To Keep or Not Keep Rudy Gay

[LPKingsFan]

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.

I think trades are the most likely way for the team to improve whether IT is re-signed or not.

However, as Padrino and baja mention above, instilling a coherent offense may also allow the team to get more out of the players it has. I think the first order of business for the offseason should actually be getting an assistant coach to help Malone develop an offense. Would Malone be willing to share some of the reigns with a big time offensive assistant coach? If the T-Wolves let Adelman go, I sure hope we give him a call. But there may be other options too (some former Phil Jackson acolyte to teach the Triangle...?) It would certainly fit Vivek's MO of assembling a team of the "smartest guys in the room."

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.

Well, then the problem is the team, and not necessarily any individual player (but certainly going after me-first type players does not help).

 

[Kingster]

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.

I see a helluva lot more similarities in IT and Parker and Mills, than Ginobili/Leonard and Gay. That's for darned sure. If anybody wants to specifically address those similarities or lack thereof, please do. If you think Parker is a pass first point guard and IT isn't, please tell me. If you think they both can't penetrate and score at the basket, please tell me. If you think they are not multi-dimensional, quick on quick, versatile point guards, please tell me. Also, do the same for Mills. I'm all eyes. I'm waiting to be educated on the nuances of differences between IT and Parker and Mills to find those particular attributes that Parker and Mills possess that IT doesn't.

Same thing goes for Rudy and Ginobili and Leonard. Tell me how their games are so similar, how their skills are similar. For some reason, when I think of Ginobili, Rudy Gay just doesn't seem to pop into my mind.

 

[Jerichoholic]

In abilities I do think that Thomas is similar to Mills and Parker, but it's the development that's the difference. Parker is definitely a very quick PG who can penetrate to score, shoot well from the outside, and doesn't play very good defense, just like Thomas. The difference is that Parker now uses his quick first step and penetration ability to create for teammates and not just score. He can score if need be, but it isn't his first choice. Now is that something that he just had all along that had to be brought out or did he learn it? That question is important because we need to know if Thomas can learn it or not, perhaps if he had better players around him.

Mills is exactly what Thomas would be if Thomas were drafted by the Spurs. He would have been brought along slowly and in a way that best fits the team basketball that the Spurs play. However he is still a score first PG, he's averaging about 10 points in just over 18 minutes per game off of the bench, that's good production. Even the Spurs feel that having an explosive scoring PG can be valuable, they just choose to use that value off of the bench in short spurts and I guarantee that if Mills wants a large contract extension he won't be getting it in San Antonio. Shoot first PGs that are quick and can score are nice, but not actually that hard to find, they would find a cheaper replacement.

I think a proper comparison of what has happened with Thomas would be Brandon Jennings. A young PG who was given a lot of minutes and opportunities early in his career to take advantage of his scoring abilities. However he does very little to help elsewhere and is probably better suited to be a sixth man, but because of his early production it's hard for people to think of him as just a bench player, he was overvalued for a long time because of the early numbers he put up. The thing is though is that he did very little to help his team win. The truth is that the Kings are more similar to the Bucks than the Spurs when it comes to success. That is why we see Thomas as more Jennings than Mills, if we were a good team Thomas would probably have very similar numbers to Mills and he would be paid accordingly.

 

[Kingster]

In abilities I do think that Thomas is similar to Mills and Parker, but it's the development that's the difference. Parker is definitely a very quick PG who can penetrate to score, shoot well from the outside, and doesn't play very good defense, just like Thomas. The difference is that Parker now uses his quick first step and penetration ability to create for teammates and not just score. He can score if need be, but it isn't his first choice. Now is that something that he just had all along that had to be brought out or did he learn it? That question is important because we need to know if Thomas can learn it or not, perhaps if he had better players around him.

Mills is exactly what Thomas would be if Thomas were drafted by the Spurs. He would have been brought along slowly and in a way that best fits the team basketball that the Spurs play. However he is still a score first PG, he's averaging about 10 points in just over 18 minutes per game off of the bench, that's good production. Even the Spurs feel that having an explosive scoring PG can be valuable, they just choose to use that value off of the bench in short spurts and I guarantee that if Mills wants a large contract extension he won't be getting it in San Antonio. Shoot first PGs that are quick and can score are nice, but not actually that hard to find, they would find a cheaper replacement.

I think a proper comparison of what has happened with Thomas would be Brandon Jennings. A young PG who was given a lot of minutes and opportunities early in his career to take advantage of his scoring abilities. However he does very little to help elsewhere and is probably better suited to be a sixth man, but because of his early production it's hard for people to think of him as just a bench player, he was overvalued for a long time because of the early numbers he put up. The thing is though is that he did very little to help his team win. The truth is that the Kings are more similar to the Bucks than the Spurs when it comes to success. That is why we see Thomas as more Jennings than Mills, if we were a good team Thomas would probably have very similar numbers to Mills and he would be paid accordingly.

I stopped in the first sentence when you said: he doesn't play defense. If you think a guy who takes charges against Tony Parker and Wall ain't playing D, then I don't know what to tell you. The IT doesn't play defense thing is getting as old German propaganda and Pravda.

 

[Padrino]

I stopped in the first sentence when you said: he doesn't play defense. If you think a guy who takes charges against Tony Parker and Wall ain't playing D, then I don't know what to tell you. The IT doesn't play defense thing is getting as old German propaganda and Pravda.

not really. he still maintains an absolutely terrible defensive rating, the 398th worst of 476 active nba players, which is particularly egregious given that his usage rate is higher than anybody below him on the list who logs significant minutes...

now, defensive rating may be a flimsy tool for measuring individual defense across the nba at large, but it's a fair indicator of how an individual's defensive impact stands up relative to his teammates. and when you're a high usage player on a notoriously poor defensive team and the only two teammates who rank below you in defensive rating are rookies, it says something rather striking about the quality of your defensive contributions...

it's certainly nice to see IT give an effort on that side of the ball, but his size remains a limiting factor, particularly on defense. in fact, because thomas is such a diminutive presence on the court, i'd prefer to see him take charges more often. he gets bounced around considerably by the league's bigger guards, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to draw charges against the likes of parker, wall, westbrook, deron williams, etc...

 

[The_Jamal]

not really. he still maintains an absolutely terrible defensive rating, the 398th worst of 476 active nba players, which is particularly egregious given that his usage rate is higher than anybody below him on the list who logs significant minutes...

now, defensive rating may be a flimsy tool for measuring individual defense across the nba at large, but it's a fair indicator of how an individual's defensive impact stands up relative to his teammates. and when you're a high usage player on a notoriously poor defensive team and the only two teammates who rank below you in defensive rating are rookies, it says something rather striking about the quality of your defensive contributions...

it's certainly nice to see IT give an effort on that side of the ball, but his size remains a limiting factor, particularly on defense. in fact, because thomas is such a diminutive presence on the court, i'd prefer to see him take charges more often. he gets bounced around considerably by the league's bigger guards, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to draw charges against the likes of parker, wall, westbrook, deron williams, etc...

No, it's not. Defensive rating is worthless in all contexts. Seriously, you all need to take a crash course in what statistics mean. Also, wth does USG have to do with defense? They are totally unrelated to one another.

Defensive stats in general suck, because defense is extremely dependent on how good the talent is around you. But the best is easily Synergy stats because it actually shows what an opponent shot against you in different scenarios. There's obvious flaws to it, but it's the best we got. (FYI, synergy grades IT out extremely well defensively, especially in ISO situation and defending the PnR ball=handler) These are the top 3 scenarios in which IT has been in defensively this year, by a large margin. Everything else is 6% or less.

Overall- .83 PPP (rank 100)--- 37% Opp FG%

ISO- .75 PPP (Rank 91)---- 31% Opp FG%
PnR Ball Handler- .74 PPP (Rank 63)----37% Opp FG%
Spot-up- .0.87 PPP (Rank 67) --- 33% OPP FG%



Please, do continue to use statistics incorrectly to try and "advance" your argument while simultaneously ignore them when stats contradict it

 

[Capt. Factorial]

not really. he still maintains an absolutely terrible defensive rating, the 398th worst of 476 active nba players, which is particularly egregious given that his usage rate is higher than anybody below him on the list who logs significant minutes...

This seems like quite a non-sequitur. Usage rate has basically nothing at all to do with defense. The implication is that if he didn't have such a high usage rate, being a bad defender wouldn't be such a problem. That's...bizarre.

There's nothing fundamentally bad about a high usage rate. Usage rate takes into account how often a player shoots and turnover rate. That would mean that a high usage rate that results from a high turnover rate, or a high usage rate that comes from inefficient shooting would be bad, but high usage rate on its own is basically neutral if you don't know the other stuff. It turns out that Isaiah's turnover rate is very slightly lower than that of the other two high-usage players on the team, so that's not the problem. And Isaiah's shooting efficiency is slightly higher than the other two high-usage players on the team (and is in fact the highest on the team), so that's not the problem either. He's high-usage, but he's getting more out of each possession he uses than anybody else, so he should be high-usage.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Doesn't usage rate also count assists? That's at least my reading of ESPN's definition.

Edit: huh, looks like B-R says assists don't count. Wonder if that's a typo on ESPN or they simply calculate differently.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Doesn't usage rate also count assists? That's at least my reading of ESPN's definition.

Edit: huh, looks like B-R says assists don't count. Wonder if that's a typo on ESPN or they simply calculate differently.

Yes, it looks like Hollinger calculates it differently - though adding assists into the equation doesn't change the defense/usage disconnect, nor does it make a high usage rate less desirable.

 

[The_Jamal]

This seems like quite a non-sequitur. Usage rate has basically nothing at all to do with defense. The implication is that if he didn't have such a high usage rate, being a bad defender wouldn't be such a problem. That's...bizarre.

There's nothing fundamentally bad about a high usage rate. Usage rate takes into account how often a player shoots and turnover rate. That would mean that a high usage rate that results from a high turnover rate, or a high usage rate that comes from inefficient shooting would be bad, but high usage rate on its own is basically neutral if you don't know the other stuff. It turns out that Isaiah's turnover rate is very slightly lower than that of the other two high-usage players on the team, so that's not the problem. And Isaiah's shooting efficiency is slightly higher than the other two high-usage players on the team (and is in fact the highest on the team), so that's not the problem either. He's high-usage, but he's getting more out of each possession he uses than anybody else, so he should be high-usage.

Indeed. High USG is only a problem if coupled with High TO rates and inefficient scoring. It's a major reason why guys like Rudy and Monta have been much maligned over the years, despite being extremely talented players.

 

[Eyedea]

Hello all, I'd like to share a juicy tidbit of information regarding Rudy Gay. I have a supervisor at work whose wife works for a realtor who just sold a house to Rudy. I didn't think this was new topic material, but it must mean he at least sort of likes Sacramento. Of course, I'm not sure what par for the course is as far as buying homes for NBA players, but it seems to me like a guy wouldn't buy a multi million dollar house in an area he doesn't plan to stay in for at least the remainder of this contract.

 

[peacelate]

Defensive rating is a flawed stat that is tea dependent. Monta Ellis, Tyreke Evans and Kevin Martin have the same defensive rating.

As far as defensive rating determining how a player compares to his teammates, Tyreke's defensive rating never deviated largely from the team average.

 

[ParniValjak]

Rudy Gay is a must keep!

What the hell is it about our fan base where we want to ship out all the good players in hope of a pie in the sky option working out?!

Must keep Rudy!

 

[Kingster]

not really. he still maintains an absolutely terrible defensive rating, the 398th worst of 476 active nba players, which is particularly egregious given that his usage rate is higher than anybody below him on the list who logs significant minutes...

now, defensive rating may be a flimsy tool for measuring individual defense across the nba at large, but it's a fair indicator of how an individual's defensive impact stands up relative to his teammates. and when you're a high usage player on a notoriously poor defensive team and the only two teammates who rank below you in defensive rating are rookies, it says something rather striking about the quality of your defensive contributions...

it's certainly nice to see IT give an effort on that side of the ball, but his size remains a limiting factor, particularly on defense. in fact, because thomas is such a diminutive presence on the court, i'd prefer to see him take charges more often. he gets bounced around considerably by the league's bigger guards, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to draw charges against the likes of parker, wall, westbrook, deron williams, etc...

Watch the freaking game and see what his defense is. I'm sick and tired of the lazy-a$$ unobservant BS about the supposed IT non-defense. As if Parker and Mills are Peyton and Dennis Johnson. Yeah, right. IT plays better defense than Bibby, Beno, Vasquez, Jimmer, and Jason Williams ever did. If his D was soo freaking bad we'd see teams attack him ferociously and continually, a la Jimmer. But it doesn't happen.

And more importantly, the question posed was: What exactly is not in the repetoire of IT that is in the repetoire of Parker and Mills that unqualifies him to be in a Spurs motion offense? And now I'm getting some answers about his defense? How the heck does Isaiah Thomas's DEFENSE have to do with running an OFENSE anyway? That's logically absurd.

As far as usage rate, Big F'ing deal. So what? I don't care what his usage rate is because it has no bearing on whether he has the capability to be in a Pop motion offense. Does he have the skills necessary? Answer: Unequivocally yes. He can do everything that Parker and Mills does on offense. Ergo, it is ludicrous to state that IT just can't be running a Pop offense.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Rudy Gay is a must keep!

What the hell is it about our fan base where we want to ship out all the good players in hope of a pie in the sky option working out?!

Must keep Rudy!

I feel like there are people who only want "perfect" players on their team. The problem, obviously, is that they'll end up waiting forever. To me, without looking at salaries, Rudy Gay fits very nicely. Keep him if you can.

 

[Bricklayer]

As far as usage rate, Big F'ing deal. So what? I don't care what his usage rate is because it has no bearing on whether he has the capability to be in a Pop motion offense. Does he have the skills necessary? Answer: Unequivocally yes. He can do everything that Parker and Mills does on offense. Ergo, it is ludicrous to state that IT just can't be running a Pop offense.

The single most important thing to Pop's system is the WILLINGNESSS to subvert one's ego, not skillset. A.I. theoretically had the skillset to play Pop's system too. But he would never get the chance because he would never let go of his own glory to do it. And Pop doesn't mess around with stuff like that much. No reason to try to get a round ego to fit into a machine player hole when you can take so many borderline scrubs and get them to give you similar production with less fuss and headaches.

Doesn't matter anyway. We definitely are not headed down the motion offense path with this squad. In fact are basically at this point the most motionLESS offense in the entire league. All Pop's "motion offense" stuff is just a reaction on his part anyway. He hasn't won a title since 2007, when he barely used one. His "motion offense" is his reaction to no longer having guys good enough to anchor a non-motion offense. They won 4 titles with highly stratified offenses. Relatively unselfish stars of course, but when they were champions everybody knew the players who would lead them in shots every night.

 

[rainmaker]

As far as usage rate, Big F'ing deal. So what? I don't care what his usage rate is because it has no bearing on whether he has the capability to be in a Pop motion offense. Does he have the skills necessary? Answer: Unequivocally yes. He can do everything that Parker and Mills does on offense. Ergo, it is ludicrous to state that IT just can't be running a Pop offense.

There is something ludicrous in this post, but it's not what you may think it is.

 

[Kingster]

Leaving aside the IT digression (of such things as his defensive prowess in the SA offensive system, or usage rating in a SA system in which he currently does not operate), and regarding Gay, here are the options as I see it:

1) Gay opts for the one year $19 mill option, the Kings get screwed and Gay knows it; he essentially gets his $19 mill at the expense of the team from whom he is getting his $19 mill because he leaves them in a highly inflexible situation. In this situation he really doesn't care about the fact that team is financially hamstrung; he just gets his money. Highly unlikely in that scenario that Gay would renegotiate with the Kings the following year for a lower amount; he just takes the money and runs.

2) Gay doesn't want to take the risk of getting injured in the one year he gets $19 mill and so he doesn't take the $19 mill option. He'd rather have, say, four years, at $12-13/mill, guaranteed, he likes the Sacto and Kings future and he enters into good faith negotiation. In that case, it could be a win-win for both sides, if Kings want to retain his services because Kings now have some financial flexibility. Or,

3) Gay says he doesn't like kindergarten with the Kings; he'd like to have a more veteran team. He opts out of his $19 mill and goes elsewhere for his $12-$13 mill per year over say four years.

Personally, I think #2 or #3 scenario are the most likely.

Is this about right or am I missing another scenario?

 

[Bricklayer]

Yes, you're missing the opts in for his $19mil, because, well, its $19 mil. Then resigns for less than $19mil because neither we nor anybody else is going to pay him that much this next time around.

And that's actually a pretty good scenario for us. Gives us another season to put a much happier face on this place for Rudy. Coming to a losing chaotic rebuilding team is not how you want to send a guy off into free agency. But given a second year growing with the team, the team picking up more wins, it ups the odds of him settling in and staying.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

regarding Gay, here are the options as I see it:

1) Gay opts for the one year $19 mill option, the Kings get screwed and Gay knows it; he essentially gets his $19 mill at the expense of the team from whom he is getting his $19 mill because he leaves them in a highly inflexible situation. In this situation he really doesn't care about the fact that team is financially hamstrung; he just gets his money. Highly unlikely in that scenario that Gay would renegotiate with the Kings the following year for a lower amount; he just takes the money and runs.

...

Is this about right or am I missing another scenario?

I think you're a bit too pessimistic on #1, in the sense that you think that if Rudy opts in to the $19M, that means he's gone. There are certainly a lot of factors that are going to go into Rudy's decision, but I hardly think that opting in means he has no desire to stay with the Kings long term.

 

[Bricklayer]

this is what $1million looks like. Now multiply that image by 19 and you have a very compelling reason to opt in that has nothing at all to do with us.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

this is what $1million looks like. Now multiply that image by 19 and you have a very compelling reason to opt in that has nothing at all to do with us.

That's what $1M looks like when it's stacked on a pedestal (note the black gap behind the front row of bills). If that stack were as dense with bills as the front visible row, it would be more like $4-5M. Hmm. Another thing to note is that all of the visible stacks of Benjamins ($5000 per stack) have two denominator wrappers on them. But the stacks that comprise the front side of the "wall" have only one denominator wrapper, which might suggest they are $20s (or an even lower denomination).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's what $1M looks like when it's stacked on a pedestal (note the black gap behind the front row of bills). If that stack were as dense with bills as the front visible row, it would be more like $4-5M. Hmm. Another thing to note is that all of the visible stacks of Benjamins ($5000 per stack) have two denominator wrappers on them. But the stacks that comprise the front side of the "wall" have only one denominator wrapper, which might suggest they are $20s (or an even lower denomination).

I assure you, something gets lost in translation...

 

[Kingster]

I think you're a bit too pessimistic on #1, in the sense that you think that if Rudy opts in to the $19M, that means he's gone. There are certainly a lot of factors that are going to go into Rudy's decision, but I hardly think that opting in means he has no desire to stay with the Kings long term.

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.

 

[Bricklayer]

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.

You generally don't punish a guy for opting into a contract he's legally entitled to. Especially not a guy who has all of 4 months of loyalty built up with you. Maybe you're disappointed if it Tim Duncan and he's been with you for 15 years and is basically the franchise cornerstone. Or a better example: Kobe Bryant.

But Rudy? Got an enormous payday coming. Bit much to ask him to look a gift horse in the mouth for the sake of a team that just traded for him, or to get too concerned about it if he does not.

 

[Kingster]

You generally don't punish a guy for opting into a contract he's legally entitled to. Especially not a guy who has all of 4 months of loyalty built up with you. Maybe you're disappointed if it Tim Duncan and he's been with you for 15 years and is basically the franchise cornerstone. Or a better example: Kobe Bryant.

But Rudy? Got an enormous payday coming. Bit much to ask him to look a gift horse in the mouth for the sake of a team that just traded for him, or to get too concerned about it if he does not.

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 think the entire discussion is fair game. If Gay says, "Sorry, I need my $19 mill regardless of the consequences to the quality of the team," well I think it's human nature for the Kings to not go overboard in signing him the following year. Loyalty is a two-way street.

 

[Glenn]

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 think the entire discussion is fair game. If Gay says, "Sorry, I need my $19 mill regardless of the consequences to the quality of the team," well I think it's human nature for the Kings to not go overboard in signing him the following year. Loyalty is a two-way street.

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.

 

[The_Jamal]

It'll be interesting to see what Gay does. He's in position to be one of the premier FA's this summer, once everyone realizes that every FA better than him (Bron, Bledsoe, Melo, Bosh, etc) all have some sort of strings attached to offering them a contract being RFA's, or having ETO's. And he risks ruining any of the momentum he's gained by coming back to a Sacto team that's likely not going to change very much from what it is now.

If I'm Sac, I push for a Rudy extension this off-season, if he's in the long-term plans. That way, we know exactly what we're moving forward with by having Cuz and Rudy locked-up long-term.

 

[Bricklayer]

And he risks ruining any of the momentum he's gained by coming back to a Sacto team that's likely not going to change very much from what it is now.

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

 

[The_Jamal]

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.

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.