The Case of Jason Thompson

[SacTownKid]

Those are not career totals. That is Thomas' time in Sacramento, under his last contract, versus Thompson's time in Sacramento, under his current contract. Those are neither Thomas nor Thompson's career numbers.

You said that Thompson's production, relative to his contract, was equivalent to Thomas. I demonstrated that this is not true. When you start talking about a player's production relative to his contract, role and usage go out the window. Thomas may have only played twelve minutes a game his last three years in Sacramento, but he sure as hell was getting paid like he was playing thirty minutes a game.

If you had said that Thompson was only as productive, relative to his role, as Kenny Thomas was, then you might have at least had half an argument... At least then, you could have thrown around PER and usage and per/36 numbers, and had them to fall back on, but... and here is the important part, that is not what you said. What you said was that Thompson's production, relative to his contract, was equivalent to Kenny Thomas. That does not factor in role, only money. And, dollar-for-dollar, Thompson is way more productive than Thomas was, as a King.


Those were your exact words. You do not get to go back, after this was refuted, and say you were misquoted. You were not misquoted; that was what you said. If that was not what you meant, then you should have said what you meant.

I guess I wouldn't have had half an argument if I hadn't said this already:

"And much less productive? The most similar year in terms of usage that Kenny had relative to JT's career here was 05-06:"

But I did, don't need to go back and change that one. I very clearly laid out the measure of comparison being used. You must have missed that one.

Totals are totals. Like I said, 1.7 million cap hit difference, 1 rebound a game, if those are truly HUGE differences in the grand scheme then that's your opinion, mine differs. But if anyone doesn't see the similarities they are trying really, really hard not too.

Also, his last 3 years are a reason why I said this:

"Hopefully the number of games played per season as they end their career with the Kings doesn't follow a similar trend."

You can always change your opinion as to what the definition of "significant" or "much more" is, but my opinion is that history appears to be repeating itself in almost every facet.

 

[Chubbs]

The way we are accumulating PFs, it's not impossible JT may find himself firmly planted on the bench for the next couple seasons in a very Kenny Thomas way.. He got a whole 5 minutes last game. I do think JT is slightly more tradable than Thomas was.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I guess I wouldn't have had half an argument if I hadn't said this already:

Chronologically speaking, you had not said that already: you only said it after I refuted what you originally said. Moving the goalposts, as it were.

Totals are totals.

Totals are not totals. Career totals are not equivalent to totals accumulated while playing for a specific team, under a specific contract, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise.

Also, his last 3 years are a reason why I said this:

But, again, you didn't say that until after what you originally said was refuted. Double-check the chronology, and you will see that you said this:

The only player I can recall making the kind of money JT makes for the production he puts up is....dun-dun-dun, Kenny Thomas.

... And then I refuted it. And then you said this:

Looks pretty similar to me. Even Kenny's overall career numbers are almost identical to Jasons. Hopefully the number of games played per season as they end their career with the Kings doesn't follow a similar trend. You have to admit, it's pretty freaky.

And now, you are claiming that you have been saying that ^^^ the whole time. And you have not. And the timestamps of the posts you made prove that you have not. And, to follow Glenn's bulldog comparison, I am not going to let go of this, until you admit it.

The essential chronology of the argument has been thus (tl;dr version):

• Jason Thompson's production, for what he's making, looks like Kenny Thomas.
• No it does not.
• Well, when you factor in usage...
• What does usage have to do with money?
• But, the roles were different!
• So what? What do roles have to do with money?
• Hey, man, it's like I said, Thompson is headed on a downward trend, just like Kenny Thomas.
• That is not what you said the first time. We are involved in this back-and-forth because of what you said the first time. And what happened to the money?

If you want to make the argument that I am wrong because of Bob Loblaw, then that is fine. I am not, but that is beside the point. The point is that Bob Loblaw was not your original argument. You stated X, X was refuted. You then stated Y and Z, which may be meritorious discussions to have, but is not the discussion that we were having.

You have since claimed that, when you originally said X, that Y and Z were part of your original argument, which they were not, and which my compulsion towards pedantry demands I address. That may have been what you meant but, if it is, then you did not say what you meant. If you had said what you meant, we would not be having this conversation, because I am not really interested in whether you think Thompson will continue a steady decline for the rest of his career, the way that Thomas did. I am interested in the fact that you said that Thompson's production, for what he gets paid, is similar to Kenny Thomas, and why you think this is true, when it is factually not true.

 

[SacTownKid]

Chronologically speaking, you had not said that already: you only said it after I refuted what you originally said. Moving the goalposts, as it were.

Totals are not totals. Career totals are not equivalent to totals accumulated while playing for a specific team, under a specific contract, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise.

But, again, you didn't say that until after what you originally said was refuted. Double-check the chronology, and you will see that you said this:



... And then I refuted it. And then you said this:



And now, you are claiming that you have been saying that ^^^ the whole time. And you have not. And the timestamps of the posts you made prove that you have not. And, to follow Glenn's bulldog comparison, I am not going to let go of this, until you admit it.

The essential chronology of the argument has been thus (tl;dr version):

• Jason Thompson's production, for what he's making, looks like Kenny Thomas.
• No it does not.
• Well, when you factor in usage...
• What does usage have to do with money?
• But, the roles were different!
• So what? What do roles have to do with money?
• Hey, man, it's like I said, Thompson is headed on a downward trend, just like Kenny Thomas.
• That is not what you said the first time. We are involved in this back-and-forth because of what you said the first time. And what happened to the money?

If you want to make the argument that I am wrong because of Bob Loblaw, then that is fine. I am not, but that is beside the point. The point is that Bob Loblaw was not your original argument. You stated X, X was refuted. You then stated Y and Z, which may be meritorious discussions to have, but is not the discussion that we were having.

You have since claimed that, when you originally said X, that Y and Z were part of your original argument, which they were not, and which my compulsion towards pedantry demands I address. That may have been what you meant but, if it is, then you did not say what you meant. If you had said what you meant, we would not be having this conversation, because I am not really interested in whether you think Thompson will continue a steady decline for the rest of his career, the way that Thomas did. I am interested in the fact that you said that Thompson's production, for what he gets paid, is similar to Kenny Thomas, and why you think this is true, when it is factually not true.

I'm starting to have a feeling you're just messing around at this point.

The only thing you initially "refuted" was my first statement and you "refuted" it with this:

"Then you remember wrongly: Thomas made much more money than Thompson, and was much less productive, as a King."

After which I clearly laid out evidence to support my claim and clearly laid out the context. Chronology does not help you here, it hurts you. You're statement above provides no evidence to prove or disprove anything. It's a claim, not a refutation.

Your words:

"You said that Thompson's production, relative to his contract, was equivalent to Thomas. I demonstrated that this is not true."

By your definition of events and "demonstration", those are the totals you provided, you only did that AFTER I laid out the context of my argument in the post I made after my initial statement.

Beyond all that, it all goes back to ones definition of "significant" and "much more". You have a different idea of what those mean than I, I can respect that. I merely tried to bring up a similar situation, using a similar player. If you disagree I can respect that too.

I can't really lay out any more clearly my evidence than I did in my very first post that provided all the needed clarification. You keep sidetracking the argument, but you are arguing opinion at this point. Those arguments as history has shown, are most times unwinnable. I proved it statistically in terms of my opinion. Your opinion is that 1 rebound per 48 minutes of game time is significant. I disagree. I really don't know how you can't look at the per-minute production I posted and see no similarities, but that's apparently what you see. A few people have already chimed in on this one who saw the same thing I did. I'm sure some see things the way you did. Probably not a lot, but that's beside the point.

Prove to me that Thompsons production isn't similar to Kenny Thomas' because you still haven't done that. But know this, no matter what statistical evidence you provide, I am going to disagree with it because it isn't "significant". See where that argument gets you? I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles, you go ahead and do it, I'll just disagree with what you post to support your refutation.

Also in regards to a debate of statistical totals vs. per game production in the context of player comparison, I prefer per game. I'm going to assume so does pretty much every other relevant sports database because those are typically the stats you mostly see associated with players. And THAT is a fact, undeniable in all facets. Prove to me that it isn't.

 

[VF21]

STK - Sometimes with Slim, just like with Joshua, the only way to win is not to play.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm starting to have a feeling you're just messing around at this point.

The only thing you initially "refuted" was my first statement and you "refuted" it with this:

"Then you remember wrongly: Thomas made much more money than Thompson, and was much less productive, as a King."

After which I clearly laid out evidence to support my claim and clearly laid out the context.

You might as well have stopped, right there, because those are the only two words which matter in your entire post: after which. At 0316 EST Wednesday, you said:

The only player I can recall making the kind of money JT makes for the production he puts up is....dun-dun-dun, Kenny Thomas.

... And then I said:

Then you remember wrongly: Thomas made much more money than Thompson, and was much less productive, as a King.

... AFTER WHICH, you said:

Much more? I guess I have a different idea of significance means than you. 1 rebound is not that much of a difference to me, just like a 1.7 million dollar difference in cap hit in a contracts final year isn't too significant when that contract is weighing you down.

And much less productive? The most similar year in terms of usage that Kenny had relative to JT's career here was 05-06:

9 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2 apg, 0.5 bpg, 0.9 spg in 28 mpg

Jason Thompson's career numbers:

10 ppg, 7 rpg, 1.2 apg, 0.7 bpg, 0.5 spg. in 27 mpg.

Looks pretty similar to me. Even Kenny's overall career numbers are almost identical to Jasons. Hopefully the number of games played per season as they end their career with the Kings doesn't follow a similar trend. You have to admit, it's pretty freaky.

That post came over twelve hours later, and was not even edited into the original post in question, the one which started this entire conversation between you and me. And the reason why we are still having this conversation is because what this ^^^^ post does is address the question of "Is Jason Thompson's production, relative to his role, similar to Kenny Thomas?", which was not the original question! If that had been the original question, if that had been your original claim, then we would not be having this conversation, because I am not interested in that question.

You said X, I challenged X, and you responded with Y. The only reasonable interpretation of that exchange is you saying, "Oh, well, what I really meant was..." Except I an not particularly interested in what you really meant. I am interested in what you really said.

As far as a comparison is concerned, in order to compare them properly, you have to compare like to like: not career totals to career totals, not peak year to peak year. You have to compare contract to contract. Except that you can't compare contract to contract, because Thomas got to play out the entire length of his contract, and Thompson is only in the second year of his, and we do not even know whether he is going to get to play out the length of his contract here. However, comma, you set the parameters as production for money, and so those are the parameters we are going to work with.

Kenny Thomas played, roughly, five and a half years of a seven year contract in Sacramento, for which he was paid, roughly, $41M, over two hundred twenty-seven games. During those 227 games, he produced the numbers I posted previously, which means that he was paid approximately:
$26,717 per point
$29,651 per rebound
$117,922 per assist
$250,226 per steal
$526,115 per block

Jason Thompson is a little more than two-thirds of the way through the second year of a five year contract in Sacramento, for which he has been paid, roughly, $9.1M, over one hundred thirty-nine games. During those 139 games, he produced the numbers I posted previously, which means that he has been paid approximately:
$6,960 per point
$10,069 per rebound
$75,189 per assist
$143,329 per steal
$91,731 per block

Even if you want to say that the average numbers are similar, we are currently getting Thompson's numbers for, basically, a third of what we paid Thomas to produce the same numbers. And frankly, to whatever extent it may be true that the averages are similar, as I have already mentioned, the one and only reason we are engaged in this back-and-forth is because that is not what you said the first time. The only way that what you said the first time can be true is if Thompson's productivity remains static or declines further, over the course of the next three seasons. Now, maybe you believe that that is exactly what is going to happen, and maybe you do not, but that is yet another different discussion topic which I am not interested in pursuing.

By your definition of events and "demonstration", those are the totals you provided, you only did that AFTER I laid out the context of my argument in the post I made after my initial statement.

And you only laid out the context of your argument AFTER I stated that your argument was false. And we are having this discussion primarily because the aforementioned context you provided is incongruous with what you originally said. My objection is to the fact that your "context" provided a strong statistical support for a claim that you never actually made, the first time around.

Beyond all that, it all goes back to ones definition of "significant" and "much more".

I consider the difference between $7K per point and $27K per point, $10K per rebound and $30K per rebound, to be significant. If you do not agree, then we are at an impasse.

I can't really lay out any more clearly my evidence than I did in my very first post that provided all the needed clarification.

The issue is that, despite your claims to the contrary, you did not provide evidence in your very first post. You provided evidence in your very second post, and the evidence that you provided, while reasonable, supports the claim that you made in your very second post, which is not the same claim as the one you made in the first post.

You keep sidetracking the argument, but you are arguing opinion at this point. Those arguments as history has shown, are most times unwinnable. I proved it statistically in terms of my opinion. Your opinion is that 1 rebound per 48 minutes of game time is significant. I disagree. I really don't know how you can't look at the per-minute production I posted and see no similarities...

It is not pertinent whether I see any similarities in the per/48 numbers. What is pertinent is that I do not see similarities in the per/$$$ numbers, which is what drew me into this conversation in the first place. The per/48 numbers are pertinent to a discussion that I was not ever engaged in.

It is entirely possible, and perhaps even reasonable, that the "money" part of your original post is not the part that you wanted to emphasize. Unfortunately for you, and your choice of words, it was the only part of your OP that I was interested in, and is the only reason why we are still talking about this.

 

[SacTownKid]

STK - Sometimes with Slim, just like with Joshua, the only way to win is not to play.

I want to see this completely devolve into a semantics debate, hahaha.

 

[SacTownKid]

You might as well have stopped, right there, because those are the only two words which matter in your entire post: after which. At 0316 EST Wednesday, you said:


... And then I said:


... AFTER WHICH, you said:


That post came over twelve hours later, and was not even edited into the original post in question, the one which started this entire conversation between you and me. And the reason why we are still having this conversation is because what this ^^^^ post does is address the question of "Is Jason Thompson's production, relative to his role, similar to Kenny Thomas?", which was not the original question! If that had been the original question, if that had been your original claim, then we would not be having this conversation, because I am not interested in that question.

You said X, I challenged X, and you responded with Y. The only reasonable interpretation of that exchange is you saying, "Oh, well, what I really meant was..." Except I an not particularly interested in what you really meant. I am interested in what you really said.

As far as a comparison is concerned, in order to compare them properly, you have to compare like to like: not career totals to career totals, not peak year to peak year. You have to compare contract to contract. Except that you can't compare contract to contract, because Thomas got to play out the entire length of his contract, and Thompson is only in the second year of his, and we do not even know whether he is going to get to play out the length of his contract here. However, comma, you set the parameters as production for money, and so those are the parameters we are going to work with.

Kenny Thomas played, roughly, five and a half years of a seven year contract in Sacramento, for which he was paid, roughly, $41M, over two hundred twenty-seven games. During those 227 games, he produced the numbers I posted previously, which means that he was paid approximately:
$26,717 per point
$29,651 per rebound
$117,922 per assist
$250,226 per steal
$526,115 per block

Jason Thompson is a little more than two-thirds of the way through the second year of a five year contract in Sacramento, for which he has been paid, roughly, $9.1M, over one hundred thirty-nine games. During those 139 games, he produced the numbers I posted previously, which means that he has been paid approximately:
$6,960 per point
$10,069 per rebound
$75,189 per assist
$143,329 per steal
$91,731 per block

Even if you want to say that the average numbers are similar, we are currently getting Thompson's numbers for, basically, a third of what we paid Thomas to produce the same numbers. And frankly, to whatever extent it may be true that the averages are similar, as I have already mentioned, the one and only reason we are engaged in this back-and-forth is because that is not what you said the first time. The only way that what you said the first time can be true is if Thompson's productivity remains static or declines further, over the course of the next three seasons. Now, maybe you believe that that is exactly what is going to happen, and maybe you do not, but that is yet another different discussion topic which I am not interested in pursuing.

And you only laid out the context of your argument AFTER I stated that your argument was false. And we are having this discussion primarily because the aforementioned context you provided is incongruous with what you originally said. My objection is to the fact that your "context" provided a strong statistical support for a claim that you never actually made, the first time around.

I consider the difference between $7K per point and $27K per point, $10K per rebound and $30K per rebound, to be significant. If you do not agree, then we are at an impasse.

The issue is that, despite your claims to the contrary, you did not provide evidence in your very first post. You provided evidence in your very second post, and the evidence that you provided, while reasonable, supports the claim that you made in your very second post, which is not the same claim as the one you made in the first post.

It is not pertinent whether I see any similarities in the per/48 numbers. What is pertinent is that I do not see similarities in the per/$$$ numbers, which is what drew me into this conversation in the first place. The per/48 numbers are pertinent to a discussion that I was not ever engaged in.

It is entirely possible, and perhaps even reasonable, that the "money" part of your original post is not the part that you wanted to emphasize. Unfortunately for you, and your choice of words, it was the only part of your OP that I was interested in, and is the only reason why we are still talking about this.

OK, read this again:

"I did in my very first post that provided all the needed clarification"

My very first post that PROVIDED ALL THE NEEDED CLARIFICATION. Not my "very first post". You have to finish the sentence, not take words out of the middle and focus primarily on those, otherwise you lack all context. And the only reference I made to money in my "very first post" was "...the kind of money". Somewhat general, is it not? I'm not denying that JT was somewhat more productive when in a similar situation with a similar per minute usage rate, but "significantly" so? No, I don't agree.

Of course it's not pertinent, if it were you would have no way of responding because what was said was very clear leaving open only the definition and degree of enormity of the differences in question.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

OK, read this again:

"I did in my very first post that provided all the needed clarification"

The problem remains the same: in your "very first post that provided all the needed clarification," what you actually "clarified" was a substantively different claim from what you said the first time.

And the only reference I made to money in my "very first post" was "...the kind of money". Somewhat general, is it not?

Not to me. If it were, we would not have been going around and around for three days.

 

[SacTownKid]

The problem remains the same: in your "very first post that provided all the needed clarification," what you actually "clarified" was a substantively different claim from what you said the first time.

Not to me. If it were, we would not have been going around and around for three days.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think what was said was correct or whether or not any level of similarity between what was initially said and the clarifying response exists, the fact is that you made an incorrect reference in your last post by paying attention to only a portion of a sentence and using it as your primary basis to denounce what was said. It in turn completely invalidates anything you've said because you simply aren't responding to what was actually written. There is no opinion argument in relation to that, you were simply incorrect.

Kind of:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind of

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No, I was correct either way: if I interpret your comment as your "very first post," then I am correct, because your very first post provided no supporting or amplifying information. If I interpret your comment as your "very first post that provided all the needed clarification," then I am correct because the "needed clarification" in question did not actually clarify your original claim, but rather supported a well-argued, but entirely different claim. One which I did not contest in the first place.

 

[VF21]

You guys just made my night. Glad you're not on strike any more, STK, your signature not withstanding.

 

[bajaden]

JT plays more minutes than Wright. Per 48 JT gets a whopping 1 more rebound than Wright. This team isn't using JT as a passer so it doesn't matter much. The only player I can recall making the kind of money JT makes for the production he puts up is....dun-dun-dun, Kenny Thomas.

I'm a little late to this discussion, but to compare JT to Wright is ridiculous. First, I've seen both Wright and JT play, so stats aside, I'll take JT over Wright 10 times out of 10.. Comparing stats just doesn't work. In his career, the majority of Wright's stats have come against bench players, and the majority of JT's minutes have come against starters. And yes, it does matter. Not to mention, that in his first five years in the league, Wright has played a total of 227 games out of a possible 410, while JT has played a total of 378 games in that same time period. Not only is JT a better player, he's more durable. Try playing Wright against Howard or Gasol, and see how long he lasts. While JT has been starting for the majority of his time in the league, Wright has been near the end of the bench scraping for minutes, and there's a reason for that.

 

[SacTownKid]

I'm a little late to this discussion, but to compare JT to Wright is ridiculous. First, I've seen both Wright and JT play, so stats aside, I'll take JT over Wright 10 times out of 10.. Comparing stats just doesn't work. In his career, the majority of Wright's stats have come against bench players, and the majority of JT's minutes have come against starters. And yes, it does matter. Not to mention, that in his first five years in the league, Wright has played a total of 227 games out of a possible 410, while JT has played a total of 378 games in that same time period. Not only is JT a better player, he's more durable. Try playing Wright against Howard or Gasol, and see how long he lasts. While JT has been starting for the majority of his time in the league, Wright has been near the end of the bench scraping for minutes, and there's a reason for that.

I agree with you, I'd take JT as well. I wasn't comparing Wright to JT. I said that JT gets 1 more rebound per 48 minutes over Brandon Wright when a claim was made that he was a significantly better rebounder. My opinion is that 1 rebound isn't a significant difference in rebound rate.

 

[SacTownKid]

No, I was correct either way: if I interpret your comment as your "very first post," then I am correct, because your very first post provided no supporting or amplifying information. If I interpret your comment as your "very first post that provided all the needed clarification," then I am correct because the "needed clarification" in question did not actually clarify your original claim, but rather supported a well-argued, but entirely different claim. One which I did not contest in the first place.

You are by default incorrect on the basis of using interpretation as a means to justify your argument, there is no level of acceptable interpretation in this instance. Beyond that, any interpretation based on anything other than the entirety of what was said is a falsehood and incorrect.

 

[bajaden]

I agree with you, I'd take JT as well. I wasn't comparing Wright to JT. I said that JT gets 1 more rebound per 48 minutes over Brandon Wright when a claim was made that he was a significantly better rebounder. My opinion is that 1 rebound isn't a significant difference in rebound rate.

Ahhhh, my bad! I stand corrected....

 

[SacTownKid]

Ahhhh, my bad! I stand corrected....

No problem.

 

[SacTownKid]

You guys just made my night. Glad you're not on strike any more, STK, your signature not withstanding.

Glad to hear, I'm not even sure what were arguing about at this point but it's still fun. hahaha.

 

[NoBonus]

Aren't you all glad we are having this debate right now instead of discussing how we should petition the league commissioner for an expansion team? I love it! Go Kings!

 

[FaStRmAn]

All stats aside, I like JT. I think he has been a team player the entire time he has been here in Sacramento. That has to account for something right ? He is an effective if not spectacular player. You cant have all stars at every position. JT is a position player. He plays his position well, scores on occasion, and rebounds and defends well.

Now sure he is good for his 1 or 2 boneheaded plays per game. It has almost become a game within a game for me to watch the game and pick out his nightly bungling of a play. But he is a solid player who generally makes solid plays. Normally doesn't try to do to much. Ive always thought that JT knows what to do but his body wont keep up with his thoughts. In other words he is a tad clumsy and sometimes goes too fast and trips himself up. But he is a more than serviceable PF who can at times guard the Center position. We have much greater needs at other positions (ie - PG - SG - backup 3 and 5). FO needs to fix those issues first before trying to upgrade a position with an NBA quality player. JT is an NBA Caliber player.

 

[Kingster]

The Case of Jason Thompson:

I have read numerous reports about Jason Thompson being on the trade block or a trade not going through because Jason Thompson could not be placed on a team... I understand he makes a lot of money, but I don't feel his salary is that outlandish. So what's the deal?
I watch a lot of Kings basketball and here is my assessment of Jason Thompson:
+ Pretty decent defender
- Picks up quick fouls
+Blocks shots
- Complains to the refs too much, but rarely picks up technicals for it
+ Rebounds
-Offensive arsenal not fantastic (but not horrible, and does he need to have those weapons with Gay/Cousins/Thomas?)
+Does not require a lot of touches to be effective
-Not always the best decision maker, but better than some of the other guys
+Has been a difference maker on a lot of plays either with screens, passes or defense
+Dirty work/hustler type of guy like Rick Mahorn or Charles Oakley...

So why is he on the outs? He has outplayed just about everyone they have brought in to replace him; he seems like a better player than Carl Landry... or am I wrong?

What am I not seeing? What am I missing?

I think you have it about right, except that I don't think the guy screens very well. When was the last time anybody saw Thompson lay a great screen on someone? I would say also that in general he just has a low BBIQ, and I mean low IQ, period. He's not the smartest player on the floor. In addition, his free throws drive me crazy. He goes into the prolongued funks in which he's in his head and can't get out. Even this last game against NO he did this weird thing with his follow through that of course caused him to miss. I'm asking myself why he all of a sudden changed his follow through to have his hand go oddly to the right, as if he broke something, but I can't come up with a decent answer. That's Jason Thompson. Lastly, I totally believe he doesn't want to be in Sacto. He's had enough with the zillion coaches, the ownership changes, more players than the population of Latvia. He's had it and he wants out and he really thought he was getting out, but he didn't. If you want evidence, just look at the game before the trade deadline. JT was on Mars in that game, trying to communicate with Venus. He was throwing balls to make believe individuals along the sidelines. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to beam him up. He's still earthly bound in the gravity of Sacto. But I don't think he's going to be around very much longer.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think you have it about right, except that I don't think the guy screens very well. When was the last time anybody saw Thompson lay a great screen on someone? I would say also that in general he just has a low BBIQ, and I mean low IQ, period. He's not the smartest player on the floor. In addition, his free throws drive me crazy. He goes into the prolongued funks in which he's in his head and can't get out. Even this last game against NO he did this weird thing with his follow through that of course caused him to miss. I'm asking myself why he all of a sudden changed his follow through to have his hand go oddly to the right, as if he broke something, but I can't come up with a decent answer. That's Jason Thompson. Lastly, I totally believe he doesn't want to be in Sacto. He's had enough with the zillion coaches, the ownership changes, more players than the population of Latvia. He's had it and he wants out and he really thought he was getting out, but he didn't. If you want evidence, just look at the game before the trade deadline. JT was on Mars in that game, trying to communicate with Venus. He was throwing balls to make believe individuals along the sidelines. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to beam him up. He's still earthly bound in the gravity of Sacto. But I don't think he's going to be around very much longer.

I think you might have that trade deadline game exactly the opposite. Now its unclear how connected JT still feels with the entire old organization being dumped, however he is the great survivor, the cockroach of the Kings. Year after year after year attempts are made to replace him, and he always endures, always bobs back up. That seems likely to end this summer, but just before the trade deadline for the first time his name affirmatively popped up in rumors to Cleveland. He wasn't in la la land because he was happy to go. He was in la la land because he was worried that it might finally happen.

 

[Kingster]

I think you might have that trade deadline game exactly the opposite. Now its unclear how connected JT still feels with the entire old organization being dumped, however he is the great survivor, the cockroach of the Kings. Year after year after year attempts are made to replace him, and he always endures, always bobs back up. That seems likely to end this summer, but just before the trade deadline for the first time his name affirmatively popped up in rumors to Cleveland. He wasn't in la la land because he was happy to go. He was in la la land because he was worried that it might finally happen.

That's a possible interpretation. It just doesn't comport with all the interviews I've seen of the guy in which his body language seems to be saying that he's had enough of the merry-go-round and he wants off.

 

[FaStRmAn]

I think you might have that trade deadline game exactly the opposite. Now its unclear how connected JT still feels with the entire old organization being dumped, however he is the great survivor, the cockroach of the Kings. Year after year after year attempts are made to replace him, and he always endures, always bobs back up. That seems likely to end this summer, but just before the trade deadline for the first time his name affirmatively popped up in rumors to Cleveland. He wasn't in la la land because he was happy to go. He was in la la land because he was worried that it might finally happen.

Maybe the Lone Survivor? He keeps coming back no matter what regime comes or goes... But to be a survivor you have to be resourceful. He has been good at a good many things, but not great at any one thing. And he has always been willing to go with the program. He is a serviceable NBA Caliber PF.

 

[BamBam52]

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/3/13/5505080/jason-thompson-frustration

Saw this article via Sactown Royalty today.

 

[CaminoChaos]

Slim, what came first? The chicken or the egg?

Go!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Smart fish don't bite.

 

[CaminoChaos]

Smart fish don't bite.

But they always think about it.

 

[bajaden]

You know how you can tell which fish is the smart fish? It's always one of the biggest fish in the lake. Dumb fish become dinner!

 

[pshn80]

Great fun but too many words for me. Did anyone bring up the fact that Thompson is the best of all our many PFs? Anyway, he is.