (if Rudy's 53 games are enough to count)
San Antonio: no seasons
Toronto: no seasons
Utah: no seasons* (*1982-83 they had three, but John Drew only played in 44 games and Dantley in 22)
Washington: no seasons


And really the only thing that would give me pause at all there was the 1983-84 Philly team. I had forgotten Toney ever broke the 20pt barrier. Everything else is known, a smattering of the league's perennial run n gun teams, and basically the last of it dying out in the 1980s when pace was faster and scoring was higher, hence more room for 3 20pt guys. Only Doug Moe's chuckateers sustained at those crazy numbers for any length of time. Everybody else found something better to do. In the last 24 years there has been 1 other team that's done it. Not even sure if we officially count given Rudy's part season here, but let's say we do. It would be 27 years since the last time a team repeated that feat even for a second year.

About the 1983-84 Philly team: only thing remotely close to us because there might be a little Moses in Cuz. Of course the other 2 20pt scorers were SF/SG for them, not SF/PG, so Cheeks could focus on just trying to keep everybody involved rather than chucking himself. Also a disappointing season actually for them in the wake of the title.

 

[The_Jamal]

how you can say Rudy and It aren't working out, but our pretty damn bad kids, who've probably cost us a dozen victories this season with their play, are working out...just continues to baffle me.

When I'm not a fan of IT as the starting PG going forward, its still with a recognition that when teamed Cuz/Rudy/IT have been almost .500, and that's in a chaotic season with the wrong roleplayers around them. We've started Ben most of the season, and there's every chance he's been the very worst starting guard in the league. We went the final 3/4 of the season without an NBA caliber backup PG, until Ray finally emerged in March. We have no shotblocker. Now history says that the three 20pt scorer formula is not sustainable and not elite in the long run. Tops out about 45 wins. But there's plenty of evidence that that sort of win total might be possible here, especially since DeMarcus Cousins is going to be a greater player than any of the Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, Xavier McDaniel, Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, Stephen Jackson types that normally form these trios. We'll never be elite with our Three Tops, but we have next to no evidence we'll ever be anything but terrible with the kids. Neither Rudy not IT are old or decrepit. While I would prefer a change, its a change stepping forward, not back again.

Indeed. At some point, we need to take a shot. I have plenty of reservations about Rudy sustaining his play, but we can't just keep saying "Oh, this next year's pick will do it for us! We'll finally turn the corner!" and continue to lose 50+ games year after year.

IT/Cuz/Rudy is right there with any offensive trio in the league, including teams like GSW, Hou, and Miami. As you pointed out, we roughly play .500 ball when they're all on the floor together. The difference is, our role players don't fit with them and are really, really, really bad on top of it. We're 27th in 3pt% and don't have a single role player who's a reliable floor spacer. Ray McCallum, the 2nd round pick who didn't get minutes until a month ago, is probably the best perimeter defender on the team. JT/Evans and Ben are very likely bottom 3 starters at both of their positions.

 

[King Baller]

You don't think we're that bad off if we lose 2 of our 3 20ot scorers and replace them with highly erratic kids?

That just isn't going to fly now. New management looks at this as yr 1. Cousins looks at this as yr 4. You simply cannot risk another failed season on the backs of shaky youth. The franchise has moved beyond that. We are about one more failed campaign from starting to hear the KLove rumbles. Time is shorter than people realize.

+1 Agreed, Bringing in Rudy Gay and Reggie Evans has shown the value of having legit NBA veterans. The Kings need one or two more IMO. A veteran guard who can space the floor is pretty important. Jason Terry would be perfect but he is 47 years old or something. The youngsters should be retained for the future and to play soon if they blossom.

I can't wait to see how the off season develops. This is the most important time since Petrie signed Vlade, traded for CWebb and drafted Peja and JWill.

KB

 

[FaStRmAn]

OK I have to admit that for the first time this year I did NOT watch this game live. It is on my DVR and I am toying with just deleting it. Truth is at this point a loss is a win. It's all about the ping pong balls. Not tanking, just the natural negative outcome that has already occurred 52 times this season. Although 30 wins is still mathematically possible, it is no longer desirable.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Ugh, I had to muscle it on through in fugly fashion on the b-r database.

Yeah, that's how I did it.

And really the only thing that would give me pause at all there was the 1983-84 Philly team. I had forgotten Toney ever broke the 20pt barrier. Everything else is known, a smattering of the league's perennial run n gun teams, and basically the last of it dying out in the 1980s when pace was faster and scoring was higher, hence more room for 3 20pt guys. Only Doug Moe's chuckateers sustained at those crazy numbers for any length of time. Everybody else found something better to do. In the last 24 years there has been 1 other team that's done it. Not even sure if we officially count given Rudy's part season here, but let's say we do. It would be 27 years since the last time a team repeated that feat even for a second year.

We're looking at the same data, but I think we're interpreting it quite differently. You seem to see something that doesn't happen very often and you interpret that as the strategy failing and being abandoned once it's tried.

I see something that doesn't happen very often (discarding your borderline cases, 11 times in 35 years, and even then 8 of those in the higher-scoring '80s) and I interpret it as something that's just not that easy to do. I mean, there have been more than three times as many NBA champions in the past 35 years as there have been 20-20-20 teams. And it's a small sample, but with two of those teams at 50+ wins and two at 50+ losses with the rest hovering around .500, the distribution of wins here looks a lot like the win distribution of teams who have a more balanced scoring attack. So I just don't see a causal relationship here. It looks to me like the distribution of scoring probably doesn't have a whole lot of effect on wins and losses - certainly there doesn't appear to me to be a large enough sample to draw broad conclusions.

 

[Kingster]

I don't think we're all that bad off if IT and Rudy both sign elsewhere. McCallum is steady and competent at PG. Ben is starting to look like he recognizes his role and is doing a better job lately of playing to his strengths. Cousins is more than capable of leading the offense all by himself. .......................
I'd like to see a young group of players grow organically together and establish a team identity. I can see that happening with Ray/Ben/Derrick/DeMarcus and a young defensive big. Play fundamental basketball -- take care of the ball, keep passing until you get a quality shot, lock down the defensive glass, force the other team into tough shots, pound it inside to the most talented offensive C in the league. IT and Rudy are obviously very talented players but I feel like their respective skillsets are more of a distraction at times than a benefit.

This would be an unmitigated disaster. Ray is a ? Ben is a ? Derrick isn't even a ? in my book; I don't think he's a keeper. I think you put far to much emphasis on the offensive prowess of Cousins, as if he can be surrounded by mediocrity and this team will flourish. It's a team game. You need at least eight guys that can play; not one. You need firepower at virtually every position; you especially need additional 3 point shooting (and ideally you need to have two playmakers on the floor); otherwise it's the Iso-Force-Cousins offense, relegating Cousins into a volume shooter instead of an efficient shooter.

This is what you want:

1) Cousins as an efficient scorer and passer: FG%> 50%; TS%> 55%; Assists > 4; TOs < 2.
2) Firepower at the 1, 2 and 3, with 3 pt shooting prowess of at least 2 out of the 3 positions
3) Two guys in starting unit who can make plays for others.
4) Bench guys who can shoot the rock and at least one playmaker in the bunch.

Throw in a couple of guys who can block shots and rebound and there is your championship team.

Then you're talking. Forget this minimalist thinking where we don't need offense and we can have this mediocrity around Cousins and we'll be just fine and dandy. With that kind of lineup we'll be fine and dandy in the lottery for years to come, or worse, in no-man's land playing .500 ball for as far as the eye can see.

 

[kupman]

how you can say Rudy and It aren't working out, but our pretty damn bad kids, who've probably cost us a dozen victories this season with their play, are working out...just continues to baffle me.

When I'm not a fan of IT as the starting PG going forward, its still with a recognition that when teamed Cuz/Rudy/IT have been almost .500, and that's in a chaotic season with the wrong roleplayers around them. We've started Ben most of the season, and there's every chance he's been the very worst starting guard in the league. We went the final 3/4 of the season without an NBA caliber backup PG, until Ray finally emerged in March. We have no shotblocker. Now history says that the three 20pt scorer formula is not sustainable and not elite in the long run. Tops out about 45 wins. But there's plenty of evidence that that sort of win total might be possible here, especially since DeMarcus Cousins is going to be a greater player than any of the Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, Xavier McDaniel, Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, Stephen Jackson types that normally form these trios. We'll never be elite with our Three Tops, but we have next to no evidence we'll ever be anything but terrible with the kids. Neither Rudy not IT are old or decrepit. While I would prefer a change, its a change stepping forward, not back again.

I see all this talk on this board about going fwd with 3 20/games scorers. I think the only reason that we have 3 20/games scorers is because we have so little other than them. If we add talent, we are much more likely to have 1-2 20/game scorers and several 13-15/games scorers. The extra points will hopefully come from more production at #2, more help at the #1 position and even getting more out of the #4.

Things would even out if/when talent is added to the roster.

 

[pshn80]

Here's why we disagree -- as a fan of the Oakland A's I've scoffed time and time again as the GM ships away every talent we manage to develop and somehow, more often than not, the unknown players he brings in to replace them are better. It's happened so often at this point that I've had to give up and admit that it works. The whole motto of the Oakland A's is to never pay for past performance. Never. That's the golden rule. When you look at a guy who just put up an MVP caliber season -- .320 avg, 35 HRs, 30 SBs -- you don't offer him a contract based on those numbers you offer him a contract based on how likely he is to produce those numbers the next season. And the one after that. Better yet, you offer him a contract based on how likely you are to replace that production, or close to it anyway, with other (cheaper) players. Everything that has happened in the past is relevant only in the sense that it helps you predict what will happen next season.

So when I look at IT and Rudy Gay I see players who are going to be overpaid in the very near future. They're going to be overpaid because they have what's called a proven track record of success. But how likely is it that Thomas scores 20ppg again on a team where he isn't the second or third option (ie a better team which is presumably what we want)? Does it make sense to pay Rudy Gay All-Star money to be a second option who isn't a defensive difference maker? What I'm trying to say is that their production is imminently replaceable. I don't know for sure that Williams, McCallum, and McLemore are going to be the guys who replace them but I like our chances of developing at least one of them and then acquiring another player either through the draft or free agency to make up the difference. If we bite the bullet and overpay for past production on the big numbers guys, we have no chance of replacing their production for less money.

And I suppose I should also address the saving money point which you brought up. The idea of "saving money" for me isn't to give Vivek and his partners a break. The idea is to get the most value from your roster. Money saved in one area is money that can be spent in another area. Perhaps overpaying for an interior defender for instance, who are typically in such short supply and high demand in the NBA that you have to overpay for them.

So perhaps you see my plans as "steps to permanent mediocrity". I'm not sure where the permanent part of that label comes from, but I'll admit that I'm mostly pushing unproven players. It's okay that we disagree. It's just a difference in philosophy I suppose. I like proven players too, but only proven players who are so good at one thing or so unique and ideal for our situation that it makes sense to overpay a bit because we're unlikely to get that production any other way. That's where my "Gay for Mayo and Sanders" idea came from. Those are guys who are under-performing in one situation but may be perfect fits for us. It's a little bit outlandish, but everything is when you're trying to predict future performance and find hidden value.

And yeah I suppose everything is a "grass is greener" plan when the status quo is a treadmill of repeated failure (primarily Maloofian that it may be). If that's the label you've got for me than I'll gladly own it. One person's crackpot is another person's genius I say.

I don't think we really differ. I'm just one who doesn't ever shop around a look for people to go or people to acquire. If the FO lets Gay go and gets a decent replacement, that's fine with me. The money thing is theirs to figure out. For me it's 5 players on the floor at once, play well, win games, that's it. About as far as I go is to hope the Kings get a quality SG to start next year and let Ben continue to develop off the bench. But I'm sure interested in what the FO and the players decide to do. Another example is IT; if the FO thinks he'll fit as a starter next and continue to improve, that's fine with me. It' also fine if they decide otherwise. I'm very interested.

 

[Bricklayer]

I see all this talk on this board about going fwd with 3 20/games scorers. I think the only reason that we have 3 20/games scorers is because we have so little other than them. If we add talent, we are much more likely to have 1-2 20/game scorers and several 13-15/games scorers. The extra points will hopefully come from more production at #2, more help at the #1 position and even getting more out of the #4.

Things would even out if/when talent is added to the roster.

No, 2 of our 3 guys are not natural 20pt scorers. Or I guess I should say shouldn't be. Rudy is ALMOST at that level, but 18-20 has always been his range more than 20+. IT remains the real problem, and my denial that its better to throw out a bunch of kids, and not even particularly promising kids, does not mean that I think having Isaiah continue o play PG while finding 15-16 shots for himself every night is a good thing. And its who he is. It's always the flip point. I've never agreed with those who say anybody can do what Isaiah does. he's an elite change of pace scorer. But that's all he's elite at. Even if you could tame him into being a 15-16ppg third option guy more willing to pas the ball, there's a question of why you would do that. You take away his strengths to make him pretend to be a poor man's version of what you really want? Why not just go get what you really want instead? DeMarcus is a good enough shooter we might be able to make him into a low percentage three point shooter too, that doesn't mean that's the most logical way to solve our three point shooting woes.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I fully expect the Rondo rumors to come back in full force this offseason.

 

[hrdboild]

This is what you want:

1) Cousins as an efficient scorer and passer: FG%> 50%; TS%> 55%; Assists > 4; TOs < 2.
2) Firepower at the 1, 2 and 3, with 3 pt shooting prowess of at least 2 out of the 3 positions
3) Two guys in starting unit who can make plays for others.
4) Bench guys who can shoot the rock and at least one playmaker in the bunch.

Throw in a couple of guys who can block shots and rebound and there is your championship team.

Then you're talking. Forget this minimalist thinking where we don't need offense and we can have this mediocrity around Cousins and we'll be just fine and dandy. With that kind of lineup we'll be fine and dandy in the lottery for years to come, or worse, in no-man's land playing .500 ball for as far as the eye can see.

This is mostly just an eye of the beholder thing. I agree with all 4 of your points, I just disagree on how we can meet them. Ray, Ben, and Derrick can all shoot the three. Their percentages aren't there but we've seen all of them make them in bunches this season. Again their main issue is consistency. Ben is rushing his shots up before he's square to the basket. Ray is sometimes forcing shots he knows he shouldn't be taking because he's unable to find a passing lane. Williams goes on long cold stretches where he's afraid to shoot the ball. These are issues but I think they're correctable issues. And dedicating attention on fixing these issues with our staff and designing an offense that results in open looks (which shouldn't be that hard really with Cousins in the post, Ben coming off screens at the elbows, and Ray and/or Williams spotted up in the corner) would make us a much better team than continuing to watch Rudy, IT, and Cousins divide all of our shots between them.

Consider the Thunder's first season for instance. That team had Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant, and Thabo Sefolosha -- that's 3/5 of a starting lineup that made it to the NBA finals just 2 seasons later. And they won 23 games. The next year Harden and Ibaka came off the bench and they won 50 games, mostly due to the improvement of Durant and Westbrook. It makes sense to stick with what you have sometimes if what you have is a collection of flawed but talented 21 and 22 year olds who are still learning how to play in the NBA and how to play together as a team. Somebody is going to tell me I'm crazy for comparing our three kids to Westbrook but my point is OKC didn't know what they had with him after 1 season and we don't know what we have yet either. Rudy and IT may settle in and become a winning combo for us but I don't want to gamble $20 million dollars per season and 5 years of salary cap hell just to find out.

 

[kupman]

No, 2 of our 3 guys are not natural 20pt scorers. Or I guess I should say shouldn't be. Rudy is ALMOST at that level, but 18-20 has always been his range more than 20+. IT remains the real problem, and my denial that its better to throw out a bunch of kids, and not even particularly promising kids, does not mean that I think having Isaiah continue o play PG while finding 15-16 shots for himself every night is a good thing. And its who he is. It's always the flip point. I've never agreed with those who say anybody can do what Isaiah does. he's an elite change of pace scorer. But that's all he's elite at. Even if you could tame him into being a 15-16ppg third option guy more willing to pas the ball, there's a question of why you would do that. You take away his strengths to make him pretend to be a poor man's version of what you really want? Why not just go get what you really want instead? DeMarcus is a good enough shooter we might be able to make him into a low percentage three point shooter too, that doesn't mean that's the most logical way to solve our three point shooting woes.

I think that we are in agreement that we do not have 3 players that would still be 20/gamers on most teams in the league. IT would not. Gay is right on the cuff.

Where I think that I disagree with many on this board is IT will naturally become a 15/game player once he has more talented teammates. This is especially true in the backcourt. Once he has a teammate in the backcourt that can handle the ball better, IT will not need to dribble so much. Once there is another player that can shoot fom deep, IT will not need to do this as much. This does not even take into account what would happen if we had another PG that could play decent minutes so that ITs min/game would decrease. This of course will decreased his shots per game.

Bottom line is we just need more talent - especially in the backcourt.

 

[funkykingston]

I fully expect the Rondo rumors to come back in full force this offseason.

And they might. But I'm guessing Boston is going to want three things in any deal:

(1) A lottery pick, which the Kings will have and can trade, after the actual pick is made, meaning they'd essentially pick for Boston
(2) Expiring contracts to open up cap room
(3) Someone willing to take on Gerald Wallace's awful contract

I have no issue with the first two - some combination of Williams, Terry & Outlaw along with the Kings pick for Rondo would be fine by me. But two more years of Wallace at $10+ million is a pretty tough pill to swallow. And obviously you'd want some assurances that Rondo would resign with the Kings or sign an extension. Otherwise there's the chance that next offseason Gay and Rondo both walk leaving the Kings with just Cousins again.

That being said, I could live with Williams, Terry, Outlaw, Landry and the Kings #7 for Rondo, Wallace and the Celt's #18 pick. Especially if WCS were still on the board then.


Cousins
Cauley-Stein
Gay
McLemore
Rondo

with ideally IT and JT as the main bench players is pretty solid looking to me. Add an emergency center and a wing who consistently hits the 3 and that team could do pretty well.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think that we are in agreement that we do not have 3 players that would still be 20/gamers on most teams in the league. IT would not. Gay is right on the cuff.

Where I think that I disagree with many on this board is IT will naturally become a 15/game player once he has more talented teammates. This is especially true in the backcourt. Once he has a teammate in the backcourt that can handle the ball better, IT will not need to dribble so much. Once there is another player that can shoot fom deep, IT will not need to do this as much. This does not even take into account what would happen if we had another PG that could play decent minutes so that ITs min/game would decrease. This of course will decreased his shots per game.

Bottom line is we just need more talent - especially in the backcourt.

I highlighted where I think the fallacy lies.

IT is not being FORCED into shooting or smothering the ball. He is doing exactly what he wants to do. In fact actually I have seen occasional signs this year that he's ALREADY shooting less than his instincts tell him to do. And the thing is, as I mentioned, what is the point of taking a 5'9" scoring PG off the ball? At that point you might as well put me out there.

Now the minutes/make him 6th man thing has always been my solution to all that. Don't make him play a game where he doesn't help you. Let him play his game, but control the minutes he's out there doing it so he doesn't drain the offensive life out of his teammates.