My thoughts on managenent's plan for trades and currency roster

[pshn80]

My guess on management plans for our current roster (as of August 29).


From now to our first game:
Those of value on top of trade list:
Fredette
Thornton


Others on top of trade list:
Hayes


Those of value on second tier (probably not until later):
Thomas
Patterson


Third tier (if needed to make a trade work)
Salmons
Outlaw


The rest of the roster stays pat.


Before season starts one trade for sure, possibly two. Two of above players will go for sure and possibly one or two more.


We will get at least one needed player. If we're lucky we may get a second needed player.

love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I don't know about Thornton. After summer league, imho Ben is totally raw and unpolished and it could possibly take years for him to be a quality starter at two guard. Marcus, unless you are receiving equivalent or better talent back at the position, is the clear cut starter for this team.

 

[pshn80]

Thornton fits the talent role you describe. My guess is based on my view that they don't want to keep him for the season and Salmons is a fit for season start at SG, his natural position. The attitude difference favors Salmons.

 

[Agent23]

I think trades will be made mid-season not before the season. I think you're gonna be disappointed if you really expect this roster to be different before training camp.

 

[KingMilz]

I wouldn't mind seeing us keep Thornton (unless we can package him for a 2 way starting SF) at this stage we need his fire power and let Ben split time between back up SG and SF, I rather see him develop with playing time even if it's out of position than give min's to Salmons and Outlaw.

 

[andjel]

http://static03.mediaite.com/sportsgrid/uploads/2013/05/Wiggins.jpg

 

[rainmaker]

The attitude difference favors Salmons.

Well, I never thought I'd hear that.

Can't believe we're talking about MT or Salmons at SG next to Vasquez. What an improvement that is.

Give me IT/Reke any day and twice on Sunday over that.

 

[randymoss1881]

Thornton, Thompson, and Isaiah will be traded for sure and patterson might go. I think we will be able to get a 1st from a playoff team with pg backup needs. We will be looking for players who can play defense and are good characters some guys we should look at that are on the block:
Gortat (fits the center spot but I don't think we have enough for him)
Asik (defensive anchor who Houston will trade not a fit with D12)
Ariza (Great defender with Webster starting a drafting porter he's available and Washington wants a big in return)
Darozan (new gm doesn't fit with gay and can play SF for us

 

[Kings Faithful]

I don't get why people are saying Patterson is at the top of the trade list. He's young and is MONEY with his jumpshot. Yes a defensive big man would be nice, but he fits perfectly with interior players like cousins on the offensive end and fills a HUGE need of this team in shooting.

 

[Kings Faithful]

Thornton fits the talent role you describe. My guess is based on my view that they don't want to keep him for the season and Salmons is a fit for season start at SG, his natural position. The attitude difference favors Salmons.

Thornton's attitude was only a problem when he was relegated to the bench with horribly inconsistent minutes when he deserved to start imo. The success of this team is going to hinge on them buying into Malone's defensive system. If they don't do that, it wont make a difference who's on the floor.

 

[bajaden]

I wouldn't mind seeing us keep Thornton (unless we can package him for a 2 way starting SF) at this stage we need his fire power and let Ben split time between back up SG and SF, I rather see him develop with playing time even if it's out of position than give min's to Salmons and Outlaw.

I don't think I want McLemore at SF at 6'4". He does have a nice wingspan, but not enough to make up for 3 or 4 inches in height. I don't think McLemore is as far away as some of you think. I guarantee you that he's a better shooter than Thornton. His problem in summer league was shot selection. That will come with experience. No doubt his ballhandling needs to improve, but he can still be effective as a catch and shoot player, or coming off screens. He's a far better athlete than Thornton, and as a result, has the ability to be a good defender. Once again, experience will help. People tend to forget that Kevin Martin wasn't a very good ballhandler, but he still scored 20 pts a game. Reggie Miller made a career out of coming off screens. Sometimes we tend to over think these things.

 

[KingMilz]

I don't think I want McLemore at SF at 6'4". He does have a nice wingspan, but not enough to make up for 3 or 4 inches in height.

Still better than Salmons or Outlaw I know it's not ideal but when Luke Richard is on the bench (assuming we keep the current roster) I much rather have Thornton/M16 on the wings than M/16 with Salmons or Outlaw. Ideally we would have had a trade ready (move SG/PF's) to go the moment they signed Landry but as we know they didn't. Plus a lot of teams are downsizing I mean the Warrior played extremely well with Jack, Curry and Klay as the PG/SG/SF and our line up of Vasquez, Thornton, M16 is bigger than that. Nuggets also had good success with Miller/Lawson/Iggy and again they going by average height not bigger than what we got.

I just rather see players who can win us games like Thornton on the floor than Outlaw/Salmons which provide little to nothing and equally low IQ.

 

[Livinthedream]

Fredette is definitely on the trading block. Next is IT, simply because of the log jam at PG. If BMac plays well or shows steady improvement the first half, Thornton gets moved because he has value.

No reason to trade ppat. Hayes has no trade value so he's not going anywhere.

BMAC is a prototypical SG. No need to mess with what position he plays.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I don't get why people are saying Patterson is at the top of the trade list. He's young and is MONEY with his jumpshot. Yes a defensive big man would be nice, but he fits perfectly with interior players like cousins on the offensive end and fills a HUGE need of this team in shooting.

I believe the thinking is that Patterson and Landry are very similar players in terms of what they are able to do, so committing to Landry on that long term contract makes Patterson look pretty expendable. In both cases, you're looking at a slightly undersized PF with an emphasis on scoring and not much of a reputation for defense. Landry rebounds a tiny bit better and actually scores quite a bit more and much more efficiently, and he's much much better at getting to the FT line. He gives up a little in terms of assists and turnovers, but the only thing that Patterson does markedly better than Landry is shoot the 3 ball.

So basically, we have Landry filling the shooting need (even though his jumper doesn't extend quite so far out). We don't need Patterson, and might have trouble finding time for him, so if we can trade him for something we can use, so much the better.

 

[twslam07]

Still better than Salmons or Outlaw I know it's not ideal but when Luke Richard is on the bench (assuming we keep the current roster) I much rather have Thornton/M16 on the wings than M/16 with Salmons or Outlaw. Ideally we would have had a trade ready (move SG/PF's) to go the moment they signed Landry but as we know they didn't. Plus a lot of teams are downsizing I mean the Warrior played extremely well with Jack, Curry and Klay as the PG/SG/SF and our line up of Vasquez, Thornton, M16 is bigger than that. Nuggets also had good success with Miller/Lawson/Iggy and again they going by average height not bigger than what we got.

I just rather see players who can win us games like Thornton on the floor than Outlaw/Salmons which provide little to nothing and equally low IQ.

McLemore at SF? He is way too small. Evans was undersized and outmatched at SF. Why do you think McLemore would find any success there?

Evans' Measurements: Height = 6'5.25", Wingspan = 6'11.25", Standing Reach = 8'8", Weight = 221
McLemore's Measurements: Height = 6'4.75", Wingspan = 6'7.75", Standing Reach = 8'4.5", Weight = 189

Evans struggled to contain SFs on the defensive side and produce on the offensive side. McLemore might find more success offensively if he is just sitting around the perimeter taking open jumpshots versus Evans who had to try and penetrate against bigger, stronger, and longer defenders. Even if we have McLemore matched up with SFs, it is going to make it more difficult for him to get his shot off due to the height and length of his opponent. All of KingsFans (or the majority of KingsFans) hated Evans at SF. I don't see how putting a guy who's height is .5 inches shorter, wingspan is 3.5 inches shorter, standing reach is 3.5 inches shorter, and weight is 32 pounds lighter than Evans at SF is a very bright thing to do.

McLemore is a true SG. We shouldn't be messing with him by moving him out of position. As much as it pains me to say this, I would much rather have Salmons at SF than McLemore. Salmons doesn't give us much, but he is not a huge liability defensively as I think McLemore would be.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I don't get why people are saying Patterson is at the top of the trade list. He's young and is MONEY with his jumpshot. Yes a defensive big man would be nice, but he fits perfectly with interior players like cousins on the offensive end and fills a HUGE need of this team in shooting.

With the signing of Landry there is now a perceived surplus at the 4, and PPat actually represents one of our most tradeable assets due to his age, talent and contract. We might find it difficult to retain him next summer if he does indeed play a position of surplus given our other needs. I like PPat. Thought he was a young, serviceable player. Didn't see the need for Landry. I wonder if they see PPat logging minutes at the 3

 

[bajaden]

I believe the thinking is that Patterson and Landry are very similar players in terms of what they are able to do, so committing to Landry on that long term contract makes Patterson look pretty expendable. In both cases, you're looking at a slightly undersized PF with an emphasis on scoring and not much of a reputation for defense. Landry rebounds a tiny bit better and actually scores quite a bit more and much more efficiently, and he's much much better at getting to the FT line. He gives up a little in terms of assists and turnovers, but the only thing that Patterson does markedly better than Landry is shoot the 3 ball.

So basically, we have Landry filling the shooting need (even though his jumper doesn't extend quite so far out). We don't need Patterson, and might have trouble finding time for him, so if we can trade him for something we can use, so much the better.

Personally I don't think their games are similar at all. I think Patterson might get a try at SF at times, and he has the offensive game to play there. The question is can he defend there. Probably so if you were to go to a zone defense, especially with Vasquez at the Point. But aside from that, Landry is most effective 12 feet and in, where Patterson is most effective 15 feet and out. Neither is a shotblocker, but both, and especially Patterson, can play decent to good team defense. Of course this is just my opinion, and management may see both players entirely different than I do. They'd be wrong of course.

 

[mac]

Personally I don't think their games are similar at all. I think Patterson might get a try at SF at times, and he has the offensive game to play there. The question is can he defend there. Probably so if you were to go to a zone defense, especially with Vasquez at the Point. But aside from that, Landry is most effective 12 feet and in, where Patterson is most effective 15 feet and out. Neither is a shotblocker, but both, and especially Patterson, can play decent to good team defense. Of course this is just my opinion, and management may see both players entirely different than I do. They'd be wrong of course.

Their actual games may not be similar but they essentially fulfill similar roles - scoring, without too much defense or rebounding.

 

[Chubbs]

With the signing of Landry there is now a perceived surplus at the 4, and PPat actually represents one of our most tradeable assets due to his age, talent and contract. We might find it difficult to retain him next summer if he does indeed play a position of surplus given our other needs. I like PPat. Thought he was a young, serviceable player. Didn't see the need for Landry. I wonder if they see PPat logging minutes at the 3

He might be our only moveable part. I think it's delusional to think there will be any trades. If trades don't happen during free agency, they tend not to happen. The idea that not 1 but multiple trades are coming to clean up this mess? I don't see it.

This is the team.

The premise of the original poster, that jimmer actually has value, is wrong. He does not. They tried to move him for anything and could not. Not a second round pick, nothing. What would you give up for jimmer? This could be his last nba season. This isn't a guy teams are lining up for.

 

[pshn80]

He might be our only moveable part. I think it's delusional to think there will be any trades. If trades don't happen during free agency, they tend not to happen. The idea that not 1 but multiple trades are coming to clean up this mess? I don't see it.

This is the team.

The premise of the original poster, that jimmer actually has value, is wrong. He does not. They tried to move him for anything and could not. Not a second round pick, nothing. What would you give up for jimmer? This could be his last nba season. This isn't a guy teams are lining up for.

Trades, delusianal, maybe. A trade , no. They will search like hell in these two months for a trade that get them one more piece. Lif they don't find one they will go to a thrift store an find best they can, which, of course, won't be a very hot item.

There are always a handful of teams who get this far through the free-agency season without getting or getting rid of what they want or satisfying PR needs. So possibilities are never dead.

I disagree on Jimmer. He has next to zero value as a player for our team, in fact, I believe he has a negative value. But I believe, right now he has a glimmer of value for a few teams. Not much value by himself but in a package he would make a difference. So strike while the iron is still luke warm.

 

[Chubbs]

Trades, delusianal, maybe. A trade , no. They will search like hell in these two months for a trade that get them one more piece. Lif they don't find one they will go to a thrift store an find best they can, which, of course, won't be a very hot item.

There are always a handful of teams who get this far through the free-agency season without getting or getting rid of what they want or satisfying PR needs. So possibilities are never dead.

I disagree on Jimmer. He has next to zero value as a player for our team, in fact, I believe he has a negative value. But I believe, right now he has a glimmer of value for a few teams. Not much value by himself but in a package he would make a difference. So strike while the iron is still luke warm.

I hope you're right.

You are right. It's not impossible to make a move. I just don't see a lot of options.

 

[kingsnation]

Trades, delusianal, maybe. A trade , no. They will search like hell in these two months for a trade that get them one more piece. Lif they don't find one they will go to a thrift store an find best they can, which, of course, won't be a very hot item.

There are always a handful of teams who get this far through the free-agency season without getting or getting rid of what they want or satisfying PR needs. So possibilities are never dead.

I disagree on Jimmer. He has next to zero value as a player for our team, in fact, I believe he has a negative value. But I believe, right now he has a glimmer of value for a few teams. Not much value by himself but in a package he would make a difference. So strike while the iron is still luke warm.

"luke warm" is a generous term.

 

[Prince_XY]

We are still talking of trades as if they will still matter and as if this new organization can pull through with a good trade.

We've already wasted a significant young talent in Evans in exchange for mediocre talents. I don't see any reason why this organization can suddenly learn how to acquire better players in exchange for lesser talents like Jimmer, Hayes, Salmons, Outlaw, Patterson, IT, or even Thompson and Thornton.

I am just hoping Cousins won't be the next one to move in the future. He hasn't got his extension yet and the Lakers will be patiently waiting.

 

[Chubbs]

We are still talking of trades as if they will still matter and as if this new organization can pull through with a good trade.

We've already wasted a significant young talent in Evans in exchange for mediocre talents. I don't see any reason why this organization can suddenly learn how to acquire better players in exchange for lesser talents like Jimmer, Hayes, Salmons, Outlaw, Patterson, IT, or even Thompson and Thornton.

I am just hoping Cousins won't be the next one to move in the future. He hasn't got his extension yet and the Lakers will be patiently waiting.

I think we are several months from being completely back to zero. Hard to see cousins staying. They did nothing to improve the talent around him, arguably going the other way in fact, specifically in losing Evans.

Man, that list of players is really depressing. That's 8 below avg nba players. 4 utterly worthless. Some have decent skills in an area or two, but all have debilitating weaknesses as well. And that's not even including Landry, the black hole. Or Vazquez, the ole defender. Or mclemore, who handles the ball like an 8th grader who grew too fast. None of the 8 above are nba starter quality. Patterson, IT, JT, and MT are all rotation guys. But you can't build a team around rotation guys. And it's really tough to fleece a team these days. We don't have the talent to offer. A team would have to make a huge mistake on the webber for Richmond level. The problem is, we don't have a Richmond. We have a jimmer. No one confuses Richmond for jimmer.

Which brings us to our one and only above avg talent (proven talent at this point anyway, we'll see about mclemore) as cousins. Why would he stay? The 2nd best player on last years team in is New Orleans. Teams like the kings have to hold onto elite talent. And usually overpay. We let elite talent go in tyreke, and then overpaid a specialist like Landry, whose special skill we didn't even need. Scoring hasn't been a issue. It's everything else. Landry offers nothing else.

Cousins had more talent around him at Kentucky (wall has more talent than all our guards combined). It's not hard to see why he gets frustrated. He probably realizes that as well. For this team to succeed, cousins has to be in beast mode every single game, every practice. I don't know if he has that in him. We kinda know he doesnt after last season. And since he's still surrounded by mostly selfish players (Vazquez possibly an exception, although he is known as a ball dominant guard) including an all timer in Landry (his career assist avg is 0.8),it's hard to see him staying mentally strong.

Trading cousins may soon become the only option. He's the only guy that can fetch a real talent. I don't think they're dumb enough to let him walk for nothing, but the Landry signing makes any amount of stupidity seem possible.

 

[Glenn]

I think we are several months from being completely back to zero. Hard to see cousins staying. They did nothing to improve the talent around him, arguably going the other way in fact, specifically in losing Evans.

Man, that list of players is really depressing. That's 8 below avg nba players. 4 utterly worthless. Some have decent skills in an area or two, but all have debilitating weaknesses as well. And that's not even including Landry, the black hole. Or Vazquez, the ole defender. Or mclemore, who handles the ball like an 8th grader who grew too fast. None of the 8 above are nba starter quality. Patterson, IT, JT, and MT are all rotation guys. But you can't build a team around rotation guys. And it's really tough to fleece a team these days. We don't have the talent to offer. A team would have to make a huge mistake on the webber for Richmond level. The problem is, we don't have a Richmond. We have a jimmer. No one confuses Richmond for jimmer.

Which brings us to our one and only above avg talent (proven talent at this point anyway, we'll see about mclemore) as cousins. Why would he stay? The 2nd best player on last years team in is New Orleans. Teams like the kings have to hold onto elite talent. And usually overpay. We let elite talent go in tyreke, and then overpaid a specialist like Landry, whose special skill we didn't even need. Scoring hasn't been a issue. It's everything else. Landry offers nothing else.

Cousins had more talent around him at Kentucky (wall has more talent than all our guards combined). It's not hard to see why he gets frustrated. He probably realizes that as well. For this team to succeed, cousins has to be in beast mode every single game, every practice. I don't know if he has that in him. We kinda know he doesnt after last season. And since he's still surrounded by mostly selfish players (Vazquez possibly an exception, although he is known as a ball dominant guard) including an all timer in Landry (his career assist avg is 0.8),it's hard to see him staying mentally strong.

Trading cousins may soon become the only option. He's the only guy that can fetch a real talent. I don't think they're dumb enough to let him walk for nothing, but the Landry signing makes any amount of stupidity seem possible.

I don't agree with everything you say especially about Vasquez as we don't know how he will perform with our team. The Landry signing still baffles me. Your general mood however, I share. You will undoubtedly be picked on for details but that is not seeing the forest because of the trees. If there is some grand plan, I am confused UNLESS the lessening of the talent pool is deliberate as a passive tank to get a high draft choice.

 

[dude12]

I don't agree with everything you say especially about Vasquez as we don't know how he will perform with our team. The Landry signing still baffles me. Your general mood however, I share. You will undoubtedly be picked on for details but that is not seeing the forest because of the trees. If there is some grand plan, I am confused UNLESS the lessening of the talent pool is deliberate as a passive tank to get a high draft choice.

If your one of the guys who still thinks Tyreke Evans is an "elite talent" then your going to be frustrated. The so called elite talent couldn't get us anywhere near a winning record. Malone just came out in the paper and said its going to take time. You don't give a guy like Evans an elite player contract when he continually leads us to 29 wins or whatever our win totals have been. So if you can give the organization some time, then these guys may just turn it around. I applaud the decision to not give in to the Evans contract which would have kept us at 30 wins over and over.

 

[mac]

If your one of the guys who still thinks Tyreke Evans is an "elite talent" then your going to be frustrated. The so called elite talent couldn't get us anywhere near a winning record. Malone just came out in the paper and said its going to take time. You don't give a guy like Evans an elite player contract when he continually leads us to 29 wins or whatever our win totals have been. So if you can give the organization some time, then these guys may just turn it around. I applaud the decision to not give in to the Evans contract which would have kept us at 30 wins over and over.

Based on your argument alone, why then are we building around DMC? It could be argued that DMC has been given even more freedom - high school coach brought on to watch over him, head coach fired to appease him, Keith Smart having to buddy him up, clearly the focus of our offense the last 3 years. The result? We didn't get anywhere near a winning record, and he got ejected multiple times and even team USA didn't think too highly of him. But Malone and Vivek are now building around him.

Now I don't believe in a thing I just said, because it's plain silly to attribute our team's wins to one single guy's talent level, especially given everything else that was (and maybe is) wrong with the Kings organization. That however, seems to be the premise of your post.

 

[dude12]

The premise of the post is Evans is not an elite player. We haven't won with him. He's been one of the 2 major players on this team. We have added solid players in Vazquez, an actual distributor for once, Landry, Mbah a Moute, added 2 rookies that we can be excited about with McLemore being labeled the highest upside out of the draft. We subtracted a solid player in Evans. Maybe we don't get more wins with the new group of players but I've seen the product with Evans and its a 30 win team. That's a fact. As for Cousins, he IS an elite player. We all know that.

 

[pshn80]

Cheer up, guys. Read the good Voison interview of Malone in today's Bee.

Hey, this is not going to be a great Kings team this year but it isn't going to be asc totally hopeless as several of our last posters say. So, be of good cheer, look forward to watching this team. I certainly am.

 

[Glenn]

If your one of the guys who still thinks Tyreke Evans is an "elite talent" then your going to be frustrated. The so called elite talent couldn't get us anywhere near a winning record. Malone just came out in the paper and said its going to take time. You don't give a guy like Evans an elite player contract when he continually leads us to 29 wins or whatever our win totals have been. So if you can give the organization some time, then these guys may just turn it around. I applaud the decision to not give in to the Evans contract which would have kept us at 30 wins over and over.

I believe that at the least Tyreke should have been signed as he would have made very good trade material. He also plays defense which is something Malone values. Everybody on our team can go as no one has lead us anywhere. Although I tend to think our ownership and the resultant coaches share as much blame for that than anyone else, it just further supports Chubbs' fear that we will lose Cousins. Cousins has lead us nowhere and clearly is not the defender that Malone likes nor is he anywhere near a high character guy which is what Ranadive values. He has more strikes against him than Tyreke and probabably will want a higher salary which is the third strike. Do we then let him go and become what the Clippers were until just recently?

So next we lose Cousins? Then where are we?

I think Tyreke was/is an elite athlete. You betcha!