Toney Douglas

[Darth Divac]

It sometimes takes a PG 4 or 5 years to really figure it out. Add in, that Douglas hasn't been on a team yet where he had a legit chance of becoming a starter. He could be fools gold, but he also might be starting to put it together. No offense to Jimmer or IT, but I'd say the door is wide open for Douglas to impress, and just maybe take the starting job away from IT.

I certainly hope so. He's not ball dominant (so far), he passes great (so far), and he compliments our starters (so far). I think that we should give up trying to tank this season and start him, see if we can go for 30 wins or more.

 

[VF21]

I certainly hope so. He's not ball dominant (so far), he passes great (so far), and he compliments our starters (so far). I think that we should give up trying to tank this season and start him, see if we can go for 30 wins or more.

Um, I don't think there's any evidence to support that assumption.

 

[Darth Divac]

Um, I don't think there's any evidence to support that assumption.

Why? We've already matched our record from last year.

 

[VF21]

Why? We've already matched our record from last year.

You said you thought "we should give up trying to tank." I don't think we were trying to tank and I don't think there's any evidence to support such a statement.

 

[Kingster]

Douglas's mindset has been well.. mind-boggling. He was a volume scorer in college. He chucked with very little success in NYK. Where did this beastly defensive talent (allowing opponents to shoot 25% with us) come form?

I really hope his play isn't a fluke

He was defensive player of the year in the SEC. It's no fluke.

 

[The Hammer]

He's showing signs of being the perfect role playing point guard next to Tyreke.

That's a pretty good defensive backcourt, and you don't sacrifice 3 pt shooting. He's also not selfish and knows how to move the ball.

Beno was good, but not exactly what we needed. Reke will handle the ball a good amount of the time, so we didn't need someone who's main skill was facilitating the offense. We much more needed a defensive stud next to Reke. Got that now. I just hope Mastrov is taking notes. Something tells me he is.

Here's my set of players to keep for next year:

Cuz
Reke
Douglas
Aldrich
JT
Ppat
IT


... that's about it. Rest can be traded or scrapped.

 

[The_Jamal]

He was defensive player of the year in the SEC. It's no fluke.

Good to hear. None of that has translated into the NBA though. He's been a small, inefficient SG who can occasionally get hot and score you some points. This defensive minded, team-oriented, move the ball is a complete 180' from what he's done in his NBA career thus far.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

the kings do not need to trade jason thompson. but i am not convinced that either thompson or patterson is the right starting PF next to demarcus cousins. they may not necessarily be the wrong PF next to him, but if the kings could acquire a defensive-minded PF who will consistently contest in the paint, block the occasional shot, and set hard screens, then i think we're closer to where we need to be. in such a scenario, one of patterson and thompson becomes expendable in the name of acquiring further pieces that fit. i like either of them off the bench, but i certainly wouldn't mind parting with thompson if his value as a serviceable PF netted us the right player in return (like, say, a true starting caliber SF)...

That's all well, and to the good, and it doesn't address the post I was responding to, in any shape, form or fashion. The post I was responding to was:

Re Sign Douglas and Aldrich and trade JT. Duh right?

Which is a statement that does not include any qualifiers or footnotes about a defensive-minded PF, or a starting caliber SF. That post, taken at face value*, suggests that the poster thinks that we'd be better off without Thompson, no matter who we got for him. Or if we got anything for him; he certainly wouldn't be the first King to be traded for cash considerations.

I have no attachment to Jason Thompson; I'm certainly agreeable to getting rid of him in a trade that will help improve the team. What I am unlikely to be convinced of is the notion that trading Thompson, in and of itself, will improve the team, which is how I interpreted the statement upinsmoke made. I'll grant that it's entirely possible that I'm being overly pedantic, but I interpret a comment of, "Duh right?" to mean that the person saying it thinks that the aforementioned action is a no-brainer, something which is blatantly obvious that it "has" to be done. I don't particularly agree that it "has" to be done.

I mean, look at it like this: most reasonable posters on this message board would agree that Thompson would be a fine third or fourth big on a playoff/championship team. So, supposing, for the sake of argument, that the new ownership is committed to building a winner... Well, then, we're going to need one or two of those; why not keep the one we already have? It's not like we're going to find any bigs as good or better that Thompson for less money. And, if you do find one, it's only because they're still on their rookie contract, and are going to command more money precisely at a point in time where it would likely be better served being spent on another player.

*(And, given the number of posters here with irrational hatred of certain players, why wouldn't I take it at face value? I know that some people here, such as yourself, are willing and able to have intelligent, logical discussions that involve moving a player, who have no personal agenda, or skin in the game. I do not, particularly, know upinsmoke to be such a person).

... As for the trade JT comment I made earlier in the thread about JT I stand by it. Lets say hypothetically the kings pick is outside of the top four or five why not use JT and the pick to try to acquire a SF and then go sign Dally to shore up our front court?

If that's what you meant, then why didn't you say that the first time?

 

[Bricklayer]

Good to hear. None of that has translated into the NBA though. He's been a small, inefficient SG who can occasionally get hot and score you some points. This defensive minded, team-oriented, move the ball is a complete 180' from what he's done in his NBA career thus far.

You can't be talking about Douglas -- he was a very feisty defender his first couple of years in New York.

The attempt to deny this as some sort of new fluke for Douglas seems to be coming from 3 quarters, or thirds as it might be, all with a vested interest in denying his abilities. We have Houston fans, who actually seem to be rethinking things and muttering a bit. Jimmer fans who see their guy's minutes taken. And more recently IT fans who are seeing a siimilar risk, although I don't think Douglas will ever be a starter in the NBA. But its complete rubbish. Douglas was known for defense in college. Known for defense in New York. Its the rest of his game which is a question. He's Randy Brown, Luther Head. Not truly a PG, but will always and always has flat gotten after you on defense.

 

[upinsmoke]

If that's what you meant, then why didn't you say that the first time?

I was tired is the short answer to that. I think we have similar views on JT as you mentioned he would be a good third or fourth big on a contending team but those are not our biggest needs as of right now. Having legit starters at every position is where I would begin and yes maybe the whole "duh" thing was a bit much however shopping him around in a package deal could net us a good return because of his relativly modest contract for a serviceable big could be just the thing another team could be intrested in.

 

[Kingster]

I heard Douglas interviewed yesterday on Napier's show. I was extremely impressed. Sometimes it's not what a guy say about himself, it's what he says about others that can give you an insight into his own character. The thing that impressed Douglas about Patterson in Houston was that he could go several times down the floor and not touch the ball and it wouldn't change his attitude on defense; he'd still D up. That gives you as much insight into Douglas as Patterson. He also talked about he and IT having conversation and him giving him tips on D; it seems like Douglas does think that IT because he is so quick has untapped potential on the defensive side of the ball. He said that when IT got those two quick fouls on CP3 that it was a matter of poor technique. Presumably, they had a conversation about how to correct that technique. All in all, I came away from the interview very impressed. This guy is a winner. I'm glad to have him aboard.

 

[Darth Divac]

I'd be really be disappointed if they all turned out to be Brian Skinner 2.0. I mean, it's a healthy infusion of Basketball I.Q., teamwork and defense into this team-before T-rob was actually traded, we would've seen such as a gift from heaven, as our lacking of those three things is what holds us back from the playoffs and overall relevance.

 

[bajaden]

Good to hear. None of that has translated into the NBA though. He's been a small, inefficient SG who can occasionally get hot and score you some points. This defensive minded, team-oriented, move the ball is a complete 180' from what he's done in his NBA career thus far.

Well, there in lies the problem. He's not a SG, he's a PG. He played the point at Florida St., which by the way is in the ACC. He did play in the SEC one year because he was originally recruited by Auburn. Toney's problem at Florida St. was that it was a great defensive team with players like Soloman Alabi and Chris Singleton, but they lacked scoring. As a result, they asked Douglas to carry the bulk of the scoring load. He averaged 21.5 Pts a game his senior year. But he was a lock down defender every year in college. Play him at the point, and you'll probaly get the best he has to offer. Play him at SG, and your putting him in a position to fail.