We need to drop a PG
- Thread starter Entity
- Start date
Chupacabra
Starter
I think we wait until the trade deadline and assess the situation again at that time. Jimmer is the worst amoung them, then again the worst player has the least trade value.
Tough hand that's been dealt. IT is playing like the last pick in the draft, and he's cheap, so you'll probably get a similar player in return. Brooks was just signed, and he seems to be meshing with Evans. He's a faster version of IT, but not a distributor by any means. Jimmer probably has the most potential, but hasn't shown it. Ideally, he'd start next to Evans in the Beno role, but creates defensive issues when he's out there.
Jimmer is probably the most tradeable of the three, in terms of getting someone of value in return.
Jimmer is probably the most tradeable of the three, in terms of getting someone of value in return.
I said IT, which is what I've thought for a few weeks. IT may have the highest trade value given his small contract (this year and next at less than $1.65M total), and I'm pleased by both Jimmer's improvement and the Tyreke/Brooks combo.
The problem with trading IT is that we can't get much back for him salary-wise without including some other guys. I don't think anybody is desperate to take on Salmons' contract (even at his new, better play level this year), Outlaw is probably untradeable, so that probably leaves only Garcia's expiring as a salary piece. Every time I think about trading IT, I get stuck on who we could possibly bring back that would actually help.
The problem with trading IT is that we can't get much back for him salary-wise without including some other guys. I don't think anybody is desperate to take on Salmons' contract (even at his new, better play level this year), Outlaw is probably untradeable, so that probably leaves only Garcia's expiring as a salary piece. Every time I think about trading IT, I get stuck on who we could possibly bring back that would actually help.
Section 101
All-Star
Nobody ever gets hurt. You need 3 PG min on a roster.
tyreeeke
Bench
The "worst" has been the most efficient, not only on this team, but in the entire league. He's leading the team in numerous offensive categories.
tyreeeke
Bench
Jimmer hasn't shown potential? TS% 64.6, EFG% 59.8, 3PT% 45.0 and a 23.7 PER, which i'm assuming all rank #1 on the team and very highly throughout the entire league. That and he doesn't even have a full season under his belt.
twslam07
All-Star
I'm not a big fan of "specialists." I like having players who can offer something offensively as well as defensively. With that being said, I would prefer Fredette to be traded. He has shown well so far and I think it's getting to the point where we should sell high on him. His contract is more expensive than Isaiah's contract and it is longer than both Brooks and Isaiah's contract. I'm sure most would agree that we don't have our PG of the future on our roster that will help us make the playoffs and make a run at a championship. With that in mind I would rather have shorter and cheaper contracts at PG that allow us to have more flexibility when the time comes to add that PG of the future to our roster.
Last edited:
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I wouldn't trade Jimmer now, unless somehow he brought back an obvious upgrade, as he's definitely took a step in the right direction early in the season, looks better on both ends, should only increase his value going forward and is looking more and more like a guy who could play next to Reke down the road, off the ball, if we ever get a coach who'll play him that way. I'm fine with him being our 4th guard right now and getting about 15 mins per game.
The obvious choice is moving IT, but I just don't see what we could get back which will make a difference. Not with his cheap contract. Only package I can think would be an IT/TRob package but I'm not sure I'd be willing to give up on TRob so early. Package IT with a Salmons or Cisco, and we're most likely getting crap in return as it's more of attempting a salary dump, and I don't think IT is good enough to get a team to take one of those players. Maybe Cisco's expiring with IT could attract something of value. I'm not hopeful though.
Biggest concern isn't that we have three PG's outside of Reke. It's that Smart insists on playing all three PG's on top of Reke. There's no problem having IT around in case of injury.
The obvious choice is moving IT, but I just don't see what we could get back which will make a difference. Not with his cheap contract. Only package I can think would be an IT/TRob package but I'm not sure I'd be willing to give up on TRob so early. Package IT with a Salmons or Cisco, and we're most likely getting crap in return as it's more of attempting a salary dump, and I don't think IT is good enough to get a team to take one of those players. Maybe Cisco's expiring with IT could attract something of value. I'm not hopeful though.
Biggest concern isn't that we have three PG's outside of Reke. It's that Smart insists on playing all three PG's on top of Reke. There's no problem having IT around in case of injury.
King Baller
All-Star
Enjoy the wealth of PG's. Brooks contract is just for 2 years and the second is with a player option. He could opt out after this season. Tyreke will need a contract slightly above what Demar Derozan got, 4 years - 40 million. Jimmer is playing great and is improving before our eyes. IT still has game, the League has adjusted for him so he has to expand his game.
IMHO you hang onto them all and just let it sort itself out. Or if a Team that is a contender desperate due to an injury make you an offer you can't refuse you may choose to do that.
For now just stand pat, you got the PG's
KB
IMHO you hang onto them all and just let it sort itself out. Or if a Team that is a contender desperate due to an injury make you an offer you can't refuse you may choose to do that.
For now just stand pat, you got the PG's
KB
King Baller
All-Star
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I think at least 1 of them has to be dropped from the rotation, but I'm not sure anybody has to "go" particualrly. I certainly would consider us as having a spare PG in trade discussions however, if somebody was looking. Reke's ability to play the positon helps there immensely. Even if we traded somebody, and somebody got hurt, we'd still have two guys capable of running things.
Last edited:
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Yeah, Tyreke is a very nice insurance policy to have. He give us the luxury of fiddling around at the PG position until it sorts itself out.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I don't really think we have to get rid of any of our point guards. Two of them are very cheap, and the other one, Brooks isn't very expensive either. Other than causing some possible desent on the team, I don't see a problem. However, if I have to choose one to depart, it would be IT. I think Brooks is a better all around player right now, and I think Jimmer has too much potential to trade without knowing exactly what you have. I want to read you some quotes from Draft Express.
"Not a factor defensively. Doesn't have good lateral quickness. Does poor job in help side, getting out of position and sagging into the paint. Has a hard time getting through screens. Forces his team to make strange defensive assignments to minimize his ineffectiveness on the defensive side of the ball"
Talking about Jimmer? No, talking about Steve Nash prior to the draft in 1996. Here's another quote from another site.
"His biggest weakness is his man to man defense. His average foot speed makes him an easy target for small, quick point guards to blow by. His lack of physical strength does not bode well for handling the bigger, stronger point guards in the NBA in the post."
Here is an excerpt about Nash and Fredette.
In a recent episode of the ESPN NBA Today Podcast with Ryen Russillo (a must listen), draft expert Chad Ford talked about the Phoenix Suns possibly taking Jimmer Fredette with the 13th overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. There's been oodles already written about Jimmer and the Suns, but this one struck me due to a bit of revisionist history by Ford when he was comparing Jimmer to Steve Nash coming out of college.
The point Ford was trying to make is that Nash, like Jimmer, wasn't considered a "true point" out of college but with some tutelage under the Canadian master, Jimmer could find his inner facilitator. It makes enough sense and is probably moot since Jimmer isn't likely to be on the board at 13 anyway.
"Nash was a very similar player coming out of college. People don't remember this, but out of Santa Clara he was more of scorer than a point guard, a guy who could really light it up.
The Suns played him off the ball for the start of his career, they traded him to Dallas in part because they weren't sold he could ever be a full time point guard and then he evolved into one of the greatest point guards ever."
It's true that Nash was scorer at Santa Clara (21.8 ppg / 4 apg his senior year) and like Jimmer was forced into that role based on the teammates around him. Nash also didn't pass much his first two years with the Suns and he did play off the ball. Of course, he was also teammates with a 30-year-old Kevin Johnson and a 24-year-old Jason Kidd. It's a wonder the Suns drafted Nash at all given their point guard depth.
Am I saying that Jimmer is the next Steve Nash? No, of course not! I have no idea how good he'll eventually be. But I do know that if he were here right now instead of Jimmer, some of you would want him traded. The Sun's fans booed when he was drafted, and the Sun's gave up on Nash way too early, and eventually managed to get him back. So what I'am saying is that we shouldn't give up on Jimmer until we know for sure exactly what we have.
Both players played in smaller conferences. Both players were known shooters, and both players had the rep of being bad defenders. Both players played on fairly bad teams and both became the focus of their teams offense. Neither was known as a playmaker in college, but both showed good court vision at times.
Freshman year:
Nash: 8.1 PPG - 42.4% FGP - 40.8% 3PP - 2.2 APG - 2.0 TO - 2.5 RPG
Fredette: 7.0 PPG - 40.7% FGP - 33.6% 3PP - 1.7 APG - 1.2 TO - 1.1 RPG
Senior year:
Nash: 17 PPG - 43.0% FGP - 34.4% 3PP - 6.0 APG - 3.6 TO - 3.5 RPG
Fredette: 28.9 PPG - 45.2% FGP - 39.6% 3PP - 4.3 APG - 3.5 TO - 3.4 RPG
Their sophmore and junior years were very similiar, so I won't bore you with those stats. Personally I think Nash was a little better ballhandler coming out of college, and he had mastered the art of changing speeds and getting by opposing PG's. Something that Jimmer has to work on. Changing speeds and hesitation moves gives the appearance of being quicker than your actually are.
Right now, IT and Jimmer are chump change investments, and it would be foolish to just throw one of them away. As Bricky said, decide which one you want in the rotation and ride that horse for a while. If need be, send the other one to the Developmental League for a while so he can get playing time.
"Not a factor defensively. Doesn't have good lateral quickness. Does poor job in help side, getting out of position and sagging into the paint. Has a hard time getting through screens. Forces his team to make strange defensive assignments to minimize his ineffectiveness on the defensive side of the ball"
Talking about Jimmer? No, talking about Steve Nash prior to the draft in 1996. Here's another quote from another site.
"His biggest weakness is his man to man defense. His average foot speed makes him an easy target for small, quick point guards to blow by. His lack of physical strength does not bode well for handling the bigger, stronger point guards in the NBA in the post."
Here is an excerpt about Nash and Fredette.
In a recent episode of the ESPN NBA Today Podcast with Ryen Russillo (a must listen), draft expert Chad Ford talked about the Phoenix Suns possibly taking Jimmer Fredette with the 13th overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. There's been oodles already written about Jimmer and the Suns, but this one struck me due to a bit of revisionist history by Ford when he was comparing Jimmer to Steve Nash coming out of college.
The point Ford was trying to make is that Nash, like Jimmer, wasn't considered a "true point" out of college but with some tutelage under the Canadian master, Jimmer could find his inner facilitator. It makes enough sense and is probably moot since Jimmer isn't likely to be on the board at 13 anyway.
"Nash was a very similar player coming out of college. People don't remember this, but out of Santa Clara he was more of scorer than a point guard, a guy who could really light it up.
The Suns played him off the ball for the start of his career, they traded him to Dallas in part because they weren't sold he could ever be a full time point guard and then he evolved into one of the greatest point guards ever."
It's true that Nash was scorer at Santa Clara (21.8 ppg / 4 apg his senior year) and like Jimmer was forced into that role based on the teammates around him. Nash also didn't pass much his first two years with the Suns and he did play off the ball. Of course, he was also teammates with a 30-year-old Kevin Johnson and a 24-year-old Jason Kidd. It's a wonder the Suns drafted Nash at all given their point guard depth.
Am I saying that Jimmer is the next Steve Nash? No, of course not! I have no idea how good he'll eventually be. But I do know that if he were here right now instead of Jimmer, some of you would want him traded. The Sun's fans booed when he was drafted, and the Sun's gave up on Nash way too early, and eventually managed to get him back. So what I'am saying is that we shouldn't give up on Jimmer until we know for sure exactly what we have.
Both players played in smaller conferences. Both players were known shooters, and both players had the rep of being bad defenders. Both players played on fairly bad teams and both became the focus of their teams offense. Neither was known as a playmaker in college, but both showed good court vision at times.
Freshman year:
Nash: 8.1 PPG - 42.4% FGP - 40.8% 3PP - 2.2 APG - 2.0 TO - 2.5 RPG
Fredette: 7.0 PPG - 40.7% FGP - 33.6% 3PP - 1.7 APG - 1.2 TO - 1.1 RPG
Senior year:
Nash: 17 PPG - 43.0% FGP - 34.4% 3PP - 6.0 APG - 3.6 TO - 3.5 RPG
Fredette: 28.9 PPG - 45.2% FGP - 39.6% 3PP - 4.3 APG - 3.5 TO - 3.4 RPG
Their sophmore and junior years were very similiar, so I won't bore you with those stats. Personally I think Nash was a little better ballhandler coming out of college, and he had mastered the art of changing speeds and getting by opposing PG's. Something that Jimmer has to work on. Changing speeds and hesitation moves gives the appearance of being quicker than your actually are.
Right now, IT and Jimmer are chump change investments, and it would be foolish to just throw one of them away. As Bricky said, decide which one you want in the rotation and ride that horse for a while. If need be, send the other one to the Developmental League for a while so he can get playing time.
kingsfan101
Starter
I know this thread is about dropping a PG, but if we are to drop a guard, why not MT?
Don't get me wrong. I like MT. I think we need his outside shooting, and scoring mentality, particularly off the bench.
However, of the four small guards that we have, he has the biggest contract and likely the highest trade value. Plus, he is also the only player who is not seen as a PG (though Jimmer is often playing/been made to play like that. Eventually, his game might become more balanced though, unlike MT, who shall remain a pure scorer). Plus, he gambles a lot on defense (disclaimer: I don't watch too many games. These observations are based on the few that I have).
If we trade MT, one of the AB/IT/Jimmer, or even Cisco/Salmons can take over his minutes. This is apart from whom we get in return, someone again we would expect to receive some minutes.
Don't get me wrong. I like MT. I think we need his outside shooting, and scoring mentality, particularly off the bench.
However, of the four small guards that we have, he has the biggest contract and likely the highest trade value. Plus, he is also the only player who is not seen as a PG (though Jimmer is often playing/been made to play like that. Eventually, his game might become more balanced though, unlike MT, who shall remain a pure scorer). Plus, he gambles a lot on defense (disclaimer: I don't watch too many games. These observations are based on the few that I have).
If we trade MT, one of the AB/IT/Jimmer, or even Cisco/Salmons can take over his minutes. This is apart from whom we get in return, someone again we would expect to receive some minutes.
tyreeeke
Bench
THAT is why you're the best poster these boards have ever seen. Plus, I love your continued analysis of draft prospects. I'd love to see you become a moderator on this board, and possibly a commentator on ESPN.
K
KingMilz
Guest
Unless we can get something great in return than you don't trade Thornton, hes one of three legit match winners the Kings have (Reke and Cuz being the other 2), if anything the Kings should be upping Thorntons mins its not like Tyreke can't defend SF's. To me atm Jimmer, Salmons and Cisco are all massive downgrades to Thornton I just don't see how Salmons can get more mins than MT
macadocious
Starter
Serious question, why is your SN tyreeeeke?
tyreeeke
Bench
I love him.
kingsfan101
Starter
Of course. I'm not suggesting to give MT away. We should get something concrete back. Just a suggestion that if we ever think of trading a guard, we do not have to think only in terms of trading one of the PGs.
origkds
What- Me Worry?
Baja:
I thought about saying something a little positive about Jimmer but I'm already married. He's all yours.
Gary
All-Star
I would take a player that I believe would fit with what this team needs who has less value than the one traded.
For instance if someone wanted JT and a choice of one of our guards (Evans/Brooks/MT) for John Wall and Nene or Okafor I would probably bite. That's if both Wall and Nene were healthy. I am just using this as an example and not a thought out trade idea. If the Kings are interested in trading away a guy like Evans I believe we need to get a pure PG. If they are wanting to get rid of guys like MT/IT or Brooks they should look for a stud shooting SF.
I would LOVE to get my hands on Jordan Hamilton from Denver or someone like him who has the ability to light it up but is behind better players. Denver seems to slide Iggy to SF more than they have to, kinda like we do with Evans. They play only 3 guards as well. When Hamilton is in though he can definitely hit the 3pt shots which we really need. I can't see the Nuggets trading for another guard though unless they unloaded one on us or a salary they don't want to pay.
Anyhow, between IT/Brooks/MT I would probably be most inclined to get rid of Brooks. I just don't know a team that would want him.
For instance if someone wanted JT and a choice of one of our guards (Evans/Brooks/MT) for John Wall and Nene or Okafor I would probably bite. That's if both Wall and Nene were healthy. I am just using this as an example and not a thought out trade idea. If the Kings are interested in trading away a guy like Evans I believe we need to get a pure PG. If they are wanting to get rid of guys like MT/IT or Brooks they should look for a stud shooting SF.
I would LOVE to get my hands on Jordan Hamilton from Denver or someone like him who has the ability to light it up but is behind better players. Denver seems to slide Iggy to SF more than they have to, kinda like we do with Evans. They play only 3 guards as well. When Hamilton is in though he can definitely hit the 3pt shots which we really need. I can't see the Nuggets trading for another guard though unless they unloaded one on us or a salary they don't want to pay.
Anyhow, between IT/Brooks/MT I would probably be most inclined to get rid of Brooks. I just don't know a team that would want him.
Padrino
All-Star
in my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad idea to trade one of the PG's, but its not necessary. what IS necessary is the self-control of the kings' head coach, who need not dole out minutes to every player on his roster in a given game. evans, thornton, and brooks should be the primary guards in the rotation. then ONE of jimmer fredette and isaiah thomas should receive additional (but minimal) minutes in support of that rotation. i'd suggest fredette, whose value as a spot shooter is more valuable than thomas' bite-sized schtick. i love thomas' team-oriented attitude and fount of spirit, so hand the young man a towel to wave...
kingsnation
All-Star
Winners. You might want to change your wording here since none of them have actually won anything in the NBA. I believe I see what I think you mean, but yeah, winners isn't the right word.
roasthawg
Starter
Excellent post. Jimmer is one of the guys on this team I definitely want to keep. Would love to see more Reke/Jimmer in the backcourt. Jimmer brings elite shooting to the table... plus he's a gym rat so it's a safe bet that he's only going to get better and better over the next few seasons. I'd like to see what he can develop into as well.
Similar threads
