twslam07
All-Star
And why is that?
Restart the rebuild around Boogie?
- Thread starter Bosnian Diehard
- Start date
Because
- They're both ball dominant, and Evans is not the "right" kind of ball dominant, for late game situations.
- They don't stretch the floor, which means that the defense can crowd around Cousins.
- Evans doesn't do well defensively against "lightning-bug" guards. Rondo doesn't do well defensively.
Well yes, most significantly in his last season with us. But the point is that he followed that up with 2 seasons of 72 and 79 games. The injury history is there, no doubt, but if we're indeed slowing down the pace and assumingly running a better offense I don't think it should be too much of an issue. If anything I would say the larger concern is his actual play moreso than whether he's injury-prone. You'd need a very good offensive rebounding big or a big with good hands and actual 3 point threats on the wings for me to be comfortable with us getting Evans (and I'm a big fan of Evans). I do think that Gay needs to go though. Just not consistent enough on either end to be a 2nd option, and there are better 3rd options who space the floor more and play better off the ball to be had.
twslam07
All-Star
So are Lowry & DeRozan yet they seem to do just fine in Toronto. Same with Paul & Crawford...
I already proved this narrative to be false earlier in the thread. They both can connect from 3 when left open, and having another ball-handler/playmaker on the court should help cut down late game turnovers when the defense starts to clamp down.
Evans would be guarding SGs so he's not going to have to worry about the "lightning-bug" guards as you put it. As for Rondo, yeah he will struggle to defend these types of players, but so does most everyone in the league. Containing these types of players takes a team effort. Besides, it's not like C. Lee is equipped to handle this type of player defensively. You simply have a plan defensively going into the game to how you want your team to contain this player, and in the meantime you hope Rondo reemerges as a good defender under a better coach or he decides to 'turn it on' since we are talking about a late game situation.
Yeah, but Lowry and DeRozan don't play with an All-Star, Top 3 Usage Rate center. And Paul and Crawford are pretty much only effective on the court at the same time when they're not playing with Blake Griffin (cite).
I don't think that "proved false" means what you think it means. Sure, Rondo and Evans can hit wide open threes, which is to say that they've done it a non-zero number of times, over the course of their respective careers. Neither of them do it often enough or at an efficient enough rate for it to be a viable strategy for winning basketball games. And the notion of Rondo and Evans playing together cutting down on turnovers is... well, let's just call it specious.
Right. Because the Sacramento Kings never switch defensive assignments.
twslam07
All-Star
That's actually false looking at the page you just provided. Paul, Crawford, Griffin combine for a +16.1 points when paired with Jordan & Redick. That's 11.3 points better than their team average. Let's just call it specious
And when looking at the 3 man tandem in isolation, they are at 11.2 (still well above the team average).Is it the best lineup they have statistically? No, it's not, but the premise here is to prove that this type of tandem can actually work in the NBA.
So I show stats that Evans & Rondo are shooting well from 3 this year, I show stats that they are even better catch & shoot 3pt shooters, I show they hit their 3s when open, I show they miss their 3s when guarded tightly (along with many other players classified as good 3pt shooters), I show that Rondo shoots over 2 a game &Evans shoots over 3 a game, I show that where they like to shoot threes complements one another (Rondo in the corner/Evans on the perimeter), but yet I'm mistaken?
Look, are they top notch shooters? No, they are not. Have they shown they can hit the shot when players sag off? Yes. Teams aren't going to treat these two like Tony Allen. On top of that, you add a guy like Ariza who is known for being a good 3pt shooter out there, and your spacing should be fine.
Lets put it this way... would you rather have Evans/Rondo driving the lane, dribbling in transition, making a swing pass or would you rather have McLemore? Evans has a 2.3 A/TO & Rondo has a 3.1 A/TO. They make good decisions with the ball. It's just one less person the defense can hound and force into a bad decision (or at least it would be more difficult to do that to Evans vs. someone like McLemore).
So you want to fit players to a flawed defensive system? I thought you knew more than thatRight. Because the Sacramento Kings never switch defensive assignments.
Not false. I said that they're pretty much only effective when they're out there at the same time, if Griffin isn't on the court with them, and the cite backs me up on that. There are only two of their Top 20 five-man lineups that have Paul, Crawford and Griffin on the court at the same time, and the better one of those two is only their fifth-best overall. And it ain't a close fifth, either. That's as close to "pretty much" as makes no odds.That's actually false looking at the page you just provided. Paul, Crawford, Griffin combine for a +16.1 points when paired with Jordan & Redick. That's 11.3 points better than their team average. Let's just call it specious
I don't think that you structure your roster around what might be your fifth-best five-man lineup, YMMV.
Shooting "well" from 3? If you're grading on a curve, maybe.
Yeah, about that... NBA.com stat profiles show details for forty-seven different shot types, and "catch & shoot" doesn't appear to be one of them. B-R.com doesn't appear to show that split, either. I don't suppose asking for a cite is too much?
See above.
What you're mistaken about is your belief that you've "proven" anything. You haven't done much more than propose a hypothetical, roll out a handful of numbers which support your hypothetical, and then declared your hypothetical to be the "winner," for lack of a better term. You keep saying that you "proved" an argument false. No, you haven't; if you'd proven it false, we wouldn't still be having this conversation. I argue a lot (hell, some people here would say that I argue just to argue), but I have a pretty good track record of admitting when I've been proven wrong.
Why wouldn't they? If one season's worth of "respectable" shooting were sufficient to get defenses to stop playing off Rondo and Evans, they wouldn't be getting defenders to sag off them.
I'd rather have Evans or Rondo, not both. Preferably Evans, except that I've seen enough of Evans and Cousins to be convinced that, even though Evans and Cousins should be spectacular together, they somehow aren't.
Evans makes good decisions with the ball for three-quarters of the game. It's the quarter when he doesn't that's problematic. The same can be said for Rondo; it's a bad idea to have both of them on the same team.
Silly me, what was I thinking? We'll get a new coach, and a new defensive system, and then we'll never get caught on switches, ever again! Yeah, that's how it works!So you want to fit players to a flawed defensive system? I thought you knew more than that
For me the argument is pretty simple. If the Kings were in a situation where they were down two in the waning seconds of a game and needed to draw up a play to get a basket, would I expect either Rondo, Evans or Cousins to get that hoop?
Cousins yes, but only if he had space to operate since fouls down low don't often get called at the end of games. Rondo? No. Not at all. Evans? Not with a jumper, no.
Evans is a limited in many of the same ways Rondo is. He's ball dominant and not a great shooter. For years we talked about how if Tyreke was going to be the starting PG for the Kings his SG needed to be a good outside shooter and ideally one who can handle the ball and is a low usage player. Same thing with Rondo.
In fact I'm not sure I want Rondo out there in crunch time at all, given his terrible free throw shooting.
Cousins yes, but only if he had space to operate since fouls down low don't often get called at the end of games. Rondo? No. Not at all. Evans? Not with a jumper, no.
Evans is a limited in many of the same ways Rondo is. He's ball dominant and not a great shooter. For years we talked about how if Tyreke was going to be the starting PG for the Kings his SG needed to be a good outside shooter and ideally one who can handle the ball and is a low usage player. Same thing with Rondo.
In fact I'm not sure I want Rondo out there in crunch time at all, given his terrible free throw shooting.
randymoss1881
Starter
I'll take Evabs over Rondo and not look back at all.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I think that might be a mistake at this point.
Reke is giving off a lot of signs that he may be just physically breaking down at this point. Some guys are just like that, like trees with weak wood that fall apart in a storm. An oak he ain't. And its entirely possible in three years time he might be a messy 12ppg sub 40% guy.
I thought trading for Evans would be a good idea around the time of the draft last year and the genesis of that idea was that we don't need a backup PG and a backup SG if we had one player who can fill both roles. That's how George Karl is using Darren Collison this season anyway and it's not a bad idea on the surface. You want to keep your best players on the court as much as possible and consolidating 2 decent backups into 1 excellent sixth man makes us a lot more dangerous (on paper anyway...). Rondo and Collison have been able to adjust as the season goes on and they're no longer getting in each other's way on offense. The problems are on the defensive end where one of them has to guard the other team's SG. Two 6 foot guards can't work for extended minutes, but one PG and one big combo guard could.
So... imagine swapping out Collison for Tyreke Evans. Same role, he would be playing the backup PG minutes when Rondo is out and then sliding to SG for stretches in the 2nd and 4th quarter to give us multiple points of attack from the perimeter and give the defense something different to adjust to late in the game. He becomes a kind of flexible contingency plan for the coach if we need to make adjustments at halftime. Obviously you're downgrading your shooting capability going from Collison to Evans but you're gaining a lot in defensive versatility and playmaking. Collison is a decent set-up guy, but he's mostly been a scorer for us off the bench. Evans is a better set-up man (his assist rates for the past three seasons are 30.4, 32.7, 34.5) and we already know he can get to the basket.
Whether or not he closes out the game doesn't matter to me. If we need defense he's on the floor. If we need shooting probably not. Either way he's still a weapon for 25-30 minutes of the game.
Last edited:
Today I would too. Evans is better at creating his own shot and is much better at attacking the basket and better at free throws if he's fouled along the way. For a last second play I'd really only want Rondo as the inbounder.
To be fair to Tyreke he played in 79 games last season (starting 76) and played in 72 games the year before. He's no Karl Malone but 13 games over 2 seasons is probably the league average of games lost to injury, if not a bit better. This season? Eeesh. Hard to say if this is just a bad year for Evans or if he's going to continue to miss games due to injury. Theoretically after this knee surgery he should be good to go for next season. We'll see.
But in my hypothetical I'm not taking into account whether either guy will be available to play, just whether I'd want Evans and Rondo as my guards when the team needs a last second basket. My answer would be no. And if I had to choose one of the two I'd take Tyreke. Assuming he's healthy which is a tough assumption to make these days and why trading Rudy for Tyreke is probably an even bigger concern than his potential fit with Rajon and Boogie.
randymoss1881
Starter
Is take my chances he's only 26 and on a great contract he played well last year. Rondo is on the wrong side if 30 plays no defend at all and will loose quickness as tge years go.
twslam07
All-Star
I'm confused how the 2 out of 20 argument holds any weight. The premise from the beginning was 'you can't have Evans and Rondo on the court at the same time in crunch time.' I bring up the Paul/Crawford/Griffin comparison and right under your nose is proof that a lineup with Paul/Crawford/Griffin outscore their opponents by 19.2 points in 100 possessions. 19.2 points. That's better than any lineup the Kings can throw out this year.
Again, it's right there for you to see. That tandem can work and be successful in the NBA despite having two ball dominant guards and a high usage big. I could care less about the other rotations that include those three because all you need is one, and that one lineup can be the one you end a game with.
Silly me, what was I thinking? Maybe we should team up together and tell that to the following teams:
SAS - 2nd
CLE - 2nd
OKC - 7th
TOR - 4th
MEM - 5th
ATL - 14th
You do realize that these stats do have bias in them and shouldn't be taken as gospel, right? For instance, if a coach is putting a lineup he thinks is his best lineup at the end of a game chances are they are having to go against the opposing teams best lineup making it more difficult for that lineup to outperform the opponent. If there was a stat that incorporated strength of opponent, then we could start talking.
You're right it is on a curve...a bell curve. League average is 35%.
If you want to assign a letter grade to each of them, Rondo would be a C -- (36% Rondo 3pt% * 75% average C grade) / 35% League 3pt% = 77% & Evans would be a B -- (39% Evans 3pt% * 75% average C grade) / 35% League 3pt% = 84%
Nope. NBA.com has it.
http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/player/catchshoot/?CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*SAC&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular Season&sort=CATCH_SHOOT_FG3_PCT&dir=1
http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/player/catchshoot/?CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*NOP&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular Season&sort=CATCH_SHOOT_FG3_PCT&dir=1
http://stats.nba.com/league/player/shots/#!/?ShotDistRange=>=10.0&CloseDefDistRange=2-4 Feet - Tight
http://stats.nba.com/league/player/shots/#!/?ShotDistRange=>=10.0&CloseDefDistRange=4-6 Feet - Open
http://stats.nba.com/league/player/shots/#!/?ShotDistRange=>=10.0&CloseDefDistRange=6+ Feet - Wide Open
So how about you prove that I haven't proven it false rather than just saying it with no evidence?
When did I ever say that? I said teams won't treat them like Tony Allen (e.g., having Bogut 'guard' you or otherwise known as letting you roam the perimeter free while I protect the paint). Players do still sag off both players and Rondo & Evans have been hitting their 3pters at a good rate when it happens.
And that's your prerogative. I tend to agree that I would prefer to move forward with one or the other, but that doesn't mean I don't think Rondo/Evans could potentially work for stretches. Trading for Evans is more about moving on from Gay as it is about acquiring Evans. As I have mentioned in my other posts, a Collison/Evans/Bazemore guard rotation would be good mixture of skillsets and one that is possible.
If there is anything holding these two back from not being good partners in the backcourt for stretches, it's definitely not their ability to handle the ball & pass.
You do understand that there has been plenty unnecessary switching on the defensive end, don't you?
Every team switches at some point during the game, and every team has to do their best against this disadvantage. I don't know why you're holding a common basketball occurrence against a Rondo & Evans paring. Not every team is going to have PGs who can easily guard SGs and SGs who can easily guard PGs. You do realize that isn't the norm? You're grasping at straws here.
Last edited:
That's because you're disregarding the reason for the premise: you can't say that Rondo/Evans could work, on the basis that Paul/Crawford works. First of All™, not all ball-dominant guards are created equal, and Paul/Crawford are much superior shooters. Second of All, they don't play with a big like Cousins, so you can't compare circumstances.
Rondo and Evans are both having career seasons shooting from distance, comparatively late in their respective careers. It's irresponsible to build your roster hoping that players like that will keep shooting at that rate; the math says that they will both regress to the mean.
The whole problem with your hypothesis is that it hangs on the idea that Rondo and Evans' shooting is on an upward trend, or that it can even hold at what it is now, rather than being a statistical aberration. And there's no reason to believe that. Like, at all.
Ah, so. So I was looking in the wrong place. Thanks.
I haven't declared anything to be true, for it to be proven false. I am disputing your hypothetical.So how about you prove that I haven't proven it false rather than just saying it with no evidence?
Again, why wouldn't they? Rondo and Evans haven't done this long enough for other teams to play them as if they can shoot.
There's more to "good basketball decisions" than being able to handle the ball and pass. Evans has demonstrated that he has a tendency to get hero-ball-y in crunch time. Often to his team's detriment. Pairing that guy with a point guard who needs the ball and a center who needs the ball is a bad idea.
I do. Do you realize that a new coach will, at best, reduce our tendency to do this, and not eliminate it, don't you?
Because, here's the thing:
- Our new coach is not going to be Gregg Popovich, Rick Carlisle, Brad Stevens or even Quinn Snyder. So, best case scenario, our coach is still only going to be the smarter head coach about 80 percent of the time.
- Also, we don't have Draymond Green, Kawhi Leonard or Avery Bradley, so we'd still be vulnerable on a switch involving a quick guard.
- Some teams have two of those.
I am acutely aware of that, and if you re-read what I wrote, you will realize that the teams that do are the only ones I'm talking about. Because, unfortunately, those happen to be the teams we'd be likely to run into if we ever make the playoffs. Like, you can argue that there are only four teams* with guards like that, and my response would be, "Yeah, but those are the four teams we need to be worried about!" It's not like there are only four teams with guards like that, and those four teams are Phoenix, Brooklyn, New York and Philadelphia.
*That's a made-up number; I don't really know how many teams with guards like that there are.
twslam07
All-Star
Agreed. Not all ball dominant players are created equal. However, it's a good leading indicator for how it could/would play out.
Is it all that irresponsible? NBA franchises take chances on players all the time (us & Rondo, W. Matthews after injury, etc.) so how is expecting a player to do what he did in the previous year any less of a risk? And in the off chance it flops, Evans expires the very next year (risk mitigated).
And I'm not so sure the math is saying they would regress. Rondo shot 35% in his stint with Dallas last year, and he's shooting 36% this year. For Evans, I found it interesting that his 3PA went up so drastically from the 13-14 season to the 14-15 season (1.3 to 2.9). He didn't shoot very well from 3 that year (30%), but the fact that he's all of a sudden taking a noticeable amount of more 3s tells me that he had more confidence taking that shot. More confidence in taking the shot in a game is usually developed from practice & how well you shoot them in the gym. Is it possible that last year, was the first year Evans put extra focus on developing a better 3pt shot? Certainly. On top of that he shot 36% from catch & shoot 3s last year which isn't horrible.
Perhaps there is more of a trend than you originally thought...
Why wouldn't they? Because Rondo & Evans can hit the shot. Allen is shooting a blistering 43% from downtown this year. However, he's taken 28 of them all year. He willingly passes up wide open 3s. That's not to say Rondo & Evans don't do that, but if Rondo/Evans do it, it's usually in an effort to set someone else up with a higher percentage look or to drive to the hole. Otherwise, they take the shot. Allen will sometime decline to take even if he doesn't have either of those options.
Besides, I'm not sure I understand the point why it matters if defenses play off of them currently. If they do, they'll hit the shots and we'll go on our merry way.
Not denying the first sentence, but 'meh' to the rest. To be fair, Evans has been dealing with a crippled Holiday & a young Davis (who would get a lot of his points through setups) most of his time in New Orleans. It made sense for Evans to be 'the man' in those scenarios.
Having said that, would you say Evans has an ego? I most certainly would not. This is the Tyreke Evans that said he was willing to come off the bench when he was coming back from injury in order to "not disrupt the team." Keep in mind this wasn't a 50 win, 40 win, or even 30 win team for God's sake! Do we really think that Evans wouldn't be willing to buy into that team concept and defer to a player of Cousins caliber or a player of Rondo's experience/pedigree when it mattered most? I sure don't.
I do, and if you read my post more carefully you would have already known the answer to your question.
Sounds like you misunderstood what I was trying to say here. I'm talking about teams not having PGs that can effectively defend SGs and SGs that can effectively defend PGs. I'm not referencing teams that have these 'lightning-bug' guards as you like to put it. I know these are special players that help elevate a team to a high level. My point is that it is not the norm for a team who can have their SG switch onto Westbrook and guard him effectively. These types of players are not stopped by one player. They are contained (not stopped) with team defense, so again, calling out that Evans can't guard these types of PGs makes me want to say "so what?" to you.
Last edited:
twslam07
All-Star
Here's an interesting idea...let's acquire players that will push Gay to be our sixth man. This is how to do it.
SG - Lee (28 min)/Ariza (20 min)/Snell
SF - Ariza (14 min)/Gay (34 min)
PF - Cauley-Stein (18 min)/Gibson (30 min)/Acy
C - Cousins (36 min)/Cauley-Stein (12 min)/Ajinca
Cousins - 36 min
Rondo - 36 min
Ariza - 34 min
Gay - 34 min
Cauley-Stein - 30 min
Gibson - 30 min
Lee - 28 min
Cole - 12 min
- Butler opts out
- Release Moreland & Dukan
- Resign Rondo (1st year is worth $16 mil)
- Trade Belinelli for top 55 protected 2nd rounder
- Trade Koufos & 2016 1st round pick for Ariza
- Trade Collison & McLemore for Gibson & Snell
- Sign Courtney Lee (1st year is worth $15 mil)
- Trade Casspi & Anderson for Ajinca & T. Douglas
- Sign N. Cole to MLE
SG - Lee (28 min)/Ariza (20 min)/Snell
SF - Ariza (14 min)/Gay (34 min)
PF - Cauley-Stein (18 min)/Gibson (30 min)/Acy
C - Cousins (36 min)/Cauley-Stein (12 min)/Ajinca
Cousins - 36 min
Rondo - 36 min
Ariza - 34 min
Gay - 34 min
Cauley-Stein - 30 min
Gibson - 30 min
Lee - 28 min
Cole - 12 min
K
KingMilz
Guest
In terms of SF's I think Marcus Morris will be available with the improvement of Stanley Johnson and the Pistons investing in Harris and most likely making a run at Ryan Anderson. I would offer them Collison for Morris if it came down to it since they need someone to back up Jackson and Steven Blake is probably not that guy next year.
randymoss1881
Starter
Here's a DMC demanded trade idea:
It was reported (wether you believe or not) that Boston almost got Jimmy Butler by offere Bradley,nets pick and another prospect. Bulls were interested in Ben and Gay so here we go.
3 way: (probably only happens if LA gets 2nd or 3rd pick)
Kings: Russell, Butler
Lakers: Cousins,our pick (6-10),
Bulls: Gay, Ben, LaL 1st (2-3pick)
This would give us 38 mill in cap space. Sign Anderson to a max 22mill than sign Bazemore to 16mill.
Russell/DC
Bazemore/marco
Butler/Casspi
Anderson/acy
WCS/KK
It was reported (wether you believe or not) that Boston almost got Jimmy Butler by offere Bradley,nets pick and another prospect. Bulls were interested in Ben and Gay so here we go.
3 way: (probably only happens if LA gets 2nd or 3rd pick)
Kings: Russell, Butler
Lakers: Cousins,our pick (6-10),
Bulls: Gay, Ben, LaL 1st (2-3pick)
This would give us 38 mill in cap space. Sign Anderson to a max 22mill than sign Bazemore to 16mill.
Russell/DC
Bazemore/marco
Butler/Casspi
Anderson/acy
WCS/KK
K
KingMilz
Guest
If DMC demands a trade I would talk to Indiana for a deal revolving around Myles Turner (would want Hill or Ellis as well obviously) who I think will be a absolute stud, I would love to build around Turner/WCS if Cuz calls it quits. This is assuming we can't get one of the franchise changers in the draft.
Edit maybe not I just remembered the pick swaps we need high end picks back.
Edit maybe not I just remembered the pick swaps we need high end picks back.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm concerned that Memphis let Courtney Lee leave for scraps.. he will be 31, and imo, he's not a starting SG. I guess he'd be a better option than Ben though.
Provides solid D+shooting.
Ariza would be a very solid addition to this team.
I hate to say this because that team would be extremely good defensively, but they'd suck on offense. Lee's offense is restricted to what we see Ben do now..nothing more put a 9-10ppg scorer. Ariza is just a spot up guy who's your 5th option....4th at best.
I'd be considered about the scoring.. Cousins and Gay are your only capable 15ppg+ scorers. Even though it would be a good defensive tema, I don't think they'd be good enough to make up for lack of scoring.
twslam07
All-Star
Something's got to give. This team's main problem has been defense, and this team is much better on that side of the ball. Defense wins in the NBA and with this group, we should be able to compete even on the nights when our shots aren't falling.
Besides, I'm not so sure the offense would be an issue:
Cousins - 26 PPG
Gay - 18 PPG
Ariza - 12 PPG
Rondo - 12 PPG
Lee - 10 PPG
Cauley-Stein - 10 PPG
Gibson - 10 PPG
Cole - 5 PPG
That's 103 PPG. On par with the Cavaliers & Raptors this year (and 1 PPG lower than the Spurs).
You're right. Our lack of a 3rd option just scares me a bit. We saw it a lot this year. If Cuz isn't the one scoring, then no one is.
In this instance, I wouldn't mind bringing in someone like Thorton or Martin. Our defense would be good enough to hide them somewhere while they give us 15pts/game.
randymoss1881
Starter
Yes.... But have you seen Russell play. I'm torn Russell can be a 20-5-5 guy by next year.
Keyword IF
It's getting more difficult to see how we can make this work with Cousins with just a season and a half left to work with. The problem is we just don't have many means for improving this team in that time frame without expecting unrealistic expectations in trades and with a coach signing.
-We're going to be picking the bottom of the barrel for coaches once we get rid of Karl. He's one of the most respected figures in the NBA and the elite guys aren't going to want to jump into the coaching death-trap we've been for the last 10 years. And if we resign Rondo, who's going to want to take over a (maybe) 30 win team that has very limited means of improving itself?
-We aren't just one trade away from being a playoff contending team. Sorry, but coaching wasn't solely responsible for us not winning 45 games this year. There's serious defensive issues on the perimeter that a better scheme isn't going to fix.
Likewise, I'd look seriously into what we could get for Boogie THIS offseason while his value is astronomical. Other than KAT and other obvious superstars who aren't going to be traded, it's hard to imagine what we couldn't get for him with basically every team being able to absorb the contract. Twolves were able to snag Wiggins for 1 season of Kevin Love (although assumed he would resign there) to jump-start their rebuild and they now have one of the best young cores in the game. Something like Smart and the BK pick or Okafor and the Sixers (or Lakers) pick +our 2019 pick back would be very attainable and attractive deals.
It's not what I want to do, but we'd be able to expedite a rebuild in literally 2 seasons where a young core is competing by 2019, or watching Boogie walk out the door in 2019 with an aging Rondo and remaining core and our unprotected first going to Philly. We'd be stuck in a BK like hell of basketball for years and years.
-We're going to be picking the bottom of the barrel for coaches once we get rid of Karl. He's one of the most respected figures in the NBA and the elite guys aren't going to want to jump into the coaching death-trap we've been for the last 10 years. And if we resign Rondo, who's going to want to take over a (maybe) 30 win team that has very limited means of improving itself?
-We aren't just one trade away from being a playoff contending team. Sorry, but coaching wasn't solely responsible for us not winning 45 games this year. There's serious defensive issues on the perimeter that a better scheme isn't going to fix.
Likewise, I'd look seriously into what we could get for Boogie THIS offseason while his value is astronomical. Other than KAT and other obvious superstars who aren't going to be traded, it's hard to imagine what we couldn't get for him with basically every team being able to absorb the contract. Twolves were able to snag Wiggins for 1 season of Kevin Love (although assumed he would resign there) to jump-start their rebuild and they now have one of the best young cores in the game. Something like Smart and the BK pick or Okafor and the Sixers (or Lakers) pick +our 2019 pick back would be very attainable and attractive deals.
It's not what I want to do, but we'd be able to expedite a rebuild in literally 2 seasons where a young core is competing by 2019, or watching Boogie walk out the door in 2019 with an aging Rondo and remaining core and our unprotected first going to Philly. We'd be stuck in a BK like hell of basketball for years and years.
I'm still not convinced that Russell isn't just currently putting up decent stats on a bad team. I don't see him as a full time PG and I don't think he's athletic enough to be an impact SG. He's a few years older but right now I'm not convinced Russell is better than Jordan Clarkson.
Why don't you think he's a full time pg? He can handle the ball extremely well. He knows when to make the right passes. He's not a great passer, but he's not any worse than those of Curry, Lillard, Bledsoe, and etc coming into the league.
One interesting thing about watching Russell is that he has great court vision but almost all of his passes come from out on the perimeter and the majority of them come when he's at a stop. He's almost the anti-Tyreke in that very rarely does he get an assist from breaking down his man, getting into the paint and dishing off.
Mind you I've maybe seen 2 or 3 Lakers games this season other than when they played the Kings but I didn't see him effectively run the pick and roll. And the Lakers run a TON of pick and rolls. Part of it is his lack of burst to turn the corner and put the pressure on the defense to rotate but he also rarely hits the roll man, more often settling for a midrange jumper.
I think Byron Scott is mishandling the kid and I think he can be a decent NBA player but if he can't break down his man off the dribble consistently to attack the basket and either finish or dish, can't run the pick and roll effectively and generally isn't as effective passing off the dribble vs at a standstill on the perimeter then I see him as a SG with good court vision rather than a full time PG.
