Rumor: Celtics may make another run at Tyreke Evans

[LWP777]

You people are just flat dishonest at a certain point. Unfortunately I do not have a short memory.

All of this nonsense. ALL of it, dates back exactly 4 games. FOUR GAMES. Not a peep out of this foolishness for a solid month. And you want to know why? Well first of all everybody was too busy hanging Cuz in effigy to bother picking on Reke for a while -- charming ruins of a fanbase once called the best in the league we have here. But here's the other reason -- because you people were flat out hiding. You, Gary, had the gall to come on here and openly TAUNT people when Reke sturggled through the first 10 games of the season. Taunt them. I told you so them. I always knew what was he was etc. Then Reke snaps into gear, and poof, you disappear like a ghost on the issue. Now for a solid month we have been dying a slow and ugly offensive death without Reke out there, and then boom, Cuz blows up, the team seems to come together from it, we get 4 pretty easy games in a row, 3 at home against struggling/injured road teams and all of a sudden the fanbase which can't tolerate prosperity without throwing somebody under the bus whips out the knives to carve on their old favorite target again.

Enough. You people should be embarrassed.

Now let me throw the numbers at your feet. Have fun trying to twist and spin them to justify the latest nonsense push. Here are all the games since Reke went down where he did not play (I included Denver where he was clearly hobbled and only played 10min of the first quarter -- trying to blame that gme on him would require gall even for his detractors). So here's how we did without him until 4 games ago. FOUR. :

Nov 30: 92pts 42.7%FG 15ast
Dec 1: 81pts 38.2%FG 23ast
Dec 7: 91pts 40.5%FG 20ast
Dec 8: 99pts 41.9%FG 22ast
Dec10: 96pts 44.0%FG 22ast
Dec16: 97pts 34.1%FG 13ast (Reke plays 10min, can't go)
Dec17: 90pts 41.0%FG 15ast
Dec19: 131pts 50.0%FG 25ast (the out of nowhere Golden State home win)
Dec21: 85pts 41.8%FG 18ast (Cuz blows up)

So there we go. Up unitl one week ago. One week. We play 9 games without Reke. We break 100pts ONE time. We shoot better than 45% ONE time. This goes on for a solid month mind you. Oh, and mind you as well that in the 8 games Reke does play between the lineup change post Atlanta game, we score 100 or more points 5 of the 8 times. So there is our backdrop, and not a nonsense peep out of anyone. For damn good reason. Then we have a blowup, a major event, that has absolutely nothing to do with Reke at all, and all of a sudden for 4 games, FOUR, people start to pass the ball. And all of a sudden it was Reke holding us back from doing it before. The same guy who has been missing for a solid month while nobody on the team could throw the ball in the ocean. The same guy who's presence seemed to singlehandedly elevate us in the weeks before he left. And now he's back to being a villain because we play FOUR good passing games (@Portland was ineffective assists or not) a month after he was last consistently in the lineup. A more cynical observer might say that a certain subset of fans were just waiting and waiting and waiting until their next chance to scapegoat him.

Now it's "You People?" Your arrogance has reached a new high. You should not be allowed to be a mod with the way you talk to people.

 

[Spike]

Now it's "You People?" Your arrogance has reached a new high. You should not be allowed to be a mod with the way you talk to people.

Dude.

 

[LWP777]

Dude.

What? How come he gets to treat people like dirt but anytime other people get out of line they get infractions?

 

[jpsls]

Why with Tyreke are stats cherry picked? Is it not fair to use the last four games in which the team played well?

 

[spudfan]

Why with Tyreke are stats cherry picked? Is it not fair to use the last four games in which the team played well?

Because the people who are the tyreke cherry pickers only use it in one direction, to show how bad they think he is. It really is only 3 or 4 guys who have personal vendettas against him. They happen to be the most vocal too which makes it overwhelming to be on this site at times.

 

[spudfan]

Now it's "You People?" Your arrogance has reached a new high. You should not be allowed to be a mod with the way you talk to people.

How would you prefer he labels the people he is talking about? "You people" is not insulting or arrogant. It simply lets you know who he is talking about.

 

[LWP777]

How would you prefer he labels the people he is talking about? "You people" is not insulting or arrogant. It simply lets you know who he is talking about.

He is very disrespectful and arrogant all the time in his posts. I'm just the only one who has the guts to say that.

 

[jpsls]

Because the people who are the tyreke cherry pickers only use it in one direction, to show how bad they think he is. It really is only 3 or 4 guys who have personal vendettas against him. They happen to be the most vocal too which makes it overwhelming to be on this site at times.

The cherrypicking goes both ways.

 

[Warhawk]

He is very disrespectful and arrogant all the time in his posts. I'm just the only one who has the guts to say that.

Maybe you are the only one so easily offended? Because it hits too close to home, perhaps? There is nothing insulting in the post. Quit feigning being so upset just because someone throws some stats out that you don't like.

 

[Gary]

Bring up all the stats you want to Brick. The only one that matters is 6-6 without 5-13 with. Of course I knew deep down that you would try to break down each individual game and make an excuse for it, but at the end of the day it's all about wins and losses, is it not? I wouldn't be bringing this up if the sample size (games played with and without) wasn't there. But there is more than 10 games both ways so I figured I would.

Rain, hypocrisy? No. I have never played the other side. I have always been consistent in how I would like Evans used on the Kings. And no, I never said I would trade him for Green or Sullinger.

EDIT: and spud,
I don't have a personal vendetta against Evans. I have wanted him to play SG ever since he got here. I do not want him as a primary ball handler and I do not want him playing PG.

 

[spudfan]

The cherrypicking goes both ways.

I understand it can and does go both ways. The problem is when people cherry pick one line of stats but then are outraged when someone picks another line to disagree with them.

 

[spudfan]

Bring up all the stats you want to Brick. The only one that matters is 6-6 without 5-13 with. Of course I knew deep down that you would try to break down each individual game and make an excuse for it, but at the end of the day it's all about wins and losses, is it not? I wouldn't be bringing this up if the sample size (games played with and without) wasn't there. But there is more than 10 games both ways so I figured I would.

Rain, hypocrisy? No. I have never played the other side. I have always been consistent in how I would like Evans used on the Kings.

EDIT: and spud,
I don't have a personal vendetta against Evans. I have wanted him to play SG ever since he got here. I do not want him as a primary ball handler and I do not want him playing PG.

Can you really not see the value of breaking down individual games, matchups, home/away? If all you look at is wins and losses to try and determine a players value it really isn't worth anyones time having any sort of discussion with you.

 

[Gary]

I understand it can and does go both ways. The problem is when people cherry pick one line of stats but then are outraged when someone picks another line to disagree with them.

Nah never outraged. Bricks comments never offend me, and I hope my comments don't offend them. We have been arguing this for 3+ years now, and these topics are always the biggest "stick in the mud" for both sides. There are 2-4 people that argue against Evans and about 7-10 that are very vocal in supporting him. We look like the bad guys for some reason, but when it's all said and done we all want the Kings to win. We just have differing opinions on how to get those wins.

 

[sdballer]

He is very disrespectful and arrogant all the time in his posts. I'm just the only one who has the guts to say that.

Are you serious? Go back and look through your last 50 or so posts. You are as abrasive as any other member on this site. It seems it wasn't always this way since multiple posters have pointed out your contributions on this site but the last month isnt exactly setting you up to call out brick for not being nice.

 

[Gary]

So now records matter? When many of us have tried to show records with Reke at point vs not, it's always been disregarded for a variety of reasons but no it's definitive proof when it fits your purpose. The reality is brick called you out on your usual bs.

How is what I said BS? 6-6 without, 5-13 with. Am I not correct in those stats? Brick argues for a living, and I deal with the black and white facts that present itself to me for a living. Are you trying to say that there is more to it than just the win loss total? Please tell me why that is. No excuses though please

Oh and the whole PG vs not at PG doesn't do it for me because when Evans is in the game since when does he NOT control the ball? Even when IT was our starting "PG" at the start of the season most of us were asking ourselves why we had a 5'9 SG on the floor.

 

[The_Jamal]

The hypocricy here is reaching asinine levels.

When a few of us over the last year have presented how much better statistically we were with a Reke/MT backcourt after Smart took over the Reke detractors came out in full force to say the sample size was simply too small. When Reke was our best player pre injury this year, we were .500 with a Reke/Brooks backcourt and Reke was hitting about 45% from 3 over a 7+ game stretch, and hitting mid range jumpers, along with being our best player on both sides of the ball and our best creator, it again was too small a sample size. Although Reke's detractors were full on hiding at that point, or telling us there's simply no way Reke keeps it up, just because. Pretty sure that's the game Reke nailed back to back 3's to push us to a win. Those detractors disappeared that evening too.

Now, while he's injured and the team responds over a short stretch to the Cuz problems, and Cuz comes back playing better, all the sudden that sample size is large enough to once again give reason to send Reke out of town, and in a Sullinger/Green trade? What a complete joke. It's embarrassing, Brick is right. Completely embarrassing how this once proud fanbase constantly needs to turn on a player.

The sample was too small on Reke's play and the sample size is too small now without him. However, we shouldn't ignore our incredible AST/TO ratios the last 4 games or how everyone on the team has been involved offensively the last 4 games. When Reke comes back, he needs to enhance this new found team play (which he's fully capable of doing) and not fall back into our ISO heavy offense where the other 4 guys are standing around waiting for Reke to make a move.

 

[Entity]

Not sure if everyone caught Smart about a week or so ago. Saying that they scraped the Triangle offense and are not working on a more motion type offense. I think that could be the reason for the new found team play and high assist numbers.

 

[LWP777]

Are you serious? Go back and look through your last 50 or so posts. You are as abrasive as any other member on this site. It seems it wasn't always this way since multiple posters have pointed out your contributions on this site but the last month isnt exactly setting you up to call out brick for not being nice.

I'm not an arrogant jerk like he comes across. I simply have some strong opinions but all in the name of good debate. I get attacked here because I am not a fan of DeMarcus Cousins. I don't call individual posters out or say silly things like "you people." There is a big difference. Do you really not see that?

 

[Glenn]

He is very disrespectful and arrogant all the time in his posts. I'm just the only one who has the guts to say that.

That's an arrogant comment. You are the only one to point it out? How do you know? You haven't been around long enough to even have the qualifications to make a comment like this about one of the founding members. "He is very disrespectful and arrogant all the time in his posts." This is a typical over the top statement that you think we should take seriously. I ignore these comments. Live with it or go away. Nothing is going to change.

 

[LWP777]

That's an arrogant comment. You are the only one to point it out? How do you know? You haven't been around long enough to even have the qualifications to make a comment like this about one of the founding members. "He is very disrespectful and arrogant all the time in his posts." This is a typical over the top statement that you think we should take seriously. I ignore these comments. Live with it or go away. Nothing is going to change.

Okay sorry. He is arrogant in 73.91% of his posts. Is that better?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

lol he isn't arrogant. he just knows his **** and backs it up with stats.

 

[ParniValjak]

The hypocricy here is reaching asinine levels.

When a few of us over the last year have presented how much better statistically we were with a Reke/MT backcourt after Smart took over the Reke detractors came out in full force to say the sample size was simply too small. When Reke was our best player pre injury this year, we were .500 with a Reke/Brooks backcourt and Reke was hitting about 45% from 3 over a 7+ game stretch, and hitting mid range jumpers, along with being our best player on both sides of the ball and our best creator, it again was too small a sample size. Although Reke's detractors were full on hiding at that point, or telling us there's simply no way Reke keeps it up, just because. Pretty sure that's the game Reke nailed back to back 3's to push us to a win. Those detractors disappeared that evening too.

Now, while he's injured and the team responds over a short stretch to the Cuz problems, and Cuz comes back playing better, all the sudden that sample size is large enough to once again give reason to send Reke out of town, and in a Sullinger/Green trade? What a complete joke. It's embarrassing, Brick is right. Completely embarrassing how this once proud fanbase constantly needs to turn on a player.

Hypocricy at its best isn't it?!

But really, given the history, did we expect anything different?

 

[Kingster]

Not sure if everyone caught Smart about a week or so ago. Saying that they scraped the Triangle offense and are not working on a more motion type offense. I think that could be the reason for the new found team play and high assist numbers.

It's interesting that they now have more motion without a motion offense...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Bring up all the stats you want to Brick. The only one that matters is 6-6 without 5-13 with.

I don't think that's the only one that matters: I'll tell you another one that I think is equally as important: 7-7 versus 4-13.

To me, it's not a "Ewing Theory" situation, it's a "Too Many Cooks" situation. It's not a matter of the team playing better without Evans, it's a matter of there only being one ball. People sometimes forget that, when this team is at "full strength," we have seven shooting guards (three of which are ridiculously undersized, and thus nominally assumed to be point guards, when they really aren't). We have seven shooting guards, whose first instinct is to dominate the ball, and/or chuck it up, as soon as they get their hands on it.

The Kings are 7-7 when five or fewer of them play, and 4-13 when six or more of them play.

So, reducing the number of people chucking the ball at the rim improves ball movement. Who would have thought?

 

[LWP777]

I don't think that's the only one that matters: I'll tell you another one that I think is equally as important: 7-7 versus 4-13.

To me, it's not a "Ewing Theory" situation, it's a "Too Many Cooks" situation. It's not a matter of the team playing better without Evans, it's a matter of there only being one ball. People sometimes forget that, when this team is at "full strength," we have seven shooting guards (three of which are ridiculously undersized, and thus nominally assumed to be point guards, when they really aren't). We have seven shooting guards, whose first instinct is to dominate the ball, and/or chuck it up, as soon as they get their hands on it.

The Kings are 7-7 when five or fewer of them play, and 4-13 when six or more of them play.

So, reducing the number of people chucking the ball at the rim improves ball movement. Who would have thought?

Good points. This is one reason why we really need to trade 1-2 of those chuckers before the deadline. The thing is....Evans will probably have to be included since he's really the only one of those chuckers who has any serious trade value.

Looking at your stats makes me even more angry that we signed Aaron Brooks. There was absolutely no need for that. I think if they knew that Jimmer was going to be much better this year they wouldn't have made that move.

 

[The_Jamal]

Good points. This is one reason why we really need to trade 1-2 of those chuckers before the deadline. The thing is....Evans will probably have to be included since he's really the only one of those chuckers who has any serious trade value.

Looking at your stats makes me even more angry that we signed Aaron Brooks. There was absolutely no need for that. I think if they knew that Jimmer was going to be much better this year they wouldn't have made that move.

That's Petrie's major failure as a GM. Aside from building a mismatched roster, he doesn't think about ramifications of playing time for certain players. We had 2 young PG's who obviously needed minutes this year and he goes and signs the definition of an average player in Aaron Brooks. We have 4 back-up SF's who are all around the same talent level and none who benefit from the circus Smart puts them through. We make a major comittment to Trob by drafting him 5th and don't give him any minutes in lieu of Chuck Hayes/ Travis Outlaw/ and James Johnson for the back-up big minutes

 

[Sac.Kings]

I haven't buzzed in on this trade "rumor," but if you can pry Rondo away from Boston by giving up Tyreke and change, you do it. There are a lot of what ifs with Tyreke, not so much with Rondo. You know what you are getting, and what you are getting is pretty damn good. He has experience, he can be THE leader, at least vocally. Plus with that trade, you clear up some of the SG question and shots can be spread out more evenly.

 

[KevinSalvadori]

I haven't buzzed in on this trade "rumor," but if you can pry Rondo away from Boston by giving up Tyreke and change, you do it. There are a lot of what ifs with Tyreke, not so much with Rondo. You know what you are getting, and what you are getting is pretty damn good. He has experience, he can be THE leader, at least vocally. Plus with that trade, you clear up some of the SG question and shots can be spread out more evenly.

I agree, and Tyreke has grown on me. If you can get Rondo, who could anchor a lot of need areas for us (assists, distribution, court vision, tempo, possession control, even defense) without giving up DMC, I pull the trigger. But it would cost us. My idea? ThRob, Tyreke, JJ's expiring, and a future pick for Rondo and Varnado. And I don't even know if we can actually trade a pick until the end of the year due to that stupid CLE deal, but that would be the bare minimum I could see BOS wanting for Rondo. They have a fair amount of guard depth with Terry, Bradley, Courtney Lee, 'Reke (should he go), and Barbosa, so getting a true PG back may not be essential for them. What they need desperately is youth (particularly in the front court) and cap room, and we could offer a little of both. Time will tell.

The complimentary deal I would do is the one I've mentioned in other threads on here, Salmons for Wilson Chandler and Randolph. DEN could use that 7m expiring big time next season should they want to resign Iggy, and they have a glut of SG/SF swingmen signed long-term they could afford to lose for cap relief, and with the year Brewer is having, I can't see them wanting to lose any of his minutes right now. We would maintain that expiring for Garcia, which is huge, and get a more solid starting 5 that could actually compete:

C: Cousins/Hayes
PF: Thompson/Randolph/Varnado
SF: Chandler/Garcia/Outlaw/Honeycutt
PG: Rondo/Thomas/Brooks
SG: Thornton/Fredette

I still think we'd need to jettison Brooks for a second rounder or something (or BKY for Teletovic), but that's the team I'd field for now...

PS- One other option: I could see us doing an S&T at the end of the year, with 'Reke re-signed for 8m or so and being shipped with ThRob and our 1st rounder (if we are in lottery) for Rondo...

 

[UK_King]

Boston have Garnett tied down until 2015 and Pierce another 2 years on huge money. Jeff Green also has a huge contract and Jason Terry and Brandon Bass make a lot of money as well.

Interesting situation for them considering Pierce and Garnett have clearly slowed down big time this year. They will be interesting at the deadline.

 

[KevinSalvadori]

Boston have Garnett tied down until 2015 and Pierce another 2 years on huge money. Jeff Green also has a huge contract and Jason Terry and Brandon Bass make a lot of money as well.

Interesting situation for them considering Pierce and Garnett have clearly slowed down big time this year. They will be interesting at the deadline.

If I were them I would strongly consider trading one of those bodies (Garnett being most likely option) if the team continues to struggle. OKC had serious interest in him previously, and I could see DEN making a play too, potentially dealing Gallo and another player (this would rely on them being happy with a Garnett/Faried/Iggy/Lawson/Brewer lineup).