How good do you think the currently constructed team can be?

[Bricklayer]

Why are you posting pointless PER 36 stats if you're not trying to draw a comparison to them then?

You know perfectly well its a productivity comparison, one you can't dispute because its right there in the numbers. Now move on. You tried something, I called you on it, best to go try another angle.

 

[Elektrik]

I say 20 wins as the roster is as of today. We suck. Sorry, really disillusioned about how this team is being reconstructed.........so far. Waiting for big things to happen from the wonderkid in the front office.

 

[King Baller]

, but when you look at those numbers, the only thing he is clearly better at is scoring.

Fortunately I believe that will be Landry's role. To come off the bench and provide scoring when Demarcus is on the bench.

Here is a quote from coach Malone:

“He has great toughness, he’s a guy who’s always been one of the better off-the-bench scorers in the post – a true low-post scoring threat, a guy who gets to the foul line and a very good rebounder. The knock on Carl for a while used to be his defense, but being around him last year, he’s very coachable, he has a great attitude and his attention to his defense really got better last year. I would expect it to be even better this coming year.”

Got it here --> http://thekingsblog.com/2013/07/kings-qa-coach-malone/

 

[The_Jamal]

You know perfectly well its a productivity comparison, one you can't dispute because its right there in the numbers. Now move on. You tried something, I called you on it, best to go try another angle.

Right in the numbers? What an absolute joke. I can't believe you refuse to understand how little PER 36 means and how few situations it can actually be used in context of evaluating players. It's kind of a joke how use refuse to apply context to any numbers and then try and act all superior as if those numbers mean what you think.

 

[jcwkings]

I think this team will do better than last season, i say 35 wins. The coaching staff and owner holding players accountable, playing better team defense overall, players willing to pass the ball, and hopefully Cousins taking the next step. I think this team will be fun to watch, hopefully way less empty seats than the last few seasons( this team always plays well when the crowd shows up it seems and tend to loaf when the arena is half empty against the Bobcats or Bucks). I still think there is 1 or 2 moves left before the roster is final as well.

 

[bajaden]

I don't think there is a reading comprehension problem on my end. Padrino stated that Landry wasn't a good low post defender. You posted that it was ignorance to claim he wasn't a defender and to check out his synergy stats. I posted the same stats that illustrate he isn't a good defender.

You then claim I have reading comprehension problems because you never stated he was a great defender which I never claimed once in my post.

The extremes thing is funny. There are multiple posts on here from people defending Landry and the FO from people claiming Landry sucks, is worthless, garbage, has no value, doesn't do anything well, etc. Yet I can't really find the posts that ever claim such a thing.

Its been a weird offseason around here. For all the negativity supposedly coming from the glass half empty guys, it's at least mostly based on stats, nba history, and strategic team building principles. Why is there such a need to shout these down with arguments about what Vivek has done for the city, general benefit of the doubt, crystal ball uncertainty, etc. Not claiming this is always the case and there are obviously intelligent posters like yourself that don't do this. I just encourage anyone frustrated with the negative crowd to go back and look at the challenge of trying to make a basketball related analysis only to have it refuted with that kind of ra-ra nonsense repeatedly.

Overly long rant done.

He stated that Landry doesn't defend! Go back and look it up. That's what I took umbrage with. I don't believe I said anything about you suffering from reading comprehension. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, then I'm wasting my time here. You obviously don't want to see it. You know sometimes, we get so caught up in the emotion of our beliefs that it blinds us to another person true intent. I have nothing more to say, other than goodbye!

 

[Kingster]

I just wonder how much of this Landry debate is prompted by one fact: The Kings have to overpay to get FAs as a general rule. At least that's the way it seems for the last several years when they've been a sucky non-playoff team. It wouldn't surprise me that until we get into the playoffs we're going to have to overpay for just about every FA we get. If that's the case, then the question becomes: who do you want to overpay *that are willing to come to Sacramento*? Is Landry the guy you overpay, or were there other players available in FA that you could overpay that would best fit this team? Say they overpaid Landry by $2 mill/year. Were there other players out that would better fit the Kings you could get by also overpaying $2 mill/year? That's something nobody knows. All that seems apparent is that we have to overpay to get a FA. *Until the Kings get into the playoffs and establish a reputation as a winning franchise, it's hard to be terribly dissapointed with the FAs we get when we are obviously the beggars, not the choosers, in the FA game.*

If that's the case, wouldn't a better strategy going forward be to just trade players with expiring contracts instead of using their old salary to augment the available cash for FA? I'm no expert on cap management like a lot of others on this board, but to this amateur it seems like that would be a better strategy to enhance the talent on your team. Then, instead of competing against the "big boys" in a game rigged against the smaller sucky non-playoff teams, you effectively trade your cap space for players with locked-in contracts.

 

[mac]

I just wonder how much of this Landry debate is prompted by one fact: The Kings have to overpay to get FAs as a general rule. At least that's the way it seems for the last several years when they've been a sucky non-playoff team. It wouldn't surprise me that until we get into the playoffs we're going to have to overpay for just about every FA we get. If that's the case, then the question becomes: who do you want to overpay? Is Landry the guy you overpay, or were there other players available in FA that you could overpay that would best fit this team? Say they overpaid Landry by $2 mill/year. Were there other players out that would better fit the Kings you could get by also overpaying $2 mill/year? That's something nobody knows. All that seems apparent is that we have to overpay to get a FA.

If that's the case, wouldn't a better strategy going forward be to just trade players with expiring contracts instead of using their old salary to augment the available cash for FA? I'm no expert on cap management like a lot of others on this board, but to this amateur it seems like that would be a better strategy to enhance the talent on your team. Then, instead of competing against the "big boys" in a game rigged against the smaller sucky non-playoff teams, you effectively trade your cap space for players with locked-in contracts.

I can't speak for others, but the way I see it is nobody was forcing the FO to sign a mediocre FA. There may not have been other players who fit the bill better at the moment, in which case you just spend on 1 year deals to hit the minimum salary and put yourself in a position to have capspace or just save money for a time when .. oh I don't know, IT, DMC and Vasquez all become FAs? The thing is that Landry does not make us a playoff team. The replies in this thread speak for themselves - we are still pretty much going to be a bottom feeder this season. Are we really going to be in such dire need of a player like Carl Landry 3 years from now? Is he going to get us over the hump and into the playoffs? Honestly speaking my answer is in the negative, so it makes no sense to ink him to such a long deal. It's clear that PDA thinks Landry is going to be a very good player for us, far better than 9pts 5 rebounds or whatever it is, or it would make very little sense to have him under contract for so long. All it does is hurt our chances at landing a real big name FA in the future.

Not comparing Landry to Mikki Moore and SAR when he came to us, but that's essentially what GP did in overpaying for those FAs. Overpay + long term deal for mediocre ageing player when the team needs real star power or real role players ends up hurting you for a long time. The only way it makes sense is to bring in Landry as a veteran presence... we did the same with Chuck Hayes and that hasn't exactly turned out well, so I hope Landry will be better for us this time.

Wrt your strategy - in theory it makes a lot of sense but the truth is you have to find takers. If we are going after bigger name FAs then it is likely that their current teams either want to retain their services and bird rights, or they are looking to rebuild or retool. If they are looking to rebuild with then you have to send young players + picks, something we can't do. They only take back expiring contracts if they plan on making a splash in FA - essentially swapping positions with us, which is pretty unlikely. Remember here we're talking about us getting a big name FA, not three Carl Landry-level players. The rare cases where such an opportunity would arise for us IMO would be if the big name player is demanding to be traded (and if he is, what are the chances that he will want to remain in Sacramento after the 1-2 years left on his contract?) or something along the lines of what happened with James Harden, where the team has so much talent that they can't afford to keep him.

 

[CruzDude]

Since it is likely 3 of the 5 starters haven not played together or with Kings (Landry not withstanding) trying to guess how good they might or might not be is great for conspiracy theorists but only TDOS filler at the moment. So lets not get carried away with personal views, ones' own or others until we have some reality in pre-season. They will be better than now with a backup for Cuz and with a SF who can defend and give 15 pts a night. We just might be surprised at the new rotation from new coaches and a new culture. Horrible as it is, guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Kingster]

I can't speak for others, but the way I see it is nobody was forcing the FO to sign a mediocre FA. There may not have been other players who fit the bill better at the moment, in which case you just spend on 1 year deals to hit the minimum salary and put yourself in a position to have capspace or just save money for a time when .. oh I don't know, IT, DMC and Vasquez all become FAs? The thing is that Landry does not make us a playoff team. The replies in this thread speak for themselves - we are still pretty much going to be a bottom feeder this season. Are we really going to be in such dire need of a player like Carl Landry 3 years from now? Is he going to get us over the hump and into the playoffs? Honestly speaking my answer is in the negative, so it makes no sense to ink him to such a long deal. It's clear that PDA thinks Landry is going to be a very good player for us, far better than 9pts 5 rebounds or whatever it is, or it would make very little sense to have him under contract for so long. All it does is hurt our chances at landing a real big name FA in the future.

Not comparing Landry to Mikki Moore and SAR when he came to us, but that's essentially what GP did in overpaying for those FAs. Overpay + long term deal for mediocre ageing player when the team needs real star power or real role players ends up hurting you for a long time. The only way it makes sense is to bring in Landry as a veteran presence... we did the same with Chuck Hayes and that hasn't exactly turned out well, so I hope Landry will be better for us this time.

Wrt your strategy - in theory it makes a lot of sense but the truth is you have to find takers. If we are going after bigger name FAs then it is likely that their current teams either want to retain their services and bird rights, or they are looking to rebuild or retool. If they are looking to rebuild with then you have to send young players + picks, something we can't do. They only take back expiring contracts if they plan on making a splash in FA - essentially swapping positions with us, which is pretty unlikely. Remember here we're talking about us getting a big name FA, not three Carl Landry-level players. The rare cases where such an opportunity would arise for us IMO would be if the big name player is demanding to be traded (and if he is, what are the chances that he will want to remain in Sacramento after the 1-2 years left on his contract?) or something along the lines of what happened with James Harden, where the team has so much talent that they can't afford to keep him.

I thought of the short term contract angle, but part and parcel of overpaying seems to involve longer contracts at those higher $ amounts. How many guys that are even mediocre would sign with the Kings for one or two years?

 

[Gary]

I thought of the short term contract angle, but part and parcel of overpaying seems to involve longer contracts at those higher $ amounts. How many guys that are even mediocre would sign with the Kings for one or two years?

The kind of guys that the Kings end up releasing mid season according to history.

Landry isn't a great player, but he will be just fine in a bench role here and provide is with a low post threat on the second team. Brick's posts are very amusing at this point. OK, we know you don't like the guy, but your "bricklawyer" arguments are just asinine at this point. Never mind what the player actually brings to the team in terms of skillset. We signed Mikki Moore apparently.

 

[Padrino]

i've said it before and i'll say it again: as an undesirable small market franchise, you absolutely overpay for star talent/star potential, and you do your best not to overpay for roleplayers and redundancies. that is how you build a winner. you tie up your money at the top of the team's food chain, and sprinkle parts of your starting unit and most of your bench with high character guys who aren't afraid to play defense, rebound, hustle, move the ball, hit the occasional jumper, and rah-rah from the sidelines, guys that don't cost a lot. that's just how it works in the contemporary nba. you adapt or die...

however, signing carl landry at 4/$26 million is the very definition of overpaying for a roleplayer. it'd be one thing if he filled a pressing need. at least then you're doing your best to plug the holes that have kept this team sunk at the basement of the league for the last seven years. but landry is not that guy. he's not even close to that guy. in fact, when you consider the kings' overwhelming deficiencies on the defensive end, he's so far away from being that guy that you'd be hard-pressed to find another big in the entire league that the kings needed less than carl landry...

you drop a big contract on andre iguodala. you suck it up and fork over the cash to hold onto tyreke evans. those are impact players, legitimate #2 talents that can change your franchise's fortunes if utilized properly. but carl landry? he's icing. he's a luxury. he's the kinda guy you bring in when you're in the hunt, and need a boost to get you over the hump. the kings are not in the hunt. they need more than a boost to become a playoff team. and now they've tied up significant cap space in a player with very limited utility given the team's weaknesses... for the next four years.

 

[sdballer]

He stated that Landry doesn't defend! Go back and look it up. That's what I took umbrage with. I don't believe I said anything about you suffering from reading comprehension. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, then I'm wasting my time here. You obviously don't want to see it. You know sometimes, we get so caught up in the emotion of our beliefs that it blinds us to another person true intent. I have nothing more to say, other than goodbye!

I know you already took your ball and went home but I'll still respond. The post of padrino's that I thought you were responding to claimed Landry wasn't a rim protector or a particularly skilled man defender which the stats support. If there was another more extreme post you took exception to, I apologize for not seeing it.

With regards to reading comprehension, you stated you didn't know why it was so hard for me to understand what you stated and that I should go back and re-read. If that means something other than reading comprehension, I didn't get it.

Finally, not sure what it is you think I'm emotionally blind to as I haven't taken the extreme positions you are upset with but sorry you're so worked up about it.

 

[Chubbs]

i've said it before and i'll say it again: as an undesirable small market franchise, you absolutely overpay for star talent/star potential, and you do your best not to overpay for roleplayers and redundancies. that is how you build a winner. you tie up your money at the top of the team's food chain, and sprinkle parts of your starting unit and most of your bench with high character guys who aren't afraid to play defense, rebound, hustle, move the ball, hit the occasional jumper, and rah-rah from the sidelines, guys that don't cost a lot. that's just how it works in the contemporary nba. you adapt or die...

however, signing carl landry at 4/$26 million is the very definition of overpaying for a roleplayer. it'd be one thing if he filled a pressing need. at least then you're doing your best to plug the holes that have kept this team sunk at the basement of the league for the last seven years. but landry is not that guy. he's not even close to that guy. in fact, when you consider the kings' overwhelming deficiencies on the defensive end, he's so far away from being that guy that you'd be hard-pressed to find another big in the entire league that the kings needed less than carl landry...

you drop a big contract on andre iguodala. you suck it up and fork over the cash to hold onto tyreke evans. those are impact players, legitimate #2 talents that can change your franchise's fortunes if utilized properly. but carl landry? he's icing. he's a luxury. he's the kinda guy you bring in when you're in the hunt, and need a boost to get you over the hump. the kings are not in the hunt. they need more than a boost to become a playoff team. and now they've tied up significant cap space in a player with very limited utility given the team's weaknesses... for the next four years.

Agree 100% on Landry. It's be hard to do worse than that signing from so many levels. Salary cap wise it's suicide. Personnel fit it makes no sense. Very disheartening to say the least.

 

[Gary]

Agree 100% on Landry. It's be hard to do worse than that signing from so many levels. Salary cap wise it's suicide. Personnel fit it makes no sense. Very disheartening to say the least.

Fit has nothing to do with it. Landry will fit just fine. Did we need a player like Landry? I don't think so, but since we have him we should use him how we think he will fit best, which is low post scoring off the bench. He will do fine in that role.

 

[sdballer]

Fit has nothing to do with it. Landry will fit just fine. Did we need a player like Landry? I don't think so, but since we have him we should use him how we think he will fit best, which is low post scoring off the bench. He will do fine in that role.

Not having need for someone is a big part of personnel fit so it has a lot to do with it.

 

[Gary]

Not having need for someone is a big part of personnel fit so it has a lot to do with it.

I took it as fitting with the personnel we had. Meaning being able to play well with the players we have. I think he will be fine, but I re-read it and see how in terms of WHAT WE NEED whether or not he was a fit or not. I guess the answer to that is no. He wasn't something we needed. I might have read his quote wrong? Not sure exactly what he meant, but I took it as Landry fitting with other players here.

 

[Chubbs]

I took it as fitting with the personnel we had. Meaning being able to play well with the players we have. I think he will be fine, but I re-read it and see how in terms of WHAT WE NEED whether or not he was a fit or not. I guess the answer to that is no. He wasn't something we needed. I might have read his quote wrong? Not sure exactly what he meant, but I took it as Landry fitting with other players here.

Landry will do what he does no matter his teammates. I just don't think a ball hog bench player was what we needed, especially if Ben is to come off the bench. No, we didn't need a player like that. Ben will need a guy looking to get him open looks to get going. Landry definitely isn't that guy. Not sure IT is either. Hopefully Ben gets time with the starters.

 

[VF21]

I just wonder how much of this Landry debate is prompted by one fact: The Kings have to overpay to get FAs as a general rule. At least that's the way it seems for the last several years when they've been a sucky non-playoff team. It wouldn't surprise me that until we get into the playoffs we're going to have to overpay for just about every FA we get. If that's the case, then the question becomes: who do you want to overpay? Is Landry the guy you overpay, or were there other players available in FA that you could overpay that would best fit this team? Say they overpaid Landry by $2 mill/year. Were there other players out that would better fit the Kings you could get by also overpaying $2 mill/year? That's something nobody knows. All that seems apparent is that we have to overpay to get a FA.

If that's the case, wouldn't a better strategy going forward be to just trade players with expiring contracts instead of using their old salary to augment the available cash for FA? I'm no expert on cap management like a lot of others on this board, but to this amateur it seems like that would be a better strategy to enhance the talent on your team. Then, instead of competing against the "big boys" in a game rigged against the smaller sucky non-playoff teams, you effectively trade your cap space for players with locked-in contracts.

I think you need to add the phrase "...who are willing to come to Sacramento..."

 

[ArcoKings]

At this juncture I'm predicting around 28 to 32 wins. I hope I'm wrong and the team finishes closer to .500. This season the coaching staff will be busy evaluating talent and skills from every player. They will be tinkering with the team by making adjustments as they go so at least for the first couple of months it will be painful and I expect the team to lose close games but they will improve as the season progresses. For 2014-2015 I predict the Kings go to the playoffs at the #8 or #7. Go Kings!

 

[Hadlowe]

I predict the Kings as a basement team again. Cousins and a new coach may make a difference, but I see it as a team with 1 potential star who might realize his potential and 12 bench players.

Hayes, Thompson, Landry, Patterson all strike me as 3rd bigs off the bench, with no defensive starter to play next to your offensive PF/C. Someone(s) needs to be moved. I would like to keep Patterson and the organization is obviously invested in Landry. If Thompson and Hayes can get us a serviceable rim protector (looking at you, Milwaukee), that would bring some order to the frontcourt.

Mbah a Moute is a defensive stalwart who can't shoot outside the restricted zone. He may be starting material if you have shooting at three other positions. None of the other SF's on the team should be on an NBA roster.

We have two and a half shooting guards (Fredette being a tweener). We know Thornton and know what he can do (volume scoring) and what he can't (defend). We don't know what we have in McLemore. He may be a decent spot-up option on offense, but he could very well fall into the T-Rob trap of trying to do everything and failing.

Point guard is a mess. We can play the 6'6" pass-first point guard who doesn't play defense and doesn't shoot well or the 5'9" gunning point guard who can't play defense or the 6'2" shooting/point guard who can't dribble or play defense or the 6'3" rookie point guard who might be able to defend, but doesn't have great court vision and can't shoot. Realistically, any one of those players could be the starter on day one. Any one of them could be out of the rotation as well.

Were it not for the Suns and Jazz embracing the suck this year, that would be the worst roster in the west.

Edited to add the Lakers to the teams potentially embracing the suck. That roster just looks ugly. Even if Kobe comes back the old Kobe, it is the Kobe, Pau, and a bunch of guys off the streets of Prague team.

 

[Kingster]

I think you need to add the phrase "...who are willing to come to Sacramento..."

Yes, I agree. I'll add it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

does he? assuming jason thompson is starting once the season opener arrives, the bench's set of bigs include a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking stretch 4 in patrick patterson, a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking hustle player in chuck hayes, and a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking black hole in carl landry. none of those guys protect the rim worth a damn. none of those guys secure rebounds at an acceptable rate for their positions. none of them are even particularly skilled man-defenders...

sure, landry has a penchant for scoring on the low block, but he requires the ball in his hands nearly 100% of the time in order to secure his 10-12 ppg, and he's tunnel-visioned, without the skill to effectively pass out of the post. at least tyreke evans was becoming increasingly effective at operating off-ball. reke's a versatile player who can be used in a number of capacities, while also competing on the defensive end. i'd hardly call landry a "fit" anywhere, not at the cost of his overpaid long-term contract, anyway...

Utter crap. Not surprised that you spew nonsense about a player you don't like.

% of Landry's offense from ISO's last season: 5.4% and 39 total plays

% of Landry's offense in post-ups: 27% and a total of 222 plays

So Carl the "Blackhole" Landry scores his points within an offense 68% of the time. And that's if you include Post-ups as "tunnel visioned ISO plays"

This is such an unusual, and erroneous, approach to what could (conceivably) be a perfectly good counter argument, albeit one that I would still, personally, disagree with. The defining characteristic of whether or not a player is a "black hole" on offense is not whether or not he scores within the flow of the offense, or whether he scores exclusively on isolation. The defining characteristic of whether or not a player is a "black hole" on offense is whether or not he is the last player to touch the ball before a shot is attempted. And, while a 5.2% career assist percentage certainly doesn't prove that he's not making the "soccer" pass, and/or passing to a guy who doesn't hit the shot, it doesn't seem to suggest that he is. What it seems to suggest is that, whenever Carl Landry gets the ball, whether it's within the flow of the offense or not, the next "pass" is going to the rim. That equals black hole.

 

[Hallama]

Landry is a score first bench player. He is supposed to be aggressive. He also gets a lot of put backs...I'd rather he'd not pass those.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Jason Thompson had a 6% AST last season. So. Yea. Out of context stats ftw.

Speaking of out of context...

Which do you, personally, think is more likely, that the perfectly average and unspectacular Jason Thompson, with his career 7.3 assist percentage, is going to duplicate his career-worst 6.0 from last year, or that Carl Landry, with his career 5.2 assist percentage, is going to substantially improve upon his career second-best 5.6 from last season, let alone ever again approach his career-best 7.1 from two seasons ago? I'm curious as to why, of all the things that Landry is or is not, that you would choose to make his being a black hole or not your line in the sand?

One last direct comparison to Thompson: Jason Thompson has started in 281 games*; that's more than quadruple the number of games that Landry has started. He's played 820 more total minutes, which works out to, roughly, three more minutes per game than Landry, on average, over the course of his career. Do you know how many more shot attempts Jason Thompson has had than Carl Landry, over the course of their respective careers?

Four. Not four shot attempts per game. Four.

Why do I point that out? Because when I say that Jason Thompson's career assist percentage is 7.3, and that Carl Landry's is 5.2, someone might try to make the case that Thompson attempts more shots per game which, while (barely) factually accurate, falls way short of telling the whole story. Now, they also have had different roles relative to the respective systems they've played in, even when they played in the same system, but it's alarming to me how often Landry shoots the ball, relative to how often he passes the ball, for someone who is not supposed to be a "black hole" (FWIW, in Landry's first go-around with the Kings, he averaged 9.1 shot attempts, with a 5.7 assist percentage; in the same fifty-three game span, Thompson averaged 6.7 shots, with 7.5 assist percentage).

In fact, Carl Landry is, for the minutes he's played, tied for the eighth-worst active player in career assist percentage in the entire NBA, and the only player "higher" up on that list whose primary designation is also as an offensive player is not actually active, and only made the list because he played in two games last season (Eddy Curry). The other seven active players who average at least as many career minutes as Landry (24.5) with a lower career assist percentage are: Serge Ibaka (2.1), Bismack Biyombo (2.7), Samuel Dalembert (3.3), Maurice Harkless (3.9), Tyson Chandler (4.4), Emeka Okafor (4.7) and Kenneth Faried (5.2).

Now, quick, what do those other seven guys have in common that Landry doesn't? Hell, Nick Young has a career assist percentage of 7.6, and that dude doesn't pass to anybody!



*It's important to note that I'm not trying to pretend that Landry and Thompson have played the same number of games, so if your plan was to lead off with that, you can relax. I full recognize that Landry has played a full season longer than Thompson. But still, four more shots in 800+ more minutes.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

they will probably improve by a few wins. but be nowhere near the playoffs and also have no chance at Andrew Wiggins or the other top few prospects......

 

[Hadlowe]

One point about Carl Landry. I prefer Landry over JT as third big off the bench. Assume your rotation is 1. Cousins, 2. Defensive big, 3. Landry, 4. Hustle roleplayer for spot minutes. Cousins and Defensive big get the bulk of minutes with Landry filling in when we need scoring off the bench. Landry can play with either Cousins (to shore up Landry's lack of rebounding) or Defensive Big (assuming Defensive big is bigger than Josh Smith). Landry's post game is more polished than Cousins, and Cousins has a better jumper now than when he played with Landry last. I think the tandem can work on offense.

If you look at this team from last year, we often lost games in the second quarter and late in the third when our bench was just generally unable to score. That is largely on Smart, but the personnel is a problem too. Smart ran lineups like Jimmer, Salmons, James Johnson, T-Rob, Hayes at opponents pretty frequently. Of those players, only Jimmer and Salmons had any hope of doing anything offensively, and usually from distance, and neither of them were great at creating for themselves or others.

If you're running jumpshooting offense in the half-court, you end up putting up contested shots, and you need rebounding to clean up the misses. T-Rob and Hayes just got outsized by opponent bench bigs.

Alternatively, if you run offense out of the post in the half-court, your jumpshots can come off kickouts and your bigs are also generally in better rebounding position (less dependent on setting picks for their guards.) It also leads to rebounds beneath the basket which slows down opponents trying to push you in transition, and shores up defense at the other end. Oh, and bigs who play in the post get fouled, which also slows pace and leads to less transition opportunities for opponents. If we can't have Tyreke scoring at the rim, we need to pound the ball down opponents throats through whatever means available, and a reliable post scorer off the bench fits that need as well as anything.

The missing piece to the Landry puzzle is obviously a defensive big to start. Whether we can pick one up through trade remains to be seen.

 

[bajaden]

I know you already took your ball and went home but I'll still respond. The post of padrino's that I thought you were responding to claimed Landry wasn't a rim protector or a particularly skilled man defender which the stats support. If there was another more extreme post you took exception to, I apologize for not seeing it.

With regards to reading comprehension, you stated you didn't know why it was so hard for me to understand what you stated and that I should go back and re-read. If that means something other than reading comprehension, I didn't get it.

Finally, not sure what it is you think I'm emotionally blind to as I haven't taken the extreme positions you are upset with but sorry you're so worked up about it.

First, thank you for a post where I feel like were having a conversation, and not being attacked. So I'll try one more time. To start, I would never accuse you of lacking reading comprehension. Your obviously a bright guy, and you know basketball. So I would never insult you that way. But I do think that its very easy to get caught up in the ground swell of negative emotions due to some of the recent moves by the organization. I understand the bitterness some are experiencing with the loss of Tyreke Evans. .In that atmosphere its very easy to have tunnel vision, and totally misunderstand someone's point of view.

My point was about taking everything to the extreme, and in saying that, I'm not necessarily referring to you. For the most part, I don't think Padrino does either, but in one instance, he did. Now that's just my opinion, and because I bring it up, it doesn't mean I dislike him, or think that in general he's wrong. In general, most of the posters stay within reason with their post, but there are some, that make outlandish statements, and I'm always shocked that posters like yourself don't try to temper them. There are posters on this forum that I've always respected, whether I agreed with them or not. But now, I don't know some of them anymore. Too many posts are attacks instead of conversations.

I admit that I'm a positive person. That doesn't mean I can't see the reality of a situation. It just means I never see any situation as the end of the world. When someone posts that we should fire D'Allesandro 30 days into his job, or that we should trade McLemore after Summer league, I don't know how to enter that conversation. Why in the world would anyone propose something that's never going to happen? And then I find people agreeing with him. My mind is just too logical for that. None of this is directed at you! I'm just trying to explain the point of my post. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. I'd like to get back to having constructive conversations without feeling like I'm walking on egg shells, because that's how I feel right now. I got into a tiff with you over a post that wasn't even addressed to you.

And I'd never take my ball and go home. If and when I go home, I'll leave the ball behind because I won't need it anymore. There have been times when I've come close to doing just that. Because lately, this just isn't fun anymore. I've fought too many battles in my life, and frankly, I'm getting tired of fighting. I'll leave you with one final note. I have a good friend that's a psychiatrist. He told me once that if you took 60 positive people and put them into a house with one negative person and left them there for 6 months, that when you came back, just about everyone in the house would be negative. That's how powerful negativity is. Take that for what its worth.

 

[Hallama]

One point about Carl Landry. I prefer Landry over JT as third big off the bench. Assume your rotation is 1. Cousins, 2. Defensive big, 3. Landry, 4. Hustle roleplayer for spot minutes. Cousins and Defensive big get the bulk of minutes with Landry filling in when we need scoring off the bench. Landry can play with either Cousins (to shore up Landry's lack of rebounding) or Defensive Big (assuming Defensive big is bigger than Josh Smith). Landry's post game is more polished than Cousins, and Cousins has a better jumper now than when he played with Landry last. I think the tandem can work on offense.

If you look at this team from last year, we often lost games in the second quarter and late in the third when our bench was just generally unable to score. That is largely on Smart, but the personnel is a problem too. Smart ran lineups like Jimmer, Salmons, James Johnson, T-Rob, Hayes at opponents pretty frequently. Of those players, only Jimmer and Salmons had any hope of doing anything offensively, and usually from distance, and neither of them were great at creating for themselves or others.

If you're running jumpshooting offense in the half-court, you end up putting up contested shots, and you need rebounding to clean up the misses. T-Rob and Hayes just got outsized by opponent bench bigs.

Alternatively, if you run offense out of the post in the half-court, your jumpshots can come off kickouts and your bigs are also generally in better rebounding position (less dependent on setting picks for their guards.) It also leads to rebounds beneath the basket which slows down opponents trying to push you in transition, and shores up defense at the other end. Oh, and bigs who play in the post get fouled, which also slows pace and leads to less transition opportunities for opponents. If we can't have Tyreke scoring at the rim, we need to pound the ball down opponents throats through whatever means available, and a reliable post scorer off the bench fits that need as well as anything.

The missing piece to the Landry puzzle is obviously a defensive big to start. Whether we can pick one up through trade remains to be seen.

Absolutely agree - I've been saying the same thing about Landry being the third big, the Kings are just missing the second. Obviously Malone/Pete'D felt Landry is an upgrade over PPat and JT, I don't think he's there to compliment either one. I'm wondering which of the two will see decreased PT this season, probably Patterson, as JT can play spot C.

 

[pshn80]

......and JT perfectly compliments Cousins on offense. You're not getting antone we have replacing him, and nobody new unless that person is the super defensive stopper. Unlikely, ergo JT.