Tyson Chandler

[SacKings7]

How exactly can you give Hawes 30 mins off the bench? Play Chandler 18 mins? Play Hawes at PF?

It doesn't work. This is not fantasy basketball guys.

There are 2 frontcourt positions to be filled, it's not that hard to figure out people. 96 minutes are to be filled by ideally 4 people, but probably 3 in this case. That's 32 minutes for each on average. Chandler plays C for 32 minutes, Thompson plays PF for 32 minutes, and Hawes plays C and PF for 16 minutes each.

 

[Bricklayer]

There are 2 frontcourt positions to be filled, it's not that hard to figure out people. 96 minutes are to be filled by ideally 4 people, but probably 3 in this case. That's 32 minutes for each on average. Chandler plays C for 32 minutes, Thompson plays PF for 32 minutes, and Hawes plays C and PF for 16 minutes each.

I think the ideal is actually 3 people with a C, PF and PF/C. And then some spot minutes to a more mobile 4 or 3/4 as needed. This would have been our own pattern from back in the day with Vlade, Webb, Pollard and then Hedo as needed.

 

[SacKings7]

I think the ideal is actually 3 people with a C, PF and PF/C. And then some spot minutes to a more mobile 4 or 3/4 as needed. This would have been our own pattern from back in the day with Vlade, Webb, Pollard and then Hedo as needed.

Yes, well....it's still 4 people

 

[beb0p]

Surely you cannot be that thick?!

Howard brings EVERYTHING that Gortat does plus some more. Our centres bring NOTHING that someone like Chandler or Gortat would bring. Hawes doesn't defend well, doesn't rebound well and doesn't block/alter shots well. In other words he intimidates no one.

Give me Howard at C and I wouldn't even consider getting Chandler or Gortat.

Surely you must know that I'm not arguing about Dwight Howard.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you explain how do you use the substitution to get Chandler 26 mins?

Currently, the Kings (and most NBA teams) play the starting bigs about 9 mins a quarter. If you play them too many consecutive mins they get worn out, not enough mins and they don't get in rhythm. So how would you run your sub to give the starters 9 mins/quarter but still manage to give Chandler 26 mins total? Keep in mind that JT/Hawes must 1) start the game, 2) start the 3rd quarter, and 3) finish the game. I did the math, it's possible but the sub pattern would have to be very strange to make the numbers work. But maybe you have something in mind that I haven't thought of.



Not exactly. I'm one of the few who wanted a rebuild and actually stuck to it. Many others said they want a rebuild but all so ready to pay big bucks for quick fixes, be it Nene, Boozer, Hedo, and now Chandler. If we're going to take on a $12 million a year player, he better be more just a backup. Plus, he is a rental. A two-year rental. You'll be dreaming if you think he'll stick around for a backup role on a losing franchise.




$12 millions per year is price low? On what planet?

Capt. Factorial was nice enough to crunch the numbers so I didn't have to. I don't think such a rigid formula is necessary, however, since I was talking about average MPG numbers, which can easily fluctuate on a game to game basis based on fouls and matchups. Same with your requirement that both Spence and JT finish each game. Odds are, that wouldn't be the case for many, depending on fouls and matchups.

As for "quick fixes," again, I'm not advocating for Hedo (although, in the interest of full disclosure, I did a while ago before he blew up his value in the playoffs, and we drafted another SF) nor Boozer. Boozer indeed would be a "rental," as you say. But 2 years, really? Are we only picking up guys with 3 years or more? Because then everyone would be complaining about having the player signed to such a crummy deal!

If we are to be as concerned about Tyson's ability to fit in with Spencer and Jason as you suggest, then his 2 year contact works just fine. It pushes our incumbent youngings to develop their defense--or else they'll sit if they are a liability. But it wouldn't be like forcing them to compete with a Brad or Mikki, again, Tyson is only a few months older than Kevin, and also addresses our defensive deficiencies. If he doesn't work out, or if some other solution to our defensive woes magically materializes (I'm curious what your rebuilding scenario would suggest) then we can let him walk then.

And I'm worried about your statement regarding the Kings "as a losing franchise." I'd certainly hope that if Spencer and Jason pan out reasonably well, Evans develops, Martin is healthy and we bring in someone like Chandler to address interior defense, then we'd make marked improvements next season and be sniffing the playoffs again by the 2010-11 season. I think most realistic rebuilding scenarios should reflect this. I am all for patience in building this team back up again, but the point is to start winning again at somepoint, not be stuck perenially in the cellar. When, I must ask, would you have us start to win again?

Finally, as for price, I was referring to price to acquire in a trade, not the actual value of his contract.

 

[beb0p]

It's not that terribly hard to do. For instance:

First quarter: Start Hawes and Thompson. At 6:00 bring in Chandler for Thompson. Total: Hawes 12, Thompson 6, Chandler 6.
Second quarter: Start Thompson and Chandler. At 5:30 bring in Hawes for Chandler. Total: Thompson 12, Chandler 6:30, Hawes 5:30.
Third quarter: Start Hawes and Thompson. At 6:30 bring in Chandler for Thompson. Total: Hawes 12, Thompson 5:30, Chandler 6:30.
Fourth quarter: Start Thompson and Chandler. At 6:00 bring in Hawes for Chandler. Total: Thompson 12, Chandler 6, Hawes 6.
Gamewide total: Hawes 35:30, Thompson 35:30, Chandler 25

All your criteria are met and no big plays more than 12:30 consecutive floor minutes. Since we'd often see Hawes or Thompson play the entire first quarter and then start the second last year, I don't think 12 straight minutes would tire them out.

Obviously no sub pattern is that clean, you've got foul trouble and the like. But in principle it's not a hard sub pattern.

Here's the problem: giving JT/Hawes only 5-6 mins a quarter is not, not, not, not, not good. Watch some of the games last year and you see JT struggled to get into the flow when he plays only 6 mins a quarter because of foul trouble or other issues. I still have the Hornets game where this happened, I can upload the video if you want to check it out. No, you want to give them about 9-12 mins a quarter. This is what I mean when I said you can't make the numbers work without using some kind of weird substitutions that doesn't make sense.

Under your rotation JT is taken out way too soon in the 1st and 3rd quarter, and Hawes inserted too late in the 2nd and 4th. You don't see coaches in the NBA use this 5:30/6 min sub interval in every quarter. It doesn't happen for a reason - it's not good for the players. Ideally the bigs play about 9-12 mins a quarter. 6 mins is pointless.

I repeat, play JT/Hawes 9-12 mins a quarter, how do you fit Chandler into the rotation and give him 26 mins? They should start the game, start the 3rd, and finish the game.

 

[beb0p]

do you guys want to sit through another season like last season?

I don't mind. I'm a Kings fan and I'll follow them through the thick and thin. Besides, this is nothing. Even if the Kings lose every game they're still in the NBA. Try following a soccer team where losing can mean demotion to a lower league. Imagine if the Kings is demoted to the CBA, that's what it's like in soccer and I've lived it. This is a piece of cake in comparison. And I live in SF and I have every intend to get the League Pass.

if chandler makes our team better and doesnt cost us a core player why not make the trade? especially if he is only a 2 year rental. what will hawes and thompson accomplish in 2 years that will be hindered by having chandler? tyson will play defense and rebound, there is a good chance that thompson and hawes wont... or cant in some cases.

I'm under the impression that the pro-Chandler crowd considers him part of the rebuild. But if he's a two-year rental then he's certainly not. So if he's not part of the rebuild then there's no reason to have him here. Sure he'll help win a few more games but not enough to justify his price tag. I know it's not my money but I still want the Kings to spend wisely.

 

[beb0p]

There are 2 frontcourt positions to be filled, it's not that hard to figure out people. 96 minutes are to be filled by ideally 4 people, but probably 3 in this case. That's 32 minutes for each on average. Chandler plays C for 32 minutes, Thompson plays PF for 32 minutes, and Hawes plays C and PF for 16 minutes each.

Hawes is not a PF. It may be better to use Chandler as a PF/C. But then you get into the substitution issue unless you go with Capt.'s 6/6 interval which would be a disaster.

And even so, you leave no mins for Greene, Casspi and Noc at PF. They can play SF but that spot is crowded so one or two guys are going to be squeezed out. So this "rebuild" we're doing give Tyson mins but virtually no time to the young players. Nice.

 

[AriesMar27]

I don't mind. I'm a Kings fan and I'll follow them through the thick and thin. Besides, this is nothing. Even if the Kings lose every game they're still in the NBA. Try following a soccer team where losing can mean demotion to a lower league. Imagine if the Kings is demoted to the CBA, that's what it's like in soccer and I've lived it. This is a piece of cake in comparison. And I live in SF and I have every intend to get the League Pass.



I'm under the impression that the pro-Chandler crowd considers him part of the rebuild. But if he's a two-year rental then he's certainly not. So if he's not part of the rebuild then there's no reason to have him here. Sure he'll help win a few more games but not enough to justify his price tag. I know it's not my money but I still want the Kings to spend wisely.

well if chandler plays well during his 2 years tenure with us why wouldnt we resign him? he would then be apart of the rebuild and a vital part of it too... defense, rebounding, shotblocking... if he could pass the ball and make players around him better, he'd be the perfect player for our team. though he does usually pass the ball after he rebounds the ball. if he plays through the first year without any injuries who here would complain? how dare he do his job and play defense, rebound, block shots and generally do what he is paid for.

 

[beb0p]

well if chandler plays well during his 2 years tenure with us why wouldnt we resign him? he would then be apart of the rebuild and a vital part of it too... defense, rebounding, shotblocking... if he could pass the ball and make players around him better, he'd be the perfect player for our team. though he does usually pass the ball after he rebounds the ball. if he plays through the first year without any injuries who here would complain? how dare he do his job and play defense, rebound, block shots and generally do what he is paid for.

Under your scenario Chandler is no longer a two-year rental is he?

So let's walk through this, you're Tyson Chandler making $12M a year as a starter. Now you're relegated to being a backup. You're 28 and likely looking for your last major long-term contract and your championship ring. Here is the Kings with an offer to keep you as a backup. And the Kings is a pretty bad team with a lot of young guys and haven't made the playoffs in years. What would you do? And how much would you offer Chandler?

If I were Chandler I'd bolt out of Sacramento so fast. In fact, I'd be very angry playing behind two smucks who can't spell defense. I'd tell my agent to demand a trade to a contender and a team who needs a starter. But that's just me. Maybe Chandler is ok with being a backup. Maybe he likes Sacramento. Maybe he stays healthy. But those assumptions is just as big as the assumption that he leaves the Kings for greener pasture and better opportunities.

The point is, there is no way you can count on Chandler staying for the rebuild. If it happens it happens but you can't count on it.

 

[AriesMar27]

chandler doesnt look like the type that wants a ring that bad... he'd be cool with just being a starter. and i think if we had chandler he should be the starter.... hawes will have to earn it. if he couldnt beat miller out of the spot how will he out play chandler? if tyson suceeds as our starting center why wouldnt he want to stay? he wont ever get 12 million a year... odom is a perfect example of what happens when a stoner bigman's contract expires... after this contract he will be mle all the way....

 

[fnordius]

I believe, the Noc and KT will be moved at the trade deadline, for 2010 FA talent.

LeBron and Wade to the franchises who have the best city/team combination. Kobe to LA and Bosh to Dallas, because both will pay maximum, and Dallas is Bosh's home town. (With Dirk at the end of his contract, Cuban will spend max money.) Who does that leave for us? A bunch of old guys? Most desirable FAs will want to test the waters, not do a sign & trade to the losingest franchise in the league.

Is there anyone left who'd agree to come to Sac for three years who we'd really want? If so, who?

 

[AriesMar27]

no one and even if there was a real franchise player available he wont want to come to the kings unless we were a competing team with capspace... we'll have capspace but so will the thunder.... id pick their kevin over our kevin if i were a superstar looking for a new team. but amare will probably be available... boozer....

 

[Prince_XY]

I admire some fans' patience on this rebuilding process.

Some chose the equally promising Rubio over Evans, even when they concede that Evans is more advanced in development and more NBA-ready player. Both are almost equally promising teenagers, but people are still willing to wait for Rubio to develop at the expense of time.

Now, I see some people rejecting the idea of getting Tyson Chandler, when Tyson Chandler represents an upgrade at center over Hawes, and when clearly Chandler can still be considered as young and can be part of the rebuild.

Are you guys really willing to gamble and wait for many years for your favorite players to develop and at the expense of the team's improvement now?

 

[beb0p]

chandler doesnt look like the type that wants a ring that bad... he'd be cool with just being a starter. and i think if we had chandler he should be the starter.... hawes will have to earn it. if he couldnt beat miller out of the spot how will he out play chandler? if tyson suceeds as our starting center why wouldnt he want to stay? he wont ever get 12 million a year... odom is a perfect example of what happens when a stoner bigman's contract expires... after this contract he will be mle all the way....

You know, if Chandler is indeed not the type that wants a ring that bad, I DON'T WANT HIM on the team.

But you did touch on a good point: the only way it makes sense to get Chandler is if you're not sold on Hawes or JT and want to spice things up a little. If you don't mind seeing Chandler take over the starting job and Hawes or JT to the bench and most likely follow by a trade.

But I doubt very much you can sign a 28-yr-old good defensive starting center for the MLE.

 

[beb0p]

Are you guys really willing to gamble and wait for many years for your favorite players to develop and at the expense of the team's improvement now?

I don't understand the premise of the question. It's not like the team won't improve without Chandler.

 

[HighTopKicks]

I admire some fans' patience on this rebuilding process.

Some chose the equally promising Rubio over Evans, even when they concede that Evans is more advanced in development and more NBA-ready player. Both are almost equally promising teenagers, but people are still willing to wait for Rubio to develop at the expense of time.

Now, I see some people rejecting the idea of getting Tyson Chandler, when Tyson Chandler represents an upgrade at center over Hawes, and when clearly Chandler can still be considered as young and can be part of the rebuild.

Are you guys really willing to gamble and wait for many years for your favorite players to develop and at the expense of the team's improvement now?

Chandler has been on the auction block since last Feb. and look at all the teams clamouring at NO door trying to get him. NO doesn't want him. OKC doesn't want him. He's been in the league 7 yrs and averages 10pt and 10 rebounds per game. JT & Hawes both did that when they got starters minutes. No way Chandler beats out Hawes for the starting Center spot.

Heck, if we wanted that kind of production out of the Center for $12M we should of just kept Miller.

 

[HighTopKicks]

LeBron and Wade to the franchises who have the best city/team combination. Kobe to LA and Bosh to Dallas, because both will pay maximum, and Dallas is Bosh's home town. (With Dirk at the end of his contract, Cuban will spend max money.) Who does that leave for us? A bunch of old guys? Most desirable FAs will want to test the waters, not do a sign & trade to the losingest franchise in the league.

Is there anyone left who'd agree to come to Sac for three years who we'd really want? If so, who?

No one knows who will resign or not. But here's a few possibilities
Brandon Roy
Rudy Gay
LaMarcus Aldridge
Andrea Bargnani
Rajon Rondo
Tyrus Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Randy Foye
Josh Boone
Renaldo Balkman
Sergio Rodriguez
Ronnie Brewer
Jordan Farmar
Udonis Haslem
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Carlos Boozer
Memo Okur

 

[beb0p]

If we are to be as concerned about Tyson's ability to fit in with Spencer and Jason as you suggest, then his 2 year contact works just fine. It pushes our incumbent youngings to develop their defense--or else they'll sit if they are a liability. But it wouldn't be like forcing them to compete with a Brad or Mikki, again, Tyson is only a few months older than Kevin, and also addresses our defensive deficiencies. If he doesn't work out, or if some other solution to our defensive woes magically materializes (I'm curious what your rebuilding scenario would suggest) then we can let him walk then.

How so? you think Tyson will gracefully accept a demotion? You don't think the coach will ever promote Chandler and demote one of the kids? Are you ok with Chandler starting 35 mins and Hawes (or JT) coming off the bench for 15-20 mins?

I said in another post, it only make sense if you have an eye towards Chandler taking over one the kids' job or hoping Chandler will light a fire under their butts and inspire the young bigs to some sort of metamorphosis. I'm intrigue with the pairing of Hawes/Chandler with JT coming of the bench. If that's your plan I can actually see some logic to it. But to think that Chandler can turn around this franchise playing 20 mins off the bench is a pipe dream.

And I'm worried about your statement regarding the Kings "as a losing franchise." I'd certainly hope that if Spencer and Jason pan out reasonably well, Evans develops, Martin is healthy and we bring in someone like Chandler to address interior defense, then we'd make marked improvements next season and be sniffing the playoffs again by the 2010-11 season. I think most realistic rebuilding scenarios should reflect this. I am all for patience in building this team back up again, but the point is to start winning again at somepoint, not be stuck perenially in the cellar. When, I must ask, would you have us start to win again?

I want the Kings to win a championship every year. But the reality is that we'll be sucking for a while. The chances of the Kings sniffing the playoff by 2011 is slim unless we land a top pick and get a franchise player next year or sign one via FA. So yes, I expect us to be a losing franchise two years from now unless we get lucky in the lottery or in the FA process.

Finally, as for price, I was referring to price to acquire in a trade, not the actual value of his contract.

You and Brick need to get this fact sort out. Brick said teams are willing to offer valuable things for Chander. You said Chandler's price tag is low. If NO takes Beno and Noc for Chandler then I'd do it, but they won't.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Here's the problem: giving JT/Hawes only 5-6 mins a quarter is not, not, not, not, not good.

...

Ideally the bigs play about 9-12 mins a quarter. 6 mins is pointless.

I think you're seriously overconcerned with this. Keep in mind that under that rotation (which would certainly have to be very flexible due to fouls, matchups, etc., and is just a guideline) Thompson and Hawes would have two quarters each game where they DID play 12 minutes.

Now I can't find game-by-game recaps, but 82games.com has cumulative quarter-wise stats. Over last year, Thompson didn't average 9 minutes in any quarter. He averaged 7.7 in the first, 5.8 in the second, 8.4 in the third and 7.5 in the fourth. Now, according to +/- data (which I don't love, but is the best "overall" stat available in that data set) Thompson's best quarter was BY FAR the second, where he averaged less than 6 minutes. On a per-minute basis, by quarter he was -.20, -.05, -.11, and -.12 last year. He was best when he averaged 5.8 minutes a quarter, which you somehow call "pointless" minutes.

I repeat, play JT/Hawes 9-12 mins a quarter, how do you fit Chandler into the rotation and give him 26 mins? They should start the game, start the 3rd, and finish the game.

You don't. But you're asking criteria to be met that weren't met last year, and which (based on a sample size of one season and one player) actually don't result in better production.

I would also argue that Hawes/Thompson do not necessarily have to finish the game -- not only blowouts (either way) -- but even tight games where the matchup calls for (3rd big/Chandler) to be on the floor.

 

[kingsnation]

I want the Kings to win a championship every year. But the reality is that we'll be sucking for a while. The chances of the Kings sniffing the playoff by 2011 is slim unless we land a top pick and get a franchise player next year or sign one via FA. So yes, I expect us to be a losing franchise two years from now unless we get lucky in the lottery or in the FA process.

Tyson Chandler would greatly improve our chances of not sucking. He would also greatly improve our chances of signing a big FA name. A 3 man rotation of Spence, JT and Chandler could be deadly and it would be a huge step in the right direction. You seem to be submissive to the fact that we HAVE to suck the next 2 years UNLESS we get "lucky."

How about we make our own luck?

 

[beb0p]

Now I can't find game-by-game recaps, but 82games.com has cumulative quarter-wise stats. Over last year, Thompson didn't average 9 minutes in any quarter. He averaged 7.7 in the first, 5.8 in the second, 8.4 in the third and 7.5 in the fourth. Now, according to +/- data (which I don't love, but is the best "overall" stat available in that data set) Thompson's best quarter was BY FAR the second, where he averaged less than 6 minutes. On a per-minute basis, by quarter he was -.20, -.05, -.11, and -.12 last year. He was best when he averaged 5.8 minutes a quarter, which you somehow call "pointless" minutes.

Those numbers reflect JT's average of 28 mins. For him to get 35 mins logically each quarter's min must increase. The 9-12 min a quarter is from observing Hawes' PT (after he got the starting job) which logically should also be similar to JT for next season. The numbers you pull actually supports the 9 mins a quarter criteria if you project forward to account for the increased mins for JT.

Also, I don't know how meaningful those numbers are because JT's min was like a rollercoaster. For all we know, his 2nd quarter stat could be inflated by the numbers he put up while starting and getting around 9-10 mins in the 2nd quarter - maybe he sat a lot in the 2nd quarter while not starting and played great while starting and it all averages out to be an effective 5.8 on paper. The numbers don't show that. The fact is he was not effective when he gets about 5-6 mins a quarter, that's from my observation.

Another probem is you're giving JT 6 mins in the 1st quarter, not the 2nd. There's a big difference here. You take a guy out after only 6 mins from the start of the game and it's hard to get into a rhythm; as opposed to if you play the guy 9-12 mins in the 1st and then give him an extra 6 mins in the 2nd. I can see that you rotation for Hawes can work but the one for JT is flawed. They are young players you know, they're not machine that can just turn on and off.

You don't. But you're asking criteria to be met that weren't met last year, and which (based on a sample size of one season and one player) actually don't result in better production.

Again, JT didn't average 35 mins. Of course the criteria needs to be different from last season's because we expect different outcome going forward. If you're trying to argue that JT only should play 28 mins/game in order to fit Chandler in there then you did a good job.

No amount of massaging the numbers is going to change the fact that unless Wesphal gets very creative, JT/Hawes is expected to get about 9 mins a quarter (give or take) next season.

I would also argue that Hawes/Thompson do not necessarily have to finish the game -- not only blowouts (either way) -- but even tight games where the matchup calls for (3rd big/Chandler) to be on the floor.

Ideally you want the starters to finish games because they're supposed to be your best players. But I can see sometimes you might want Chandler instead. That's fine with me.

 

[beb0p]

Tyson Chandler would greatly improve our chances of not sucking. He would also greatly improve our chances of signing a big FA name. A 3 man rotation of Spence, JT and Chandler could be deadly and it would be a huge step in the right direction. You seem to be submissive to the fact that we HAVE to suck the next 2 years UNLESS we get "lucky."

How about we make our own luck?

Even if he gives us an extra 5-8 wins all by himself, we still suck.

Getting Dwight Howard would be a step in the right direction. Getting a 2-yr rental just to squeeze an extra 5-8 wins is pointless imo.

Like I said, if the plan is to possibly replace Hawes or JT with Chandler then it makes sense. But if the plan is to play Tyson 20 mins off the bench then it makes no sense.

 

[Bricklayer]

Like I said, if the plan is to possibly replace Hawes or JT with Chandler then it makes sense. But if the plan is to play Tyson 20 mins off the bench then it makes no sense.

You continue to try to win this argument by making up ridiculous numbers. I can argue against us picking up Lebron by saying he can't help us in 15 min a game either.

Follow along.

C -- 48 min a game
PF -- 48 min a game
Total C + PF = 96 min a game

Even if our starting C, who has never averaged 30min a game in his young career, averaged 36 min a game, a per game average acheived by exactly ONE center in the entire league last year (stats)

AND

Even if our starting PF, who has never averaged 30min a game in his young career, averaged 36 min a game, a per game average acheived by all of 8 PFs center in the entire league last year (stats)

AND

Even if both of said players never missed a single game for the entire season

You would STILL have 24 min a game for that 3rd big. Your 20min nonsense is just that: nonsense meant to win an argument by changing the rules.

Now, since I take it as somehting approaching a given that our yougn C/PF combo is nto in fact going to lead the league in minutes at their respective positions, nor are they going to play every single game of the year, I would guestimate anywhere from 26-30 min being available behind them. You fill those 26-30 min with a 7'1" rebounding/defending big and you are a long way toward returning to respectability. You in fact potentially have one of the best young frontcourts in the game.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

For all we know, his 2nd quarter stat could be inflated by the numbers he put up while starting and getting around 9-10 mins in the 2nd quarter - maybe he sat a lot in the 2nd quarter while not starting and played great while starting and it all averages out to be an effective 5.8 on paper. The numbers don't show that.

You're right. The numbers don't show that. What they do suggest (and weakly) is that JT was more effective in shorter stints. But you're proposing that the opposite effect is there without any evidence at all. Until somebody finds quarter-by-quarter data that's not in aggregate average, we can't know for sure, but with the evidence in hand the argument does not lean your way.

The fact is he was not effective when he gets about 5-6 mins a quarter, that's from my observation.

The thing is that your observation is very subjective and also subject to confirmation bias. I trust you'll forgive me for not lumping that into the realm of fact, especially given the (admittedly weak, but best available) evidence above that argues the other way.

Also keep in mind that the cause-effect relationship may be reversed. Assuming that JT does do poorly in 5-6 minute stints, is it because he's not getting enough PT, or does he get yanked after 5-6 minutes because he's not playing well/in foul trouble?

Another probem is you're giving JT 6 mins in the 1st quarter, not the 2nd. There's a big difference here. You take a guy out after only 6 mins from the start of the game and it's hard to get into a rhythm; as opposed to if you play the guy 9-12 mins in the 1st and then give him an extra 6 mins in the 2nd. I can see that you rotation for Hawes can work but the one for JT is flawed. They are young players you know, they're not machine that can just turn on and off.

As you can guess from the above, I'm just not convinced that two 12-minute stints and two 6-minute stints is a problem. If we can find some non-aggregated quarter-by-quarter data that we can crunch through, I'm willing to see what the numbers say.

No amount of massaging the numbers is going to change the fact that unless Wesphal gets very creative, JT/Hawes is expected to get about 9 mins a quarter (give or take) next season.

Or if we get a third legitimate big man. I really do think that 32 minutes apiece is a reasonable number for a 3-man bigs rotation where all three are solid. Of course if our #3 big man is plucked out of the Diogu/Brockman/KT group, I can see Thompson and Hawes averaging 36+. But since the hypothesis here is Chandler (or other solid big man) added to the rotation I think it's reasonable to suggest that Hawes' and Thompson's minutes would be down a bit from that 36 mark.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Now, since I take it as something approaching a given that our young C/PF combo is not in fact going to lead the league in minutes at their respective positions, nor are they going to play every single game of the year, I would guestimate anywhere from 26-30 min being available behind them. You fill those 26-30 min with a 7'1" rebounding/defending big and you are a long way toward returning to respectability. You in fact potentially have one of the best young frontcourts in the game.

Agreed.

I think at this point, if we could take advantage of luxury tax situations to get a Chandler, a Boozer, or even an Amare (I think that's less likely, given Phoenix's roster) without giving up Hawes, Thompson, Martin, Evans, Casspi and probably Greene (even though last season was quite disappointing), I'd do it. Even if we run the risk of having the guy walk after 1 or 2 years, it's worth a shot.

 

[AriesMar27]

Agreed.

I think at this point, if we could take advantage of luxury tax situations to get a Chandler, a Boozer, or even an Amare (I think that's less likely, given Phoenix's roster) without giving up Hawes, Thompson, Martin, Evans, Casspi and probably Greene (even though last season was quite disappointing), I'd do it. Even if we run the risk of having the guy walk after 1 or 2 years, it's worth a shot.

ditto.... there is a chance that those players just might enjoy playing here... by everyone's logic no one wants to play for the kings. if thats the case how do kings players feel about playing here? and maybe thats why we only won 17 games last season.

 

[Prince_XY]

Even if he gives us an extra 5-8 wins all by himself, we still suck.

Getting Dwight Howard would be a step in the right direction. Getting a 2-yr rental just to squeeze an extra 5-8 wins is pointless imo.

Like I said, if the plan is to possibly replace Hawes or JT with Chandler then it makes sense. But if the plan is to play Tyson 20 mins off the bench then it makes no sense.

This is ridiculously being too rigid on following a certain plan that can be non-sensical anyways when one of the two ( Hawes or Thompson ) gets injured, or when all our hopes on Hawes/Thompson becoming the kick-*** players we want them to be don't materialized in the future.

Tyson Chandler can immediately fill that hole in our frontcourt particularly in defense. He is young and can reasonably be in our future. He won't mess-up the development of Hawes or Thompson, since there would be enough playing time to share between the three. If Hawes turns out to be a lesser player at #5 than Chandler, then start Chandler and use him at #5 more than Hawes. If Chandler fits better at #4, then use him more than Thompson and etc. It is not as if this team is built in stone around the "superstars" Hawes and Thompson anyways. For the sake of the teams' improvement, no player should be favored.

An extra 5-8 wins by a player himself goes a long-long way. Imagine if we get 5 new players who can contribute 8 wins each just by themselves. Thats an extra 40 wins added to the 17 wins we had last year.

57 wins for a rebuilding team?

I don't think that's too bad.

 

[AriesMar27]

This is ridiculously being too rigid on following a certain plan that can be non-sensical anyways when one of the two ( Hawes or Thompson ) gets injured, or when all our hopes on Hawes/Thompson becoming the kick-*** players we want them to be don't materialized in the future.

Tyson Chandler can immediately fill that hole in our frontcourt particularly in defense. He is young and can reasonably be in our future. He won't mess-up the development of Hawes or Thompson, since there would be enough playing time to share between the three. If Hawes turns out to be a lesser player at #5 than Chandler, then start Chandler and use him at #5 more than Hawes. If Chandler fits better at #4, then use him more than Thompson and etc. It is not as if this team is built in stone around the "superstars" Hawes and Thompson anyways. For the sake of the teams' improvement, no player should be favored.

An extra 5-8 wins by a player himself goes a long-long way. Imagine if we get 5 new players who can contribute 8 wins each just by themselves. Thats an extra 40 wins added to the 17 wins we had last year.

57 wins for a rebuilding team?

I don't think that's too bad.

lol.... we should get 9 new players then. we could win damn near 70 games....

 

[Prince_XY]

lol.... we should get 9 new players then. we could win damn near 70 games....

Or better yet, let us just replace our roster with new ones.