What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.

[bajaden]

Come on man. Cousins and Gay not being as dominant as Shaq/Kobe is exactly the reason why they aren't capable of shouldering a similar scoring load.

Excuse me, but Padrino is right. Cousins and Gay are very capable of putting up close to 50 points a night. That doesn't make them Shaq and Kobe, and it doesn't make the Kings the then Lakers. How about you put the same talent around Cousins and Gay that they had around them and see what the results are.

 

[Padrino]

After Cousins extension, and if Gay decides not to opt out, a likely scenario, then the Kings, barring any future moves between now and then, will be hock for $68,026,204.00 in salaries, and that's without resigning Thomas. Sign Thomas for 8 mil, and you now owe $76 million in salaries. Throw in a first round and your up another 3 to 4 mil, depending on where we pick, and not were up to $80 mil in salaries and well into the luxury tax. That is a ton of money for a non playoff team, and a team so in hock, its impossible to make any other significant moves. Yeah, in the following year we'll have some salary relief in losing Thornton and Outlaw, and maybe resigning Gay to a lesser contract in the 14 mil range, but we would still be over the regular salary cap when its all said and done.

This isn't a matter of what Thomas is worth around the league, but what he's worth to us, and what were willing to pay for what he brings. So the question is, do you think Thomas is a starting PG that can lead you to a championship? Not just the playoffs, but a championship? If not, then you don't pay that much money for him. If you box yourself into a corner financially, you'd better be sure you have all your ducks in a row, because your flexibility is gone. Yes, you can always figure out a way to shed salary eventually, but why would you put yourself in that position to begin with. You never want to take steps that you'll have to undo if you can avoid it.

that carl landry signing just gets sillier and sillier every time i think about the team's long term contract situation...

 

[Entity]

that carl landry signing just gets sillier and sillier every time i think about the team's long term contract situation...

I am thinking that coming in they thought about moving Jason. Especially with Patterson getting the starters nod from the get go. What they weren't counting on is JT and his consistent ability to do exactly what needs to be done beside Cousins. Now that we have Gay Thompson now seems even more comfortable there. In my opinion if you replace JT with Landry we take a step back

 

[Glenn]

that carl landry signing just gets sillier and sillier every time i think about the team's long term contract situation...

Ya think??? I think they signed him to contribute to the Kings but I hope they will also keep an open mind to trading him. Times and situations change. Landry has legitimate value to most teams.

Edit: I'll double down on what Entity posted.

 

[Kingster]

Do you think the current management would have offered those same contracts to JT and Thornton? I understand where your coming from, but I wouldn't use either of them as a measuring stick.

I don't think we, or at least I, have enough data points to figure out this management team. (After a year or so we hopefully do). So I think back when Thornton was playing at NO and his performance level and what Petrie was interested in giving for him ($8 mill); then I think what JT was like when Petrie gave him his contract ($6 mill). Based on those data points, I come up with the $8 mill+. I look at the player's impact on the game; unlike others, I'm not categorizing him as a "starter" or "6th man" and coming up with a number based on those categories. Based on his "impact on the game" I figure $8+ mill.

 

[VF21]

Woah.

Really? All Padrino did was say that Demarcus and Rudy are capable of dropping 50 points a night on an opponent, just like Shaq and Kobe were capable of dropping 50 points a night on an opponent. It doesn't say that Demarcus and Rudy are equal to Shaq and Kobe.

 

[VF21]

that carl landry signing just gets sillier and sillier every time i think about the team's long term contract situation...

Let's be fair and at least keep things in context. At the time of the Carl Landry signing, we had no idea we'd be getting a player the caliber of Rudy Gay.

I'm going to repeat what is becoming a tired refrain for me: I'm going to reserve judgment of Carl Landry until I see what he does NOW, not what he did before.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Excuse me, but Padrino is right. Cousins and Gay are very capable of putting up close to 50 points a night. That doesn't make them Shaq and Kobe, and it doesn't make the Kings the then Lakers. How about you put the same talent around Cousins and Gay that they had around them and see what the results are.

It remains to be seen whether Cousins and Gay together can average above 50 points a game together nightly. They've almost done it for 10 games, lets see if they can keep it up. Just as a point of reference, only one duo is doing that so far this year: Durant/Westbrook. It would require an average of 25ppg between the two of them, an average neither Cousins or Gay have actually hit yet. Cousins maybe gets there, but Gay? Highly unlikely. In his 7 years in the NBA he's never averaged 21 ppg, let alone 25.

So no, Padrino is not correct about that statement thus far since the duo has not shown it is capable of accomplishing that feat.

However the more problematic implication with a Shaq/Kobe comparison is regarding team structure, namely the rest of the team's offense. Shaq and Kobe led teams to championships that only consisted of *one* other player averaging double figures scoring. They were THAT dominant of a duo. If Gay and Cousins is our foundation moving forward they are going to need more help than that.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Shaq and Kobe were both two-way players. Shaq was a beast on the boards, a mobile shot-blocker, and a huge scoring threat. Kobe, in his heyday, was a lockdown perimeter defender.

Gay plays pretty good defense on a regular basis. Cousins less so. That is the major difference that I see between the shaq-kobe comparison.

Really? Thats the major difference?

I don't want to hijack the thread too much (this one is about IT), but the major difference to me is that those guys were 30ppg superstars and top 3 players in their time. Cousins might become a Top 3 player. Gay most certainly won't.

I'll propose a better comparison: Hakeem and Clyde Drexler (1994 version, not prime).

 

[Bricklayer]

I'll propose a better comparison: Hakeem and Clyde Drexler (1994 version, not prime).

or

Robinson and Elliot

or maybe the best comparison playing style wise:

Moses and older Dr. J, circa early 80s

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

After Cousins extension, and if Gay decides not to opt out, a likely scenario, then the Kings, barring any future moves between now and then, will be hock for $68,026,204.00 in salaries, and that's without resigning Thomas. Sign Thomas for 8 mil, and you now owe $76 million in salaries. Throw in a first round and your up another 3 to 4 mil, depending on where we pick, and not were up to $80 mil in salaries and well into the luxury tax. That is a ton of money for a non playoff team, and a team so in hock, its impossible to make any other significant moves. Yeah, in the following year we'll have some salary relief in losing Thornton and Outlaw, and maybe resigning Gay to a lesser contract in the 14 mil range, but we would still be over the regular salary cap when its all said and done.

This isn't a matter of what Thomas is worth around the league, but what he's worth to us, and what were willing to pay for what he brings. So the question is, do you think Thomas is a starting PG that can lead you to a championship? Not just the playoffs, but a championship? If not, then you don't pay that much money for him. If you box yourself into a corner financially, you'd better be sure you have all your ducks in a row, because your flexibility is gone. Yes, you can always figure out a way to shed salary eventually, but why would you put yourself in that position to begin with. You never want to take steps that you'll have to undo if you can avoid it.

Regardless of whether you think Isaiah is the team's PG moving forward or not, you don't let him walk for nothing. You trade him and get some value.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Very true. I've seen some troubling hints that some posters would let IT walk if he gets too pricey of an offer. The team cannot afford to get itself in that situation. Whatever you think of Evans and IT, losing both outright over the course of two seasons would constitute a crippling talent drain for a franchise looking to make major moves forward.

 

[treach1976]

Very true. I've seen some troubling hints that some posters would let IT walk if he gets too pricey of an offer. The team cannot afford to get itself in that situation. Whatever you think of Evans and IT, losing both outright over the course of two seasons would constitute a crippling talent drain for a franchise looking to make major moves forward.

I don't agree that this is a crippling talent drain. IT is talented, but if his talent doesn't incrementally increase wins over the value of his contract (and some posters argue that we could sustain or surpass our current win level with a pass-first oriented PG) - then that money is better spent elsewhere. Get that PG for 5-7 mil and then go after the other pieces you need.

IT is such a crazy advantage right now because he costs us almost nothing. Those days are soon to be over.

 

[Glenn]

Very true. I've seen some troubling hints that some posters would let IT walk if he gets too pricey of an offer. The team cannot afford to get itself in that situation. Whatever you think of Evans and IT, losing both outright over the course of two seasons would constitute a crippling talent drain for a franchise looking to make major moves forward.

You needn't be troubled too much unless one of the posters is PDA.

 

[treach1976]

You needn't be troubled too much unless one of the posters is PDA.

let's hope he has better things to do!

 

[Padrino]

Very true. I've seen some troubling hints that some posters would let IT walk if he gets too pricey of an offer. The team cannot afford to get itself in that situation. Whatever you think of Evans and IT, losing both outright over the course of two seasons would constitute a crippling talent drain for a franchise looking to make major moves forward.

indeed. i'd pass on IT beyond $5-7 million per because i don't see a viable future for him in sacramento beyond a sixth man's role. and since it's likely that some team out there will throw more than $5-7 million at him, i think it's in the kings' best interests to trade IT before the deadline...

it's funny, in a way, that the kings have been put into a situation where they might have inadvertently priced themselves out of ultimately deciding to re-sign isaiah thomas because of how heavily he's been featured this season. the new regime swapped tyreke evans for greivis vasquez so that they wouldn't lose 'reke for nothing in free agency. then vasquez under-performed as the team's new starting PG to such a degree that isaiah thomas regularly logged more minutes than vasquez despite coming off the bench. then vasquez was traded to toronto for rudy gay, and marcus thornton and ben mclemore have played so far below expectation that thomas has become the only truly worthy guard in the rotation. his usage rate and statistical output were surely not planned events. it's a "breakout season" without question, and as a result, the kings have a tough decision to make about what to do with him now that he's a known commodity around the league...

 

[Chubbs]

I believe he has priced himself out of Sacramento with these numbers that he would only get on this team.

I wish his fans could see that but I don't think they can. Every point he scores he gets him one step closer to the door. And I don't think some of his teammates would mind that much at this point.

They HAVE to trade him somehow. Or another sign and trade type thing. Maybe something better than Vazquez this time?

 

[LPKingsFan]

I don't agree that this is a crippling talent drain. IT is talented, but if his talent doesn't incrementally increase wins over the value of his contract (and some posters argue that we could sustain or surpass our current win level with a pass-first oriented PG) - then that money is better spent elsewhere. Get that PG for 5-7 mil and then go after the other pieces you need.

You can't just "go and spend that money elsewhere" though if we're already over the cap, which I believe we will be next season (Sham, sadly, has not updated to reflect the Gay trade). Then, you're stuck hoping you can get someone with the MLE ($5.2 million this year, maybe slightly higher next year).

Edit: saw some of the other posts and, yeah, if they're not going to keep him, it's definitely time to trade him.

Edit 2: the deux ex machina out of this is if you draft Exum. Then if you're paying IT $6-7 million to be a 6th man, it's not a big deal because you have your starter locked in on a cheap rookie deal for the next few years. An unlikely scenario, though, given the team's projected W/L record at this point (Hollinger's playoff odds has them with the 11th pick now).

 

[jcwkings]

LoL at people wanting to offer 4 years 12 million or 4 years 16 Million, that is a slap to the face to a guy that has played his heart out for your franchise 3 years paying him next to nothing(by NBA standards). We aren't good enough to just start a PG that defends his position, not in the current guard dominated NBA(Denying dribble penetration is close to impossible in the modern game). It seems almost everyone in this board is stuck trying to build teams from the 90's where it was fine to have a PG that simply brought the ball up and initiated offesnse, played some defense and not much else. It's 2014 guys, dribble penetration is the key to success in the modern NBA, along with 3-pt shooting. In IT you have one of the best penetration players in the league who also shoots the 3 pt shot at over 40% and has a money midrange game. Does he have things to learn about team and time management? of course, but he is only 24 years old and was just recently given the keys to the car.

From what i read, everyone on this board wants a guy like Rubio, but we saw yesterday how bad the T-Wolves looked with a PG that gives you no threat on offense. I guarantee you if you insert IT with the T-Wolves they are well above .500. His dribble penetration and kicking out to K-Mart, running pick and roll/pop with Love would be so dangerous with both being deep threats and IT having the blazing speed to get in the open paint with Love dragging his man out.

$8 million per is more than fair for IT imo, but i seem to be in the minority(really whats the difference between Lawson and IT? IT is a better 3 pt shooter and Lawson is slightly quicker, thats it). $3 to $4 million per is a joke if I ever heard one.

 

[Bricklayer]

You can't just "go and spend that money elsewhere" though if we're already over the cap, which I believe we will be next season (Sham, sadly, has not updated to reflect the Gay trade). Then, you're stuck hoping you can get someone with the MLE ($5.2 million this year, maybe slightly higher next year).

Edit: saw some of the other posts and, yeah, if they're not going to keep him, it's definitely time to trade him.

Edit 2: the deux ex machina out of this is if you draft Exum. Then if you're paying IT $6-7 million to be a 6th man, it's not a big deal because you have your starter locked in on a cheap rookie deal for the next few years. An unlikely scenario, though, given the team's projected W/L record at this point (Hollinger's playoff odds has them with the 11th pick now).

As we move forward here I increasingly find it hard to see us risking next season as well with a rookie PG at the helm. As we've seen with Ben, it doesn't have to work out. And if it doesn't at such a critical position, then you have blown next season as well, and I fundamentally do not believe we are interested in doing that with Cousins and Gay ready to win now.

 

[bajaden]

Regardless of whether you think Isaiah is the team's PG moving forward or not, you don't let him walk for nothing. You trade him and get some value.

I never said otherwise. As in regard to the Cousins/Gay and Kobe/Shaq thing. Padrino was just making an observation that their capable of being for the Kings what Kobe/Shaq were to the Lakers. But since you appear to be one of those guys that fails to understand what were trying to say, and has to right. I'll concede that your dead right. Happy now?

 

[bajaden]

LoL at people wanting to offer 4 years 12 million or 4 years 16 Million, that is a slap to the face to a guy that has played his heart out for your franchise 3 years paying him next to nothing(by NBA standards). We aren't good enough to just start a PG that defends his position, not in the current guard dominated NBA(Denying dribble penetration is close to impossible in the modern game). It seems almost everyone in this board is stuck trying to build teams from the 90's where it was fine to have a PG that simply brought the ball up and initiated offesnse, played some defense and not much else. It's 2014 guys, dribble penetration is the key to success in the modern NBA, along with 3-pt shooting. In IT you have one of the best penetration players in the league who also shoots the 3 pt shot at over 40% and has a money midrange game. Does he have things to learn about team and time management? of course, but he is only 24 years old and was just recently given the keys to the car.

From what i read, everyone on this board wants a guy like Rubio, but we saw yesterday how bad the T-Wolves looked with a PG that gives you no threat on offense. I guarantee you if you insert IT with the T-Wolves they are well above .500. His dribble penetration and kicking out to K-Mart, running pick and roll/pop with Love would be so dangerous with both being deep threats and IT having the blazing speed to get in the open paint with Love dragging his man out.

$8 million per is more than fair for IT imo, but i seem to be in the minority(really whats the difference between Lawson and IT? IT is a better 3 pt shooter and Lawson is slightly quicker, thats it). $3 to $4 million per is a joke if I ever heard one.

I've heard a lot of names thrown around like Rondo and Lowry, but I haven't heard much about Rubio, unless its Gary (sorry). Personally, I want no part of Rubio. I thought he was overrated when he was in the draft, and he's done nothing to make me believe otherwise. He is a pass first PG, but he can't shoot a lick, and may set the all time record for the worse shooting percentage in the NBA this year.

 

[bajaden]

As we move forward here I increasingly find it hard to see us risking next season as well with a rookie PG at the helm. As we've seen with Ben, it doesn't have to work out. And if it doesn't at such a critical position, then you have blown next season as well, and I fundamentally do not believe we are interested in doing that with Cousins and Gay ready to win now.

I agree! I think they'll do everything possible to land an experienced starting PG. Doesn't mean it will happen, but I think they'll give it every effort.

 

[rainmaker]

LoL at people wanting to offer 4 years 12 million or 4 years 16 Million, that is a slap to the face to a guy that has played his heart out for your franchise 3 years paying him next to nothing(by NBA standards). We aren't good enough to just start a PG that defends his position, not in the current guard dominated NBA(Denying dribble penetration is close to impossible in the modern game). It seems almost everyone in this board is stuck trying to build teams from the 90's where it was fine to have a PG that simply brought the ball up and initiated offesnse, played some defense and not much else. It's 2014 guys, dribble penetration is the key to success in the modern NBA, along with 3-pt shooting. In IT you have one of the best penetration players in the league who also shoots the 3 pt shot at over 40% and has a money midrange game. Does he have things to learn about team and time management? of course, but he is only 24 years old and was just recently given the keys to the car.

From what i read, everyone on this board wants a guy like Rubio, but we saw yesterday how bad the T-Wolves looked with a PG that gives you no threat on offense. I guarantee you if you insert IT with the T-Wolves they are well above .500. His dribble penetration and kicking out to K-Mart, running pick and roll/pop with Love would be so dangerous with both being deep threats and IT having the blazing speed to get in the open paint with Love dragging his man out.

$8 million per is more than fair for IT imo, but i seem to be in the minority(really whats the difference between Lawson and IT? IT is a better 3 pt shooter and Lawson is slightly quicker, thats it). $3 to $4 million per is a joke if I ever heard one.

You seem to be having an extremely tough time understanding the point of view of the other side of the table.

Why is it that the crowd who comes to IT's defense repeatedly and constantly fabricates arguments while ignoring numerous points made, and basically posts replies which have little to do with the discussion?

It's getting old.

Example A, from the quoted post above: It's not about what's fair to IT or what's considered a slap in the face offer or not league wide, it's about what makes sense given the salary cap, how close we are to the luxury tax and how his salary would fit with our team. No one has said IT wouldn't be worth 8M to another team. It's about OUR team. Would it make more sense for GS to offer IT 8-10M or for Orlando to offer IT 8-10M? Obviously the answer is Orlando. Why? Bigger role, therefor he'd be more valuable to him. A player's value is different from team to team and is dependent on a number of scenarios.

Example B, also from the post above: Wanting a better defensive and less ball dominant PG DOES NOT equate to not valuing IT's ability to penetrate. If people like myself didn't value his ability to penetrate and/or score, then why exactly would we want him here as a 6th man where in that role he has the ball more and can be more aggressive, using that ability to penetrate which we apparently don't value?

I could continue but I don't there's a reason to at this point. Some can't read and/or read what they want to read.

Stop conflating issues. This is ridiculous.

 

[Bricklayer]

LoL at people wanting to offer 4 years 12 million or 4 years 16 Million, that is a slap to the face to a guy that has played his heart out for your franchise 3 years paying him next to nothing(by NBA standards). We aren't good enough to just start a PG that defends his position, not in the current guard dominated NBA(Denying dribble penetration is close to impossible in the modern game). It seems almost everyone in this board is stuck trying to build teams from the 90's where it was fine to have a PG that simply brought the ball up and initiated offesnse, played some defense and not much else. It's 2014 guys, dribble penetration is the key to success in the modern NBA, along with 3-pt shooting. In IT you have one of the best penetration players in the league who also shoots the 3 pt shot at over 40% and has a money midrange game. Does he have things to learn about team and time management? of course, but he is only 24 years old and was just recently given the keys to the car.

From what i read, everyone on this board wants a guy like Rubio, but we saw yesterday how bad the T-Wolves looked with a PG that gives you no threat on offense. I guarantee you if you insert IT with the T-Wolves they are well above .500. His dribble penetration and kicking out to K-Mart, running pick and roll/pop with Love would be so dangerous with both being deep threats and IT having the blazing speed to get in the open paint with Love dragging his man out.

$8 million per is more than fair for IT imo, but i seem to be in the minority(really whats the difference between Lawson and IT? IT is a better 3 pt shooter and Lawson is slightly quicker, thats it). $3 to $4 million per is a joke if I ever heard one.

Please, I get so tired of the I'm too young/basketball has just changed so magically lines of B.S. I hear so often anymore.

Explain to the Pacers and the Heat how how scoring penetrating PGs are the way to go.

Here are the last 6 NBA champions:

Miami (Chalmers)
Miami (Chalemers)
Dallas (Kidd)
Lakers (Fisher)
Lakers (Fisher)
Celtics (Rondo)

notice anything odd about that list if high scoring PGs are the only way to go?

Now what has happened is the NBA ****ed up the defensive rules a bit, and as a result being a selfish chucking PG is now far easier than it was at any other point in history. But that's what it is: easy. You control the ball all the time, you get to dribble to wherever you want, shoot whenever you want, easiest scoring job on the court. Its why there are so many of them. Best PG generation? Or simply a case of the rules making it possible for every even mediocre talent to go off and be a scorer?

The fact is the NBA has always been about the same thing it is about now: great players surrounded by complimentary players who know who the big dogs on the team are (and tactically its about controlling the inside on both sides of the ball). For a long time most of those great players were centers. Then as ballhandling and perimeter skills improved you go the Magics and Birds and Michaels proving that it was the greatness that mattered, not the position. We had Michael and centers in the 90s, a wave of great PFs through the late 90s/early 2000s, now most fo the special talents are SFs and PGs. But the key isn't ooh, they play this position. The key is that the only examples who have actually challenged for anything, Rose, Westbrook, are special talents. And notably, like all special talents who have challenged over the decades, they have been surrounded by teammates who complimented them, not took away from them. Thus Westbrook had Durant, and then not a ingle other player who would take away from what he did. They even benched another great talent in James Harden to keep those roles clear. Derrick Rose was the unquestioned alpha on a team full of defenders. And still those guys fall short, and I have a lingering suspicion that your great player being a great scoring PG might be the most problematic great player you can have, because having the player who brings the ball up also be your main scorer is going to inherently freeze out teammates in order for him to do his thing. And then we get to Isaiah, who is not a special player at that level. Who is one of the pack of guys putting up numbers at that position right now. And are you ever going to win a title because of him? No you're not. Now could you win a title with him along for the ride? That's a question yet to be determined. He's got talent, but will he subvert that talent for the sake of the special talent (s) on the team? That is, and has always been, the key question for elite teams.

 

[jcwkings]

Please, I get so tired of the I'm too young/basketball has just changed so magically lines of B.S. I hear so often anymore.

Explain to the Pacers and the Heat how how scoring penetrating PGs are the way to go.

Here are the last 6 NBA champions:

Miami (Chalmers)
Miami (Chalemers)
Dallas (Kidd)
Lakers (Fisher)
Lakers (Fisher)
Celtics (Rondo)

notice anything odd about that list if high scoring PGs are the only way to go?

Now what has happened is the NBA ****ed up the defensive rules a bit, and as a result being a selfish chucking PG is now far easier than it was at any other point in history. But that's what it is: easy. You control the ball all the time, you get to dribble to wherever you want, shoot whenever you want, easiest scoring job on the court. Its why there are so many of them. Best PG generation? Or simply a case of the rules making it possible for every even mediocre talent to go off and be a scorer?

The fact is the NBA has always been about the same thing it is about now: great players surrounded by complimentary players who know who the big dogs on the team are (and tactically its about controlling the inside on both sides of the ball). For a long time most of those great players were centers. Then as ballhandling and perimeter skills improved you go the Magics and Birds and Michaels proving that it was the greatness that mattered, not the position. We had Michael and centers in the 90s, a wave of great PFs through the late 90s/early 2000s, now most fo the special talents are SFs and PGs. But the key isn't ooh, they play this position. The key is that the only examples who have actually challenged for anything, Rose, Westbrook, are special talents. And notably, like all special talents who have challenged over the decades, they have been surrounded by teammates who complimented them, not took away from them. Thus Westbrook had Durant, and then not a ingle other player who would take away from what he did. They even benched another great talent in James Harden to keep those roles clear. Derrick Rose was the unquestioned alpha on a team full of defenders. And still those guys fall short, and I have a lingering suspicion that your great player being a great scoring PG might be the most problematic great player you can have, because having the player who brings the ball up also be your main scorer is going to inherently freeze out teammates in order for him to do his thing. And then we get to Isaiah, who is not a special player at that level. Who is one of the pack of guys putting up numbers at that position right now. And are you ever going to win a title because of him? No you're not. Now could you win a title with him along for the ride? That's a question yet to be determined. He's got talent, but will he subvert that talent for the sake of the special talent (s) on the team? That is, and has always been, the key question for elite teams.

Rondo is a penetrating PG who had Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Garnett in their primes and had the best defense in the league. Lebron and Wade are elite penetrators and the key to their wins were penetration and dish to guys like Miller and Battier. The Lakers are the exception, but they had one of the all time greats players and competitor in his prime in Kobe and two 7 footers in Gasol/Bynum and great role players in Ron, Fisher, Odom. You also seemed to have conveniently left out the Spurs winning 4 titles in the time since the rule changes. They happen to have Tony Parker, probably the best penetrating PG in the league, and Ginobli who also penetrates at will with his 3 pt threat and long stride. The other Champion in the Pistons broke all laws in building a championship team other than being a great defensive team. I would say penetration and kick out to shooters have played quite the hell of a role in the success of championship teams since the rule changes. We on the other hand are simply trying to be good enough to make the playoffs at some point here soon.

 

[Tetsujin]

I would re-sign IT at about 4 years 30mil if I was Pete D'Alessandro. IT is worth it and at the same time we can still look for a starting PG. Until then we do have a serviceable player in IT. IT was scoring something like 19ppg off the bench at about 28mpg which is pretty good for a bench guy. We need that kick off the bench because since IT moved to the starting lineup we have had issues with bench scoring.

My only worries was is we get a PG like Rondo then I can see Malone playing him and IT together. That would be bad to have a 6'1 and 5'9 backcourt.

That's roughly 8 million too much for a severely undersized scorer.

 

[jcwkings]

That's roughly 8 million too much for a severely undersized scorer.

So you want to offer him below the mid level exception? Is that what you're saying? To just call him and undersized scorer is an insult. Marcus Thornton is an undersized scorer and he averages 8 ppg shooting 36% from the field and 30% from 3 and averages 1.0 asssist each game. IT averages 19 ppg, 6 assists(more since being a starter), .45% from the field and .41% from the 3 and %86 from the free throw line for a guy that gets to the line at a nice clip, he is having a better shooting season than Steph Curry( who is also a "scorer", and is considered a top 3 PG atm). Also regarding him being 5'9, i can probably count on one hand how many times an opposing PG has tried to post up IT and have success, he may be short but he is built like a pitbull.

 

[Bricklayer]

Rondo is a penetrating PG who had Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Garnett in their primes and had the best defense in the league. Lebron and Wade are elite penetrators and the key to their wins were penetration and dish to guys like Miller and Battier. The Lakers are the exception, but they had one of the all time greats players and competitor in his prime in Kobe and two 7 footers in Gasol/Bynum and great role players in Ron, Fisher, Odom. You also seemed to have conveniently left out the Spurs winning 4 titles in the time since the rule changes. They happen to have Tony Parker, probably the best penetrating PG in the league, and Ginobli who also penetrates at will with his 3 pt threat and long stride. The other Champion in the Pistons broke all laws in building a championship team other than being a great defensive team. I would say penetration and kick out to shooters have played quite the hell of a role in the success of championship teams since the rule changes. We on the other hand are simply trying to be good enough to make the playoffs at some point here soon.

No, you've changed your argument considerably at the point Rondo makes it in, and are getting closer, but you're still a little off.

First minor point: no, the Spurs haven't won 4 titles since the rules change. 2 or 3., and Parker was just a roleplayer in the first one he won.

Larger point, the key is, and always has been, to get into that lane. To win that middle. The lesson learned DECADES ago, was that it did NOT matter how you did that. Didn't have to be a big center if you could do it with a slashing guard or forward instead. And because of that, what your PG looks like is NOT relevant so long as SOMEBODY on the team is winning that interior battle. Could be a PG. But doesn't have to be. Could be a SF, or a PF, or in our case a center. But once you have a center, and now a SF with post game too...well we are covered. That does NOT mean that oh, we don't want a penetrating guard -- that was why you anti-Reke people were so stupid. He plays the game PRECISELY the way that top teams have always played it. win the middle. But the fact is that we have the middle attack set up now. So while a penetrating guard could be nifty...especially if he for instance actually penetrated to set up teammates rather than himself, its not a necessity. On the offensive side of the court, we can and will attack the middle for years to come. We have Cousin, we have Gay, soon we will have Landry. We're rapidly shifting to an anti-Petrie team, and good riddance Geoff.

So ITs game is in no way a necessity for this team going forward. If he works out stylewise as a complement, if the $$ work out, then cool. But this everybody needs a high scoring penetrating/chucking PG because its a new era thing is just primitive thinking. Its no more advanced than 60s thinking when everybody thought they had to have a dominant center in order to be good. Same sort of artificial limited understanding missing the larger "dominate the paint through WHATEVER means" underlying truth.


there is BTW another side of the court that is a larger issue. And that is one that gets critical for us. The idea is to win the paint on BOTH sides of the ball. And while our two main guys can be solid defenders at the C and SF going forward, neither is going to be the sort of impact defender who is going to give us defensive victory in the paint. Hence the rampant need for a shotblocker to anchor us in there, and the considerable concern about starting IT as a 3rd non defensive oriented player.

P.S. I am not actually someone advocating MLE or bust with Isaiah. We are going to have to pay some PG more than that unless we truly do go the Indiana/Miami route, in which case we likely need to dump Ben and get a reliable 3rd option I there at SG. And Isaiah is a talent. The question is he a talent that fits? And no, his game is not a universal fit for anything. Its an open question here.

 

[Toasty]

IT is such an interesting player partly because the pg position isn't that deep. He isn't a true pg I suppose but we also don't have enough scoring without him.

He is just good enough to make you questions every thing you do. Malone seems to really like him though.