Jason Terry - buyout or no play? (split)
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
Confirmed... no buyout:
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/21/6179669/malone-terry-will-not-join-kings.html#mi_rss=Kings/NBA
He'll just chill for the rest of the season. We'll probably trade him over the summer.
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/21/6179669/malone-terry-will-not-join-kings.html#mi_rss=Kings/NBA
He'll just chill for the rest of the season. We'll probably trade him over the summer.
.
S
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10501814/jason-terry-sacramento-kings-sit-remainder-season
wow this is interesting. sounds like he wanted a buyout and Pete D said hell no. we're definitely gonna be seeing a ton of Jimmer and Ray Mc now. Which really now that I think about it is probably the best case scenario for those 2 guys and the Kings right now. We wasted a 10th rd pick on Jimmer up to this point. However he has absolutely improved since his rookie season. This is officially his time to show what he can do once and for all. I was not his biggest fan (as some of you may remember) but I've been seeing something special out of him this year vs years past. Lets hope he can find that BYU version of himself again in the NBA and at worst build himself some solid trade value.
As far as Ray goes he's ok.... lol! .... he's athletic.... but really just a top of the line D-leaguer right this second. Clearly playing more mins at this level will help him grow.... could be a back up in this league.
wow this is interesting. sounds like he wanted a buyout and Pete D said hell no. we're definitely gonna be seeing a ton of Jimmer and Ray Mc now. Which really now that I think about it is probably the best case scenario for those 2 guys and the Kings right now. We wasted a 10th rd pick on Jimmer up to this point. However he has absolutely improved since his rookie season. This is officially his time to show what he can do once and for all. I was not his biggest fan (as some of you may remember) but I've been seeing something special out of him this year vs years past. Lets hope he can find that BYU version of himself again in the NBA and at worst build himself some solid trade value.
As far as Ray goes he's ok.... lol! .... he's athletic.... but really just a top of the line D-leaguer right this second. Clearly playing more mins at this level will help him grow.... could be a back up in this league.
S
I'd say the Kings have officially raised the Tanking flag with this move. All of our moves point to the future.... Saving money, more movable pieces(lol! we hope), opening up playing time to test out the question marks and youth on the roster, and finally were gonna improve our draft lottery chances.
Next year Terrys contract will be super easy to move even if he's worthless as a player, same goes with Evans, Outlaw, Acy, and Williams.
This draft or next years trade deadline could and should be HUGE in constructing a playoff caliber team.
Next year Terrys contract will be super easy to move even if he's worthless as a player, same goes with Evans, Outlaw, Acy, and Williams.
This draft or next years trade deadline could and should be HUGE in constructing a playoff caliber team.
S
well .... this is what i've noticed this year. If Ben starts, MT comes off the bench for most of the back up mins, If MT starts Ben played most of the backup mins. So MT's gone... we have to play somebody. Jimmer was avg 11 mins a game before the trade ... thats 11 mins greater than 0... so I wouldn't say the coach never played him. He has technically been our back up PG since the Gay trade. Jimmer played 27 mins when his single handily smashed the Knicks. He was sick in the last game only played 4mins but expect him to play a lot more. He's WAY more NBA ready than Ray Mc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jimmer won't be here next season, Ray Mac will, he should get the minutes now. Jimmer is what he is, a great shooter with high basketball IQ but physically limited and below average ball handling for a PG. He can find a role in this league surrounded by great players, but it won't be in Sacramento. If he could ever become a great ball handler, then all of a sudden you have something, but my guess is that it will never happen.
T
I knew he wouldn't play here. Jimmer will get to earn his money. He can showcase himself as a guy who CAN play 2 positions for you. This is a very Kings like event. When you suck as an organization and teams know it...it is very hard to unsuccessful. I know Malone will be very happy when jimmer goes away.
I'm all for Ray playing. However, I'm not all for the IT/Ray lineup we saw last game. That's just dumb. If we're going to commit to playing him more and developing him, do it while cutting IT's mins and play him next to an actual SG.
What I don't like early on after all this development and increased min talk about Ben and Ray is that we're half-assing the strategy. Traded MT and will start Ben, play him more mins but are doing so thus far in the same system and next to the same PG he does not fit next to at all. There's no role for Ben next to IT. Then we hear Ray will get more mins and much of those last game were next to IT playing off the ball, rather than subbing in for IT.
It's spinning wheels. It's committing to development but at the same time not doing what's necessary to even come close to maximizing that development plan. What makes the most sense to me given Malone's statements, chemistry this season between players and MT's trade is to play Ray/Ben some mins together each night. See if they click at all as IT/Ben have atrocious chemistry. Yet, we haven't seen any of that.
And this doesn't mean I think Ben is ready for this. I don't. But if we're going with this development plan then do everyone a favor and and at least attempt to help these two succeed and put them more in a position of strength to do so. Don't tell me the plan is to develop those two these final 28 games and play them more mins, then turn around and put them in bad situations on the court because you suddenly feel the need to try to win these games, Malone. Those strategies work against each other.
BTW, Malone needing to come out last week and say there is no philosophical difference between he and the FO tells me there is. If he's on board with developing these two an playing them more mins, we'll see changes which we haven't yet seen. Continue playing them as you are and it's pretty f'ing clear Malone is not on board with maximizing the development of these two.
What I don't like early on after all this development and increased min talk about Ben and Ray is that we're half-assing the strategy. Traded MT and will start Ben, play him more mins but are doing so thus far in the same system and next to the same PG he does not fit next to at all. There's no role for Ben next to IT. Then we hear Ray will get more mins and much of those last game were next to IT playing off the ball, rather than subbing in for IT.
It's spinning wheels. It's committing to development but at the same time not doing what's necessary to even come close to maximizing that development plan. What makes the most sense to me given Malone's statements, chemistry this season between players and MT's trade is to play Ray/Ben some mins together each night. See if they click at all as IT/Ben have atrocious chemistry. Yet, we haven't seen any of that.
And this doesn't mean I think Ben is ready for this. I don't. But if we're going with this development plan then do everyone a favor and and at least attempt to help these two succeed and put them more in a position of strength to do so. Don't tell me the plan is to develop those two these final 28 games and play them more mins, then turn around and put them in bad situations on the court because you suddenly feel the need to try to win these games, Malone. Those strategies work against each other.
BTW, Malone needing to come out last week and say there is no philosophical difference between he and the FO tells me there is. If he's on board with developing these two an playing them more mins, we'll see changes which we haven't yet seen. Continue playing them as you are and it's pretty f'ing clear Malone is not on board with maximizing the development of these two.