Monta
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
- Status
I hope the Hawks do get him.
I just don't see where Ellis fits in on this roster. He's not a natural PG, and with Vasquez I think he's almost a lock, so that rules that place out. As for SG we've drafted McLemore, and if we're to drop him to the bench in favor of Ellis, then I guess we get a proven scorer but personally I think McLemore will probably end up the better player. I don't think we could shift McLemore to SF because he'd be undersized. So if we did sign Ellis, we may have wasted $11 million or more per season for a player we don't 'need'.
I just don't see where Ellis fits in on this roster. He's not a natural PG, and with Vasquez I think he's almost a lock, so that rules that place out. As for SG we've drafted McLemore, and if we're to drop him to the bench in favor of Ellis, then I guess we get a proven scorer but personally I think McLemore will probably end up the better player. I don't think we could shift McLemore to SF because he'd be undersized. So if we did sign Ellis, we may have wasted $11 million or more per season for a player we don't 'need'.
I believe Dave's right. It's ok to have different opinions, it's ok to criticize PDA, but when you start calling for PDA's head and new owners after 8 days of free agency, It's just too much. I mean, nobody's happy if we sign Monta. Maybe it's true, it's Vivek who wants him, even if it's the worst possible fit for this team, and definitely the last thing we need. But, I prefer to have Monta AND the Kings in Sacramento, if this makes Vivek happy. I believe he's earned the right to sign a player he likes...
That said, I hope the Hawks sign Ellis, I really don't want him here.
That said, I hope the Hawks sign Ellis, I really don't want him here.
Dave started posting parts of this thread on twitter, saying these types make him mad. This is turning ugly, quickly.
Very reasonable.
However, the 2 above posts highlight what many KF posters have been saying the last few days (albeit in a much more aggressive tone). Calling him worse than Kahn? Asinine. PDA has been called literally every name in the book already, 8 days into his career. That, to me, is unacceptable from Kings fans.
I, personally, have been on board with Landry and Vasquez moves. Ellis, unless HELL of a lot of stuff happens in addition to getting him, would be a horrible mistake. However, I will refuse to throw PDA under the bus no matter what happens the rest of the offseason, until we see some NBA basketball again.
However, the 2 above posts highlight what many KF posters have been saying the last few days (albeit in a much more aggressive tone). Calling him worse than Kahn? Asinine. PDA has been called literally every name in the book already, 8 days into his career. That, to me, is unacceptable from Kings fans.
I, personally, have been on board with Landry and Vasquez moves. Ellis, unless HELL of a lot of stuff happens in addition to getting him, would be a horrible mistake. However, I will refuse to throw PDA under the bus no matter what happens the rest of the offseason, until we see some NBA basketball again.
I'm not the biggest Ellis fan, but i think if you keep him off the ball that black hole thing goes away, and he is a very good midrange shooter, decent 3pt shooter. Remember Ellis looked best in his early Golden State years when he played alongside a pass first/facilitating pg. Being paired with Curry and then Jennings of all people were bad situations for both teams. Paired with Vasquez you will probably see a more efficient Monta, where he isn't iso'ing for all his shots, rather coming off screens and picks.
Look i would not be the happiest guy with this move, but looking at it from the FO's perspective, you get a SG that can drop 25-30 on any night in his prime, which puts less pressure on McLemore, allows him to settle into the NBA game. Eventually you hope McLemore takes the starting SG spot, and you can have Ellis be a 6th man gunner. This also means Thornton is on his way out, hopefully combined with one of our bigs to bring in a SF.
Also i think people are overlooking Malone as a coach. He is going to require the team to play how he wants with the backing of Vivek. Anyone who doesn't buy into the system(that means playing defense and being professional) is out the door. Yes, that means Cousins as well, this is his last straw in Sacramento.
Look i would not be the happiest guy with this move, but looking at it from the FO's perspective, you get a SG that can drop 25-30 on any night in his prime, which puts less pressure on McLemore, allows him to settle into the NBA game. Eventually you hope McLemore takes the starting SG spot, and you can have Ellis be a 6th man gunner. This also means Thornton is on his way out, hopefully combined with one of our bigs to bring in a SF.
Also i think people are overlooking Malone as a coach. He is going to require the team to play how he wants with the backing of Vivek. Anyone who doesn't buy into the system(that means playing defense and being professional) is out the door. Yes, that means Cousins as well, this is his last straw in Sacramento.
So far he has not done better than Kahn. So far. Is there time? Of course there is.
FTR, I have not been on board with any of the moves. (Draft non withstanding). Sure, maybe it's because I'm not 4 moves ahead, but that doesn't make me any less of a fan, or any less desirous of seeing this team in the fall. Ellis is definitely icing on the cake, though, as no one really knows how he would fit. Not necessarily with IT/MT/Jimmer, as we can assume that some of them will be gone, but rather how he would fit with Vasquez (a facilitator who needs the ball) and McLemore (a shooter who needs the ball to shoot, but wouldn't be able to with Ellis.) That doesn't even get into fit with Cousins. So yeah, there is certainly room to question the moves as they are currently made. I'm still waiting for that stand-up double from PDA. Maybe something big is brewing, but we seem to be running out of available players to make a splash, or hell, just fill a need.
FTR, I have not been on board with any of the moves. (Draft non withstanding). Sure, maybe it's because I'm not 4 moves ahead, but that doesn't make me any less of a fan, or any less desirous of seeing this team in the fall. Ellis is definitely icing on the cake, though, as no one really knows how he would fit. Not necessarily with IT/MT/Jimmer, as we can assume that some of them will be gone, but rather how he would fit with Vasquez (a facilitator who needs the ball) and McLemore (a shooter who needs the ball to shoot, but wouldn't be able to with Ellis.) That doesn't even get into fit with Cousins. So yeah, there is certainly room to question the moves as they are currently made. I'm still waiting for that stand-up double from PDA. Maybe something big is brewing, but we seem to be running out of available players to make a splash, or hell, just fill a need.
Always been a fan of Dave and appreciate what he's done in keeping the Kings, but for someone that likes to label others arrogant, he sure is high up on that horse. The high and mighty attitude isn't doing him any favours.
Fact is, most of these moves are careless (big contracts to mediocre talent - that is how you cripple a franchise, especially one with young talent). People are worried about the future of the team, and to start calling those who follow PDA blindly despite the evidence "true" fans, whilst ridiculing the ones expressing concern, is a complete insult and awfully condescending. Everyone wants the team to succeed. There's a blueprint for success in the NBA. Calling for time and patience is all well and good, but it doesn't make you right if the moves being made are clearly going to restrict the franchise's potential for growth and success. Acting as if everything will be merry and well just because there's new owners in town does not make it so. I don't know anyone who has anything personal against PDA, much less Vivek, but people are going to be pissed if our room for movement in the future is seriously hampered by players such as Carl Landry and Monta Ellis!! Common sense people.
A few extra wins next season at the expense of the long term future is not good enough for most people. I've yet to see any basketball reasons given from Dave or any of the other supporters of PDA's work so far. It's all wait and see bleh. No actual substance, just condescending generalisations. I realise there's some that have gone completely over the top, calling for PDA's head and for Vivek to sell the team (I believe this was just one nut), but I'm really disappointed in Dave here.
Fact is, most of these moves are careless (big contracts to mediocre talent - that is how you cripple a franchise, especially one with young talent). People are worried about the future of the team, and to start calling those who follow PDA blindly despite the evidence "true" fans, whilst ridiculing the ones expressing concern, is a complete insult and awfully condescending. Everyone wants the team to succeed. There's a blueprint for success in the NBA. Calling for time and patience is all well and good, but it doesn't make you right if the moves being made are clearly going to restrict the franchise's potential for growth and success. Acting as if everything will be merry and well just because there's new owners in town does not make it so. I don't know anyone who has anything personal against PDA, much less Vivek, but people are going to be pissed if our room for movement in the future is seriously hampered by players such as Carl Landry and Monta Ellis!! Common sense people.
A few extra wins next season at the expense of the long term future is not good enough for most people. I've yet to see any basketball reasons given from Dave or any of the other supporters of PDA's work so far. It's all wait and see bleh. No actual substance, just condescending generalisations. I realise there's some that have gone completely over the top, calling for PDA's head and for Vivek to sell the team (I believe this was just one nut), but I'm really disappointed in Dave here.
I'd be OK with Ellis because I'm a supporter of stockpiling assets, and Monta is a hell of a scorer and we could trade him if need be. Which is why I absolutely hate the Evans trade. Unless Vasquez turns out to be Stockton or Nash 2.0, Evans was a much better asset to have. And the less said about the Landry signing the better
A lot of people forget that Monta was once one of the most efficient volume scorers in the game- he averaged 20 PPG on 53% shooting one year, and holds career shooting percentages of 46% from the field, 32% from thee, and 77% from the line. He also has good court vision, and his passing ability is decent. The problem that came up when he was traded to Milwaukee, he was played on the ball a ton more. His shooting percentages went down, and his turnovers went up. He also had one of the worst coaches in the NBA, and with no one to reign him in, his shot selection became erratic. I think that if he DOES come to Sac, Malone may be able to turn him back into GS Monta. But you never know, Monta paired with Cousins might not be the most well-behaved. There's always a chance they become Epic Bros, though, How I Met Your Mother style. 
Last edited:
A lot of people forget that Monta was once one of the most efficient volume scorers in the game- he averaged 20 PPG on 53% shooting one year, and holds career shooting percentages of 46% from the field, 32% from thee, and 77% from the line. He also has good court vision, and his passing ability is decent. The problem that came up when he was traded to Milwaukee, he was played on the ball a ton more. His shooting percentages went down, and his turnovers went up. He also had one of the worst coaches in the NBA, and with no one to reign him in, his shot selection became erratic. I think that if he DOES come to Sac, Malone may be able to turn him back into GS Monta. But you never know, Monta paired with Cousins might not be the most well-behaved. There's always a chance they become Epic Bros, though, How I Met Your Mother style.
How do we know if they are right and wrong before they are completed. Sure, on the outside they look wrong, but if it's part of a larger plan then we might be jumping the gun. OK, Landry sucks right? But what has pretty much everyone been saying about him? He's a good complementary piece to a contending team, right? What if we are in the playoffs in 2-3 years, then wouldn't Landry be looking like a good pickup? Stranger things have happened.
I decided that I am going to give it to opening night to see what we have to work with. If it's still looking mismatched and terrible then I will start my complaining
I decided that I am going to give it to opening night to see what we have to work with. If it's still looking mismatched and terrible then I will start my complaining
Interesting to look at these two posts together because I don't think either argument really helps defend the Landry signing or the possible acquisition of Ellis
If this is a make or break year for Cousins, why litter the roster with more midlevel contracts eating up all caproom? If DMC walks the Kings are left with no caproom and a team led by McLemore, Monta Ellis and Carl Landry with no young assets to trade, no draft picks accumulated and no room to sign anyone of impact.
But why do that while leaving obvious holes (SF, defense, long term PG) that will prevent the team from getting good in the first place?
Landry & Ellis don't make sense if the team is hedging its bets with regards to Cousins and they don't make sense if they are all in with DMC and McLemore as the faces of the franchise. I just don't see how they fit in at all.
If this is a make or break year for Cousins, why litter the roster with more midlevel contracts eating up all caproom? If DMC walks the Kings are left with no caproom and a team led by McLemore, Monta Ellis and Carl Landry with no young assets to trade, no draft picks accumulated and no room to sign anyone of impact.
How do we know if they are right and wrong before they are completed. Sure, on the outside they look wrong, but if it's part of a larger plan then we might be jumping the gun. OK, Landry sucks right? But what has pretty much everyone been saying about him? He's a good complementary piece to a contending team, right? What if we are in the playoffs in 2-3 years, then wouldn't Landry be looking like a good pickup? Stranger things have happened.
Landry & Ellis don't make sense if the team is hedging its bets with regards to Cousins and they don't make sense if they are all in with DMC and McLemore as the faces of the franchise. I just don't see how they fit in at all.
How do we know if they are right and wrong before they are completed. Sure, on the outside they look wrong, but if it's part of a larger plan then we might be jumping the gun. OK, Landry sucks right? But what has pretty much everyone been saying about him? He's a good complementary piece to a contending team, right? What if we are in the playoffs in 2-3 years, then wouldn't Landry be looking like a good pickup? Stranger things have happened.
I decided that I am going to give it to opening night to see what we have to work with. If it's still looking mismatched and terrible then I will start my complaining
I decided that I am going to give it to opening night to see what we have to work with. If it's still looking mismatched and terrible then I will start my complaining
people say things like "part of a larger plan" as if there's any more certainty to be found in such an abstract notion. with the departure of tyreke evans, the kings have exactly two useful assets: demarcus cousins and cap space. the rest of the roster is chock full of mid-level and low-level talent. you can package a few of those guys together and maybe you net a player of value in return via trade. but maybe the rest of the league looks at your mediocre collection of talent and your perpetual losing culture and decides that they can lowball you into oblivion at the first scent of your desperation. again, you have to be smart with the management of your assets, especially when you're a small market franchise coming off seven straight losing seasons...
as of yet, exactly one king has been traded, and he was one of value for which the kings did not receive equal value in return. so pardon my skepticism that lesser kings' talents will yield a higher rate of return. and pardon my skepticism that monta ellis and carl landry are a worthy use of the team's cap space at a time when they are having difficulty acquiring top shelf talent. yes, it is prudent to give the new regime a "grace period." they deserve that much because of the herculean effort they gave to keep the team in sacramento. however, their transactions-to-this-point fail to inspire confidence, and the rumored interest in monta ellis also fails to inspire confidence...
I have decided that if they let Cuz go im following him to his new team. That would be the end for me personally with the kings and i would need a new team and that seems a good way of choosing one
surly our GM isnt stupid enough to trade him/let him walk right???
surly our GM isnt stupid enough to trade him/let him walk right???
Where did get that idea? Dude, there is nothing to substantiate whatever you may have seen to indicate any such action is even being thought about by the front office. People really need to get a grip.
Perhaps, but if that's the case wouldn't you imagine a low return on investment? After all it would imply that Cousins either drastically underperformed, clashed with teammates/coaches/management or both and thus would have to be dealt for pennies on the dollar.
And if so, what would you expect the team to get in return that could make a core of Ellis, McLemore and Landry a winning team?
And if so, what would you expect the team to get in return that could make a core of Ellis, McLemore and Landry a winning team?
sure it does. even if tyreke evans doesn't produce an ounce above his per 36 numbers for 2012-2013, $11 million per is the going rate for that kind of production in the contemporary nba, particularly given his age and offensive efficiency. just because you don't value evans at $11 million per doesn't mean that he couldn't be moved at $11 million per. i'm also sick and tired of hearing the argument that the only team that wanted tyreke evans at that price tag was new orleans. that is a truly disingenuous appraisal of the 2013 free agent market, and is completely devoid of context or critical thinking. there were only a handful of teams with cap space this offseason, the majority of which were all bidding for dwight howard's services. as with any offseason in which a major free agent hits the market, the dominoes don't start falling until after that free agent has signed...
dallas, for instance, was reportedly interested in tyreke evans as a backup plan to dwight howard, but failed to make an offer because they were waiting first on an answer from dwight. by the time they received it, evans had already signed with new orleans. we simply do not know what mark cuban might have offered, or what any other team might have offered, for that matter. we especially don't know which among the 23 teams without the cap space necessary to sign evans outright might value him at $11 million per. considering what indiana pays danny granger to sit injured on their bench, and considering they're a hard-nosed team that values paint scoring, perhaps they'd bite on an evans trade in the future. you do not know, therefore you cannot unequivocally assert this claim you love to make so often...
dallas, for instance, was reportedly interested in tyreke evans as a backup plan to dwight howard, but failed to make an offer because they were waiting first on an answer from dwight. by the time they received it, evans had already signed with new orleans. we simply do not know what mark cuban might have offered, or what any other team might have offered, for that matter. we especially don't know which among the 23 teams without the cap space necessary to sign evans outright might value him at $11 million per. considering what indiana pays danny granger to sit injured on their bench, and considering they're a hard-nosed team that values paint scoring, perhaps they'd bite on an evans trade in the future. you do not know, therefore you cannot unequivocally assert this claim you love to make so often...
Last edited:
Not at all. I'd expect a mega-ton of interest from many teams, every one of which would believe that they have the right mix to reform Cuz. They can rationalize how the new owner/GM/coach doesn't know how to handle Cuz, but that they do. In fact, the more they view the owner/GM/coach is to blame for his foibles (and not Cuz), the more his perceived value increases. He's the Promised Land. If you do want to trade him, then this is the year. The 2014 draft looks pretty good.
- Status