Well, sumbizzatch. On the hover it does indicate that - I stand corrected.
Well, see you in a different uniform next season IT
- Thread starter HereWeBoogie
- Start date
Well, sumbizzatch. On the hover it does indicate that - I stand corrected.
Albatros
Starter
I can see why he's talking himself up at this point, he's a FA, this interview isn't just for us and PDA to hear.
but like others have noted it's very revealing, and exactly why I don't him on this team. I just can't watch another season of transition heat checks in close games, he's a mature guy but his on court play is not particularly mature. Nothing against him personally he's a great kid and I like him a lot.
I can see next years headlines already "Isaiah scores 48 but Kings fall to Bucks" "Isaiah led the team with 34 but Kings fall to Sixers"
"but how about those numbers!" sheesh zzzzzzzz.
but like others have noted it's very revealing, and exactly why I don't him on this team. I just can't watch another season of transition heat checks in close games, he's a mature guy but his on court play is not particularly mature. Nothing against him personally he's a great kid and I like him a lot.
I can see next years headlines already "Isaiah scores 48 but Kings fall to Bucks" "Isaiah led the team with 34 but Kings fall to Sixers"
"but how about those numbers!" sheesh zzzzzzzz.
Mass
Starter
I'm not the biggest IT fan over here. I'm one of those who would like to trade for Rondo or draft Smart. But, I also think we are a little overestimating IT's weaknesses. Let's see a comparison between 2 players.
Per 36 stats
Player A: 21.1 ppg / 15.8 fga / .453% fg% / .349 3fg% / .850 ft% / 2.9 reb / 6.3 ast / 1.3 stl / 3.1 to
Player B: 20.8 ppg / 16.0 fga / .424% fg% / .394 3fg% / .871 ft% / 3.5 reb / 5.6 ast / 0.8 stl / 2.4 to
Advanced
Player A: 32.2 ast% / 20.5 PER / 1.9 stl% / 14.3 to% / 26.3 usg% / 114 ORtg / 111 DRtg / 1.3 DWS / 7.7 WS
Player B: 25.1 ast% / 18.6 PER / 1.1 stl% / 11.5 to% / 25.0 usg% / 116 ORtg / 110 DRtg / 1.8 DWS / 9.6 WS
Player A is our chucker, me first Isaiah. Player B is one of the best PG in the game, a player who just brought a team to the second round. A player we could have drafted and that everybody would like to have. He is one of the rising star in the NBA. Player B is Damian Lillard.
Of course the numbers are not the only thing to look at, but I don't see that big difference between these 2 players, especially in the defensive stats. IT is also a better distributor.
My point is: people look at his size a little too much. If he was 3 inches taller he would have a completely different reputation. IT has some great skills that a team could use, and you can play winning basketball if you implement the right system.
IMO, I believe he would be the best 6th man in the NBA, and he should accept that role. That's his perfect role. But, if we can't find a better option and if he's going to get a reasonable contract, I'm ok with keeping IT as our starting PG. He has talent, and we can't just let talent walk.
Per 36 stats
Player A: 21.1 ppg / 15.8 fga / .453% fg% / .349 3fg% / .850 ft% / 2.9 reb / 6.3 ast / 1.3 stl / 3.1 to
Player B: 20.8 ppg / 16.0 fga / .424% fg% / .394 3fg% / .871 ft% / 3.5 reb / 5.6 ast / 0.8 stl / 2.4 to
Advanced
Player A: 32.2 ast% / 20.5 PER / 1.9 stl% / 14.3 to% / 26.3 usg% / 114 ORtg / 111 DRtg / 1.3 DWS / 7.7 WS
Player B: 25.1 ast% / 18.6 PER / 1.1 stl% / 11.5 to% / 25.0 usg% / 116 ORtg / 110 DRtg / 1.8 DWS / 9.6 WS
Player A is our chucker, me first Isaiah. Player B is one of the best PG in the game, a player who just brought a team to the second round. A player we could have drafted and that everybody would like to have. He is one of the rising star in the NBA. Player B is Damian Lillard.
Of course the numbers are not the only thing to look at, but I don't see that big difference between these 2 players, especially in the defensive stats. IT is also a better distributor.
My point is: people look at his size a little too much. If he was 3 inches taller he would have a completely different reputation. IT has some great skills that a team could use, and you can play winning basketball if you implement the right system.
IMO, I believe he would be the best 6th man in the NBA, and he should accept that role. That's his perfect role. But, if we can't find a better option and if he's going to get a reasonable contract, I'm ok with keeping IT as our starting PG. He has talent, and we can't just let talent walk.
The big issue to me is the wins. IT is talented and has the stats to back it up no doubt, but I wonder just how much value those stats actually carry. But maybe it's a chemistry thing, maybe it's his defense, whatever - the point is that we don't have the wins to show for all that talent. I don't expect us to be a playoff team in the West just by having two good players in Cousins and IT, but I do think 28 is pretty darn below expectations if indeed IT is so valuable.
And that's sort of the point to me. Damian Lillard is a rising star in the NBA because his team is winning. Goran Dragic was considered an all star snub because Phoenix played pretty darn well. To say our wins have nothing to do with IT and everything to do with the roster balance and bench and coaching is ... well suspect.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
We absolutely need that given the construction of the team.
We won't have capspace with our without Isaiah. And Isaiah is the kind of PG we need offensively in the modern NBA given our team construction.
Well if you think that, and I quote, he "put his 1v1 PG matchup above team play", the question mark is of rather bafflement regarding this imaginary situation that never happened.
We need a penetrator at the PG spot, especially if you have a non-slashing SG like McLemore on the team. We need someone who can get his own shot (which Isaiah is unarguably elite at) and someone who can make plays for others (which he's passable at). Find me a playoff team without some kind of penetrator at the guard positions. You won't find one. You can't put a 3+D guy at the PG spot next to McLemore, Gay and Cousins. It won't work.
Well this (the bolded) is silly. I'm guessing you don't understand the CBA, which I can understand considering most fans don't. But here's a quick 101: teams above the cap (which the Kings are going to be, with or without Isaiah) can't sign free agents except with the MLE. If a team wants to upgrade a spot currently manned by a player as good as Isaiah, you would have to make a trade. And in order to make a trade as a team over the cap, you have to send out a comparable amount of salary (within 125% + 100k) that you're taking in. Which means that trades are easier to make the more trade assets you have. You let Isaiah go, you let an enormous trade asset walk through that door for nothing. One that could presumably be used in a trade for an upgrade if you so desired.
Its either that or the draft, which has nothing to do with the salary cap anyways.
Did you ever wonder if maybe that means our team is constructed poorly?
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Sure, but at that point you're advocating trading either Cousins or Gay and really mixing it up.
What? No, at that point you determine your best piece (Cousins) and try to fit the right pieces around him.
Tremendous trade asset? He's got value but what or who exactly could we get for Nate Robinson, I mean, IT? I'm skeptical about his value around the league. Does he have value? yes. Could he bring back a starting PF who is around equal age? That is arguable....
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
If you want to change the fundamental construction of the roster (Cousins and Gay) then one or both has to be traded. But that was Slim's idea, not mine
I'd rather keep the IT-Gay-Cousins trio together. And if there is the opportunity to upgrade any of the three I say go for it. The issue is that I think it would be tough to upgrade any of them without completely gutting the roster (and Cousins is on his way to being the top C in the league so there may not BE an upgrade there).
With Cousins and Gay, you could replace Isaiah with a roleplaying PG if you have a slashing SG lined up, but thats not ever going to be Ben, so that would have to happen either via draft, trades or FA. Maybe if you pick Smart at 8 and he explodes you can consider it. But as of right now there's no way to replace Isaiah with a roleplayer without getting worse.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Well IT as a player blows Nate out of the water, so I disagree with your valuation. I'm pretty sure other NBA teams are a bit smarter than certain members of this board
But in any case, you agree that he has value. For a team over the salary cap, its better to have a trade asset of even a little value than nothing, because the former can be leveraged in a trade while a latter gets you, well, nothing.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
If you want to change the fundamental construction of the roster (Cousins and Gay) then one or both has to be traded. But that was Slim's idea, not mine
I'd rather keep the IT-Gay-Cousins trio together. And if there is the opportunity to upgrade any of the three I say go for it. The issue is that I think it would be tough to upgrade any of them without completely gutting the roster (and Cousins is on his way to being the top C in the league so there may not BE an upgrade there).
With Cousins and Gay, you could replace Isaiah with a roleplaying PG if you have a slashing SG lined up, but thats not ever going to be Ben, so that would have to happen either via draft, trades or FA. Maybe if you pick Smart at 8 and he explodes you can consider it. But as of right now there's no way to replace Isaiah with a roleplayer without getting worse.
No, that's just bizarre. The team is constructed badly because of what's around Cousins, not Cousins himself.
Cousins and Gay actually complement each other fine. They are both best suited to run a half-court offense.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Both these posts are completely missing my point.
There is no way you're going to have a team built around Cousins and Gay without some kind of penetrating playmaker at the guard spots. Thats basically the bottom line. IT is good at the job. But if you have a way to get someone better, I'm all ears.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
Smart. If Smart is gone, I'd gladly resign IT at a reasonable price. I wouldn't go above 6 mil/per. If he's getting 8+ mil a year, he becomes very hard to move.
BTW, it's not absolutely necessary to have a pentrating guard on this team. A plus yes, but not absolutely necessary. I think you're confused. A penetrating PG is there to collapse the defense. Cousins and Gay already do that.
Agreed.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
You haven't been keeping up with the rest of the league very well. Collapsing a defense from the post is not the same thing as having a penetrating guard who can run the pick and roll and attack closeouts. The way defenses are today (with the zone rules and the advent of Thibodeau's philosophies) pretty much require a triple threat (shoot/drive/pass) guard to compliment a post player. The days where you can feed the post and go four wide are over. Now the rules allow players to essentially play free safety in one man zones. Defenses have the option of soft doubling the post. Defenses can elect to close out hard to chase shooters off the three point line and fall into a four man zone to contain subsequent penetration. A team MUST be able to attack that configuration through penetration, either to get a shot for the penetrator or a teammate.
The proof is in the pudding. No Playoff team this year lacked a penetrating guard. Its just how to beat modern NBA defenses that have become faster and more creative than ever before.
Henkel
Starter
For those interested I'd recommend checking out Zach Lowes in depth piece on Thibodeau's defensive philosophies.
http://grantland.com/features/the-chicago-bulls-coach-tom-thibodeau-quest-perfection/
http://grantland.com/features/the-chicago-bulls-coach-tom-thibodeau-quest-perfection/
I've said this a million times, but IT-Rudy-Cousins were not the problem. The outplayed EVERY other offensive trio in the NBA. Yes, Bron-Wade-Bosh and Curry-Klay-Lee included. That's something you attempt to build around, not immediately try and break apart. Especially considering we don't have good options to replace either IT or Gay.
IT doesn't have a problem with getting Gay and Cousins involved in the offense. Cousins was a lot better with IT on the floor. If we added some role guys who could actually hit shots, I don't him having a problem involving them either. Seriously, I think if you add a Kyle Korver type, someone who is an elite floor spacer and keeps defenses honest, that you're looking at one of the most dangerous NBA offenses.
That's why I've been a fan of trying to nab Stauskas or McDermot. Especially if Ben figures out his shot, that starts to give us some elite floor spacing role guys around our scorers.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
What's going to be of upmost importance is determining how 'good' the Kings were with Rudy, Cousins, and Isaiah all healthy. We had that near .500 thing going for a few months there. Is that legit? sustainable? meaningless? I don't have the answer, but if I'm PDA and Co. That's what I'm spending my summer trying to figure out.
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that this current roster is a near .500 team, when healthy. In the Western Conference.
You'd have to say the potential of the team is trending in the right direction, no? the 'core' is young. They never went through training camp together. Barely had any practice time at all, and the team wasn't built around those guys succeeding.
Surround those guys with shooters and defenders, let them mature, let them learn more about each other as players, let your rookie head coach settle in... and what do you have? Again, I don't know.
I am generally under the belief that this season wasn't the fault of IT, Rudy, and DMC. Those guys played their assess off, and they all played well. Ben was terrible for 90% of the year, they had no bench production, traded away all their depth for Gay, and didn't have anyone on the entire roster who complemented Cousins, Gay, or Thomas.
Thomas was almost entirely responsible for any and all ball handling whenever he was on the court. Ben couldn't dribble.
I'm all over the place here. Just sort of throwing up thoughts on to the forums.
All this is to say that coming into next season with that same core of 3, plus a drastically improved supporting case wouldn't be the worst play here. Would it be my first choice? no. I have plenty of players in mind that I'd like to acquire that would ultimately lead to Thomas' exodus, but IF PDA can put together a better TEAM. One that is constructed around IT, Gay, and Cousins, and making those guys better, than I can live with that.
Would it mean title next year? No. But playoffs would be a major improvement.
Of course, the possibility of this is entirely contingent on what IT and Gay do. I've said in the past that I wouldn't pay Thomas over 8 million. I don't think he'll command that, because their are so few teams in the market for a point guard in that pay range who also have the cap space to go after him, but that's my number and I'm sticking to it.
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that this current roster is a near .500 team, when healthy. In the Western Conference.
You'd have to say the potential of the team is trending in the right direction, no? the 'core' is young. They never went through training camp together. Barely had any practice time at all, and the team wasn't built around those guys succeeding.
Surround those guys with shooters and defenders, let them mature, let them learn more about each other as players, let your rookie head coach settle in... and what do you have? Again, I don't know.
I am generally under the belief that this season wasn't the fault of IT, Rudy, and DMC. Those guys played their assess off, and they all played well. Ben was terrible for 90% of the year, they had no bench production, traded away all their depth for Gay, and didn't have anyone on the entire roster who complemented Cousins, Gay, or Thomas.
Thomas was almost entirely responsible for any and all ball handling whenever he was on the court. Ben couldn't dribble.
I'm all over the place here. Just sort of throwing up thoughts on to the forums.
All this is to say that coming into next season with that same core of 3, plus a drastically improved supporting case wouldn't be the worst play here. Would it be my first choice? no. I have plenty of players in mind that I'd like to acquire that would ultimately lead to Thomas' exodus, but IF PDA can put together a better TEAM. One that is constructed around IT, Gay, and Cousins, and making those guys better, than I can live with that.
Would it mean title next year? No. But playoffs would be a major improvement.
Of course, the possibility of this is entirely contingent on what IT and Gay do. I've said in the past that I wouldn't pay Thomas over 8 million. I don't think he'll command that, because their are so few teams in the market for a point guard in that pay range who also have the cap space to go after him, but that's my number and I'm sticking to it.
CurseOfTheSalmons
Starter
i'm here to echo the pro it-gay-cousins sentiment. ben mclemore and the bench are far bigger problems than isaiah.
I've brought this up before but I worry that people overvalue our "Close to .500 record" with the big 3. With the exception of a short stretch against some high level teams, most of those wins came against the bottom feeders in the league. There isn't strong evidence to suggest a team built around 3 iso, no to low d stars is anywhere close to being able to compete for deep runs in the playoffs.
randymoss1881
Starter
We won't win because IT-Gay-DMC don't play defense like other teams big 3. If we keep that 3 we need IT/Gay to become above average defenders and get a rim protecter at PF ( I still like the Asik for 8pick).
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
This is a legit argument which is why I'm stressing the need to figure out how 'real' that run was. I'm not suggesting it's a fair assessment of this team, but I think it's something the Kings need to determine.
The only reason it stopped was injuries between all three of those guys at different times, so while I am very aware of the weaker schedule, I'm also not entirely sure it wouldn't have continued to some degree if those guys stayed healthy. Unfortunately, that run is all we have to go on. We just don't know the answer to it, but the front office might have a better idea because of the information only they have from being in the locker room, seeing how the team gelled, watching practice, etc.
And I think describing them as ISO players is a bit harsh. Cousins is very much an all around offensive threat. He can do everything on that end of the court. Pass, shoot, drive, post, etc. Rudy is a little more one dimensional, but he can spread the floor, post up, finish inside, etc. And Thomas, for as iso heavy as his play is, he is a very good pick and roll player, he has a very good handle, and he can pass and knock down jumpers when he's off the ball. Those guys are talented offensive players that Coach Malone could make better use of in an offense. I do wonder how much time, if any, he got to spend on that side of the ball post Rudy Gay trade.
That's not exactly true. If you count the Houston game where we lost both Cousins and Gay in the first quarter as "without", then we played exactly 41 games with and 41 games without a full "big 3".
With the Big 3 we went 20-21 (.488) and had a margin of -0.44 points per game. This came against teams with a combined winning percentage of .502, 22 games on the road.
Without the full Big 3 we went 8-33 (.195) and had a margin of -5.37 points per game. This came against teams with a combined winning percentage of .549, 19 games on the road.
It's hard to overvalue that. That's a big difference in our performance, and only a small difference in our opponents. The nearest teams to .549 this year were the Nets and the Wizards at .537, and the Bobcats were the only other team between .502 and .549. You just don't drop a net 5 ppg and almost .300 in the standings jumping up from a league-average team to somebody slightly better than the Nets/Wizards. There's pretty good reason to suggest, from those data alone, that next year if we have the "Big 3" all season we should be in contention for a .500 record, even without any other improvements (McLemore getting better, #8/trades).
Yeah, IT making over 8 M will drop his value. IT making 4-5M is good value. IT making the minimum has been great value. What he makes going forward is rather key.Well IT as a player blows Nate out of the water, so I disagree with your valuation. I'm pretty sure other NBA teams are a bit smarter than certain members of this board
But in any case, you agree that he has value. For a team over the salary cap, its better to have a trade asset of even a little value than nothing, because the former can be leveraged in a trade while a latter gets you, well, nothing.
No doubt we were better with the big 3 than without. Just cautioning against using the .500 record without context. The wins we had during the big 3 run included only 7 against .500 or better teams. The other were against Orlando twice, Milwaukee twice, Philly, Boston, Denver, Cleveland, New Orleans twice, New York and Minnesota. There are definitely enough bad teams that a full year of the big 3 would probably net us an improved record but I don't think we'd be as close to .500 as people think.
CurseOfTheSalmons
Starter
that's not the big three's fault. it's mclemore's and the bench's.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
Thank you for doing the work I didn't feel up to doing, good post.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
