[Game] Kings @ Jazz - 1/14/16 - 6 PT, 9 ET

Čarolija said:
I think people need to lay off the Rudy Gay hate.

Sure he has been inconsistent this season and is not the Rudy Gay we have become accustomed to in previous 2 seasons but he is still a very good player when used in the right way and a legitimate #2 option behind Cousins for us.

If we trade him, we are not getting an upgrade in talent I can guarantee it. He is a proven 20ppg player and a legitimately good #2 option on a good team.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you can guarantee something that I can't guarantee. Opinion isn't a guarantee. That said, I don't think that just because someone might consider trading Gay, that person hates Gay. Oh I'm sure there are those people out there, but I don't hate Gay, and I certainly would consider trading him if I thought the trade would help the team. There's a tendency on this forum, and in politic's, to lump everyone into a group. I like to think that everyone has their own individual opinion, and that that opinion differs from others. I happen to like Gay. I think besides being a very good basketball player, he's also a very nice man. But business is business. Maybe I've been around the block too many times and seen the comings and goings of too many players, but no one, and I mean no one is irreplaceable, including me.

I agree with your description of Gay as it relates to the team. But that doesn't mean the team can't be improved by trading him. And that's not an endorsement for trading him. Let me see the trade, then I'll comment on its merits. What I take from your comments is that you don't have any faith in Vlade to get a good deal. You could be right, but I have a little more faith than you do. Gay hit the winning shot last night, but prior to that, he turned the ball over twice in a row (going on memory here). Those mistakes count just as much as the winning shot, because if he doesn't make those mistakes, then maybe we don't need that winning shot.
 
dude12 said:
You must like his philosophy then.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if I like it or not. If the players don't execute it, it's meaningless. If you want my opinion, then it's that at times I don't think the players he has on the floor fit the philosophy. When he has the right mix on the floor, we play pretty good defense. So my problem on defense has more to do with personnel than it does philosophy. As I pointed out before, when you end up with Gay and McLemore guarding the same player after a switch, I doubt that's how Karl drew it up. When you have Cousins leave his man under the basket to stop the ball in the lane, and no one rotates to cover his man, I doubt that's how Karl drew it up.

Coaches generally try and design a defense that best utilizes the abilities of the players he has. Obviously, we don't have the talent to play straight up man to man defense. We have serious weaknesses on the perimeter. Rondo can't keep his man in front of him, and McLemore continues to make mental mistakes. Collison is inconsistent, and Belinelli, although he puts out good effort at times, is physically challenged. Our strength is our interior defense, that continues to have problems because of our weak perimeter defense. So what do you suggest Karl does? The best you can do is try and confuse the other teams offense with your rotations. The problem is, if someone makes a mistake, your screwed. Could Karl come up with a better scheme? Maybe, I honestly don't know. But to lay it all on Karl is unrealistic. The players have to take some of the responsibility.
 
bajaden said:
Doesn't matter if I like it or not. If the players don't execute it, it's meaningless. If you want my opinion, then it's that at times I don't think the players he has on the floor fit the philosophy. When he has the right mix on the floor, we play pretty good defense. So my problem on defense has more to do with personnel than it does philosophy. As I pointed out before, when you end up with Gay and McLemore guarding the same player after a switch, I doubt that's how Karl drew it up. When you have Cousins leave his man under the basket to stop the ball in the lane, and no one rotates to cover his man, I doubt that's how Karl drew it up.

Coaches generally try and design a defense that best utilizes the abilities of the players he has. Obviously, we don't have the talent to play straight up man to man defense. We have serious weaknesses on the perimeter. Rondo can't keep his man in front of him, and McLemore continues to make mental mistakes. Collison is inconsistent, and Belinelli, although he puts out good effort at times, is physically challenged. Our strength is our interior defense, that continues to have problems because of our weak perimeter defense. So what do you suggest Karl does? The best you can do is try and confuse the other teams offense with your rotations. The problem is, if someone makes a mistake, your screwed. Could Karl come up with a better scheme? Maybe, I honestly don't know. But to lay it all on Karl is unrealistic. The players have to take some of the responsibility.
Click to expand...
The post that you quoted stated that our perimeter defense is basically crap, need another coach. George's defensive philosophy apparently leads to open 3's. and I agree with you that it isn't all George's fault but then again, maybe part of his philosophy is his rotations or lineups....and I'm speaking specifically about guard play. He's stated as much that at differing points this year that Ben might be our best defensive guard but then it became Anderson and then it became Curry....yet he doesn't want to play any of these guys extended minutes....at all. If George gave a damn about defense then he would change up his schemes and/or he would bench guys for not giving effort on that end. The blame is to be laid at George's feet.
 
The problem with trading players is that once Karl is fired, hopefully in the offseason, maybe Gay or others would be the new coaches type of guy. I've yet to see any good proposal regarding trading Gay. Every proposal seems to have us trading Gay for lesser talents. Ryan Anderson is a guy that we would have a very good shot at in the offseason. If anything, I'd be ok with trading Collison for truer combo guard that when paired with Rondo, it's a better fit. Don't know who that would be but guys who are bigger than 6'0.
 
bajaden said:
Not sure how you can guarantee something that I can't guarantee. Opinion isn't a guarantee. That said, I don't think that just because someone might consider trading Gay, that person hates Gay. Oh I'm sure there are those people out there, but I don't hate Gay, and I certainly would consider trading him if I thought the trade would help the team. There's a tendency on this forum, and in politic's, to lump everyone into a group. I like to think that everyone has their own individual opinion, and that that opinion differs from others. I happen to like Gay. I think besides being a very good basketball player, he's also a very nice man. But business is business. Maybe I've been around the block too many times and seen the comings and goings of too many players, but no one, and I mean no one is irreplaceable, including me.

I agree with your description of Gay as it relates to the team. But that doesn't mean the team can't be improved by trading him. And that's not an endorsement for trading him. Let me see the trade, then I'll comment on its merits. What I take from your comments is that you don't have any faith in Vlade to get a good deal. You could be right, but I have a little more faith than you do. Gay hit the winning shot last night, but prior to that, he turned the ball over twice in a row (going on memory here). Those mistakes count just as much as the winning shot, because if he doesn't make those mistakes, then maybe we don't need that winning shot.
Click to expand...
You seem to be drawing a lot of assumptions from my post. I never said Gay is untouchable, not did I ever say or indicate that I don't trust Vlade to get a good deal. What I am saying of late is this group think about how Gay must be traded, he is aterrible etc... It's making him sound like a player that is worse than he actually is. Everyone can question his consistency this year, hell even the consistency in his defensive effort but I don't think anyone can question his talent or his ability to be a very good #2 scoring option on this team.

People loved him under Malone. He didn't lose that ability over night so there seems to be this group think that he all of a sudden sucks!

Now Gay made some mistakes late in the game that could have been costly but overall he had a good game. Better than possibly anyone else not named Cousins last night which is what you want from your #2 scoring option. He even played a solid defensive game on Hayward overall. Bottom line is, that despite his mistakes, he still did more good than bad out there.

I am open to trading anyone not named Cousins on this team but it needs to be a right move that upgrades the talent level. The type of deal that got us Gay to start off with.

It's funny how you focus on Gay's mistakes late in the game and suggesting if it he didn't make them there would be no need for a game winner but conveniently ignore the fact that Gay scored our last 8 points in this game when Cousins was covered very well and everyone else was hiding in the corner somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top