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

Bricklayer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm just of the opinion that this team is not good enough to just get scoring from 2 positions(Gay and Cousins), we need a 3rd scorer, and right now IT more than fits the bill and does it at a pretty high efficiency for a guy that gets his shots from all over the court(paint, midrange, 3pt). We are trying to build a team that can contend for the playoffs, once you are there, then you can evaluate if IT is indeed the right fit, or if we need something else to take the next step(being a team that goes deep in the playoffs). This franchise did this years ago when they traded J-Will for Bibby. A small market team like us has no business letting a talent like IT walk, and with such a cheap contract you will have to package half your roster with him to truly upgrade this season(Rondo would be the only true upgrade imo). I'm guessing because of his size he will have to take a slight paycut. I compare him to Lawson and he got $10 million per year, so if you can get IT from $7-$8 million per year, its more than fair. Most importantly we know this guy is a true pro that plays his heart out every night, he will earn his paycheck. We can't say the same if we bring someone in from the outside. Who knows maybe down the line you do plug IT back in as the 6th man like a Ginobli and get a backup who plays defense and spots up as your 20 min a game starter at a lower price.

We almost made the mistake of letting Evans walk for nothing, but thankfully we got Vasquez out of it, who we then packaged with garbage to get Rudy. IT imo has more value than Tyreke around the league because teams know he will not demand the huge contract that his numbers would say he deserves.
 
Last edited:
treach1976 said:
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.
Click to expand...

me first chuckers are dime a dozen. it's not going to be difficult to find a replacement. his talent isn't "special". he scores with 2 bigger talents distracting the defense which frees him up to roam around.

the team will be crippled with another overvalued contract like MT. guy goes bananas in his contract year and they overspend. now we cannot give him away with that contract size.

the focus should be finding talent that will support demarcus & rudy(if he's part of the future).
 
jcwkings said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marcus Thornton is undersized in that he is a minivan amongst trucks. IT is undersized in the way that he is a pinto going against big rigs
 
Big Cuz 15 said:
me first chuckers are dime a dozen. it's not going to be difficult to find a replacement. his talent isn't "special". he scores with 2 bigger talents distracting the defense which frees him up to roam around.

the team will be crippled with another overvalued contract like MT. guy goes bananas in his contract year and they overspend. now we cannot give him away with that contract size.

the focus should be finding talent that will support demarcus & rudy(if he's part of the future).
Click to expand...

The term chucker would imply a guy that takes an absurd amount of shots at a low shooting percentage. Currently there are 3 starting PG's in the NBA that shoot a higher percentage from 3, Lillard, Calderon and Deron Williams(smaller sample size). He also shoots a more than respectable .45% from the field, especially for a PG. Also IT gets most of his points off the dribble, he will get some spot 3's(especially in transition), but the majority of his shots in the half court come from running pick and rolls and penetrating.
 
Tetsujin said:
Marcus Thornton is undersized in that he is a minivan amongst trucks. IT is undersized in the way that he is a pinto going against big rigs
Click to expand...

Only in height, name me an opposing PG that has backed IT down and "had his way" with him. I can't think of one in his two and a half seasons here. IT may be short, but he is actually stronger than a good amount of PG's in the league.
 
jcwkings said:
Only in height, name me an opposing PG that has backed IT down and "had his way" with him. I can't think of one in his two and a half seasons here. IT may be short, but he is actually stronger than a good amount of PG's in the league.
Click to expand...
No, He isn't.
 
Big Cuz 15 said:
i'm amused he put IT and Ginobili in the same sentence. over pay IT then find a defensive player next to him so they can hide his deficiencies.
Click to expand...

Ginobli isn't a 6th man? A guy that comes in and infuses(d) some energy and scoring to the game? You know the same thing IT was doing early in the season when our starters buried us.
 
jcwkings said:
I love one word posts on a forum, where discussion, debate and differing opinions are encouraged, great contribution.
Click to expand...
That's amusing, coming from one of the guys here who keeps fabricating one argument after another and isn't sincere in his attempt to actually have a debate.
 
jcwkings said:
The term chucker would imply a guy that takes an absurd amount of shots at a low shooting percentage. Currently there are 3 starting PG's in the NBA that shoot a higher percentage from 3, Lillard, Calderon and Deron Williams(smaller sample size). He also shoots a more than respectable .45% from the field, especially for a PG. Also IT gets most of his points off the dribble, he will get some spot 3's(especially in transition), but the majority of his shots in the half court come from running pick and rolls and penetrating.
Click to expand...

a chucker is someone who takes a lot of shots. would you agree that he is a me-first lead guard? i seen his stats. i think hes a great player; just not at 7-8m. he has shortcomings. pun intended. he does 1 thing well and that is score. does our team lack that? no, we have 2 players that can create offense for themselves and others. his specialty is replaceable.
 
jcwkings said:
The term chucker would imply a guy that takes an absurd amount of shots at a low shooting percentage. Currently there are 3 starting PG's in the NBA that shoot a higher percentage from 3, Lillard, Calderon and Deron Williams(smaller sample size). He also shoots a more than respectable .45% from the field, especially for a PG. Also IT gets most of his points off the dribble, he will get some spot 3's(especially in transition), but the majority of his shots in the half court come from running pick and rolls and penetrating.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but if that doesn't tell you that the stat is overrated, I don't know what the hell will (And, by the way, thanks for letting me know that the Belgian is no longer considered a starting point guard). Any statistic which so much as implies that Isaiah Thomas is better at anything at the point guard position than the likes of Chris Paul, Mike Conley or Stephen Curry is a statistic that isn't worth the electrons that were used to compile it.
 
If Carl Landry got 6.5mil I can't see Thomas getting any less I rather pay Thomas 6.5 than Landry tbh but I would prefer to pay no more than 4/5mil for each. Plus Thomas is still fairly young and can get somewhat better in other areas of basketball.
 
LPKingsFan said:
Well, I don't remember his defense but the 5-10 Avery Johnson played some major minutes for the early Popovich Spurs. And Nate Robinson was drafted by Larry Brown, and was 6th man for the offense-only Thibs in Chicago last year.
Click to expand...


Nate Robinson also has incredible athleticism for his height something of which IT incredibly lacks. Nate Robinson has also accepted the fact that he will remain a bench player for the rest of his career.

Avery was 5'11 not 5'10 which is a whole 2 inches taller than IT.
Albeit, Popovich also surrounded him with all-star caliber players and they also had two of the best rim protectors the NBA will ever know. HUGE difference compared to our squad with no rim protectors and to add to that Popovich oriented his defense to be more zone because again he had two post defenders so it also benefited Avery a lot when his man would dribble around him like a ballerina. He was quite the hustle and bustle type though.

So, yeah....
 
The reality is that IT is extremely cocky in his abilities and thinks that he is worth more than he is. That's the major problem here.... He's going to ask for 10 million. We won't be able to afford that nor will we want to for a 6th man caliber type of player so we will send him on his way before the trade deadline.
 
andremiller07 said:
If Carl Landry got 6.5mil I can't see Thomas getting any less I rather pay Thomas 6.5 than Landry tbh but I would prefer to pay no more than 4/5mil for each.
Click to expand...
I find the idea of basing how much a player gets paid on what some other jackass is making to be stupid and wrong. That's how player salaries got so out of control in the first ****ing place.

I think that what a player gets paid by a team should be based on what his skills are worth to that team, not based on what some other clown is getting paid. Do I think that what Thomas does is worth > $6.5M/yr to the Sacramento Kings? I'm not sure, it depends on his role. Would I pay it, if it were my money? Probably not.
 
jcwkings said:
The term chucker would imply a guy that takes an absurd amount of shots at a low shooting percentage. Currently there are 3 starting PG's in the NBA that shoot a higher percentage from 3, Lillard, Calderon and Deron Williams(smaller sample size). He also shoots a more than respectable .45% from the field, especially for a PG. Also IT gets most of his points off the dribble, he will get some spot 3's(especially in transition), but the majority of his shots in the half court come from running pick and rolls and penetrating.
Click to expand...

Go start a ball club and take IT with you
 
Spike said:
So is IT a half court player or is he a run and gun up tempo guy?
Click to expand...

He can function in both, pick and roll in the half court, penetrating, shooting 3's taking the midrange shot. Or in the open court push the pace with his speed.
Big Cuz 15 said:
a chucker is someone who takes a lot of shots. would you agree that he is a me-first lead guard? i seen his stats. i think hes a great player; just not at 7-8m. he has shortcomings. pun intended. he does 1 thing well and that is score. does our team lack that? no, we have 2 players that can create offense for themselves and others. his specialty is replaceable.
Click to expand...

Yes I would agree with that, but so are Westbrook, Rose, Holiday, Lawson, Curry, Lillard, Parker, Dragic, Bledsoe, Deron Williams, Wall, Lowry aka just about every quality starting PG in the league sans Paul, Rondo, Conley.

To say he only does one thing well and that is score is so vague and wrong. He shoots the 3 as well as just about any other starting PG in the league other than Curry and Lillard, and Calderon as a spot shooter. He penetrates on par with most of the guards mentioned above. His midrange game is better than most starting PG's. He provides leadership and energy, plays tough and relishes the 4th quarter(except that one time against the T-Wolves). He is a pest on defense when he wants to be(most of the above PG's aren't considered good defenders but have good to great to elite rim protectors to make up for it, we have JT and Cuz). Yes Gay and Cousins can get their own shots, but no one else on this roster can consistently create dribble penetration and get to the teeth of the defense like IT, on this roster he is the only guy that can do that on a consistent basis. He is a "threat" to score from anywhere on the court, that opens things up for Cuz and Gay, and vice versa all around.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
I find the idea of basing how much a player gets paid on what some other jackass is making to be stupid and wrong. That's how player salaries got so out of control in the first ****ing place.

I think that what a player gets paid by a team should be based on what his skills are worth to that team, not based on what some other clown is getting paid. Do I think that what Thomas does is worth > $6.5M/yr to the Sacramento Kings? I'm not sure, it depends on his role. Would I pay it, if it were my money? Probably not.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

People forget that the only reason Thornton has such a fat contract is because he played for the Kings when there was no Gay and a subpar Cousins who was still finding himself. There was no D-Will coming off the bench (or starting) and making the team better. Thornton averaged a crazy amount of shots for the Kings. His numbers were inflated and he was high on confidence. As soon as he got his contract, he didn't care any more and was exposed by the opposing squads for the weakling and subpar player that he is. Hence why his next contract will be minimal and he will probably be another one of those bankrupt stories that we often hear about from athletes in the US.
 
jcwkings said:
Only in height, name me an opposing PG that has backed IT down and "had his way" with him. I can't think of one in his two and a half seasons here. IT may be short, but he is actually stronger than a good amount of PG's in the league.
Click to expand...

There are other ways to take advantage of IT's height than posting up on him. That said, CP3 consistently would post IT up despite the fact he's one of the shortest PGs in the league. The main thing that IT's lack of height does is it makes it incredibly difficult for him to contest shots, especially when he half-asses it on the defensive end for all 38 minutes he's in the game.

IT being strong is great and all but it's not helping him stay in front of his man as the dude blows by for a straight up layup.
 
IT is having a great stats year no doubt, his numbers look great and he is obviously playing for that big contract next year. I find him amusing especially at the end games, remember before we got a good second player in Gay and it was Cuz and IT and we were really bad because IT the chucker was the second option and most nights he neglected Cuz and was the first remember those days, I remember those nights when he had the opportunity to inflate his stats because we were bad and he had his late game barrage when we were down 20 and they stopped playing but he started to and got his and remember when you watch a game and it is over and he has maybe 14 points and he has to score that last bucket just to get his points for his stats. IT is selfish always has always will be and that is fine yes he can score 20 but he also gives up 20+ on defense so what is he doing for us, and not counting all the assists the point guards get against him because he is always for the most part is getting beat on defense. Good stats mean nothing I would state this play Jimmer 30 minutes a game and give him 17 shots a game and I would say he would avg 19 as well so what do stats really mean right
 
Tetsujin said:
There are other ways to take advantage of IT's height than posting up on him. That said, CP3 consistently would post IT up despite the fact he's one of the shortest PGs in the league. The main thing that IT's lack of height does is it makes it incredibly difficult for him to contest shots, especially when he half-asses it on the defensive end for all 38 minutes he's in the game.

IT being strong is great and all but it's not helping him stay in front of his man as the dude blows by for a straight up layup.
Click to expand...

Dude there is no such thing as a guy that can keep an opposing guard from penetrating consitently, and certainly not one that makes the offensive contributions of someone like IT. We need a rim protector next to Cousins and good ratations on defense. Driving by someone and getting an easy layup is more a testament of bad team defense rather than IT being a terrible defender(and I'm not saying he is good, but he isn't as bad as some think when he tries to dial in, i have seen more commitment on that end since the team meeting).
 
jcwkings said:
He can function in both, pick and roll in the half court, penetrating, shooting 3's taking the midrange shot. Or in the open court push the pace with his speed.


Yes I would agree with that, but so are Westbrook, Rose, Holiday, Lawson, Curry, Lillard, Parker, Dragic, Bledsoe, Deron Williams, Wall, Lowry aka just about every quality starting PG in the league sans Paul, Rondo, Conley.
.
Click to expand...

Those players you listed that are also me first are the best players on their teams or at worst #2 option. I think the point trying to be pushed is we have #1 and #2. Thomas is #3 and #3 should not be going selfish mode leaving out 1&2 especially in crunch times. Not to mention he is the pg. if he were off the ball and didn't dictate when and where the play starts it wouldn't be that bad. Which is why most here are happy with him off the bench. #3 could be a PF or a sg but not a pg looking for a pay day. Our 1&2 need a defensive pass first pg or at least one the knows his place not one trying to define his place in the league.
 
jcwkings said:
Dude there is no such thing as a guy that can keep an opposing guard from penetrating consitently, and certainly not one that makes the offensive contributions of someone like IT. We need a rim protector next to Cousins and good ratations on defense. Driving by someone and getting an easy layup is more a testament of bad team defense rather than IT being a terrible defender(and I'm not saying he is good, but he isn't as bad as some think when he tries to dial in, i have seen more commitment on that end since the team meeting).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this isn't your kid's rec league soccer team. IT's not going to get a trophy for simply trying a little harder. No one is arguing that the team's defense is perfect sans IT. What we're saying is that IT has obvious physical limitations/ effort issues that make his defensive ceiling significantly lower than just about anyone else in the entire league.

We'd be making the same sort of argument about a big point guard who's too slow to guard anyone. In fact, we did with Greivis on our team.
 
this is quite immature of me, but i must admit that it feels nice to be on the other side of the argument after defending tyreke evans tooth and nail for four years. good luck, IT jockers!!

:p

note: i still would prefer to retain thomas' services as a cost effective sixth man, but i don't see that happening, at this point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
BDL's Most Interesting Power Rankings: The Cavs send a new message (Ball Don't Lie)
Replies
0
Views
429
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Y
Grading the 2014 NBA draft (Ball Don't Lie)
Replies
0
Views
507
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Back
Top