To Keep or Not Keep Rudy Gay

[The_Jamal]

That...I find unlikely. The not changing part. This whole lost season I think has been in large part to prepare for this offseason.

Perhaps, but I just don't see it. We have no cap space. All our assets that teams would actually want are tied into 3 guys; Cuz, Gay and IT and we don't control 2 of them.

Landry is worth nothing after being hurt the whole year. Ben and D-Will might garner interest from a rebuilding team, but certainly not for the kind of players we'd want in return. If this trade-deadline was any indication, JT doesn't have much interest. Outlaw, Evans, Acy, McCallum, Gray are all throw-in type guys.

 

[Bricklayer]

Not entirely true. Rudy in Toronto was synonymous with being a basketball plague of inefficient chucking who made his teammates worse. We took the chance on him and gave him a platform to rebuild his reputation. I'd think anyone in that situation would be appreciative of a team who did that for him.

There may be some sense of gratitude there. At the very least I have not gotten the sense Rudy is UNhappy despite being on a craptastic team entirely off the national TV radar.

That said, whatever minor gratitude he may or may not feel is not going to be worth $19mil dollars. I have little doubt that whichever way he goes on opting in/re-singing an extension will be based on a fairly cold eyed calculus of which route is likely to result in higher career earnings.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Further, the Kings traded for Gay knowing that he had the $19 million option next season. Nobody at that time expected him to opt out. Yes, he has shown he can be a better, more efficient player than he was in Toronto, making his opting out more likely than before. But I have to think the Kings fully expected he would be on the books for $19 million next year when they made the trade, and hopefully have been planning accordingly.

 

[Kingster]

Gay owes the Kings nothing and to ask him to sign a new contract to benefit a team he has no allegiance to is naive. He is more likely to develop allegiance after another year. Certainly the winning record next year will improve no matter what his salary is. When it comes tine for free agency, the team will either have proven to be a team someone would wish to play for or not. I don't think a player merely playing out the contract he signed means anything.

Of course they ask him for a new contract. That's negotiation. Whether they appear naive to you by asking him is the least of their concerns.

 

[rainmaker]

Fair enough. My thinking is that if he opts in for his $19 mill to play next year, he's not all that interested in the quality of the team around him. Why? Because he must know that the $19 mill hamstrings the financial flexibility of the Kings to make things better. They could easily be running in place next year , or possibly even worse, with that such financial baggage. If Gay is willing to exchange his $19 mill for the status quo quality of the team, then that says he's not really that interested in making the Kings better, at least not at the expense of his immediate (one-year) financial concerns. He could then end up playing for a bottom dweller for two consecutive years. Why would the Kings want him after that and why would he want the Kings, other than his totally mercenary concerns? I'm not saying it's not an option; I just think it's more low probability.

So should IT sign for maybe 2-3M also, so we have more flexibility? Here's your continued hypocrisy on display. Just a week or two ago you were going around here saying IT should take the stance of "pay me the money!!", yet you're now saying Rudy should turn down millions and if he doesn't, it's basically on Rudy for killing our flexibility. Rudy should be concerned with our flexibility and take millions less, yet IT should stack that cheddar.

Going further, why the hell should Rudy take less money due our FO's mistakes? It's not Rudy's fault we handed Landry that stupid contract. It's not Rudy's fault we took on a little over 2M more in salary when moving Mbah for DWill. That's roughly 9M less in cap space we have due to poor decisions. Yet, no mention of that.

 

[Kingster]

So should IT sign for maybe 2-3M also, so we have more flexibility? Here's your continued hypocrisy on display. Just a week or two ago you were going around here saying IT should take the stance of "pay me the money!!", yet you're now saying Rudy should turn down millions and if he doesn't, it's basically on Rudy for killing our flexibility. Rudy should be concerned with our flexibility and take millions less, yet IT should stack that cheddar.

Going further, why the hell should Rudy take less money due our FO's mistakes? It's not Rudy's fault we handed Landry that stupid contract. It's not Rudy's fault we took on a little over 2M more in salary when moving Mbah for DWill. That's roughly 9M less in cap space we have due to poor decisions. Yet, no mention of that.

If IT had a $19 mill one year option and I postulated that the FO should be happy as a clam paying it and shouldn't broach the subject of a renegotiation, it would be hypocrisy. But he doesn't. So it's not. If you don't know what the word means, it's not wise to use it. See above for my answer to Glenn: Regardless of your sensitive feelings about the FO moves, the FO should (and will) ask for what they want. They will ask for what they want with IT and Gay, and they won't let your feelings of misgiving toward the FO get in the way of asking it.

 

[Warhawk]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Kings management has a discussion in which they ask for him to re-sign for a longer term contract for a lesser $ amount per year. They should ask for it because it benefits the team. They should point out to Gay the risk of a one year deal as opposed to a multi year deal. They should also point out the consequences to Gay of opting to stay for $19 mill - the chances are the team doesn't get better next year because of the $19 mill load around their neck.

I seriously think that the team, and Rudy's agent, will properly cover all these topics, and more, when the time is right. That is an agent's job - to figure out the most beneficial contract and location for their client. All these things will play into it. I'm sure the professionals are working on it all with or without our input.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Ben and D-Will might garner interest from a rebuilding team, but certainly not for the kind of players we'd want in return.

I agree, somewhat. But the bottom dwellers do have some interesting veteran pieces (Thad Young, Afflalo, Sanders, Ilyasova etc) that could either fit here or could be moved to a third team that could provide a better fit (maybe, say, a three-way deal with Houston, for example, with the Kings getting Asik and the Rockets getting a Young or Ilyasova).

 

[rainmaker]

If IT had a $19 mill one year option and I postulated that the FO should be happy as a clam paying it and shouldn't broach the subject of a renegotiation, it would be hypocrisy. But he doesn't. So it's not. If you don't know what the word means, it's not wise to use it. See above for my answer to Glenn: Regardless of your sensitive feelings about the FO moves, the FO should (and will) ask for what they want. They will ask for what they want with IT and Gay, and they won't let your feelings of misgiving toward the FO get in the way of asking it.

You're missing the big picture as you're too caught up in IT.

Even if Rudy take a 5M per year paycut, down to say 14M, if you turn around and give that 5M to IT or roughly a 5.8M per contract, we're still left with the same flexibility, which basically is no flexibility.

The hypocrisy is you on one hand pretending to care about our flexibility, then on the other campaigning for IT to "get paid!!" which essentially leaves us in the same situation. Little flexibility. If flexibility was your main concern, you'd be asking for both to take a decent amount less. If you're main concern is IT getting paid, you're not concerned about our flexibility. Instead, you're fine with IT getting paid which kills flexibility while having different standards for Rudy. Indeed, hypocrisy.

 

[CruzDude]

Rudy is one of the best SF the Kings have had in the Sacto era. He does it all. Keep in mind he came on part way into the season with no previous experience working with the Kings players and coaches. He is a vet keeper for the Kings and a key cog in getting to the playoffs sooner (1 year?) than later (2-3 years). Once the Kings put a motion oriented team (guys who move around, who pass and who help on both offense and defense) on the floor and kill the one-on-one-iris that rears its ugly head all too often then Rudy will flourish with Cuz and a playmaking PG. If IT and DWill and Evans/Acy would anchor the bench, then Kings could make a big next step. But they need Rudy.

 

[Gliesian]

It's hard not to stray from the IT debate, since the price of Rudy Gay is contingent on it. That being said, IT's development was somewhat of an odd chance as he was given the opportunity to score and dribble as much as he wanted. There are more guards out there who can do what he can, at a cheaper salary than what he will demand.

The answer to the question is obviously yes, but at what price? I would be comfortable paying IT 4 mil and Rudy 14 mil.

 

[KingMilz]

For all the good Rudy does and for as talented as he is he's just not relentless enough as a player nor does he make teammates better, he's a excellent short term pick up to just try get a few more wins and get confidents up but reality is the best thing is that we either try move his expiring deal next year or hope he opts out no way you give a guy 12+ milliom when he lacks both those components.

I rather sign Trevor Ariza for like a 3 year 6-8million dollar deal and try get a solid PF/PG depending on the draft.

 

[Sac.1989]

we could close this thread and reopen it once we know where we will draft and i guarantee you that's the way management are looking at this. Its pointless to argue about what will happen to IT and RG before learning who we have a chance to draft and even then we could turn this straight up into win now if we flip a high pick and players for a gamechanger like Rondo

 

[Kingster]

You're missing the big picture as you're too caught up in IT.

Even if Rudy take a 5M per year paycut, down to say 14M, if you turn around and give that 5M to IT or roughly a 5.8M per contract, we're still left with the same flexibility, which basically is no flexibility.

The hypocrisy is you on one hand pretending to care about our flexibility, then on the other campaigning for IT to "get paid!!" which essentially leaves us in the same situation. Little flexibility. If flexibility was your main concern, you'd be asking for both to take a decent amount less. If you're main concern is IT getting paid, you're not concerned about our flexibility. Instead, you're fine with IT getting paid which kills flexibility while having different standards for Rudy. Indeed, hypocrisy.

Campaigning? Really? I think you better get your facts straight. I've never advocated the Kings should pay Isaiah Thomas X dollars. NEVER. I've prognosticated that it would take $8 mill + to get the deal done. I've also said: IT says, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!! If I have to spell it out for you in granular detail what that sentence means: IT is playing well, which in turn means that his market value is high, which in turn means that the FO has an issue on their hands if they want to sign him. It also means that those who've said that IT is worth $4 mill don't know squat. Now that I've ruined the metaphor, do you get it? To go into even more specificity so you and VF21 and whomever don't reach for conclusions that aren't there: I would like the FO to sign IT at the lowest amount for the longest time period that they can. PERIOD. Just like I'd be able to have every single other player on this team that management wants for the lowest this management team can sign them. PERIOD. Why? Because then the team can have the most talent for the buck. IT is going to be a millionare after he signs this contract. Whether he is a multi-millionare or a multi-multi-millionare is irrelevant to me. He's going to be set for life. His financial well being is the least of my concerns. But his absence from this team certainly isn't.

 

[Bosnian Diehard]

Thing is with IT, he might be expecting a starting PG spot next year if he were to resign with us. I'm thinking the FO might wanna place him back at the (elite) sixth man role he was at as maybe we draft a young PG (Smart, Exum, Ennis, etc.). Well, at least that would be the role I'd give him.

 

[Glenn]

Thing is with IT, he might be expecting a starting PG spot next year if he were to resign with us. I'm thinking the FO might wanna place him back at the (elite) sixth man role he was at as maybe we draft a young PG (Smart, Exum, Ennis, etc.). Well, at least that would be the role I'd give him.

My fear about drafting a PG to be the future's starter is that it might take too long for the person to develop. I think we have some urgency to win in order to keep Cuz happy and to keep Rudy happy. We need a competent PG to start. That could be IT. Yes, I said it and believe me, I hope we sign IT and trade him plus one of our excess PFs to get a more standard PG.

I want us to draft a defensive big guy because we need one and also because there is no great urgency that a big guy comes out of the gates playing at a high level. We have enough big bodies to let him get his bearings. Besides, there may be 3 very competent bigs available at the time we draft.

I think our backup PG of the future is Ray and our starter is someone else with some experience.

 

[KingMilz]

Game against OKC is another example of why you pray Gay opts out.

 

[randymoss1881]

I'd rather pay Ariza 8mill and IT 6mill than give Gay anything above 12mill.

 

[Bosnian Diehard]

I'd easily give Gay 13 or 14 mill.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I'm wondering if the "intangible" that he may be lacking, is a 'feisty edge'. The ability to "fight" against the better players in playoff type big games.

That's a difference I've noticed so far, between him and for example Paul George

 

[upinsmoke]

Game against OKC is another example of why you pray Gay opts out.

I agree, we could use that money to sign a role player that fits better with the long term outlook of the team or wait until a better opportunity presents itself.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'm wondering if the "intangible" that he may be lacking, is a 'feisty edge'. The ability to "fight" against the better players in playoff type big games.

That's a difference I've noticed so far, between him and for example Paul George

Nobody says he is Paul George.

NBA SFs:

1) LeBron
2) Durant
3) Melo
4) George
.
.
.
5-10) Gay, Deng, Batum, Parsons, etc.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Nobody says he is Paul George.

That's correct, nobody did say that

It's a question of can he on a consistent basis, at least 'hold his own' and make these top players work hard for everything they get, when he plays against them

 

[KingMilz]

Nobody says he is Paul George.

NBA SFs:

1) LeBron
2) Durant
3) Melo
4) George
.
.
.
5-10) Gay, Deng, Batum, Parsons, etc.

All those guys are better cause they play defence and don't put up empty stats while shutting down a whole offence so they can take a fadeaway 2 pointer. If you are serious about winning you take all those guys over Rudy, if it's about fantasy stats and who's game look's nicer than you go with Rudy. Give me guys that play every game hard and have high IQ's than a low IQ guy who run's isolation for himself every possession.