Tyreke Jumpshot
- Thread starter HereWeBoogie
- Start date
Leaving reke out of this.. and even if what you say is true (its subjective).. There is something to me a little off about having to sufficiently compensate, or overcompensate players to play here. As far as I'm concerned they are lucky to be here and to get to play for one of the more hardcore fanbases of the league in a city that is near attractions and boasts one of the more hospitable year-around climates of nba locales.
Because the team hasn't shown much, if any improvement, and if we are talking about maxing players out and getting to the max team cap# with a 25-30 win team.
Would Kings fans be satisfied having a roster which is at or near the salary cap while still winning 25 games a year? I wouldn't be happy with that.... Bad coaching or not I feel four years is long enough to gauge how much you should offer a player. While 9.5 is my number I am sure there are others that would go to about 11 or 12 which is totally understandable, and under different circumstances I might be in that boat as well, but the kings are not a good team right now, so rather than talking about maxing out current players I think we should see what works first while not breaking the bank.
Cousins on the other hand we will probably have to break the bank for him. Talented big men are few and far between.
Would Kings fans be satisfied having a roster which is at or near the salary cap while still winning 25 games a year? I wouldn't be happy with that.... Bad coaching or not I feel four years is long enough to gauge how much you should offer a player. While 9.5 is my number I am sure there are others that would go to about 11 or 12 which is totally understandable, and under different circumstances I might be in that boat as well, but the kings are not a good team right now, so rather than talking about maxing out current players I think we should see what works first while not breaking the bank.
Cousins on the other hand we will probably have to break the bank for him. Talented big men are few and far between.
This is such an elementary analysis. There are numerous reasons for us winning 25-30 games the last few years. Ownership, GM, revolving coaching door with terrible coaches, a completely unbalanced roster which doesn't complement player's talent, and a somewhat empty arena many nights. The idea that's a reason to let one of our top two talents leave, without any inkling of a plan to replace that level of talent, and to do so before that player has a chance to play under new ownership, new coach, with better fitting teammates is asinine at every level. Not to mention there's practically zero chance of getting a talent like Reke if he left unless trading Cuz. We most likely won't have top 5 picks for years to come, we've never signed a FA guard with his level of talent and no one on our roster would yield a similar talent in return unless Cuz is involved. Or, we grossly overpay for a FA.
Whether we win 25, 35 or 45 games next year or the year after has little to do with offering Reke 9M or 11M. And you truly think if we sign Reke to say, 11M that we'll be winning 25 games a year? And team salary isn't static, it changes, we'll have player contracts expiring every summer going forward. And the only reason signing Reke to more than 9M would bring us close to the cap is because of idiotic contracts handed out to failures like Outlaw and Chuck, overpaying guys like MT, and trading for a guy like Salmons. And none of those players are worth losing Reke unless someone comes along and offers a 13 or 14M contract. You keep Reke and let the crap contracts expire or move them.
What's the argument here? We let Reke walk if offered 10-11M because Petrie/Maloofs were idiots and took on Salmons, overpaid MT and took on Chuck/Outlaw? Yeah, that sounds like the right road to take.
Whether we win 25, 35 or 45 games next year or the year after has little to do with offering Reke 9M or 11M. And you truly think if we sign Reke to say, 11M that we'll be winning 25 games a year? And team salary isn't static, it changes, we'll have player contracts expiring every summer going forward. And the only reason signing Reke to more than 9M would bring us close to the cap is because of idiotic contracts handed out to failures like Outlaw and Chuck, overpaying guys like MT, and trading for a guy like Salmons. And none of those players are worth losing Reke unless someone comes along and offers a 13 or 14M contract. You keep Reke and let the crap contracts expire or move them.
What's the argument here? We let Reke walk if offered 10-11M because Petrie/Maloofs were idiots and took on Salmons, overpaid MT and took on Chuck/Outlaw? Yeah, that sounds like the right road to take.
Last edited:
Occam's razor (in regard to the first bolded part)
On the second bold part I have no idea what you are trying to explain. We win more games because Reke is signed at 11mil? How exactly does more $$ to a player you already have win more games?
Take Evans for what he is. He's worth more than MT but he's not worth as much as a Stephen Curry. He's somewhere in the middle which would be between 8mil and 11mil (9.5mil). That's where I am at with Evans. It's a fair price and there is really no reason to over analyze something like this.
All arguing aside, let's just wait and see what other teams offer (if he talks with other teams before we sign him) before we start tearing each other apart. This could all be moot in a couple weeks.
On the second bold part I have no idea what you are trying to explain. We win more games because Reke is signed at 11mil? How exactly does more $$ to a player you already have win more games?
Take Evans for what he is. He's worth more than MT but he's not worth as much as a Stephen Curry. He's somewhere in the middle which would be between 8mil and 11mil (9.5mil). That's where I am at with Evans. It's a fair price and there is really no reason to over analyze something like this.
All arguing aside, let's just wait and see what other teams offer (if he talks with other teams before we sign him) before we start tearing each other apart. This could all be moot in a couple weeks.
The fact that Sacramento has been a free agent wasteland throughout its history is not subjective, but the reasons for it are. We've also been mediocre/terrible aside from a 7 year stretch, playing for thrifty owners in arguably the worst arena in the league. Is there something in the water of the city of Sacramento itself? Just seems like a normal mid-level market with above-average weather, to me.
I get the big market thing, that is always going to be there. But $ and the opportunity to win are in what my opinion drive the decision making process for nba free agents most of the time. In other words if we turn this franchise around under the current regime, and the Lakers become a perrenial lottery team. If us and the Lakers offer the same contract to some quality player down the line, I think they might choose us. Opinion
I really doubt that Amick organized elections for Evans' salary. He talked to 5-6 guys at the most and got his answers when market is defined by 3-4 most interested and one crazy GM that thinks he's about to sign his LBJ. 
No, Jrue is not tricky. He posted phenomenal .496TS% and 99Ortg the last two seasons. And he was among worst defenders on his team both years. Curry on the other hand threw away crutches and started hoisting shots with historical efficiency.
No, Jrue is not tricky. He posted phenomenal .496TS% and 99Ortg the last two seasons. And he was among worst defenders on his team both years. Curry on the other hand threw away crutches and started hoisting shots with historical efficiency.
I really doubt that Amick organized elections for Evans' salary. He talked to 5-6 guys at the most and got his answers when market is defined by 3-4 most interested and one crazy GM that thinks he's about to sign his LBJ.
No, Jrue is not tricky. He posted phenomenal .496TS% and 99Ortg the last two seasons. And he was among worst defenders on his team both years. Curry on the other hand threw away crutches and started hoisting shots with historical efficiency.
No, Jrue is not tricky. He posted phenomenal .496TS% and 99Ortg the last two seasons. And he was among worst defenders on his team both years. Curry on the other hand threw away crutches and started hoisting shots with historical efficiency.
Offensively, Holiday is not very good in iso situations. He tends to struggle 1 on 1 to get his own shot. That's my biggest gripe with Holiday. Defensively though he has been solid.
I'm smelling a lot of "if" coming off of that post.
* - I feel like it's important to distinguish between off-season free agent signings and in-season free agent signings: Jim Jackson was a good pickup, but we only got him because no one else wanted him. He'd have played for whoever called him first.
- Even during our contending years, our top off-season free agent signing*, once we'd established ourselves as a playoff team, was Bobby Jackson.
- The lakers will never be a perennial lottery team. Sorry, it bothers me, too: they've missed the playoffs exactly five times in sixty-five years. The only time they've ever missed the playoffs in back-to-back seasons was forty years ago. And every time one of their cornerstone superstars retires, and it looks like they're "going back to expansionism," you wait one season, two at the most, and BAM~! They've got another one. I doubt you could find as many as one free agent in a hundred who would voluntarily choose Sacramento over Los Angeles, regardless of record.
* - I feel like it's important to distinguish between off-season free agent signings and in-season free agent signings: Jim Jackson was a good pickup, but we only got him because no one else wanted him. He'd have played for whoever called him first.
In his first 4 seasons, Tyreke shot:
FG% 3pt%
45.8 25.5
40.9 29.1
45.3 20.2
47.8 33.8
Russell Westbrook's 1st 5 seasons:
39.8 27.1
41.8 22.1
44.2 33.0
45.7 31.6
43.8 32.3
Derrick Rose's 1st 4 seasons:
47.5 22.2
48.9 26.7
44.5 33.2
43.5 31.2
When you compare the shooting percentages of these 3 players, there isn't any dramatic improvements made by Rose and Westbrook that I don't see in Tyreke. The biggest difference I see is the quality of the players (and coaches) around them.
FG% 3pt%
45.8 25.5
40.9 29.1
45.3 20.2
47.8 33.8
Russell Westbrook's 1st 5 seasons:
39.8 27.1
41.8 22.1
44.2 33.0
45.7 31.6
43.8 32.3
Derrick Rose's 1st 4 seasons:
47.5 22.2
48.9 26.7
44.5 33.2
43.5 31.2
When you compare the shooting percentages of these 3 players, there isn't any dramatic improvements made by Rose and Westbrook that I don't see in Tyreke. The biggest difference I see is the quality of the players (and coaches) around them.
While it is a fair statement that the Kings haven't shown much improvement the past few years, I hardly think that you can put all the blame on Evans. I have always felt that BAD coaching can have a much bigger influence on wins/losses than great coaching. For instance, it would be much easier IMO to take a 41 win team (with no change) and make them win 27 games the next season than to get them to improve to 46 wins. There is not a doubt in my mind that the Kings could have won 35-40 games this past season with a good head coach. However, the Kings have only had bad or really bad coaches since the departure of Adelman. Now that doesn't take all the blame off the players, but a bad coach can do too many things to screw things up that players can't always overcome.
I would like to hear people's opinions on this too in regards to where they let Evans walk. Yours it 10mil, mine is 9.5mil.. I wonder where everyone else stands. Maybe we will see someone offering him 15mil?
McGee 4/44
Gallinari 4/42
Chandler 5/32
Lawson 4/48
Lawson is the only guy close to Tyreke in talent. We're not getting Tyreke for 9.5/10. It's going to be more like 11/12 and I have no problem with that.
I would like to hear people's opinions on this too in regards to where they let Evans walk. Yours it 10mil, mine is 9.5mil.. I wonder where everyone else stands. Maybe we will see someone offering him 15mil?
It also depends on the draft. If they draft a SG that could mean Evans is more likely to walk.
Completely agree Section.. A lot of people are under the impression that we are going to be in a high stakes bidding war.. If you look at most of the media's top free agent lists, you won't see Reke near the top. The one VF21 posted had him sandwiched between JJ Hickson and OJ Mayo in desirability. I would personally be flabbergasted if someone offers him 10+.. I think a lot of the league see him as a tweener who has not lived up to expectations since his rookie year, and they don't really see the intricacies of coaching blunders or mismanagement that a lot of the hardcore fans see here.
The Kings have to at least tender a one year $6.9 million offer to retain his restricted free agency status. There is a psychology around this, they do this and they are saying we want to see what you are worth before we match it. Or they can offer him, whatever they are willing to pay, say 8/32, and see if takes it without going to the open market. I am assuming they will do the first here.
Or both. As long as it isn't insulting, they can throw down their preferred numbers, see if he bites, if not then put out the tender offer and decide whether to match any offers that come in. Actually on the latter, there is a good strategy to making noises that you will match a big number. As Reke is restricted, it could scare teams off from even bothering to offer if they think you will just match anything.
Wrong. They have to offer the 1 year qualifying offer before June 30th or he becomes an unrestricted free agent July 1st. Then they can offer a long term contract.
The 1 year qualifying has to remain if they want him to be a restricted free agent. If they pull the 1 year deal he becomes unrestricted.
The 1 year qualifying has to remain if they want him to be a restricted free agent. If they pull the 1 year deal he becomes unrestricted.
