Kings active in trade talks?

[Gilles]

Marshall is putting up numbers in a D'Antoni system that accentuates his skills and somewhat hides his shortcomings. He's basically Andre Miller lite. And by that I mean the Andre Miller of today.

Well, at this point in the season he's leading 3pt shooter in the league at .494 on almost 4 attempts per game. Sure, he's in the middle of very hot streak, but I don't think he's going to drop back to .333. Marshall is taking shots within the flow of the game, so it's not like D'Antoni allows him to take huge amount of shots and get into rhythm.
Recently saw a few videos on shooting, and Chris Mullin said, that you can still become really good shooter even with a bad form, but you have to take 1000 shots every day instead of 200. Feels like Marshall is hoisting at least 1500, while McLemore is barely getting over 100.
P.S. His defense is still very bad, even though he appears to really try.

 

[Kingster]

IF the Kings make a deadline deal I can't imagine it would be a one for one trade anyway unless it's something like Jimmer's expiring deal for a bench roleplayer. A more realistic deal would be IT, Jimmer and either Thornton or Williams for a bigger salaried player.

And while for THIS season it would be pretty crushing to deal IT or Thompson without getting back a capable starter at that position, the reality is that the Kings are 17-34 and the focus should be on improving for the future. For instance if you could trade IT and Thompson (and maybe others) for a stud SG that fit perfectly with Cuz and Gay then you do it and limp along for the rest of the season with terrible PF and PG play.

But let's look at that. IT has the value; none of the other players do. So it's not like you're adding value to value to get higher in value than IT. It's more like: IT + 0 = IT Value. Or, if you want to get slightly more negative and think of Thornton as an actual negative value: IT + (-X) = Less than IT Value. At best, IT + Williams = Very marginally higher value (If you think Williams is worth something).

Now if you want to deal IT AND Thompson, then I can see getting one player with higher value than either one of them in return. But then you're probably back in the situation where one other starting position gets significantly weaker. If you get a higher value pg in this scenario, you just lost your starting power forward . And if you get a power forward in this scenario you just lost your starting pg. Neither of which is very replacable. IT, in particular, is not replacable because you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. You mention this as an option above, but is it really an option? Can we really imagine the Kings management leaving this team to be quarterbacked by Jimmer and McCollum? That's a freaking nightmare. If you want Cousins & Co to get sunk, that's a torpedo at midships. At least with Thompson you'd be left with Landry, but that's bound to hurt that power forward position and Cousins would be left with nobody to help him on either defense or rebounding. All in all, it doesn't look to me like the Kings have much to work with. If DA can convert the mud into a noteworthy gem, I'll be highly impressed.

 

[treach1976]

But let's look at that. IT has the value; none of the other players do. So it's not like you're adding value to value to get higher in value than IT. It's more like: IT + 0 = IT Value. Or, if you want to get slightly more negative and think of Thornton as an actual negative value: IT + (-X) = Less than IT Value. At best, IT + Williams = Very marginally higher value (If you think Williams is worth something).

Now if you want to deal IT AND Thompson, then I can see getting one player with higher value than either one of them in return. But then you're probably back in the situation where one other starting position gets significantly weaker. If you get a higher value pg in this scenario, you just lost your starting power forward . And if you get a power forward in this scenario you just lost your starting pg. Neither of which is very replacable. IT, in particular, is not replacable because you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. You mention this as an option above, but is it really an option? Can we really imagine the Kings management leaving this team to be quarterbacked by Jimmer and McCollum? That's a freaking nightmare. If you want Cousins & Co to get sunk, that's a torpedo at midships. At least with Thompson you'd be left with Landry, but that's bound to hurt that power forward position and Cousins would be left with nobody to help him on either defense or rebounding. All in all, it doesn't look to me like the Kings have much to work with. If DA can convert the mud into a noteworthy gem, I'll be highly impressed.

If you were left with Jimmer as your starting PG, I don't think it would be a ship sinker, you would just have to play Rudy as more of a Point-Forward. Bench being run by McCallum couldn't get any worse than it is now.

 

[funkykingston]

Now if you want to deal IT AND Thompson, then I can see getting one player with higher value than either one of them in return. But then you're probably back in the situation where one other starting position gets significantly weaker. If you get a higher value pg in this scenario, you just lost your starting power forward . And if you get a power forward in this scenario you just lost your starting pg. Neither of which is very replacable. IT, in particular, is not replacable because you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. You mention this as an option above, but is it really an option? Can we really imagine the Kings management leaving this team to be quarterbacked by Jimmer and McCollum? That's a freaking nightmare.

Yes. YES. A THOUSAND TIMES YES.

Obviously it would make the games harder to watch for the remainder of the season, but with the Kings only winning 1 of 3 games now and going 2-8 in their last ten, how much uglier could it be?

I think if the Kings do make a big trade it would be for a starting PF or PG. But even if it was for an Afflalo or Klay Thompson level SG (not that Thompson is even available) then I'd be happy with the deal and rely on the offseason to balance out the roster. Next year Outlaw and Thornton (and even Gay) are ending contracts, making them MUCH easier to move and unless they somehow trade it the Kings would have a lottery pick in the deepest, most talent rich draft in years and losing a few more games only helps in that regard.

Besides which, there are plenty of other stopgap PGs that could be acquired relatively easily if IT were dealt.

There's a catch-22 with IT anyway. He's a free agent at the end of this season. Are the Kings prepared to pay him $7 million or so a year and essentially lock up a core of players (Cuz, Gay, IT and to a lesser extent McLemore, Thompson and Landry) that has performed poorly this season? I'd love Thomas as a sixth man but is he willing to return for sixth man money or even willing to play that role long term? Or would he chase the dollars and/or a starting job elsewhere?

For many reasons I think it is the best interests of the Kings to trade IT unless they have some assurances that he wants to return and is willing to play a major role off the bench.

 

[twslam07]

But let's look at that. IT has the value; none of the other players do. So it's not like you're adding value to value to get higher in value than IT. It's more like: IT + 0 = IT Value. Or, if you want to get slightly more negative and think of Thornton as an actual negative value: IT + (-X) = Less than IT Value. At best, IT + Williams = Very marginally higher value (If you think Williams is worth something).

Now if you want to deal IT AND Thompson, then I can see getting one player with higher value than either one of them in return. But then you're probably back in the situation where one other starting position gets significantly weaker. If you get a higher value pg in this scenario, you just lost your starting power forward . And if you get a power forward in this scenario you just lost your starting pg. Neither of which is very replacable. IT, in particular, is not replacable because you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. You mention this as an option above, but is it really an option? Can we really imagine the Kings management leaving this team to be quarterbacked by Jimmer and McCollum? That's a freaking nightmare. If you want Cousins & Co to get sunk, that's a torpedo at midships. At least with Thompson you'd be left with Landry, but that's bound to hurt that power forward position and Cousins would be left with nobody to help him on either defense or rebounding. All in all, it doesn't look to me like the Kings have much to work with. If DA can convert the mud into a noteworthy gem, I'll be highly impressed.

The reason Thomas has to be paired with someone else, is because you won't be able to bring anyone of value back who will match up with his salary.

This whole argument is just odd. You're talking in all specific hypotheticals. Is it that difficult to understand that a package including Thomas could help this team in the future? I know you are really worried about how we finish this season which is your main argument for hanging on to Thomas, but the fact of the matter is we need to be building a team that can compete either next year or the year after that (notice how I left out this year).

You mention Thomas is not replaceable in particular. Why not? What if we end up trading for Rondo. I would say that's a decent replacement. Wouldn't you? But then your argument will be that it will leave our bench depleted or our PF spot will be weak. Honestly, who really cares? We just got our third piece to build around. We'll take our lumps for the remainder of the year and add people in FA for the upcoming year.

The hardest players to get are your stars. Once you have them in place, then you start adding guys around them that compliment their games. If you take the other route and grab solid roleplayers first, you open yourself up to never competing for a championship but never being bad enough to get a high draft pick.

 

[Kingster]

If you were left with Jimmer as your starting PG, I don't think it would be a ship sinker, you would just have to play Rudy as more of a Point-Forward. Bench being run by McCallum couldn't get any worse than it is now.

Rudy Gay hasn't shown the passing skills to take on the bulk of pg duties. Just the opposite. I think that role would wear on him considerably. I think Gay is much more doable being in the point forward role for small increments of time, not 80-90% of the time. I can't even imagine Gay being the guy to bring the ball up the floor on a regular basis. Same with Jimmer, same with McCollum. Also, I think the bench with McCollum could be worse than what we have now. It can always get worse. I think you'd see a pretty severe meltdown with a "backcourt" of any mixture of those three.

 

[Kingster]

The reason Thomas has to be paired with someone else, is because you won't be able to bring anyone of value back who will match up with his salary.

This whole argument is just odd. You're talking in all specific hypotheticals. Is it that difficult to understand that a package including Thomas could help this team in the future? I know you are really worried about how we finish this season which is your main argument for hanging on to Thomas, but the fact of the matter is we need to be building a team that can compete either next year or the year after that (notice how I left out this year).

You mention Thomas is not replaceable in particular. Why not? What if we end up trading for Rondo. I would say that's a decent replacement. Wouldn't you? But then your argument will be that it will leave our bench depleted or our PF spot will be weak. Honestly, who really cares? We just got our third piece to build around. We'll take our lumps for the remainder of the year and add people in FA for the upcoming year.

Thomas isn't replacable in the "trade IT AND JT scenario" if the main guy with value you're getting back is a power forward. Then you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. Good luck with that.

Thomas is replacable in the "trade IT and JT scenario" if the main guy with value you're getting in return is a point guard. But then you're left without JT and the crumbs of Landry and Acy to take his place.

As far as Rondo is concerned, that's a pipe dream. The Kings aren't giving up value for an ACL. And Boston isn't going to be trading an All Star for ACL value unless they really believe that there is a high risk of reinjury and they just want to sell asap.

 

[treach1976]

Rudy Gay hasn't shown the passing skills to take on the bulk of pg duties. Just the opposite. I think that role would wear on him considerably. I think Gay is much more doable being in the point forward role for small increments of time, not 80-90% of the time. I can't even imagine Gay being the guy to bring the ball up the floor on a regular basis. Same with Jimmer, same with McCollum. Also, I think the bench with McCollum could be worse than what we have now. It can always get worse. I think you'd see a pretty severe meltdown with a "backcourt" of any mixture of those three.

For the record, Jimmer hasn't had a problem bringing the ball up the court at all this season. I don't remember any turnovers related to that recently. Last week was probably the most concerted full-press I've seen on him this year, and resulted in a few inbounding denials, (where it went to Gay or someone else) and that's about it. His one turnover was dribbling the ball off of his foot when he was trying to get around his guy at the top of the key. That was well after the ball had been brought up the court. Jimmer's biggest problem as the pg this year is that he's not fast enough to beat his guy off of the dribble consistently and the bench unit he plays with is not at all interested in moving to set picks. (edit... and of course defense, but that's a problem all of our guards struggle with)

 

[twslam07]

The problem I do see with Thomas is who is really going to want him? Obviously some contending teams could use him this year as a bench scorer, but then in the offseason he might go and chase a starting job for starting money. That scenario devalues Thomas. We could trade him to a team that could use him as a starting PG and thus resign him next offseason for starters money, but how many of those teams are there?

1. Brooklyn - Williams/Terry
2. Chicago - Rose
3. Denver - Lawson
4. Houston - Beverley/Lin
5. Indiana - Hill
6. Los Angeles Clippers - Paul/Collison
7. Memphis - Conley
8. Miami - Chalmers/Cole
9. Minnesota - Rubio/Barea
10. New York - Felton/Udrih
11. Oklahoma City - Westbrook/Jackson
12. Portland - Lillard/McCollum
13. Atlanta – Teague/L. Williams/Schroeder
14. Cleveland – Irving/Jack
15. New Orleans – Holiday/Evans/Rivers,/Roberts
16. Philadelphia – Carter-Williams/Wroten
17. Phoenix – Dragic/Bledsoe
18. Milwaukee – Knight
19. Washington – Wall
20. Boston – Rondo
21. Charlotte – Walker/Sessions
22. Detroit – Jennings
23. Golden State – Curry
24. San Antonio – Parker
25. Utah – Burke
26. Dallas - Calderon
27. Los Angeles Lakers - Farmar
28. Orlando - Nelson
29. Toronto - Lowry

I highlighted some teams that have arguably worse PGs then Thomas or teams that have been rumored to be moving their starting PG.

1. Miami - Do they really think Thomas starting next to Wade and James would be the best thing for the team? I don't think so. They have the perfect PGs already for that team. They could possibly use him as a sixth man, but then that means Miami won't want to pay him starters money next year therefore Thomas is devalued in their eyes.
2. Minnesota - Rubio has been rumored to be available, so they might be interested in making Thomas their starting PG. I personally wouldn't want Rubio, but if we could net like a Brewer and Dieng, I could get on board.
3. New York - Knicks might favor Thomas over Felton in the lineup, but what would we want in return? Shumpert and Hardaway Jr. are attractive pieces, but would they rather keep one of those guys on their rookie deal or pay Thomas starters money? The answer is up for interpretation.
4. Milwaukee - Does Milwaukee see Knight as their PG of the future or do they see Thomas as a better starting PG than Knight in the long run, I don't know. But Milwaukee wouldn't have to trade for him. They have plenty of cap space next year to sign him and they aren't competing this year so they can wait it out if they want him.
5. Boston - Rondo has come up in a lot of trade rumors. It seems that Boston is open to the idea of taking back Thomas. I'm not sure if they see him as a starter though, but if they do, they can sign him next year since they will have plenty of cap space after resigning Bradley.
6. Dallas - Has plenty of cap space to throw at Thomas next season and could possibly use him this year to make a run in the playoffs, but would a non-defensive backcourt of Calderon, Ellis, and Thomas be a recipe for success? I wouldn't bet on it.
7. Los Angeles Lakers - They are really weak at PG, but they have no use for his abilities this year. Also, they will have plenty of cap space to sign him next year.
8. Orlando - They also have no reason to get better this year, and they will have cap space to sign him next year. There's no reason to trade anyone of value.
9. Toronto - They have plenty of space to sign him next year, so the question is would they need him this year. They already have Lowry and Vazquez at PG so I would say no.

So it looks like Minnesota, New York, and Boston could be possible trading partners who wouldn't devalue him considering they would be open to making him their PG of the future. The other teams either have bad complimenting players, a better PG already, or have cap space to go after him next year.

Personally, I would rather create some more cap space for next offseason before the deadline, offer Thomas a sixth man's salary this coming offseason, and wait to see what happens. If a team offers him starters money, we can look into a sign and trade to bring a player back or let him walk. I don't think we will get much value for him before the deadline based on my analysis, but I could be wrong.

 

[twslam07]

Thomas isn't replacable in the "trade IT AND JT scenario" if the main guy with value you're getting back is a power forward. Then you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. Good luck with that.

Thomas is replacable in the "trade IT and JT scenario" if the main guy with value you're getting in return is a point guard. But then you're left without JT and the crumbs of Landry and Acy to take his place.

As far as Rondo is concerned, that's a pipe dream. The Kings aren't giving up value for an ACL. And Boston isn't going to be trading an All Star for ACL value unless they really believe that there is a high risk of reinjury and they just want to sell asap.

To those two points, I would say...who cares?

Are we competing for the playoffs this year? No. Are we trying to get better in the future? Yes. If a trade including Thomas and Thompson sets us up better for the future, I'm all for it. Why are you so stuck on the success of this year? Sure ballhandling would be much worse and we would be much smaller in the paint, but if it helps us in the future. I really don't give a crap.

You can speak to how Cousins will get pissed off and get frustrated yada, yada, yada... But he resigned with us knowing that turning around this franchise wasn't going to happen in a year. Cousins isn't stupid. If he sees the FO bringing in a player that will help us a lot going forward, he'll be fine with. Sure he might show his frustration on the court at times, but as long as we're laying the foundation to be competitive in the next year or two, Cousins will be on board. Hell even our FO said this year isn't about wins and losses.

 

[Gary]

Well, at this point in the season he's leading 3pt shooter in the league at .494 on almost 4 attempts per game. Sure, he's in the middle of very hot streak, but I don't think he's going to drop back to .333. Marshall is taking shots within the flow of the game, so it's not like D'Antoni allows him to take huge amount of shots and get into rhythm.
Recently saw a few videos on shooting, and Chris Mullin said, that you can still become really good shooter even with a bad form, but you have to take 1000 shots every day instead of 200. Feels like Marshall is hoisting at least 1500, while McLemore is barely getting over 100.
P.S. His defense is still very bad, even though he appears to really try.

Wonder if the Lakers would go for a guy like IT and then give us Marshall and another player or second round pick. I would LOVE to get a guy like Shawn Long in the second round if he comes out this year. We don't have a 2nd round pick this year to my knowledge. He plays for LA Lafayette and I have never seen more than highlights of him, but he is averaging 20/10/3blk. He's not THAT undersized. He's a good 6'9 in shoes. Maybe 6'10.

 

[Padrino]

Thomas isn't replacable in the "trade IT AND JT scenario" if the main guy with value you're getting back is a power forward. Then you're left with Jimmer and McCollum. Good luck with that.

Thomas is replacable in the "trade IT and JT scenario" if the main guy with value you're getting in return is a point guard. But then you're left without JT and the crumbs of Landry and Acy to take his place.

As far as Rondo is concerned, that's a pipe dream. The Kings aren't giving up value for an ACL. And Boston isn't going to be trading an All Star for ACL value unless they really believe that there is a high risk of reinjury and they just want to sell asap.

you're manufacturing excuses in an attempt to insulate isaiah thomas. the kings are in the middle of a rebuild. as of this moment, demarcus cousins is the only cornerstone piece going forward. and, provided he doesn't opt out in the offseason, you can probably add rudy gay to that list. outside of that, the kings' roster is an imbalanced mess. stuffing three 20ppg scorers in the starting lineup hasn't helped matters. IT is simply the odd man out in that equation, unless he can be re-signed to play a sixth man's role at a sixth man's salary. otherwise, it doesn't matter one iota what the kings are "left with" after a hypothetical isaiah thomas trade, as long as said trade puts the roster on a more competitive path in the long run. this season is lost. forget about it...

 

[Kingster]

Yes. YES. A THOUSAND TIMES YES.

Obviously it would make the games harder to watch for the remainder of the season, but with the Kings only winning 1 of 3 games now and going 2-8 in their last ten, how much uglier could it be?

I think if the Kings do make a big trade it would be for a starting PF or PG. But even if it was for an Afflalo or Klay Thompson level SG (not that Thompson is even available) then I'd be happy with the deal and rely on the offseason to balance out the roster. Next year Outlaw and Thornton (and even Gay) are ending contracts, making them MUCH easier to move and unless they somehow trade it the Kings would have a lottery pick in the deepest, most talent rich draft in years and losing a few more games only helps in that regard.

Besides which, there are plenty of other stopgap PGs that could be acquired relatively easily if IT were dealt.

There's a catch-22 with IT anyway. He's a free agent at the end of this season. Are the Kings prepared to pay him $7 million or so a year and essentially lock up a core of players (Cuz, Gay, IT and to a lesser extent McLemore, Thompson and Landry) that has performed poorly this season? I'd love Thomas as a sixth man but is he willing to return for sixth man money or even willing to play that role long term? Or would he chase the dollars and/or a starting job elsewhere?

For many reasons I think it is the best interests of the Kings to trade IT unless they have some assurances that he wants to return and is willing to play a major role off the bench.

I'll just have to disagree with you (and Padrino) on this one. I think it's highly unlikely Kings management would make such a deal, leaving Jimmer and McCollum as the point guards. First, it can always get worse. Much worse in fact. Second, you put Malone in an incredibly tenuous position. Malone can do a lot of things, but he can't give Jimmer a handle, and he can't give McCollum a shot and a large dose of instantaneous experience. Third, you probably lose fan support because it will get much worse. And fourth, you don't exactly show Cousins that you are serious about winning this year.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

They have plenty of space to sign him next year, so the question is would they need him this year.

I agree in general with most of the analysis here, but you repeated the above (or similar) a few times. I think there actually is a good reason to get IT now rather than try to sign him in the offseason - he'll be an RFA. If he's your player when he's a free agent, you have the power - you can choose whether or not to match an offer. If you allow him to be somebody else's RFA, then you've got to make an offer and hope not only that IT accepts it but also that it isn't matched by his current team. So if anybody truly is after IT, there definitely is incentive to go after him now.

 

[Kingster]

you're manufacturing excuses in an attempt to insulate isaiah thomas. the kings are in the middle of a rebuild. as of this moment, demarcus cousins is the only cornerstone piece going forward. and, provided he doesn't opt out in the offseason, you can probably add rudy gay to that list. outside of that, the kings' roster is an imbalanced mess. stuffing three 20ppg scorers in the starting lineup hasn't helped matters. IT is simply the odd man out in that equation, unless he can be re-signed to play a sixth man's role at a sixth man's salary. otherwise, it doesn't matter one iota what the kings are "left with" after a hypothetical isaiah thomas trade, as long as said trade puts the roster on a more competitive path in the long run. this season is lost. forget about it...

Nice topic sentence. But the rest of the paragraph is a non sequiter. And how does it fit into the "trade IT AND JT" scenario I posited? If I'm reverse engineering, then why present it at all?

See my Funky response.

 

[twslam07]

I agree in general with most of the analysis here, but you repeated the above (or similar) a few times. I think there actually is a good reason to get IT now rather than try to sign him in the offseason - he'll be an RFA. If he's your player when he's a free agent, you have the power - you can choose whether or not to match an offer. If you allow him to be somebody else's RFA, then you've got to make an offer and hope not only that IT accepts it but also that it isn't matched by his current team. So if anybody truly is after IT, there definitely is incentive to go after him now.

That's a fair argument, but I still think it devalues Thomas in a trade.

This is my logic: Would I be willing to part ways with a solid/good player for Thomas, or would I rather "risk it" and see if I can steal him away from the Kings next year and have both Thomas and my solid/good player? I'm sure this team would be open to dealing for Thomas if it meant giving a player of lesser value, but that is the point. Teams that can sign him next year already have leverage in a trade negotiation.

I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong that a team who will have cap space next year could trade for him, but I don't think we could get as much value in return compared to a team who could use him as a starting PG and wouldn't be able to sign him as a free agent next year. Make sense?

 

[Padrino]

I'll just have to disagree with you (and Padrino) on this one. I think it's highly unlikely Kings management would make such a deal, leaving Jimmer and McCollum as the point guards. First, it can always get worse. Much worse in fact. Second, you put Malone in an incredibly tenuous position. Malone can do a lot of things, but he can't give Jimmer a handle, and he can't give McCollum a shot and a large dose of instantaneous experience. Third, you probably lose fan support because it will get much worse. And fourth, you don't exactly show Cousins that you are serious about winning this year.

for the record, it's quite unlikely to get "much worse" than last place in the entire western conference. and again, there are plenty of options in pursuit of a stopgap PG, if the kings were to trade isaiah thomas without getting a PG in return. transactions in the nba don't occur in a vacuum. all of that said, i do agree with you that it's highly unlikely that kings management trades isaiah thomas, particularly without getting a PG in return. i just don't agree with such a strategy...

 

[funkykingston]

for the record, it's quite unlikely to get "much worse" than last place in the entire western conference. and again, there are plenty of options in pursuit of a stopgap PG, if the kings were to trade isaiah thomas without getting a PG in return. transactions in the nba don't occur in a vacuum. all of that said, i do agree with you that it's highly unlikely that kings management trades isaiah thomas, particularly without getting a PG in return. i just don't agree with such a strategy...

Or acquires one in a separate trade. Or signs either a recently retired vet or someone from the D-League. A stopgap PG can be acquired easily.

 

[Padrino]

Or acquires one in a separate trade. Or signs either a recently retired vet or someone from the D-League. A stopgap PG can be acquired easily.

hey, i'm in complete agreement with you. i'd trade isaiah thomas in a heartbeat if i could get some [defensively-inclined] assets that better fit alongside cousins and gay. i was all for the idea that the kings were pursuing andre miller, because he strikes me as precisely the kind of stopgap vet who they could use as a buffer in the event of an IT trade...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong that a team who will have cap space next year could trade for him, but I don't think we could get as much value in return compared to a team who could use him as a starting PG and wouldn't be able to sign him as a free agent next year. Make sense?

Yes, that's absolutely a fair point. RFA (and Bird Rights) would mean a lot more to a team without cap space. If you were trying to make that point originally, I missed it.

 

[Gary]

I'll just have to disagree with you (and Padrino) on this one. I think it's highly unlikely Kings management would make such a deal, leaving Jimmer and McCollum as the point guards. First, it can always get worse. Much worse in fact. Second, you put Malone in an incredibly tenuous position. Malone can do a lot of things, but he can't give Jimmer a handle, and he can't give McCollum a shot and a large dose of instantaneous experience. Third, you probably lose fan support because it will get much worse. And fourth, you don't exactly show Cousins that you are serious about winning this year.

McCallum not McCollum. I know I know.... It's petty, I know, but it's like on Grants show when someone tries to talk about a player and they don't even get the name right. It's hard to take them seriously.

 

[twslam07]

Yes, that's absolutely a fair point. RFA (and Bird Rights) would mean a lot more to a team without cap space. If you were trying to make that point originally, I missed it.

It's not your fault. I forgot to address that in my original post. Thanks for calling me out on it!

 

[fanop]

Only someone that hasn't seen MCW play would say something like that. No chance in hell he would be a 12th man on this roster.

MCW wouldn't probably have started from day 1. As a rookie he would have limited limits on our team and would probably look horrible in a small sample size.

Again, I couldn't disagree more. I think you need to watch more of MCW before you make these claims. The notion that MCW is only playing well because the Sixers would give him more opportunities than the Kings is silly. He is a good young PG. He's got excellent size, length, and athleticism at the PG spot. He's a good defender, rebounder, and passer as well. Like I mentioned before, he isn't scoring at a very efficient rate, but that's really the only knock on him this season.

I honestly think he would be the starting PG on this team and we could revert Thomas back to his sixth man role. MCW would provide the defense and ball distribution in the first unit, and Thomas would provide the scoring punch in the second unit. Fredette would hardly see any floor time if MCW was on the team. Not the other way around.

I just can't wrap my head around the logic of the possible rookie of the year should be playing in the D-League.

Nope I will continue to disagree. MCW would look like a pile of dog doodoo on this team. The reason being, he would get rookie minutes which really means limited minutes and how can a pg get anything going in limited minutes? We would probably show a nice few flashes then have some games where he'd struggle, and etc. He'd be in Bens spot...but do you notice how short of a leash Jimmer has? 2 mistakes and he's pulled. If the other team starts a run, within 5 mins IT is back in the game. I'd see the same scenario for MCW. He only looks good right now is because he has free room to do anything he wants. It's roaming. In Philly, he's basically their #1 scoring option. Here he would be 2nd/3rd option here. Again, he plays 34mpg as well. Vasquez had 9asts per game last year...but he played like 40 mins.


Again, no one really knows his fate if he was drafted by another team. However I think he would be stashed on our bench. It's like saying we should have drafted Kobe...but Kobe probably wouldn't be the Kobe he is today if he wasn't developed by the Lakers.

If being a rookie doesn't matter much then I don't see why Ben doesn't get more playing time. It's not like we have a killer starting sg.

 

[fanop]

Well, at this point in the season he's leading 3pt shooter in the league at .494 on almost 4 attempts per game. Sure, he's in the middle of very hot streak, but I don't think he's going to drop back to .333. Marshall is taking shots within the flow of the game, so it's not like D'Antoni allows him to take huge amount of shots and get into rhythm.
Recently saw a few videos on shooting, and Chris Mullin said, that you can still become really good shooter even with a bad form, but you have to take 1000 shots every day instead of 200. Feels like Marshall is hoisting at least 1500, while McLemore is barely getting over 100.
P.S. His defense is still very bad, even though he appears to really try.

I really liked Kendall Marshall...always been a fan of us. People say it's D'Antonio's system but he was good even in college. Check his stats from previous games with the Suns. He was actually pretty good.

 

[Sam0ah]

I am completely frustrated by the way the kings have played the last three games. Its seems a long season of trying to turn offensive minded players into a total defense team might be taking its toll. I think PDA needs to turn the volume up here and change something. Possible get a guy like rondo for anything not named cousins, or our first round draft pick would be fine. This team needs a change in some way before the chemistry really goes south between coach and his players.

 

[ParniValjak]

I am completely frustrated by the way the kings have played the last three games. Its seems a long season of trying to turn offensive minded players into a total defense team might be taking its toll. I think PDA needs to turn the volume up here and change something. Possible get a guy like rondo for anything not named cousins, or our first round draft pick would be fine. This team needs a change in some way before the chemistry really goes south between coach and his players.

While simple in theory, in practice it becomes far more troublesome. We don't have a heck of a lot of assets to gain that quality of player. With Gay we were very lucky in that his value had never been lower, his team wanted to start a rebuild and we happended to have expiring deals which they were interested in.

Getting Rondo is a MUCH heftier price tag and will require giving up a lot of assets both in terms of players and picks and salary cap flexibility because anyone looking to take on Rondo will be taking on that horrible Gerald Wallace contract.

 

[Sam0ah]

While simple in theory, in practice it becomes far more troublesome. We don't have a heck of a lot of assets to gain that quality of player. With Gay we were very lucky in that his value had never been lower, his team wanted to start a rebuild and we happended to have expiring deals which they were interested in.

Getting Rondo is a MUCH heftier price tag and will require giving up a lot of assets both in terms of players and picks and salary cap flexibility because anyone looking to take on Rondo will be taking on that horrible Gerald Wallace contract.

Just looked up that contract on Wallace and it is completely crippling. If the only way to get Rondo is to take on that contract. I think your right that the Kings don't get involved.

 

[ParniValjak]

Just looked up that contract on Wallace and it is completely crippling. If the only way to get Rondo is to take on that contract. I think your right that the Kings don't get involved.

Rondo is a perennial all-star who is in his prime (albeit coming off a knee injury). To get him we either part with our pick (which I don't think we do even if we could) or we take the crappiest long term deals from the Celtics for expirings and/or shorter contracts coupled with a cheap talent (IT) and young prospects (McLemore).

I don't think we will sacrifice that much cap and become a luxury tax team by taking on an expensive non-productive player (Wallace)

 

[KingMilz]

I wonder what we could get a for a IT/Derrick Williams package if we could acquire a Andre Miller/Kendell Marshall/Tony Douglas PG with a different deal.

 

[Chupacabra]

I wonder what we could get a for a IT/Derrick Williams package if we could acquire a Andre Miller/Kendell Marshall/Tony Douglas PG with a different deal.

Do you mean trade IT/Williams for player x and then ,in a separate deal , trade for one of those point guards?