[Grades] Grades v. Thunder 1/19/2014

[The_Jamal]

C demarcus cousins
PG serge ibaka
SF rudy gay
SG thabo sefalosha
PG isaiah thomas

if you give me that starting lineup, i roll with it ten times out of ten. but when exactly are these skilled veteran defensive stoppers at PF and SG arriving in sacramento?

if you give me willie cauley-stein or noah vonleh in the draft, then i feel more comfortable with the kings frontcourt rotation than i do now, but only marginally so. cauley-stein and vonleh are gonna be rookies, and neither project out as anthony davis-level rim protectors. it will take them time to adapt to the speed of the nba. and then there's still the issue of needing defensive help at SG. the kings won't find one in free agency if they re-sign thomas. they'll be quite capped out. that leaves the trade block, and while they have a couple pieces with value, who knows what kind of return they'll net in any given trade?

if thomas had another year on his contract to evaluate his level of play alongside cousins, gay, and the potential of adding better-fitting role players, then i'd be more inclined to hang onto him. unfortunately, that timetable isn't a reality, and you yourself have admitted that, with thomas starting at PG, there is simply much less flexibility in the kind of roleplayers the kings need to acquire to find success with a trio of cousins/gay/thomas. i just really don't like the idea of re-signing thomas to big money without knowing how successful PDA would be in filling those clear defensive needs at PF and SG...

edit: of course, the "wait and see" approach could work out fine if the kings can retain thomas' services at a reasonable value. then there's flexibility in returning him to a sixth man's role if he doesn't work out. but it's quite a gamble with the salary cap if the kings ink thomas to $8-10 million per and then realize that he simply won't work as a long term starter...

Here's the issue though. I'd agree with you, if we had Gay signed long-term, along with Cousins. People for some reason, have been acting like it's a foregone conclusion that Gay stays here long-term. I don't think it is at all. And while I think he's enjoyed playing with us, he's also playing well enough to get teams interested in him again. And we don't have the RFA rights on Gay either. Do we really want to have to pay him 5/70 for him to stay here? Do we trust his play with us, in such a limited sample to max him again? Does he even want to resign?

What CAN'T happen is we find ourselves without Gay and IT and Cousins is all by himself again.

 

[twslam07]

Here's the issue though. I'd agree with you, if we had Gay signed long-term, along with Cousins. People for some reason, have been acting like it's a foregone conclusion that Gay stays here long-term. I don't think it is at all. And while I think he's enjoyed playing with us, he's also playing well enough to get teams interested in him again. And we don't have the RFA rights on Gay either. Do we really want to have to pay him 5/70 for him to stay here? Do we trust his play with us, in such a limited sample to max him again? Does he even want to resign?

What CAN'T happen is we find ourselves without Gay and IT and Cousins is all by himself again.

You must be under the assumption that he won't pick up his player option to make such a claim. It's a difficult decision for him. Does he opt out now and try to get one more long term contract while only playing well for the last half of a season, or does he opt in with a team he’s been playing extremely well with in an attempt to raise his stock for his next big extension all the while he is making 19 million dollars? If I were him, I would opt in and take the 19 million dollars.

If that is the case, the Kings will have over a season and a half of games to see if he is the “real deal” and extend him. I think that is plenty of sample, don’t you?

 

[Padrino]

Here's the issue though. I'd agree with you, if we had Gay signed long-term, along with Cousins. People for some reason, have been acting like it's a foregone conclusion that Gay stays here long-term. I don't think it is at all. And while I think he's enjoyed playing with us, he's also playing well enough to get teams interested in him again. And we don't have the RFA rights on Gay either. Do we really want to have to pay him 5/70 for him to stay here? Do we trust his play with us, in such a limited sample to max him again? Does he even want to resign?

What CAN'T happen is we find ourselves without Gay and IT and Cousins is all by himself again.

while i agree with the bolded, we're simply on different pages, you and i. i don't value isaiah thomas highly enough to consider his retention nearly as important as the retention of rudy gay. they are not equal commodities, in my opinion, and because of this opinion, i consider it the kings' most viable option to package thomas in a larger deal before the deadline in order to bring back some [defensive-oriented] talent that better fits the shape of the puzzle around demarcus cousins and rudy gay...

again, balance matters to a roster. having three 20 ppg scorers in the starting lineup may not strike some as a problem in and of itself, but it does matter to a team's hierarchy and a team's chemistry. i'm of a mind to believe that rudy gay would be much more interested in remaining in sacramento as a clear-cut second option, the so-called robin to DMC's batman, rather than wondering if isaiah thomas' presence in the starting lineup threatens that established hierarchy...

if thomas is retained at reasonable cost to be a sixth man, then i see no problem whatsoever with the team's hierarchy, but i question whether or not the new regime will be able to accomplish such a re-signing at "reasonable cost," and i also question whether or not isaiah thomas would actually want to return to the kings in a sixth man's capacity, given his current role as the team's starting PG and the wide berth he's being given as the team's starting PG...

it's just my opinion, but i'm considerably more trusting of rudy gay's ability to effectively function as a #2 alongside demarcus cousins than i am of isaiah thomas' ability to effectively function as the kings' starting PG alongside cousins and gay. if i were the GM, i'd let IT know where i stand, and that my intention is to pay him to be the team's super sixth man of the future. if he balks at the notion, if he wants more money, if he only wants to start, i trade him before the deadline without hesitation...

 

[ESP47]

Came here to see if people would try and spin the loss on IT and yes, they're trying.

No one on this team is allowed to have a good game other than Gay and Cousins.

 

[The_Jamal]

You must be under the assumption that he won't pick up his player option to make such a claim. It's a difficult decision for him. Does he opt out now and try to get one more long term contract while only playing well for the last half of a season, or does he opt in with a team he’s been playing extremely well with in an attempt to raise his stock for his next big extension all the while he is making 19 million dollars? If I were him, I would opt in and take the 19 million dollars.

If that is the case, the Kings will have over a season and a half of games to see if he is the “real deal” and extend him. I think that is plenty of sample, don’t you?

A season and a half, sure. That's more than plenty. But that doesn't solve the problem of him not being signed long-term. He has the option to walk in each of the next 2 seasons, and the major monetary incentive we have is the 5th year. He goes where he wants Which, begs the question if we really want to be hooked for Gay for a 5yr/70mil deal? As far as him opting in, I see it as a coin-flip really. Actually probably towards him opting out, simply because he's playing so well and he's restoring his value. If I'm his agent, I wouldn't have him risk sucking again next year and ruining one of his final chances for a max deal.

 

[twslam07]

A season and a half, sure. That's more than plenty. But that doesn't solve the problem of him not being signed long-term. He has the option to walk in each of the next 2 seasons, and the major monetary incentive we have is the 5th year. He goes where he wants Which, begs the question if we really want to be hooked for Gay for a 5yr/70mil deal? As far as him opting in, I see it as a coin-flip really. Actually probably towards him opting out, simply because he's playing so well and he's restoring his value. If I'm his agent, I wouldn't have him risk sucking again next year and ruining one of his final chances for a max deal.

You essentially contradicted yourself. You mention that seeing him play the rest of the year isn't enough sample size to get a gauge on if he's the real deal thus we should think twice about resigning him, but you think Gay should opt out because he has been "playing so well" and "restoring his value" thus he will get a big offer. Can you see how that is confusing? Wouldn't Gay's agent know that his stock has taken a hit and that playing well for only two thirds of the season might not be long enough for NBA teams to trust him again? Therefore, teams might not want to commit to a long term deal which is what you were referencing when you were talking about the Kings' decision to resign him. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[The_Jamal]

while i agree with the bolded, we're simply on different pages, you and i. i don't value isaiah thomas highly enough to consider his retention nearly as important as the retention of rudy gay. they are not equal commodities, in my opinion, and because of this opinion, i consider it the kings' most viable option to package thomas in a larger deal before the deadline in order to bring back some [defensive-oriented] talent that better fits the shape of the puzzle around demarcus cousins and rudy gay...

again, balance matters to a roster. having three 20 ppg scorers in the starting lineup may not strike some as a problem in and of itself, but it does matter to a team's hierarchy and a team's chemistry. i'm of a mind to believe that rudy gay would be much more interested in remaining in sacramento as a clear-cut second option, the so-called robin to DMC's batman, rather than wondering if isaiah thomas' presence in the starting lineup threatens that established hierarchy...

if thomas is retained at reasonable cost to be a sixth man, then i see no problem whatsoever with the team's hierarchy, but i question whether or not the new regime will be able to accomplish such a re-signing at "reasonable cost," and i also question whether or not isaiah thomas would actually want to return to the kings in a sixth man's capacity, given his current role as the team's starting PG and the wide berth he's being given as the team's starting PG...

it's just my opinion, but i'm considerably more trusting of rudy gay's ability to effectively function as a #2 alongside demarcus cousins than i am of isaiah thomas' ability to effectively function as the kings' starting PG alongside cousins and gay. if i were the GM, i'd let IT know where i stand, and that my intention is to pay him to be the team's super sixth man of the future. if he balks at the notion, if he wants more money, if he only wants to start, i trade him before the deadline without hesitation...

I don't disagree again. Rudy is more valuable, especially if he wants to continue his torrid efficiency rates, and continue to be a playmaker at SF. What I'm getting at is we don't have Rudy locked up, regardless of what happens with IT. This is not a situation of if IT fits with Gay and Cousins. Because we don't know if there is a "Gay and Cousins" yet. The FO is going to be toeing a very fine line this off-season, or before the trade deadline. This team cannot afford to start next season without IT, Gay, or any asset they acquire in a trade.

Regardless, I think IT-Gay-Cousins can work. If that eventually means moving IT to 6th man, then fine. But there's obvious success when you can match Bosh/Wade/Bron production offensively.

 

[Gilles]

A season and a half, sure. That's more than plenty. But that doesn't solve the problem of him not being signed long-term. He has the option to walk in each of the next 2 seasons, and the major monetary incentive we have is the 5th year. He goes where he wants Which, begs the question if we really want to be hooked for Gay for a 5yr/70mil deal? As far as him opting in, I see it as a coin-flip really. Actually probably towards him opting out, simply because he's playing so well and he's restoring his value. If I'm his agent, I wouldn't have him risk sucking again next year and ruining one of his final chances for a max deal.

Rudy's dramatic improvement is getting more and more noticed, but it also triggered a few articles with pretty clear conclusions: Rudy is a reliable second option, when you can get him the ball in the places he likes. I guess, there's always possibility of some GM living on an island, but there's a very strong trend towards analytics, and I don't believe anyone will target Rudy as their franchise player, so there will be no $16-17 million per year. That's why I think it's reasonable to say that Kings will be a favorite to retain Rudy: he will get better contract and role on the team that suits him.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You must be under the assumption that he won't pick up his player option to make such a claim. It's a difficult decision for him. Does he opt out now and try to get one more long term contract while only playing well for the last half of a season, or does he opt in with a team he’s been playing extremely well with in an attempt to raise his stock for his next big extension all the while he is making 19 million dollars? If I were him, I would opt in and take the 19 million dollars.

I have said, and will continue to say, that the smart move for Gay is to opt out, and go for the long-term deal. Gay's career numbers indicate that what he's doing now is a lot more likely to be the aberration than what he did in Toronto. The numbers he put up in fifty-one games there are much closer to his career averages. If he can turn what he's doing now into a six or seven-year deal for a guaranteed eight-figures per, he'd be much better off, financially speaking, doing that than opting in, and taking the chance that he can't duplicate this performance.

 

[The_Jamal]

You essentially contradicted yourself. You mention that seeing him play the rest of the year isn't enough sample size to get a gauge on if he's the real deal thus we should think twice about resigning him, but you think Gay should opt out because he has been "playing so well" and "restoring his value" thus he will get a big offer. Can you see how that is confusing? Wouldn't Gay's agent know that his stock has taken a hit and that playing well for only two thirds of the season might not be long enough for NBA teams to trust him again? Therefore, teams might not want to commit to a long term deal which is what you were referencing when you were talking about the Kings' decision to resign him. Am I misunderstanding you?

I didn't say his play the rest of the year isn't enough sample to gauge if he's the real deal or not. I said do we trust the production? There's a difference. His scoring and playmaking are at career peak levels right now. Is it him playing for a contract? Or us utilizing him correctly? Or playing with Cousins? I don't know. Players have gotten huge deals with significantly less a sample and sustained career excellence than Gay. If he keeps it up, someone is going to come paying for him. The question becomes is he worth it for us? Does he put us in a situation where we have to pay him 5/70? If we're paying him that amount of money, we better be sure he's the right side-kick to get us back into the playoffs. If IT busts at 7-8 mil/year, it sucks, but we can recover from it. Not so much from a maxed 5 yr Gay

 

[VF21]

I have said, and will continue to say, that the smart move for Gay is to opt out, and go for the long-term deal. Gay's career numbers indicate that what he's doing now is a lot more likely to be the aberration than what he did in Toronto. The numbers he put up in fifty-one games there are much closer to his career averages. If he can turn what he's doing now into a six or seven-year deal for a guaranteed eight-figures per, he'd be much better off, financially speaking, doing that than opting in, and taking the chance that he can't duplicate this performance.

And nothing precludes him from making that long-term deal with the Kings. I think that's the part some people aren't considering. If he opts out, it doesn't mean he's on the next bus out of town.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I have said, and will continue to say, that the smart move for Gay is to opt out, and go for the long-term deal. Gay's career numbers indicate that what he's doing now is a lot more likely to be the aberration than what he did in Toronto. The numbers he put up in fifty-one games there are much closer to his career averages. If he can turn what he's doing now into a six or seven-year deal for a guaranteed eight-figures per, he'd be much better off, financially speaking, doing that than opting in, and taking the chance that he can't duplicate this performance.

He can't get a six or seven year deal under the new CBA, though. The Kings could sign him to five at most, and any other team could only offer four (unless they do a sign-and-trade with the Kings).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And nothing precludes him from making that long-term deal with the Kings. I think that's the part some people aren't considering. If he opts out, it doesn't mean he's on the next bus out of town.

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise: I wouldn't mind seeing him opt out and sign a five-year deal with us, myself.

He can't get a six or seven year deal under the new CBA, though. The Kings could sign him to five at most, and any other team could only offer four (unless they do a sign-and-trade with the Kings).

I stand corrected. Still, if you're Gay, do you opt out, for a five-year, $65M deal, or opt in for $19M, and risk a ****ty year in 2014-15, and end up having to settle for, say, a four-year, $40M deal?

 

[Entity]

NTTAWWT

 

[Hadlowe]

Came here to see if people would try and spin the loss on IT and yes, they're trying.

No one on this team is allowed to have a good game other than Gay and Cousins.

I see you didn't cite any specific post for this. Who is blaming the loss on IT, exactly?

 

[Warhawk]

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise: I wouldn't mind seeing him opt out and sign a five-year deal with us, myself.
I stand corrected. Still, if you're Gay, do you opt out, for a five-year, $65M deal, or opt in for $19M, and risk a ****ty year in 2014-15, and end up having to settle for, say, a four-year, $40M deal?

Or get injured next year and get NO deal.

 

[Glenn]

I see you didn't cite any specific post for this. Who is blaming the loss on IT, exactly?

This debate about IT is taking an unhealthy turn as far as I'm concerned. The joy of posting here is receding. People just make up stuff and exaggerate beyond belief which is the part of our greater society I hoped to escape here. I am going to take actions to make my experience here more enjoyable. Kind of a present to myself, I suppose.

 

[ESP47]

I see you didn't cite any specific post for this. Who is blaming the loss on IT, exactly?

I didn't feel like getting into a pissing contest with any one poster. I didn't say anyone was directly blaming the loss on him, I said they were trying to spin it on him.

The first page alone has 3 snarky comments about his game and they get more elaborate as you go through the next couple pages. The double standard is just getting old.

If Cousins or Gay scores 38 points and IT has a bad game, it's IT's fault.

If IT scores 38 points and Cousins and Gay have bad games, it's IT's fault.

If Cousins or Gay score 38 points and we win, it's because they're awesome.

If IT scores 38 points and we lose, it's because IT was selfish.

It's just flat out annoying to see this junk every game. IT didn't make Gay and Cousins miss most of their shots. He didn't give up a bunch of points to Durant and respond with single figures himself. He scored 38 and gave up 16 points on 16 shots to his own man.

The game was lost because Gay played horribly, Cousins was inefficient and the bench was really bad for the most part. It was not lost because the guy who shot 11-18 did not delegate his shots better.

I don't even like IT all that much and I'm definitely not a "fanboy", but I'm tired of people blaming this guy for everything. He seriously can do no right in the eyes of you guys and it's mainly just this board. Like I said before, a few posters got this ball rolling on the whole IT is the problem deal and it has spiraled out of control to where most of the people on this board think he's to blame for everything. You check out other Kings sites and talk to other Kings fans outside of this board and hardly any of them blame IT for anything. Yet for some reason all the anti IT propaganda has caught on here and folks are following it like it's Nazi Germany or something.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I was going to give this post a serious reply, until I got to this part:

... Yet for some reason all the anti IT propaganda has caught on here and folks are following it like it's Nazi Germany or something.

The thread has been Godwinned, ladies and gentlemen! That's it, we're done here. Be sure to tip your waitress on the way out.

 

[treach1976]

I don't even like IT all that much and I'm definitely not a "fanboy", but I'm tired of people blaming this guy for everything. He seriously can do no right in the eyes of you guys and it's mainly just this board. Like I said before, a few posters got this ball rolling on the whole IT is the problem deal and it has spiraled out of control to where most of the people on this board think he's to blame for everything. You check out other Kings sites and talk to other Kings fans outside of this board and hardly any of them blame IT for anything. Yet for some reason all the anti IT propaganda has caught on here and folks are following it like it's Nazi Germany or something.

for someone who claims to not even like IT that much, you have an odd way of showing it! I think I've seen you claim this at least two other times, yet you probably post as much if not more than anyone else on this board in defense of IT. Your willingness to characterize others on this board as Nazi's just to make your point also gives away your fanboy-ism.

If you were truly as objective as you state you are, you wouldn't be falling on the sword for this guy, as you are now. Concerning this last game, I feel like Big Cuz is taking the blame for the loss - not IT, but it's hard to see through those hearts in your eyes.

 

[ESP47]

for someone who claims to not even like IT that much, you have an odd way of showing it! I think I've seen you claim this at least two other times, yet you probably post as much if not more than anyone else on this board in defense of IT. Your willingness to characterize others on this board as Nazi's just to make your point also gives away your fanboy-ism.

If you were truly as objective as you state you are, you wouldn't be falling on the sword for this guy, as you are now. Concerning this last game, I feel like Big Cuz is taking the blame for the loss - not IT, but it's hard to see through those hearts in your eyes.

It's kind of like back in school when you'd see a bunch of guys picking on a kid and you'd go to his defense. It doesn't mean you're best friends with the kid. You just don't like seeing him picked on for no reason.

I've said it multiple times, he could very easily be a starter if we had a Sefalosha and Ibaka starting for us. In a normal lineup he's probably better suited as a 6th man. As far as what we have now, he's best suited as the starter. If he's going to command a 9mil salary, then we need to trade him. But as far as him being the reason why were losing, now that's just asinine.

Every player has good and bad games. All I ask is that people place blame where blame is due. It's really as simple as that.

 

[rainmaker]

But as far as him being the reason why were losing, now that's just asinine.

And once again, the challenge is presented for you to show where posters are blaming IT for the loss or losses.

If you can't, it's a strawman and repeatedly arguing against a strawman is far more asinine than suggesting the strawman itself which you created is what's actually asinine.

 

[Chubbs]

Yet for some reason all the anti IT propaganda has caught on here and folks are following it like it's Nazi Germany or something.

Are you ****ing kidding me? That's disgusting.

People show up to this board looking to fight about him. Clearly you are one of them.

Sorry, from my time here, people like to have intelligent discussions. And you bring it down to this level.

Personally, I blame the last loss on the thunder. They're too good.

 

[Glenn]

Who are the Thunder and why are we even thinking of discussing them?

 

[D-Wade]

I think people hate IT because of his height and what he's capable of. I bet most of the haters are taller than IT and just envy him.. Last time I checked it takes a team effort to win games.. Last game wasn't a team effort...

 

[jcwkings]

Well, if the plan was to let IT get his, then mission aaccomplished.

Maybe just skip grades today and let all the fanboys have this thread to pat each other on the back.

IT scored well today and we lost by 15 so you figure it out, the good thing was there best guard Westbrook was out or he would have drop 40 on IT. Not sure what was up with Gay and Cuz today but they need to be the leaders. Sucks losing to a team by 15 without there second leading scorer

Here are some of the posts that instantly wanted to spin this into an "IT gunned so we lost" thread. Also, yes if you go to other Kings sites, the majority appreciate what IT brings and don't try to blame him for everything that is wrong with this team. Really this is the only place where I see an overwhelming negative vibe about IT, which I find a little bizarre.

This is a guess, but I see most of the IT detractors are the ones that thought Tyreke was the next coming of Dwyane Wade, maybe some hard feelings that IT took Reke's role? Whatever it is, if you analyze "what is wrong with this team? It certainly isn't Isaiah Thomas.

We need defensive players at the SG and PF position. One of the reasons IT has looked bad on defense is because he knows he doesn't have much help behind him if he gets beat off the dribble. He has to sag off more than he should at times(guys like Curry and Lillard give him problems, but really who can guard those players 1 on 1? Let alone when they start running pick and rolls). IT has the tools to at least be one of those "pest" little defenders that get right on you, but we need a guy that will protect the paint when our guards get beat. Its very different defending on the perimeter knowing you have Ibaka and Perkins behind you, than having Cousins and JT(who has looked better of late rotation wise, but not a shotblocker).

Our problem is our roleplayers, we have a undersized volume scorer starting at SG(who can't buy a basket this year), and a solid garbage duty PF who isn't a shotblocker. If you can find a defensive spot shooting PG to start the game, and bring IT as a 6th man, I would be all for it, but as of now IT needs to be playing 38-40 min for this team to compete, along with our other big guys showing up.(coach has realized this too).

 

[Chubbs]

One thing we could all try instead of finding the king of the night to blame, maybe just give credit where it's due, that team on the other bench. Sometimes you just lose cause the other team played better.

The Thunder actually are an elite team, one of a handful that are legit title contenders. We don't need to find anyone to blame on the kings. They're just better. They have durant, we don't. This could be said about the pacers too, and frankly the grizzlies as well. They are more experienced teams that have a lot of experience with beating young teams like ours.

 

[jcwkings]

One thing we could all try instead of finding the king of the night to blame, maybe just give credit where it's due, that team on the other bench. Sometimes you just lose cause the other team played better.

The Thunder actually are an elite team, one of a handful that are legit title contenders. We don't need to find anyone to blame on the kings. They're just better. They have durant, we don't. This could be said about the pacers too, and frankly the grizzlies as well. They are more experienced teams that have a lot of experience with beating young teams like ours.

I would agree with this for the most part, except yesterday we were very sloppy, trying to do stuff we shouldn't. The jist of yesterday's game was pts off turnovers( a good majority unforced or avoidable), and giving up offensive rebounds and them converting. So yes, the Thunder are a great team, but we did ourselves no favors, we played far from a good game, and we need a perfect game to beat the Thunder.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Eh, if the other team is scoring a ton of points off turnovers, that means that you're committing a ton of live-ball turnovers. One could make the case that those have more to do with what the defense is making you do than just sloppy play on your part.

 

[VF21]

I think people hate IT because of his height and what he's capable of. I bet most of the haters are taller than IT and just envy him.. Last time I checked it takes a team effort to win games.. Last game wasn't a team effort...

Statements like that are without merit and clearly indicative of someone who doesn't have even the slightest clue of what's going on. PEOPLE DO NOT HATE ISAIAH THOMAS. That strawman argument got old a very long time ago. People have problems with him as the starting guard. Many would really prefer him as the 6th man, and even argue he could win the 6MOY award.

Get your facts straight, please.

And BTW? I'm 5'1"...