It was only his right ankle, and it was to remove bone spurs. Here's the latest from CBSSports.com
I think he'll be more than ready.
I think he'll be more than ready.
Now, about Vasquez...
- Thread starter MassachusettsKingsFan
- Start date
It was only his right ankle, and it was to remove bone spurs. Here's the latest from CBSSports.com
I think he'll be more than ready.
I think he'll be more than ready.
Vasquez is a LOT better than I think most realize. He is also a tremendous fit for this particular team. I'd be willing to bet he's a fan favorite REAL quick like!!!
I just personally choose not to look at it as "swapped for him" myself. Tyreke signed for $44 million, which the FO felt was more than he was worth. Personally, I agree. I look at getting Vasquez back + the salary relief as a GREAT trade and I think a few years from now, more will agree. Tyreke didn't fit on this team going forward. I like Tyreke and his game myself, but it's a done deal and I'm stoked we end up with Vasquez and some salary cap in the end.
I'm not even arguing about the fact that Vasquez is a better fit than Isaiah. it's just that when people see the 9APG and think we got an absolute stud back and start throwing around the idea he might even improve on it that it seems necessary to temper expectations a bit. Vasquez is a system player that was absolutely set up to succeed in NO. he is not monumentally creative and he has severe limitations due to his lack of speed. he will do fine as a stop-gap at the PG, but he is no long-term solution. that is all.
I don't have much of an opinion yet on Vasquez's play and how he's going to work out on the Kings, but I heard him in an interview with Napier a couple of days ago and he was beyond impressive. He's very enthusiastic about being on the Kings, about winning, changing the culture, and doing whatever it takes to win. Very sincere guy. Very believable and likeable kid. He's the anti-entitled type of kid. Very engaging personality. Definitely a leader type of guy.
I don't think we'll always disagree on that issue. if he surprises me and does well in this new environment, then I'll be happy to have him as our long term starting point guard. if he struggles and turns out to be mediocre or worse, I doubt that you'll want him here in a starting capacity. this is no philosophical difference, I don't favour scoring point guards or anything, we just differ in our opinions as to where he falls on the spectrum of quality PGs.
in other words: I believe that this whole thing will resolve itself some months into the season. in the meantime there really is nothing more to do than to wait and see.
in other words: I believe that this whole thing will resolve itself some months into the season. in the meantime there really is nothing more to do than to wait and see.
God forbid we draft Marcus Smart. How many PG's do we need to draft? I might add that at the moment, I'm not a huge fan of Smart's, and not because of his last name. He was downright terrible at the recent U 19 games for the USA, and got outplayed big time by Justise Winslow, who isn't even a PG, but was better at facilitating than Smart. Smart can't shoot a lick, and most scouts are now looking at him as a SG. If the best we can do in this next draft is Marcus Smart, then the whole management dept of the Kings should be fired on the spot.
As far as Vasquez goes, I have no idea what the long range plans the Kings may have for him, but I do think they look at McCallum as insurance against losing him. He's a similar player, with more athleticism. Some have said that New Orleans set things up for him to succeed, as though thats a bad thing. I think its a coaches job to play to his players strengths, and design a system for them to succeed. But in the end, the player still has to have the right mentality, and skill to succeed in that system. Vasquez obviously did, and does!
As I pointed out in another thread, Landry was very successful at Houston, and he was successful after his stint with the Kings, but with the Kings, he as average to below average at best. Why? Because we didn't play him to his strengths! We tried to fit him into the system we wanted to run, instead of adjusting the system to get the best out of him. Landry adapted, but the results weren't the same. Now you can argue (not you personally) that you shouldn't have to adjust your entire system for a role player. Maybe not, but you don't run a thoroughbred in a quarterhorse race, and you don't run a quarterhorse in a thoroughbred race. You can, but you won't win. Good coaches find a way to get the best out of all their players.
Of course we haven't had a real coach for so long, we've forgotten what they look like.
As far as Vasquez goes, I have no idea what the long range plans the Kings may have for him, but I do think they look at McCallum as insurance against losing him. He's a similar player, with more athleticism. Some have said that New Orleans set things up for him to succeed, as though thats a bad thing. I think its a coaches job to play to his players strengths, and design a system for them to succeed. But in the end, the player still has to have the right mentality, and skill to succeed in that system. Vasquez obviously did, and does!
As I pointed out in another thread, Landry was very successful at Houston, and he was successful after his stint with the Kings, but with the Kings, he as average to below average at best. Why? Because we didn't play him to his strengths! We tried to fit him into the system we wanted to run, instead of adjusting the system to get the best out of him. Landry adapted, but the results weren't the same. Now you can argue (not you personally) that you shouldn't have to adjust your entire system for a role player. Maybe not, but you don't run a thoroughbred in a quarterhorse race, and you don't run a quarterhorse in a thoroughbred race. You can, but you won't win. Good coaches find a way to get the best out of all their players.
Of course we haven't had a real coach for so long, we've forgotten what they look like.
Last edited:
I was a fan of his at Maryland, and the thing I loved most about Vasquez was his toughness and his fire. Tough, tough competitor. He may be limited athleticly, but you'll always get a complete effort from him, and what people may not know about him, is his ability to be the general on the floor. If you slack off, or don't run the play properly, he's going to be in your face. He's one of those players, that if he's going to play hard, then your damm well going to play hard, or you going to know about it.
I get the impression that this was a major theme for us this offseason. We wanted to bring in players whose efforts you never have to question when they are on the floor. Landry, Mbah, and Vasquez all fit that "tough, disciplined, smart" type of basketball player where you know exactly what you're going to get from them on a nightly basis and they know exactly what the team expects from them on a nightly basis. We're not going to see Mbah struggle with "James Johnson" syndrome where he thinks he's Kobe Bryant. He knows his strengths and he's pretty darn good at them too
And honestly, that's been a major weakness for our team the last 4 years. I'd say JT and IT were the only 2 players we've had the last few years where you absolutely knew they were giving 100% on the floor. Whether playing well or not, you never had to question their effort. I think we added 5 new guys this offseason who fit that same mold
And honestly, that's been a major weakness for our team the last 4 years. I'd say JT and IT were the only 2 players we've had the last few years where you absolutely knew they were giving 100% on the floor. Whether playing well or not, you never had to question their effort. I think we added 5 new guys this offseason who fit that same mold
I agree with the premise. Obviously, the higher skilled, and more athletic the player is, the more beneficial he is. But sometimes it comes down to choosing between a player with a lot of potential and athleticism, but lacks desire, and a player that's very skilled with average athleticism, but has fire in his belly. You'll usually win more games with the latter. There's a reason Coachie used to say, "The strong take from the weak, and the smart take from the strong". All coachie had at Princeton were average athlete's. So he made sure they were very skilled, and they had very high BBIQ. They beat a lot of teams they weren't suspposed to beat.
Baja, baja, baja... I will just say that I disagree strongly with you on Smart. He can't shoot, yes, but I obviously rate him a lot higher than you. Let's see what the coming season bring!
I hope he proves me wrong. This is going to be a tough draft class to break in to, and from a financial point of view, he probably should have come out in this past draft. Probably would have gone top five. Next year, who knows! Maybe top ten, maybe lower if he isn't more consistent. If you end up being right, I'll be the first to admit it.... I hope he can convince me to stop cringing everytime he shoots a three.
I think this next season is going to a dress rehearsal for a lot of the team. And that includes Vasquez. Whether he stays or not, probably depends on how well he melds together with Cousins, and whether Cousins likes playing with him or not. I believe that, at least right now, Cousins, Vasquez, Thomas, and Patterson are all restricted freeagents at seasons end. So there will be some decisions to be made. Hopefully the decision on Cousins won't have to wait till then.
Do second round picks become RFAs? I thought Thomas would be unrestricted after this season. Fredette's play this season will determine whether or not the Kings pick up his option for the 2014-2015 season. And Salmons will almost certainly be bought out and become a FA after this year, assuming he isn't traded before then.
Thornton, Hayes, Outlaw, and Mbah a Moute all come off the books in two seasons. The only guys currently signed for more than two years are Landry and Thompson. Presumably McLemore (team option) and Cousins (extension) will be as well. This team can be molded in a number of different ways going forward and as you point out, a lot depends on how the guys currently on the roster play next season.
Thornton, Hayes, Outlaw, and Mbah a Moute all come off the books in two seasons. The only guys currently signed for more than two years are Landry and Thompson. Presumably McLemore (team option) and Cousins (extension) will be as well. This team can be molded in a number of different ways going forward and as you point out, a lot depends on how the guys currently on the roster play next season.
I am sure the FO thinks Vasquez will be a long term guard for us, which I would be more than happy with. Maybe then we could draft a SF. Whether or not he works well with Cousins though will probably play into if they sign him next year or not. But they probably expect Vasquez to be long term. I would like that.
just to point out: Vasquez appears to have been a fallback option, once Jose Calderon declined the Kings' offer and getting him might just as well have been predicated on doing NO a favour by taking on his salary. so, while he appears to be the type of point guard the FO is looking for, I'm not convinced that he's the actual guy they want.
I'm a little confused by I. Thomas status as well. I, like you thought he would become an unrestricted freeagent. But both Shamsports, and Hoopsworld show him being a restricted freeagent, and I tend to believe in Shamsports. Hoopshype shows him as an unrestricted freeagent, but to me, their the most unreliable. Be nice if all these sources would get on the same page. Shamsports shows McCallum having two years guaranteed, and Hoopsworld shows him only having the first year guaranteed.
The more I see film on him, and hear his interviews, the more he is growing on me. I might buy his jersey before too long. Love his attitude!
http://www.nba.com/kings/video/2013/07/12/VasquezInterviewmov-2538607
http://www.nba.com/kings/video/2013/07/12/VasquezInterviewmov-2538607