What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
If I had the choice i'd part with Landry. JT can backup both positions and can play center while D-will fills at PF for spurts. Landry can only fill in at PF, while can do some SF in short spurts for a big lineup. I'll take the center flexability since Cousins is a workhorse, and it eliminates the need to get another center. Although Landry was huge for GS last year i've never really been a fan of him on our team.
About IT.. we really can't get away with a short PG in a league filled with so many bigger stars at the position. It really is a tough situation because he has so much offensive potential that's already here. Not like Tyreke where we're hoping for a jumpshot.
About IT.. we really can't get away with a short PG in a league filled with so many bigger stars at the position. It really is a tough situation because he has so much offensive potential that's already here. Not like Tyreke where we're hoping for a jumpshot.
I thought he did a very good job defensively yesterday against one of the taller/longer PG's in the leauge in Hill. Hill went 3-9 and I though IT did a good job of chasing Hill off picks and getting a hand up on his shots. Also when the Pacers tried to post Hill on IT, IT didn't back down an inch, got called for a foul that should have been a charge and bodied him up and forced an offensive foul. Yes he's 5'9 but he is very strong and doesn't get pushed around, challenging jumpshooters could be a problem, but he has to use his quickness and strength to be a "pesky" defender, and if we get a real rim protector it gives IT a safety valve and allows him to really put some ball pressure if needed.
Well it was just an example of a tall/long PG, Hill isn't a big scorer because he doesn't have to be on that team, he is certainly capable of scoring in this league. If the Pacers thought IT was that big of a mismatch they would have attacked it. If Jimmer starts they go right at him from the start. If your worried about guys like Curry, Lillard then guess what, so is the rest of the league. It takes a great team defense to contain those guys, it starts with good sound defense from your PG, but proper rotations, getting physical with them inside, contesting their shots all play a part in containing those guys. I mean a great defensive PG in Hill and the best overall defense in the league held IT to 38 pts in a game where they only had to defend two players. Stopping a good scoring PG in the NBA is not an easy task, and being a great 1 on 1 defender shouldn't be the only thing you look for from a PG these days. If you can pass for a decent defender that can follow a scouting and play hard(just about every other PG in the league not named Paul, Conley, Hill, Rondo) then that is fine in the modern NBA, especially if you're putting so much pressure on the opponent on the other end as well.
The NBA is about mismatches, if IT is as bad a defender as he's portrayed on this board then any PG with a pulse will light him up every night. The Pacers tried to exploit the size difference by posting up Hill twice in the second half and both times failed miserably. The fact is IT is about average or just below what you would consider average defensively for an NBA PG. He has the quickness, strength and play style to be serviceable if not a pesky defender. And again the notion that we need a lockdown defender as our starting PG is just wrong because A) theres no such thing as a PG that will shut down a good scoring PG (as we saw last night). B) Sometimes the best way slow down a scoring guard is to attack them on the other end(getting a defensive facilitator type means guys like Lillard, Curry, can just coast on the defensive end and expend all energy attacking our defense). C) Getting a good rim protector and playing good team defense like we saw a lot last night will make a much bigger difference when its all said and done.
So you agree he's a bad defender then? I actually think IT's post defense is pretty good, but as Tetsu mentioned in another thread, most PGs aren't accustomed to posting guys up. You're right that the NBA is about mismatches. We were mismatched against Paul George and David West and the Pacers went to it. The good teams play to their strengths and play the same way night in night out. They create the mismatches they want regardless of who they're playing. Only bad teams like us change lineups or gameplans every other game to match up with our opponent (as we did in the past).
Dragic and Bledsoe went right at IT as if he wasn't there. Jeff Teague easily got past him to set up his team mates or score for himself. The list goes on.. I can't wait for us to get rid of IT. This board is not a fun place to post anymore when every thread eventually becomes about a player I could care less about who doesn't even help us win.
Dragic and Bledsoe went right at IT as if he wasn't there. Jeff Teague easily got past him to set up his team mates or score for himself. The list goes on.. I can't wait for us to get rid of IT. This board is not a fun place to post anymore when every thread eventually becomes about a player I could care less about who doesn't even help us win.
It's called Arco magic. It happens sometimes.
Any 5 players in kings jerseys can compete at home against any team. On some nights. A night in which two guys have career highs would be one of those nights.
I guess all our starting guards need to do is continue to average 40 each now and we can just forget about Cuz and Rudy. That seems sustainable.
Hill had nearly a triple double. 10/8/8 with 3 steals. That's well above average for him, despite the great D everyone seems to be remembering and G and J kept pointing out.
Hill held him to 13-31 shooting and a pitiful 6 assists. When the plan was to let him run wild and shut everyone else down, well, there it is. Teams don't want to shut him down. They don't need to. He hurts the team more by taking 31 shots. I'd love to get to a point where 10+ assists is the barometer for success, not 20+ points. But that would go against every instinct in his body. He's just in the wrong role.
The kid has value. No doubt about it, but in a lineup with rudy and cuz, he doesn't fit at all. And he's not adjusting in the moments it matters, late in games. His instincts as a me first guy rear their head, and his need to be the hero. And it alienates most of the fan base. And a lot of his teammates as well. I've never been more frustrated with any kings player. That by no means means he's the worst player we've ever had, but I don't think I've ever yelled at the tv at one guy so much.
Several straw men keep popping up. That people want to let him walk. No. That we want a defense only pg. Again, no. But it's not fine to have a pg that can't play defense and then build a team around that fact, especially when that player in question isn't much of a team player to begin with. That also ignores that our franchise player was chosen already. They're not going to start building around another guy all of a sudden when you have a max contract guy here the next 4 years.
Any 5 players in kings jerseys can compete at home against any team. On some nights. A night in which two guys have career highs would be one of those nights.
I guess all our starting guards need to do is continue to average 40 each now and we can just forget about Cuz and Rudy. That seems sustainable.
Hill had nearly a triple double. 10/8/8 with 3 steals. That's well above average for him, despite the great D everyone seems to be remembering and G and J kept pointing out.
Hill held him to 13-31 shooting and a pitiful 6 assists. When the plan was to let him run wild and shut everyone else down, well, there it is. Teams don't want to shut him down. They don't need to. He hurts the team more by taking 31 shots. I'd love to get to a point where 10+ assists is the barometer for success, not 20+ points. But that would go against every instinct in his body. He's just in the wrong role.
The kid has value. No doubt about it, but in a lineup with rudy and cuz, he doesn't fit at all. And he's not adjusting in the moments it matters, late in games. His instincts as a me first guy rear their head, and his need to be the hero. And it alienates most of the fan base. And a lot of his teammates as well. I've never been more frustrated with any kings player. That by no means means he's the worst player we've ever had, but I don't think I've ever yelled at the tv at one guy so much.
Several straw men keep popping up. That people want to let him walk. No. That we want a defense only pg. Again, no. But it's not fine to have a pg that can't play defense and then build a team around that fact, especially when that player in question isn't much of a team player to begin with. That also ignores that our franchise player was chosen already. They're not going to start building around another guy all of a sudden when you have a max contract guy here the next 4 years.
Last edited:
No one is saying to build around IT, he's the third best player on this team, no one that has ever defended IT in the slightest has gone on to say that he should be be the #1 guy for the Kings. I think he is completely viable as a # 3 though, right now he has to be a starter, but down the line if we are competing maybe his best role will be as 6th man, he deserves a chance to prove himself as a starter though, I think he has at least earned that. To say that we don't need his scoring is wrong also, what if Cousins is having a bad night, foul trouble? Gay isn't going to play great every night as we saw on the road trip. IT currently is the only other player on this team that we can say gives you consistent offense, meaning we know every night more than likely he will get his 18-20 pts. That means something in this league. Jimmer might give you a one very good game a month, Thornton has had one or two good games this season, JT is the closest other one that we know will give you 10 pts 8 reb and solid defense. D-Will is an enigma, one night he could give you 15-20, the next night nothing. Landry when he is 100% will be the fourth guy off the bench for us, which will help a lot.
bro,
you keep arguing about his talent. i think everybody agrees he's talented. the question is how much is he going to cost to be retained and will that fit in the grand scheme of this team building long term. a decision has to be made soon. the team will lose leverage if we get him to free agency and someone throws a tyreke evans type contract at him. no luxury of picking and choosing assets in return for him. either let him walk, match the bloated contract or accept what assets are on the table.
you keep arguing about his talent. i think everybody agrees he's talented. the question is how much is he going to cost to be retained and will that fit in the grand scheme of this team building long term. a decision has to be made soon. the team will lose leverage if we get him to free agency and someone throws a tyreke evans type contract at him. no luxury of picking and choosing assets in return for him. either let him walk, match the bloated contract or accept what assets are on the table.
You do want to build around him. In another thread you said we'd need a sefolosha type and an ibaka type to throw with rudy cuz and our pg. The problem is you can't pay rudy cuz and the mythical shot blocker and also retain our current starting pg. Therefore your pg needs to do more than one thing well. And that one thing is very expensive, which was the original question of this thread. What's he worth?
His scoring is easily replaced. Scoring is not a problem on this team, even against a top defensive team missing our two best players. We have too much scoring.
We need defenders and passers. We have to distribute the money in a way where we have the best team possible. A third big scorer just isn't a need at all.
His scoring is easily replaced. Scoring is not a problem on this team, even against a top defensive team missing our two best players. We have too much scoring.
We need defenders and passers. We have to distribute the money in a way where we have the best team possible. A third big scorer just isn't a need at all.
We aren't going to let him walk, that would be the dumbest move ever. A small market team like us needs to capitalize on its assets. The only way i see us trading IT is if we package him with a combination of Thornton, Jimmer, McLemore, JT. That trade would need to net us a starting caliber PG, a starting PF and a starting caliber SG, or at least 2 of the 3.
Any team on any given day can fall flat on it's face or pull a good game out of their ass. It happens in every sport since the beginning of time. IT always is in a position to run the show no matter who else is on the floor. Malone doesn't dare take him out as any replacement could lead to a disastor. Therefore IT has no fear no matter what he does. If he stinks, he is a better smell than a replacement. He is our starter for now.
Last edited:
You just gave the reason he might need to be traded. If they aren't willing to pay what he might or is expected to command on the open market, they may not be willing to let him walk for nothing because as you would put it 'that would be the dumbest move ever.' In that scenario, you trade him while you still have leverage.
Well the team isn't built overnight, we aren't going to get all our perfect fitting pieces in the next 6 months. Maybe one of those comes via the draft(Vonleh?). Maybe we can unload a contract like Thornton, trade a prospect like McLemore. We aren't going to do much via free agency, the biggest impact move we would do in the off season in free agency is re-signing IT. Past that maybe you can attract a nice mid level player, but thats it. I don't think a team will throw a Tyreke level contract at IT. I think $6-$7 per gets it done tbh, considering he's been with this franchise from the start, its close to his home.
IT and JT are hardly scraps, McLemore is a prospect, the rest yes are scraps. I said if you are trading IT and JT combined with McLemore, Jimmer, Thornton and I would throw Williams in there too. You better at least get 2 starting caliber players that are good fits. If you are trading IT this season you need to package him with bigger contracts. Unless you want to trade for another guy on a second round pick type contract.
I don't think there's anyone that will give us fair value for IT this season because to trade IT you need to package him with guys like JT, Thornton or Williams. If you really want to trade IT, you are best off with a sign and trade in the off season.
I don't think there's anyone that will give us fair value for IT this season because to trade IT you need to package him with guys like JT, Thornton or Williams. If you really want to trade IT, you are best off with a sign and trade in the off season.
IT and MT are major trade pieces. IT is a problem to trade right now because of his salary. In order for a team over the salary cap to trade with us they have to match salaries by 15% or whatever it is. If we assume he is worth $8 mil, just a guess, we need to package his $1 mil salary with someone on our team with a $7 mil salary to get adequate value back just for IT. That means we can't package him with anyone on a rookie contract which includes Williams and McLemore. Would we want to pair him with JT or Landry? Is there a player on a roughly $8 mil salary worth trading for and giving up IT and Landry or JT? I really doubt it. IT and JT are worth far more than $8 mil if you are following my reasoning. That's my thinking. Do we combine him with MT? I don't think so as the combo of IT and MT is a tremendous amount of offense and it is difficult for me to imagine what we could get back to match the talent we give away.
MT, as a single entity, is easier to trade. He has value and a matchable salary. Perhaps we get a pg for him and deal with IT's bruised feelings with a sign and trade at the end of the season. I would be interested mostly in this. Is it possible under the CBA and if possible, does it make sense? I think it makes sense.
This all assumes a new quirk in the CBA has not been thrown in to blow these ideas up.
MT, as a single entity, is easier to trade. He has value and a matchable salary. Perhaps we get a pg for him and deal with IT's bruised feelings with a sign and trade at the end of the season. I would be interested mostly in this. Is it possible under the CBA and if possible, does it make sense? I think it makes sense.
This all assumes a new quirk in the CBA has not been thrown in to blow these ideas up.
This is exactly my point, lets take for example if we want to trade for Lowry(who we assume will probably cost $7-$8 million in the summer). That means we have to package IT with either JT or Landry(who we have to get rid of to make room for Lowry's salary next season) for Lowry and a filler. Thats a steal for the Raptors. The best case scenario is that Gay opts out and we can resign him for say $12-$13 per for 4 years and that we move Thornton. That gives us some more money to work with for either IT or Lowry or whoever else is in the FO's mind at the PG position.
At that point your just treating IT like a salary dump, you only trade IT if you are getting the right pieces back, at $ 5 million you are probably getting a guy that can give you 20 minutes off the bench for a guy putting all star numbers(not fair trade value). The only guy that fits that trade is Kyle Lowry(who toronto isn't trading), and who is going to demand $8-$10 million in the off season(especially to a small market like us).
So what if it is a steal for the Raptors? D'Alessandro's primary goal in making roster moves should be to build a team that he believes will be able to be a sustainable winner/contender in the long term. If that involves trading for Lowry, then he should go get him. If trading for Lowry means that we have to send out more talent than we're getting back, in the short term, then so be it. He should not set out with the goal of trying to "win" every trade.