Is Cauley-Stein a Good Defender?

[G_M]

As a side note, Texas and Florida do not have a state income tax. Everything else being equal that's a serious structural disadvantage that the Kings need to overcome when negotiating for free agents.

Any competent agent or business manager would be doing their clients a disservice if they didn't bring that up.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

As a side note, Texas and Florida do not have a state income tax. Everything else being equal that's a serious structural disadvantage that the Kings need to overcome

While what you say is true and can be a hurdle to attract some players, it’s not as if all or even most free agents flock only to those locations. In fact, most the teams in those states don’t have strongest track record of drawing top FA’s. 25 teams in total have to compete against FLA and TX and seem to be doing fine.

On a side note, when people bring up CA being expensive and tax heavy, I point out that these other states with less taxation get their money in other ways. For example, I know a coworker that relocated to another state and was completely shocked when his vehicle registration cost him a couple thousand dollars — a lot more than it had ever been beforehand.

 

[jcassio]

Willie came into the League with a reputation for being able to defend a lot of different positions. I am tired of watching him swat at the ball instead of moving his feet. He is slow to rotate from the weak side. (Late in games he makes some good plays). He is afraid of the rim and backs down from contact. When was the last time he took a charge? Mentally he is just not suited to playing against full grown men. I don't think there is a way to fix it. A guy like Stephen Adams would change the character of this team and get them to the next level.

This.

 

[jcassio]

I mentioned earlier in another post that I'm still undecided on Vucevic.

On one hand, he would make us better right now. I don't doubt that. He's very skilled offensively and can stretch the floor. He's underrated defensively and is a very good rebounder. His floor spacing makes for a good fit next to Bagley.

The reason I pause on him right now is a much more long term question and when thinking through to the endgame. When I think of our current core pieces, I try to think of which position is (or will be) their best position if we needed to close a game out for the last 7 minutes.

• Fox: no question it's PG
• Hield: no question it's SG. His length limits his potential to guard SFs regularly
• Bogdan: I lean SG here but I would still consider him effective in a SF role considering he has excellent length for a SG
• Barnes: I think he can easily be a SF or PF without there being much difference. I lean towards SF because his length isn't great but he's deceptively very strong.
• Giles: I don't think he'll ever have the size, rim protection, rebounding ability to play C so I have to say PF here. However, his shooting very much would hurt a "death lineup"
• Bagley: easily picking C here. He's already a good sized rookie. He doesn't have great length for C, but his aggresiveness, energy, and hops make up for it. He operates best around the rim and on the offensive glass. He can clear the boards on defense and provide some interior defense as well. His shot may never be very consistent which is why I said "easily picking C here". If he was a knockdown shooter (e.g., Bjelica, Barnes, Bogdan, etc. level), I think you're probably looking at either PF or C without much of a difference.

So we have 1 PG, 2 SGs, 1 SF/PF, 1 PF, & 1 C.

I'm having trouble seeing Giles as a "death lineup" piece when considering our other core pieces. His lack of size at C and his lack of shooting at PF lay that to rest for me.

So really we have 1 PG, 2 SGs, 1 SF/PF, & 1 C.

I think we can get by with a Fox / Hield / Bogdan / Barnes / Bagley death/closing lineup. That is still very good. However, if we wanted to optimize the potential of our core pieces, I'm locking Fox in at PG, Hield at SG, Barnes at SF or PF, and Bagley at C. That means I would look for another SF/PF to complete this death lineup of the future. This is why I brought up Porter Jr. (still holding out hope ) in another thread.

A Fox / Hield / Barnes / Porter / Bagley death lineup would be very impressive and tough to beat as it grows together.

Now I understand that's a lot of words and you're probably dozing off by now, but the reason I wrote all of that was to circle back and say, why would we pay Vucevic $20+ mil a year knowing he would have to play the position that would be Bagley's most effective position in late game situations? If we're trying to optimize our lineup and have this core take us as far as they can, I see Bagley sliding up to C and having that money spent on a SF/PF.

I'm willing to listen and be convinced otherwise in regards to Vucevic, but that's where my head is at right now. Do we take one step forward by signing Vucevic (admitting we would be better by signing him) only to limit the remaining amount of steps we can take after that move?

I appreciate your analysis, but think you are way premature in your assessment of Giles. He’s only played in a few NBA games, and with limited minutes. And he’s barely 17 years old! Ok, I exaggerate, but only a little. I think he will get bigger and stronger. How could he not? And we’ve yet to see the shooter that he will become in another season or two. Giles has played 568 min so far in his young NBA career. That’s what you would get from a starter in 17-18 games. I’m not predicting a HOF career for Harry. But I see no reason to project limits on his ceiling.

 

[BigVirg]

As a side note, Texas and Florida do not have a state income tax. Everything else being equal that's a serious structural disadvantage that the Kings need to overcome when negotiating for free agents.

Any competent agent or business manager would be doing their clients a disservice if they didn't bring that up.

I'll take that a step further. If their manager had a business background they'd be buying assets with huge depreciation under the new tax reform and find major tax shelter. I'm not sure how many athletes are doing this but they should be. Paying millions in taxes every year is a tough pill to swallow regardless of your yearly earnings.

 

[Suicide King]

Well it has also been called the anchor of the defense.

This line of argument is constantly baffles me. Clearly it's a team game. NOTHING is ever the sole fault of one player or position. Does that mean that we never criticize individuals? Or does every criticism have to be prefaced with a paragraph stating how despite the criticisms to follow said player does bring other things to the table? It's a forum and ideas are going to be repeated multiple times by multiple posters - I kind of assume that any argument or point being made should be taken in context of the historical bias of the poster, previous points made etc.

Again to my honest question - do you or do you not agree that defensive rebounding is one of our biggest problems? Do you or do you not agree that interior defense is another one of our biggest problems? If you do, don't you think that we should care less about switching our center onto Steph Curry and more about securing more boards? I'm not setting out to bash anyone, my intention is team improvement, but I don't see how you answer that question without in some way or another implicating Willie Cauley Stein.

Just for the fun of it, here are some of the old pre-draft WCS threads to see how perceptions have shifted.
https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/willy-cauley-stein-interview.60866/
https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/can-wcss-d-make-up-for-his-lack-of-o.60447/
https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/2015-draft-prospects.57720/
https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/willie-cauley-stein-is-your-newest-sacramento-king.61353/


Some great gems include:
@gunks

To answer your honest question, yes rebounding and interior defense need to improve. Where I disagree is that any one issue is holding us back from being a top tier team. Our early season success came with an excellent assist to turnover ratio. Our slumps come with the opposite. I don't see a lot of people bemoaning the fact that in most of our losses you can go straight to the A/TO ratio in the box score and get a good idea of whether we won or lost.Point being that we have many facets of our overall game to address, and being a young squad going from slowest pace in the league to second fastest, it is not surprising. I am not arguing that sticking a Steven Adams (etc) in place of Willie won't improve our rebounding and interior defense. However Joerger runs a lot of his offense through his bigs in the high post and Willie does an excellent job there with the exception of his jump shot. Steven Adams (whom I like a lot) isn't any more of a jump shooting threat nor is he going to take anyone to the rack from the high post like Willie can. I just think some get tunnel vision and only focus on a limited scope of our deficiencies. Maybe you get some more rebounding and some blocks, but what do you give up? It isn't just switch ability like some like to portray.


The only reason Willie should be singled out to me is due to the fact we have to make a decision with him soon. Everyone who posts here wants us to be successful and everyone is going to have a different idea on what that is going to take. Personally, as I have stated, I don't believe any one aspect will catapult us to greatness and it is going to take time for everything to come together and reach whatever apex it can given our team make up. We don't have time with regards to Willie and I can appreciate that.

 

[bajaden]

How are they affording all of those players? If they sign Vucevic to any type of max I’d expect them to lose one to two of the existing core

Vucevic will be highly pursued. Starting with Orlando, a city he likes, who have already put Bamba on the market with their probable intention of keeping him

Well, the truth is, there's nothing stopping us from paying them if we want to pony up the money it takes. We have the bird rights on all of our core players. And we can go over the cap, or even the luxury cap, as long as were willing to pay the money. I can't speak for Vivek or the other owners, but I suspect that if were competing for a championship in a couple of years, they may be willing to do that. Remember inflation will absorb some of the salary increases. The cap is projected to go up to 109 mil this next offseason and up to around 119 mil the following season.

That said, you can't sign someone if they don't want to come here. So we'll see. Orlando can pay Vucevic more than anyone else, but at the same time, he might be more interested in playing on a team that's more ready to contend. Ever since I misplaced my crystal ball, I've lost my ability to see into peoples minds. What's important to me, is that we don't take a step backwards. I'm not opposed to replacing Willie with Vucevic, but I would be opposed to replacing Willie with an Ed Davis, or a Nerlens Noel. This team is ready to make some noise, and they won't do it with players like that at center.

 

[ParniValjak]

I mentioned earlier in another post that I'm still undecided on Vucevic.

On one hand, he would make us better right now. I don't doubt that. He's very skilled offensively and can stretch the floor. He's underrated defensively and is a very good rebounder. His floor spacing makes for a good fit next to Bagley.

The reason I pause on him right now is a much more long term question and when thinking through to the endgame. When I think of our current core pieces, I try to think of which position is (or will be) their best position if we needed to close a game out for the last 7 minutes.

• Fox: no question it's PG
• Hield: no question it's SG. His length limits his potential to guard SFs regularly
• Bogdan: I lean SG here but I would still consider him effective in a SF role considering he has excellent length for a SG
• Barnes: I think he can easily be a SF or PF without there being much difference. I lean towards SF because his length isn't great but he's deceptively very strong.
• Giles: I don't think he'll ever have the size, rim protection, rebounding ability to play C so I have to say PF here. However, his shooting very much would hurt a "death lineup"
• Bagley: easily picking C here. He's already a good sized rookie. He doesn't have great length for C, but his aggresiveness, energy, and hops make up for it. He operates best around the rim and on the offensive glass. He can clear the boards on defense and provide some interior defense as well. His shot may never be very consistent which is why I said "easily picking C here". If he was a knockdown shooter (e.g., Bjelica, Barnes, Bogdan, etc. level), I think you're probably looking at either PF or C without much of a difference.

So we have 1 PG, 2 SGs, 1 SF/PF, 1 PF, & 1 C.

I'm having trouble seeing Giles as a "death lineup" piece when considering our other core pieces. His lack of size at C and his lack of shooting at PF lay that to rest for me.

So really we have 1 PG, 2 SGs, 1 SF/PF, & 1 C.

I think we can get by with a Fox / Hield / Bogdan / Barnes / Bagley death/closing lineup. That is still very good. However, if we wanted to optimize the potential of our core pieces, I'm locking Fox in at PG, Hield at SG, Barnes at SF or PF, and Bagley at C. That means I would look for another SF/PF to complete this death lineup of the future. This is why I brought up Porter Jr. (still holding out hope ) in another thread.

A Fox / Hield / Barnes / Porter / Bagley death lineup would be very impressive and tough to beat as it grows together.

Now I understand that's a lot of words and you're probably dozing off by now, but the reason I wrote all of that was to circle back and say, why would we pay Vucevic $20+ mil a year knowing he would have to play the position that would be Bagley's most effective position in late game situations? If we're trying to optimize our lineup and have this core take us as far as they can, I see Bagley sliding up to C and having that money spent on a SF/PF.

I'm willing to listen and be convinced otherwise in regards to Vucevic, but that's where my head is at right now. Do we take one step forward by signing Vucevic (admitting we would be better by signing him) only to limit the remaining amount of steps we can take after that move?

Your closing lineup is partly determined by your opponent.

If you are up against GSW and they have Curry, Thomspon, KD, Green and Cousins closing, I am pretty sure you would not want to finish the game with Bagley at C and Barnes at PF unless of course you are looking to lose the game.

 

[twslam07]

Your closing lineup is partly determined by your opponent.

If you are up against GSW and they have Curry, Thomspon, KD, Green and Cousins closing, I am pretty sure you would not want to finish the game with Bagley at C and Barnes at PF unless of course you are looking to lose the game.

Can you explain why you think this?

 

[twslam07]

I appreciate your analysis, but think you are way premature in your assessment of Giles. He’s only played in a few NBA games, and with limited minutes. And he’s barely 17 years old! Ok, I exaggerate, but only a little. I think he will get bigger and stronger. How could he not? And we’ve yet to see the shooter that he will become in another season or two. Giles has played 568 min so far in his young NBA career. That’s what you would get from a starter in 17-18 games. I’m not predicting a HOF career for Harry. But I see no reason to project limits on his ceiling.

By no means am I labeling Giles a finished product. He could become a 40%+ 3PT shooter in a few years for all we know. Is it likely? I don't think so considering he has only shot 5 attempts and hasn't made one in his NBA career.

The projection is just based on my own assessment of where I see their development headed and what I think is the most likely scenario. Am I claiming there is no other possible outcome? No, but I'm just trying to play the odds.

 

[ParniValjak]

Can you explain why you think this?

Because both offensively and defensively you are at a disadvantage with the smaller line up against that line up.

Neither Barnes or Bagley can go with DMC defensively. Whoever is at SF (I assume Bogi, its a massive mismatch against KD). The line up gets destroyed on the boards as well.

Sure, you want to push the pace and score to close out the game but before you can do any of that, you need to be able to defend and rebound the ball. Something the closing line up you proposed just cannot do against that GSW line up.

I am not saying that you cannot close games with that line up against other team or even GSW if they throw a different line up your way (e.g. Green at C and KD at PF) but if that is your closing line up you role out regardless of what your opponent is doing, good freaking luck because in certain cases you will need it.

 

[joemama]

Absolutely

Not.

 

[mac]

To answer your honest question, yes rebounding and interior defense need to improve. Where I disagree is that any one issue is holding us back from being a top tier team. Our early season success came with an excellent assist to turnover ratio. Our slumps come with the opposite. I don't see a lot of people bemoaning the fact that in most of our losses you can go straight to the A/TO ratio in the box score and get a good idea of whether we won or lost.Point being that we have many facets of our overall game to address, and being a young squad going from slowest pace in the league to second fastest, it is not surprising. I am not arguing that sticking a Steven Adams (etc) in place of Willie won't improve our rebounding and interior defense. However Joerger runs a lot of his offense through his bigs in the high post and Willie does an excellent job there with the exception of his jump shot. Steven Adams (whom I like a lot) isn't any more of a jump shooting threat nor is he going to take anyone to the rack from the high post like Willie can. I just think some get tunnel vision and only focus on a limited scope of our deficiencies. Maybe you get some more rebounding and some blocks, but what do you give up? It isn't just switch ability like some like to portray.


The only reason Willie should be singled out to me is due to the fact we have to make a decision with him soon. Everyone who posts here wants us to be successful and everyone is going to have a different idea on what that is going to take. Personally, as I have stated, I don't believe any one aspect will catapult us to greatness and it is going to take time for everything to come together and reach whatever apex it can given our team make up. We don't have time with regards to Willie and I can appreciate that.

First of all, this is a good well thought out post I can get behind. Why don't you start a thread on A/TO? The reason other points don't get discussed is because the people who have those views aren't bringing them up! We don't disagree on many of the points you have raised overall. I do think that it is naive to assume that the team will just grow organically out of it's problems, and even if it did, that shouldn't stop us from looking to improve the team in any way possible (without ignoring chemistry of course). The Warriors still went after Durant and Boogie.

The reason why Willie is being singled out is primarily as you say, because a decision needs to be made. But it's not just that, it's also his inconsistency which causes the deliberation in the first place. Taking a step back, we rightly need to ask what it is we want from the C position, what it is we want from Willie, and then consider how he stacks up against that. In my personal view, his offensive ability is far too inconsistent and I disagree with the sense that he's effective at the high post driving, finishing or facilitating the offense. We're far better off running pick and roll with him. Willie at his best has been when he's rebounding the ball hard, challenging shots inside and finishing plays around the rim. He does not do any of these 3 on a consistent basis.

We've been discussing Willie for a long time now, and the obvious answer has always been to see what price he commands. Now that we're actually approaching that event having not traded him, it's important that we know who the real WCS is. I thought this thread was a good one considering most of us believe and hoped that his real value would be as a top tier defender. At this point, he is not that.

One last point - on the offensive end, I wonder how much of team biasness there is for both critics and defenders of WCS when gauging his effectiveness. I for one am inclined to believe that what he brings on the offensive end is really not that unique and might be easier to replace than made out. We also have to consider that Bagley is going to provide much of the front court offense moving forward, and that should again cause us to rethink what exactly we need from WCS/substitute

 

[twslam07]

Because both offensively and defensively you are at a disadvantage with the smaller line up against that line up.

Neither Barnes or Bagley can go with DMC defensively. Whoever is at SF (I assume Bogi, its a massive mismatch against KD). The line up gets destroyed on the boards as well.

Sure, you want to push the pace and score to close out the game but before you can do any of that, you need to be able to defend and rebound the ball. Something the closing line up you proposed just cannot do against that GSW line up.

I am not saying that you cannot close games with that line up against other team or even GSW if they throw a different line up your way (e.g. Green at C and KD at PF) but if that is your closing line up you role out regardless of what your opponent is doing, good freaking luck because in certain cases you will need it.

You're talking about present day. I am not. I am talking about when our core is in or close to it's prime.

However, you're saying things like Bagley can't handle Cousins defensively. Perhaps you're right (today), but I wouldn't be so sure 3 years from now. Needless to say, you had to reference arguably the best lineup we have ever seen in the NBA that is lucky enough to play 5 all stars together. We hardly should point to outliers especially when those outliers will not even exist after this season (If they keep at least one of Durant or Thompson, they can't retain Cousins unless he wants to take the MLE)

You also mention Bogdanovic at SF against Durant. Again, my ideal future state would be to add another SF/PF (I will continue to look at Porter) to a lineup of Fox/Hield/Barnes/Bagley. Do you feel better about Barnes/Porter vs. Durant/Draymond, or considering Cousins will likely be gone after this season, do you feel better about Barnes/Porter vs. Iguodala/Durant? I sure do. But your premise is a bit unrealistic considering you're referencing a lineup that won't be together in the future, and I'm talking about the effects of signing Vucevic has on our future.

I think a Fox / Hield / Barnes / Porter / Bagley future death lineup will match up just fine with a future Warriors team that will have at least one of these players removed from their roster next year: Thompson, Durant, Cousins. That's not to say we will be a better team, but I think the matchups are fine or as reasonable as it can be.

Again, the point I'm making is why would we invest $20+ mil in a player that will impact our future, optimal lineup? You may not agree that Bagley at C makes for the most optimal lineup in the future, and that's fine. I'm totally okay agreeing to disagree on that point. This is just my take on how I project our core pieces developing & growing in the future.

 

[The_Jamal]

I mentioned earlier in another post that I'm still undecided on Vucevic.

On one hand, he would make us better right now. I don't doubt that. He's very skilled offensively and can stretch the floor. He's underrated defensively and is a very good rebounder. His floor spacing makes for a good fit next to Bagley.

The reason I pause on him right now is a much more long term question and when thinking through to the endgame. When I think of our current core pieces, I try to think of which position is (or will be) their best position if we needed to close a game out for the last 7 minutes.

• Fox: no question it's PG
• Hield: no question it's SG. His length limits his potential to guard SFs regularly
• Bogdan: I lean SG here but I would still consider him effective in a SF role considering he has excellent length for a SG
• Barnes: I think he can easily be a SF or PF without there being much difference. I lean towards SF because his length isn't great but he's deceptively very strong.
• Giles: I don't think he'll ever have the size, rim protection, rebounding ability to play C so I have to say PF here. However, his shooting very much would hurt a "death lineup"
• Bagley: easily picking C here. He's already a good sized rookie. He doesn't have great length for C, but his aggresiveness, energy, and hops make up for it. He operates best around the rim and on the offensive glass. He can clear the boards on defense and provide some interior defense as well. His shot may never be very consistent which is why I think it's "easily" C. If he was a knockdown shooter, I think you're probably looking at either PF or C.

So we have 1 PG, 2 SGs, 1 SF/PF, 1 PF, & 1 C. I'm having trouble seeing Giles as a "death lineup" piece with his lack of size for C and his lack of shooting at PF. So really we have 1 PG, 2 SGs, 1 SF/PF, & 1 C.

I think we can get by with a Fox / Hield / Bogdan / Barnes / Bagley death lineup. That still is very good. However, if we wanted to optimize our core pieces, I'm locking Fox in at PG, Hield at SG, Barnes at SF or PF, and Bagley at C. That means I would look for another SF/PF to complete this death lineup of the future. This is why I brought up Porter Jr. in another thread. a Fox / Hield / Barnes / Porter / Bagley death lineup would be very impressive and tough to beat.

Now I understand that's a lot of words and you're probably dozing by now, but the reason I wrote all of that was to circle back and say, why would we pay Vucevic $20+ mil a year knowing he would have to play the position that would be Bagley's most effective position in late game situations? If we're trying to optimize our lineup and have this core take us as far as they can, I see Bagley sliding up to C and having that money spent on a SF/PF.

I'm willing to listen and be convinced otherwise, but that's where my head is at with Vucevic right now. Do we take one step forward (admitting we would be better by signing him) only to limit the remaining amount of steps we can take?

Think you're just getting too caught up in niche scenarios when

I mean, the key with Vuc is he's better operating out of the high post as a passer and he's added a 3-ball the last 2 seasons for the required floor spacing (33% on 383 attempts, up to 38% this season on 171 attempts).

That leaves the low-post offensively to Bagley and we get the added benefit of playing 2 excellent rebounding big men when a lot of teams want to go small late in the game. Flexibility isn't a bad thing either and we can play match-ups depending on whats needed.

I completely agree that Porter would be absolutely sick, but he's not coming anytime soon. And there aren't many players with his skill-set to make that lineup work. It'd be a massive mistake to pass on a player of Vuc's caliber holding out hope to get a player that's really hard to find.

 

[twslam07]

Think you're just getting too caught up in niche scenarios when

I mean, the key with Vuc is he's better operating out of the high post as a passer and he's added a 3-ball the last 2 seasons for the required floor spacing (33% on 383 attempts, up to 38% this season on 171 attempts).

That leaves the low-post offensively to Bagley and we get the added benefit of playing 2 excellent rebounding big men when a lot of teams want to go small late in the game. Flexibility isn't a bad thing either and we can play match-ups depending on whats needed.

I completely agree that Porter would be absolutely sick, but he's not coming anytime soon. And there aren't many players with his skill-set to make that lineup work. It'd be a massive mistake to pass on a player of Vuc's caliber holding out hope to get a player that's really hard to find.

It's a fair point, and why I'm, for the most part, still undecided on Vucevic.

I think my stance really comes down to Bagley having the athleticism, quickness, etc. to be effective in switches and defending the pick & roll (thinking about him at C). I question this ability/potential with Vucevic and how he would fair down the stretch of a game if teams are continuing to attack him in the pick & roll. I haven't watched him enough to know how good he is in the pick & roll defensively and when switched onto smaller players. For example, if a team continued to try and run Vuc on picks until he is matched up with Harden. Most players would say defending Harden is a losing scenario regardless, but for me, it comes down to would I rather have Porter (hypothetically we have him)/Bagley defend him/that situation or Bagley/Vucevic?

I've seen Cs who have average athleticism be taken advantage of down the stretch of games and in the playoffs. I don't want to end up in a situation where we pay a guy $20+ mil a year to be very good in the regular season or through the first 3 quarters but is a net negative or neutral in the playoffs or in the 4th quarter.

For those that have watched him quite a bit, I'm curious to hear their input is on Vucevic's defensive ability on switches and in the pick & roll.

 

[Suicide King]

First of all, this is a good well thought out post I can get behind. Why don't you start a thread on A/TO? The reason other points don't get discussed is because the people who have those views aren't bringing them up! We don't disagree on many of the points you have raised overall. I do think that it is naive to assume that the team will just grow organically out of it's problems, and even if it did, that shouldn't stop us from looking to improve the team in any way possible (without ignoring chemistry of course). The Warriors still went after Durant and Boogie.

The reason why Willie is being singled out is primarily as you say, because a decision needs to be made. But it's not just that, it's also his inconsistency which causes the deliberation in the first place. Taking a step back, we rightly need to ask what it is we want from the C position, what it is we want from Willie, and then consider how he stacks up against that. In my personal view, his offensive ability is far too inconsistent and I disagree with the sense that he's effective at the high post driving, finishing or facilitating the offense. We're far better off running pick and roll with him. Willie at his best has been when he's rebounding the ball hard, challenging shots inside and finishing plays around the rim. He does not do any of these 3 on a consistent basis.

We've been discussing Willie for a long time now, and the obvious answer has always been to see what price he commands. Now that we're actually approaching that event having not traded him, it's important that we know who the real WCS is. I thought this thread was a good one considering most of us believe and hoped that his real value would be as a top tier defender. At this point, he is not that.

One last point - on the offensive end, I wonder how much of team biasness there is for both critics and defenders of WCS when gauging his effectiveness. I for one am inclined to believe that what he brings on the offensive end is really not that unique and might be easier to replace than made out. We also have to consider that Bagley is going to provide much of the front court offense moving forward, and that should again cause us to rethink what exactly we need from WCS/substitute

I think the big question is what does coach Joerger expect from the center position. What we look for or want is not going to matter in the end. I have no idea if coach expects more from Willie or not but he calls the plays and runs the team. It seems pretty clear coach was a factor in us targeting Barnes. When it comes time to re-sign Willie or not, I bet he is going to have a large say on the matter.

Can/ will Bagley take that spot in time? On the surface he seems like he could be the rebounding, shot blocking high flying lob target, Willie prototype we hoped Vlade drafted #6 in 15'. Again though we won't know for some time, and time is ticking to make a decision. I imagine Dave has a better idea of who the real WCS is with the added context of whether or not that is what he wants going forward.

Also, I do agree that we may be able to find someone who can mimic a lot of what Willie does, but can we get them and how close of a facsimile would we get? Would they be better at the things we get on to WCS about? Unfortunately for us the answers would only come after we decide Willie's fate as a King.

One last thing I will say regarding resigning Willie. With him, you have his bird rights and can go over the cap. This may or may not become something of tremendous importance in the next few seasons when it comes time to pony up for the rest of our core. The Warriors wouldn't be the Warriors as we know them without the fact they drafted most of their core and thus were able to go well above the cap. I know a lot would worry whether or not Vivek and the other owners would go over the cap. I think if we are fighting for championships, they would. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Ozymandias]

I think Willie has earned the right to be compared to the leagues starters.... u really gonna tell me reserves who play limited minutes, vs other backups, are better than Willie because of their efficiency in small sample sizes? While we run this guy out there vs the likes of all the elite C's...


Look at the film, Willie last night had 2 spectacular defensive sequences on Steph Curry in quick succession the first of which Steph tried all his tricks trying to fool Willie at the basket, and he actually did catch Willie, but not enough, willie was turned around but still had the instincts to put his arm up and jump in the right direction and he detered the shot without looking.


Willie is most excellent when switched onto a guard, and we're in the western conference with teams like Golden State and Houston who like to ISO bigs on their guards as much as possible...


Draymond Green said after the game "thats the fastest team i've ever played against" Willie is a pretty big part of that TBH. Especially early in this game he was running DeMarcus around quite a bit.


This team is #1 in fast break points and Willie is a key contributing factor to that, on both ends. He seems to consistently start about 2 fastbreaks per game.

Also the Kings as a whole have been really good in the 4th quarter, and Willie has been one of the teams top performers in the 4th...

Plus this guy is a checkdown on offense, when a lot of our other guys drive and get shut down, or pick up their dribble. they often look to Willie to reset the offense.

 

[ppine]

Willie is an okay defender with some weaknesses. He is a below average rebounder and an okay offensive player.