Bosnian Diehard
Starter
Answer: You slap yourself if you let him go.
To Keep or Not Keep Rudy Gay
- Thread starter Jerichoholic
- Start date
Jerichoholic
Bench
Interesting, I figured the vast majority would want to keep him, but I didn't guess that it would be unanimous at this point. Perhaps this thread was too close to the comeback win against the Wizards.
Anyway, I tried to make my point the best I could with the numbers, but I think a lot of people are somewhat fooled by Rudy Gay as I think many are by Isaiah Thomas. I just don't think that the arguments that you know talent when you see it and you can't give up talent for nothing just don't hold much water. Memphis was willing to give up that talent for some salary cap relief and then Toronto gave up the same talent for the same reason, not to mention that they actually got tremendously better when they did so.
I do understand what people are saying when they say they see talent. Rudy Gay has excellent abilities, he is so smooth, and he makes some plays so effortlessly that it's beautiful to watch. However, I'm a bottom line guy and I've laid out the numbers, his contribution to a team is not as great as it appears. He is more stat stuffer than difference maker. I can't guarantee, but I'm confident that if you replace Rudy Gay with Derrick Williams for a full season that Williams would have very similar numbers that Gay has right now and the team's win total would be very much the same. Just to clarify I'm not saying that Derrick Williams is the answer either.
However I do understand the concern of only getting salary cap space if he just leaves as a lot of free agents probably wouldn't want to come to Sacramento right now and the ones that do we will have to overpay to some extent. It may turn out that we trade Rudy Gay midseason for some quality players. A 19 million dollar expiring contract is very valuable and might just be the way to get high quality talent from a team wanting to go in another direction. Traded players have to come here, free agents don't.
Anyway, I tried to make my point the best I could with the numbers, but I think a lot of people are somewhat fooled by Rudy Gay as I think many are by Isaiah Thomas. I just don't think that the arguments that you know talent when you see it and you can't give up talent for nothing just don't hold much water. Memphis was willing to give up that talent for some salary cap relief and then Toronto gave up the same talent for the same reason, not to mention that they actually got tremendously better when they did so.
I do understand what people are saying when they say they see talent. Rudy Gay has excellent abilities, he is so smooth, and he makes some plays so effortlessly that it's beautiful to watch. However, I'm a bottom line guy and I've laid out the numbers, his contribution to a team is not as great as it appears. He is more stat stuffer than difference maker. I can't guarantee, but I'm confident that if you replace Rudy Gay with Derrick Williams for a full season that Williams would have very similar numbers that Gay has right now and the team's win total would be very much the same. Just to clarify I'm not saying that Derrick Williams is the answer either.
However I do understand the concern of only getting salary cap space if he just leaves as a lot of free agents probably wouldn't want to come to Sacramento right now and the ones that do we will have to overpay to some extent. It may turn out that we trade Rudy Gay midseason for some quality players. A 19 million dollar expiring contract is very valuable and might just be the way to get high quality talent from a team wanting to go in another direction. Traded players have to come here, free agents don't.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Possibly, but that doesn't help you if you are one of those teams.
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
One thing I'm pretty convinced of, is that playing with IT and Gay makes it is very difficult for any player needing "reps" to improve their game. So if you're a team trying to rebuild with several up and coming players, it's something you have to strongly consider
gunks
Hall of Famer
Rudy as a #1 was a loser and sunk his teams with inefficient, selfish play.
Rudy as a #2 is actually working out rather well for us.
Hopefully he picks up his option and we can see what the Cuz/Rudy duo is capable of with a more rounded out team....Assuming PDA can put a more rounded out team together over one offseason (shouldnt be too hard, as we have the major pieces in place...IT being the biggest ? going foward).
Rudy as a #2 is actually working out rather well for us.
Hopefully he picks up his option and we can see what the Cuz/Rudy duo is capable of with a more rounded out team....Assuming PDA can put a more rounded out team together over one offseason (shouldnt be too hard, as we have the major pieces in place...IT being the biggest ? going foward).
How do you suggest we go about this?
Like him or not, IT is our 3rd most valuable asset on a team with very few assets. If we let him walk for nothing, we're at $66mil in cap. Add in a rookie and you're looking at roughly $69 mil. I could be mistaken, but the Luxury tax will be around $71 mil. So we won't be any sort of players in FA.
So, then we're forced to looking for trades. However, we've just committed to Rudy/Cuz long-term. We let our 3rd best asset walk for nothing. That leaves JT, Landry, D-Will, Ben as the only assets teams might actually consider wanting. Landry isn't going anywhere next season as he needs to rebuild his value and have a strong year before teams look at him again. No one's trading for a 31yr old who was hurt the whole year. JT, if this trade-deadline was any indication, doesn't generate interest. D-Will and Ben might generate interest to a rebuilding team, but those sort of rebuilding teams don't have the playoff experienced vets we want around Cuz and Gay. Outlaw, Acy, Evans, McCallum are all throw-in type of guys at this point.
So we're essentially stuck for a year. If we can't move Landry or JT at any point, We'll have roughly 42mil committed to Cuz, Gay, JT and Landry to the 2017/2018 season. Add in our pick this year, and that number rises to $45 mil. How do you find a PG, a rim-protector, 3pt shooters, and defensive role players with $13mil and roster assets that have very little value league-wide? Well... You can't.
I mentioned this in another thread. I like Rudy and I like that he's shown he can play efficient basketball. But signing him long-term puts us in a weird purgatory hole where we'd be stuck with most of the same core for another 3 seasons.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Money may come first, but if more than one team is in the bidding, and the money is close to equal, then other circumstances come into play. Like location. LA versus Sacramento. Like winning. The Thunder versus Sacramento. Once the money is equal, then Sacramento starts to fade a bit as a popular destination.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
You may not have intended it come out this way, but if so, your a bit off. If Gay doesn't pick up his option, and we get nothing in return, then our total salaries for next season, before signing out draft pick, and if we pick up Acy's option will be $45,118,995.00.
Ah was talking about IT walking, not Gay. At any rate, with Gay and no IT, we're sitting somewhere around $66-68 mil in salary and the rook pushes close to $70mil.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
My hope is that Gay picks up his option. His type of player doesn't grow on trees. To assume that Rudy couldn't survive in a motion offense is ridiculous. He appears very coachable to me. He altered his game upon his arrival here at Malone's request. And with good results. Even if the team runs a motion offense of some sort, you still need players that can get you a basket when you need it, and Gay is that type of player. Now how long we keep him depends on how much money he wants. I certainly don't want to pay him 19 mil a year as a starting point. And I'm referring to what a new contract would look like. Regardless of how good Gay is, and how well he and Cuz seem to click together, the fact is, were not a championship team because the two are on the floor together. We're not even a playoff team.
Much has been made about the fact that the Kings may become the first team in NBA history to have three 20 pt scorers on the same team. Well, we're not a playoff team because of that either. Obviously, were missing some parts, and if we box ourselves too deep in a financial hole, we'll never have the ability to acquire those parts. Or at best, it will be very difficult. Let me be clear, I'm not blaming Cousins or Gay, or even IT for our current lot. I'm just saying that they're not enough. But were close. We need what the Spurs have. A core group that's played together so long that they almost read each others minds. Once you have that, you can almost plug any talented player in and he'll be just fine. If you keep letting players walk in one door and out another, you'll never have that core group. So I see Cousins and Gay and maybe IT, as part of that core. McLemore may or may not develop into part of that core, but he does work hard, and I've seen improvement on the defensive side recently. Hopefully we, as Bricky put it, strike gold in the coming draft, and have another piece.
Much has been made about the fact that the Kings may become the first team in NBA history to have three 20 pt scorers on the same team. Well, we're not a playoff team because of that either. Obviously, were missing some parts, and if we box ourselves too deep in a financial hole, we'll never have the ability to acquire those parts. Or at best, it will be very difficult. Let me be clear, I'm not blaming Cousins or Gay, or even IT for our current lot. I'm just saying that they're not enough. But were close. We need what the Spurs have. A core group that's played together so long that they almost read each others minds. Once you have that, you can almost plug any talented player in and he'll be just fine. If you keep letting players walk in one door and out another, you'll never have that core group. So I see Cousins and Gay and maybe IT, as part of that core. McLemore may or may not develop into part of that core, but he does work hard, and I've seen improvement on the defensive side recently. Hopefully we, as Bricky put it, strike gold in the coming draft, and have another piece.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Ahhhh, gotcha!
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Has Gay ever played in a motion offense? Just askin. Because I'd like to have some actual data to make the conclusion before making a conclusion on no data. He looks to me like he likes to pound the rock, a lot. He doesn't move without the ball, from what I've seen. And if memory serves, when he was with Memphis, the best team he's been on, it didn't occur either.
Sure, if you have an MJ or LBJ, or a younger Kobe you're overjoyed to have them go iso at the end of games, as there is nobody who can guard him one on one. Gay? Not so much. He's not in that class. We just saw a Spurs team with no superstar, barely an All Star, kick the Kings into outer space. They didn't do it with iso. They did it with a five man motion offense. So if your plan is to win consistently by going iso with a guy who's in the 2nd tier, you're heading down the wrong road. And if your plan is pay the 2nd tier guy $19 mill a year, you're going there fast.
Sure, if you have an MJ or LBJ, or a younger Kobe you're overjoyed to have them go iso at the end of games, as there is nobody who can guard him one on one. Gay? Not so much. He's not in that class. We just saw a Spurs team with no superstar, barely an All Star, kick the Kings into outer space. They didn't do it with iso. They did it with a five man motion offense. So if your plan is to win consistently by going iso with a guy who's in the 2nd tier, you're heading down the wrong road. And if your plan is pay the 2nd tier guy $19 mill a year, you're going there fast.
K
KingMilz
Guest
I just don't see a core of Gay/Cousins doing any damage in the West, for as talented as both are the shot selection and effort on D is always at best questionable you can't have your two top players being low IQ players. Unless we try to do what the Knicks did a few years ago when they surrounded there two best players at the time (Melo and JR Smith) who are both like in our case low IQ players with veterans who defend and can shoot. But even that run by the Knicks seems like a bit of a fluke tbh it only really lasted one season and was in the East and they badly got bombed out of the playoffs.
I just want to see basketball where we actually pass the ball and stop forcing just terrible shots I mean Cousins/Gay (not even including Thomas) probably forced more shots in that one game than the whole Spurs team has this year. The way the offence is now it's not going to work, the lack of ball/player movement is easy to stop (it's just so ugly to watch) and it's going to be really hard to find good defenders who can space the floor since other than Ray Mac we don't have a single player who does both.
The team is in DESPERATE need of high IQ players who know there role which is exactly what the majoirty of the Spurs team is, yeah coaching has a lot to do with it but they for the most part only sign/pick up intelligent players cause they can accept/play within that system. The biggest problem with the Kings is that we have highly stupid players who refuse/are not capable of understanding how to play winning basketball even though they get abused by it 70-80% of the time. We also need coach Malone to take players out of the game when they repeatedly do dumb crap that's something Pop does right away, no one gets punished aside from that one Memphis game on this team and that's why they never learn.
I just want to see basketball where we actually pass the ball and stop forcing just terrible shots I mean Cousins/Gay (not even including Thomas) probably forced more shots in that one game than the whole Spurs team has this year. The way the offence is now it's not going to work, the lack of ball/player movement is easy to stop (it's just so ugly to watch) and it's going to be really hard to find good defenders who can space the floor since other than Ray Mac we don't have a single player who does both.
The team is in DESPERATE need of high IQ players who know there role which is exactly what the majoirty of the Spurs team is, yeah coaching has a lot to do with it but they for the most part only sign/pick up intelligent players cause they can accept/play within that system. The biggest problem with the Kings is that we have highly stupid players who refuse/are not capable of understanding how to play winning basketball even though they get abused by it 70-80% of the time. We also need coach Malone to take players out of the game when they repeatedly do dumb crap that's something Pop does right away, no one gets punished aside from that one Memphis game on this team and that's why they never learn.
Last edited by a moderator:
Livinthedream
All-Star
The 3 20ppg scoring thing obviously doesn't work. I think we have talent as it stands to start improving significantly as soon as next year. You hope Gay stays and you hope IT changes his approach.
I read a recent quote by Tony Parker regarding IT. He essentially said that IT has proven he belongs and is a top talent. Now IT needs to not worry about proving himself and start worrying about winning.
Even when your big three are potential future HOF players like the Heat, Spurs, old Celtics, someone has to defer in order for it to work. The players on those teams know it's about winning and not stats.
You HAVE to keep Gay because he's legit talent and plays well with DMC. All the other players just need to play their role.
Entity
Hall of Famer
I just want to see a lineup that plays together for more than a few months. Cohesion is key in the NBA. Look at the spurs. No true above the world superstars anymore. They know each other so well. When they do lose a player he is replaced by someone with exact same style.
We went 6 years with nothing at SF. Now that is one of the stars. The dynamic of the team changes so much that it is hard to have cohesion.
Someone look into records of teams with a starting five that has more than a year together.
We went 6 years with nothing at SF. Now that is one of the stars. The dynamic of the team changes so much that it is hard to have cohesion.
Someone look into records of teams with a starting five that has more than a year together.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Maybe I'm misjudging you, but you have the tendency to take things to the extreme. In other words, if a player has never played in a motion offense, then he'll never be able to play in that kind of offense. If were going to resign him, you take the highest number possible, and use it as the starting point. Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around that approach. It leaves no wiggle room. It's Either/Or, all the time. You referred to MJ. Well, when MJ came into the league, all he did was pound the ball in isolation. His rookie year he averaged 28.2 PPG while his team was winning 38 games. He played under three different head coaches in his first 5 years, including Doug Collins. During that five year span Jordan averaged 31.1 PPG. It wasn't until his sixth year in the league, that Jackson arrived with his triangle offense and a team concept, that the Bulls became serious contenders. That first year the team went 55 and 27 and made a run in the playoffs. The next year it went 61 and 21 and won the championship.
Make no mistake, I'm not equating Gay to Jordan. There's only one Jordan. But how good you are, or how talented you are, has nothing to do with being willing to adapt your game. You adapt, because you believe! Gay has played a certain style of basketball his entire career, and its earned him quite a bit of success. But that doesn't mean he's incapable of playing a different style. The entire time Cousins has been here, he's been an isolation player for the most part. Is that his fault, or is that the fault of the coaching staff for continuing to call isolation plays for him. Everyone looks at Cousins, see's his passing skills, and is reminded of Vlade and Webber. Just get the ball into Cuz, and run the plays through him. Well, we see a lot of the getting the ball in, but we don't see the same results that we did with Vlade and Webber. Why? Is it Cousins fault, or is it the coaches fault? Or is it the team on the floor that's at fault?
I can't answer that question. So far they haven't allowed me into the team meetings to see what their plan is. So I assume nothing. Assuming gets you in trouble, and more often than not, leads you down the wrong path. Assuming also allows personal bias to rear its ugly head. Personal bias is the foundation of assumption. To think that were all objectively subjective is nonsense. Most of us have some sort of agenda that were trying to influence. Regardless of how many times I climb Mt. Sinai and speak to the burning bush, I still can't cleanse myself of my personal bias. It just creeps in from time to time. No accusation here, just observation! But I digress. The reason I want Gay to opt in, is so we have another year to see how he fits with the team. By next seasons end, we should have a good idea where we stand with him, and whether we should attempt to resign him. My hope would be to resign him for an average of around 14 mil a year, not 19 mil.
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
One of my favorite plays of this season was when Derrick Williams first arrived....and the play in that Clippers game where he cut across the lane below the free throw line and Cousins hit him for an assist plus the foul. Actual player movement, non isolation play.
Unfortunately, like a couple other plays in that game, we haven't seen much or any of those types of plays since
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
No matter how many wins the Spurs have strung together in the past few seasons, they still haven't won jack-squat since age caught up to Timmy D and reduced him to the shadow of himself he is now. In their championship seasons, the Spurs were *gasp* largely an iso-based offense that would grind out games and beat up teams with stellar defense. Their playbook prior to 2011 was mostly kick the ball into Duncan and let him either kick it out to his shooters for a 3 or beat his guy on the block or hand the ball off to Parker and Ginobli and have them drive to the hope with the same shooters (Bowen et all) waiting for the kick-out from them.
Now things have reentry changed for the Spurs as Duncan is now too old to be the defensive anchor he was for them before and all three of their big three aren't quite as Big Three-ey as they were before. They also lucked into getting Kahwi Leonard thanks to a certain small market team going for the big marketing plan rather than the obvious hole filler. As a result, they now have four very good players and a collection of role players who know their roles and don't **** their pants on defense. Pop, being the great coach that he is, has adjusted his game plan accordingly.
This conversation has been had too many times to count but the prevailing majority of championship basketball teams throughout NBA history are iso-ball teams running strong defensive schemes. I know that we as Kings fans are desperate to relive the early 2000s but that's simply not going to happen with the roster as it's presently constructed. The Princeton Offense is fun to watch when it's rolling but it also requires good shooters and patience neither of which we currently have.
Padrino
All-Star
the problem with all of this talk of a "motion offense" is that it's so dependent upon a coaching staff who is a) able to craft a creative and fairly nuanced approach to the offensive side of the ball, and b) able to motivate young, ball dominant players towards ball movement and off-ball movement. that's no easy feat, particularly on a kings team that is lacking in the kind of veteran talent that can act as both example and encouragement...
now, i like michael malone; i like his passion, i like his style, and i like that he values defense and rebounding above all else. but he's an inexperienced head coach with a support staff that has yet to form an identity as a whole, much like the kings' player personnel has yet to form an identity as a whole. if you watch the spurs, you bear witness to the gold standard of an organization-wide identity. kings fans should expect nothing of the sort with a new regime that's still getting it's feet wet, but it is tremendous work to implement the kind of free-flowing, pass-heavy offense that many would like to see, given the inexperience of the team's defensively-oriented head coach and the style of play favored by the team's core talents. in my mind, it's just a few too many factors pulling in a few too many different directions...
that's not to say that coach malone or demarcus cousins or rudy gay or isaiah thomas are incapable of finding success within the confines of a "motion offense." on the contrary, i think that cousins and gay, in particular, are willing enough passers to succeed in such a capacity if paired with a starting point guard who is more willing to defer on a regular basis (that's not a dig at IT, but rather a simple comment on the problematic nature of stuffing three big time, iso-heavy scorers in the same starting lineup). i will continue to remain rather skeptical that we're going to see anything that resembles a "motion offense" as long as all three of cousins/gay/thomas exist in the same starting lineup...
regardless of what changes may come, i do expect to see a greater emphasis on team play, and i expect to see budding chemistry on the court as the roster takes a more permanent shape in the coming seasons. if the kings give rick adelman a call, then maybe we'd see the kind of nuanced offense that kings fans have pined for since adelman's departure. but with a defense-first rookie head coach who has yet to show much creativity in his offensive gameplan? again, i'm skeptical...
now, i like michael malone; i like his passion, i like his style, and i like that he values defense and rebounding above all else. but he's an inexperienced head coach with a support staff that has yet to form an identity as a whole, much like the kings' player personnel has yet to form an identity as a whole. if you watch the spurs, you bear witness to the gold standard of an organization-wide identity. kings fans should expect nothing of the sort with a new regime that's still getting it's feet wet, but it is tremendous work to implement the kind of free-flowing, pass-heavy offense that many would like to see, given the inexperience of the team's defensively-oriented head coach and the style of play favored by the team's core talents. in my mind, it's just a few too many factors pulling in a few too many different directions...
that's not to say that coach malone or demarcus cousins or rudy gay or isaiah thomas are incapable of finding success within the confines of a "motion offense." on the contrary, i think that cousins and gay, in particular, are willing enough passers to succeed in such a capacity if paired with a starting point guard who is more willing to defer on a regular basis (that's not a dig at IT, but rather a simple comment on the problematic nature of stuffing three big time, iso-heavy scorers in the same starting lineup). i will continue to remain rather skeptical that we're going to see anything that resembles a "motion offense" as long as all three of cousins/gay/thomas exist in the same starting lineup...
regardless of what changes may come, i do expect to see a greater emphasis on team play, and i expect to see budding chemistry on the court as the roster takes a more permanent shape in the coming seasons. if the kings give rick adelman a call, then maybe we'd see the kind of nuanced offense that kings fans have pined for since adelman's departure. but with a defense-first rookie head coach who has yet to show much creativity in his offensive gameplan? again, i'm skeptical...
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I don't disagree with a thing you said. It's going to be a challenge to make a change to a motion offense. It's a kin to taking a golfer that's actually playing pretty well, but has stopped improving, and changing his golf swing. He's going to get a little worse before he gets better, and that's the crucial moment in time. The response of most hackers is, it feels strange, its not working and I'm going back to what I feel comfortable with. So when you have a group of Isolation players, and your trying to get them to buy into a new offense that's entirely different than their accustomed to, your going to see them revert back to iso from time to time when things seem to go south.
The first step however, is to get players with the proper skill set that are willing to make the change. That's sort of where the Kings are right now. Still putting the pieces together. Unfortunately they seem to be doing it with a hit and miss approach. I might be a bit unfair with that comment. It's possible that they did have targets but were unable to acquire them. Unfortunately, I don't see how Landry fits into a motion offense, unless, like IT, they were looking at him as a change of pace player. That said, I don't think the Kings are that far away from being truly competitive and making the playoffs. Some parts need to be replaced, and some just need to be moved around. They're in a position right now, where one key player could move them substantially up the win column. I doubt we'll ever see the likes of what we had before. Adelman is probably the best in the business with a motion offense, and don't forget we had Coachie there in the wings, and he invented the motion offense. I don't care what you call it. Any offense that results in more passing and more assists, if just fine with me. Why wouldn't any player like an easy basket?
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
What's ironic is you campaigning for a motion offense, and at the same time campaigning for IT to be our PG going forward and not recognizing IT's skillset and what he's best at doesn't fit all that well into a motion offense. I mean, on one hand you want the motion offense, and on the other you want a PG whom excels with the ball in his hands, attacking 1v1 and who's production declines sharply when played off the ball. You keep asking how Rudy would fit in a motion offense but decline to ask how IT would fit in a motion offense which is a more important question.
A true motion offense takes the ball out of your PG's hands more than a pick & roll spread offense or a PG dominant offense, which is where IT excels. Look at Parker who's assist numbers are less than they would be in our system with a role like IT, as he's constantly giving up the ball and playing through the high post with Duncan. Another well known example is Bibby, who's assist numbers were a decent amount higher in Van in a more PG dominant offense compared to our more motion offense under Rick which went through Webb/Vlade/Brad.
Your goal of wanting a motion offense and moving IT off the ball, amusingly tells me you aren't all that familiar with the strengths of your favorite player. And that's not a knock on the player, putting a guy like Nash in a motion offense would be a dumb idea too, or a Westbrook or a Wall or a Rondo, players who excel and play to their strengths with the rock in their hands. In a motion offense you have focal points and the focal points are usually bigs who can pass, draw doubles and have cutters/slashers run off them and a wing who can do the same. A ball dominant PG obviously by nature excels in a different type of offense. Rudy however has the tools to be a focal point of a motion offense, as does Boogie. And those talented and versatile focal points are needed to excel in a motion offense. Rick's TWolves are a good example of that. His system in Minn isn't that different than what he ran here, but the talent and focal points were clearly superior here in our golden era compared to what he has. And a ball dominant PG like Rubio who doesn't do well off the ball does not fit Rick's system. More versatile, off the ball PG's like Dragic or Lowry did excel under his system in Hou and ironically, are two PG's frequently mentioned as being a good fit next to Rudy/Boogie.
Last edited:
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Absolutely dead on. I almost mentioned the irony of Kingster's position in regards to IT, but why beat a dead horse. I'd love Lowry on our team. It would make McLemore's transition to the NBA a little easier. Not to defend IT, but I think sometimes he misses passing opportunities because of his height. He simply doesn't see them. I've noticed that more and more teams are starting to double IT when ever he has the ball, and usually the double comes from the frontcourt, making it difficult for him to see an open man.
Another prerequisite of the motion offense, is that everyone in the starting unit has to be able to shoot the ball. At least well enough to require being guarded. That's another negative with Rubio. Even if you utilize him in a motion offense, no one guards him because he's such a bad shooter. That's why Bibby was perfect. He could handle, play off the ball and shoot the ball. And your right about his assists. They went down when he came here, and then went up again when he left. It's just the nature of the beast.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
The better question is "would you max contract him?"
Obviously I'd want to keep him at a fair and friendly number, but I don't know that I'd offer him a max deal. I certainly don't want too, but I'm still on the fence about it. I worry about how Rudy plays when he's comfortable. He has something to play for right now. I think he'd seriously consider opting out after this season if another max deal was going to get offered to him.
And if the Kings land a top 3 pick in the lottery this year (and boy are we due for that) .. 2 of the top 3 guys are small forwards. Jabari is kind of a combo, but I like him more at that spot. I think that is where he ends up. That would add another layer to this question, because a resigned max contract Rudy Gay might work out well for us, but I don't see other teams lining up to trade for that if one of those guys surpass him (at a much cap number).
It's a huge decision.
Obviously I'd want to keep him at a fair and friendly number, but I don't know that I'd offer him a max deal. I certainly don't want too, but I'm still on the fence about it. I worry about how Rudy plays when he's comfortable. He has something to play for right now. I think he'd seriously consider opting out after this season if another max deal was going to get offered to him.
And if the Kings land a top 3 pick in the lottery this year (and boy are we due for that) .. 2 of the top 3 guys are small forwards. Jabari is kind of a combo, but I like him more at that spot. I think that is where he ends up. That would add another layer to this question, because a resigned max contract Rudy Gay might work out well for us, but I don't see other teams lining up to trade for that if one of those guys surpass him (at a much cap number).
It's a huge decision.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
I would offer him a contract similar to Boogies so as to cement the idea that they are co-leaders of this team. I sure wouldn't let him go no matter who we drafted. It would be no misfortune of we got Wiggins or Parker and they would feel no pressure to produce right away. As to them playing the same position, I'd figure something out. Maybe I would just put a different label on the position one of them plays so they wouldn't be playing the same position. I'd say good bye to DWill in the process. DWill makes far too much for what he contributes.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
There should be no reason we have to max contract him. Its hard to imagine that any other NBA team is going to repeat the same mistake with him again, not after it was so notorious as the worst contract yadda yadda.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Doesn't that Tony Parker guy run a motion offense? How about the guy that subs for Parker - Patty Mills? That guy is sooo tall and so much more talented than IT. Hmmm. Wake up and get some common sense. Popovitch would love with a capital L to have IT on his team. He has similar traits to both Parker and Mills. Of course IT can be in a motion offense. This is rubbish about inconsistency. This must be the "little minds" that Emerson talked about.
Hold on, so IT, who has absolutely proven to need the ball in his hands in order to be effective would absolutely fit in a motion offense, but Rudy Gay, who has proven that he can be a very effective #2 to Cousins without the ball in his hands, cannot exist in a motion offense?
Chubbs
Starter
Wait, what?! IT, the biggest ball hog in the entire NbA, would have no problem with a motion offense, but Gay would? Rudy has been playing third fiddle since he got here to enormous success, despite playing alongside Isaiah. That's quite a feat.
Isaiah would have a rude awakening playing for the spurs. But pop would figure out how to use him. But the selfishness would have to be cured, and the ball pounding. His style of play is not justified by his skill level. And distribution skills. Hard to see the spurs wanting anything to do with a guy like Isaiah. They'd never spend the money. They have no need for a player like him. On Isaiah's current contract? Sure, they'd love him. But he wouldn't add anything the spurs don't already have in patty mills going forward.
Jerichoholic
Bench
I don't think either Rudy Gay or Isaiah Thomas has proven they can work in a motion offense, that is the point. Even though this thread started about Gay I believe it holds true for Thomas as well. This Big 3 thing doesn't work and will never work, just watch a little March Madness and you will see that consistent one on one play doesn't win, even with superior talent.
I do agree that Thomas does have similar abilities and talent to players like Patty Mills and Tony Parker, but there is one major difference and that is selfishness. Players on the Spurs are either not selfish initially or learn to not be. Thomas is a selfish player and young players certainly don't learn how to lose those selfish traits on the Kings, in fact it probably grows on this team.
Back to Gay, when has he proven he can be a successful #2 to Cousins? Maybe the first couple of weeks here when he took less shots, but he then went back to his ball dominant ways. That's who he is.
I do agree that Thomas does have similar abilities and talent to players like Patty Mills and Tony Parker, but there is one major difference and that is selfishness. Players on the Spurs are either not selfish initially or learn to not be. Thomas is a selfish player and young players certainly don't learn how to lose those selfish traits on the Kings, in fact it probably grows on this team.
Back to Gay, when has he proven he can be a successful #2 to Cousins? Maybe the first couple of weeks here when he took less shots, but he then went back to his ball dominant ways. That's who he is.
Similar threads
