What to do with Isaiah Thomas?

[Darth Divac]

As you all know, this is one of the most intriguing questions about our current roster. As it stands, he isn't the PG we need. He scores too much, and passes too little. Could he remain the starter if he improves his court vision/facilitating ability? Is his destiny to be a Bobby Jackson-type spark off the Bench? Is he nothing more than a trade asset? Post your thoughts below.

 

[rekehavoc73186]

i think he can most definitely be a starter in the league. He has the leadership you need at PG, he can stretch the floor with his shooting, he has great ball handling, and can get to the rim and finish. If we can get a great coach to mentor him and tell him to be a passer first then we have our PG of the future. His height isnt that much of a disadvantage unless he's guarding westbrook or rose and he's shown he his tough to post up.

 

[pshn80]

To be a hairpin, he's good enough to continue starting for us until we get a better one. If we did get abetter one, Thomas would be great back up. He might turn out to be too expensive to keep as a back up.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

he can be valuable off the bench in the future

 

[Spike]

His stock is as about as high as it's going to get. If we can fill a position of need with a trade, I'd say go for it. If not, then he'll ultimately be great off the bench.

 

[Padrino]

pretty simple, really, and i've been saying it all season long: bring in a steady starting caliber PG who can move the ball swiftly, hit spot-up jumpshots, play passable defense, and generally stay out of the way, turn marcus thornton into trade bait, and shift isaiah thomas to a more suitable 6th man role...

 

[Padrino]

To be a hairpin, he's good enough to continue starting for us until we get a better one. If we did get abetter one, Thomas would be great back up. He might turn out to be too expensive to keep as a back up.

unlikely. marcus thornton may turn out to be too expensive to keep as a back up, but thomas isn't going to command much more than a nate robinson's journeyman salary...

 

[upinsmoke]

Depends on what the new management thinks of reke... if they put him on the ball or if they think MT and Evans can co exist together with proper coaching ect ect.

 

[gunks]

pretty simple, really, and i've been saying it all season long: bring in a steady starting caliber PG who can move the ball swiftly, hit spot-up jumpshots, play passable defense, and generally stay out of the way, turn marcus thornton into trade bait, and shift isaiah thomas to a more suitable 6th man role...

This (hopefully).

We just need a PG who plays well with Reke (that sure is hell isnt IT), and I've been on the trade MT bandwagon for awhile now...He has value, and is a terrible fit, so thats a no-brainer. As much as I dislike IT as a starter, I think he could be our next B-Jax off the bench. If he can accept that role, he could one day be in the running for a SMOTY award.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

jj barea type role. how many 5'7 starting PG are there in the league?

 

[DesertFox]

jj barea type role. how many 5'7 starting PG are there in the league?

It's not a huge deal, but people keep exaggerating IT's height, for good and bad reasons.

Tyreke is 6-4, 6-5.25 with shoes, and is listed 6-6.
IT is 5-9, 5-10.5 with shoes (which would be 5-11 for most NBA players) , but is listed 5-9.

 

[Chupacabra]

It's not a huge deal, but people keep exaggerating IT's height, for good and bad reasons.

Tyreke is 6-4, 6-5.25 with shoes, and is listed 6-6.
IT is 5-9, 5-10.5 with shoes (which would be 5-11 for most NBA players) , but is listed 5-9.

Unfortunately, theres no hidden agenda behind me knowing without a shred of doubt that IT is closer to 5'7 than 5'9.

 

[HndsmCelt]

The problem is that on a BAD team He can start but any team with him starting will never get good. He shoots too much and does not seem to be the play maker or general a good team need. He can however be a Bobby Jackson type back up and make a HUGE impact on a good team from the bench.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

The problem is that on a BAD team He can start but any team with him starting will never get good. He shoots too much and does not seem to be the play maker or general a good team need.

While you could end up being right about IT -- nobody knows yet for certain -- I can give you one example where you could be wrong about him. Ty Lawson.

Sure, Ty Lawson is a better player than IT right now. Nobody would argue that. Lawson has played twice as many games as Thomas and is further along in his development. He also plays with a better supporting cast.

Beyond that, there are reasonable comparison's to be made between the two.

Lawson isn't much bigger than Thomas and is also considered a very small PG. Like Thomas, Lawson is also a shoot first PG. In fact, his career numbers reflect that he actually takes more shots than IT given similar playing time. Lawson does own better career shooting percentages. But if you look at this current season (where IT has been given more of a starting role), their 2pt and 3pt shooting numbers are eerily similar. While Lawson is averaging 3 more APG this season, IT's assist numbers are comparable to what Lawson was doing his first 2 seasons in the league.

My point? Give IT a bit more time to prove/disprove himself. Just because he's small doesn't mean he can't get it done. Ty Lawson is the prime example demonstrating just that.

In his 2nd season, Lawson averaged 11.7ppg, 4.7 apg, 50% 2-pt, all while playing with a much more talented roster (Denver won 50 that season). Comparatively, IT is averaging 13.8ppg, 3.9 apg, 45% 2-pt, 36% 3-pt during his 2nd season, while on a team that may not win 30 games.

In summary, I'm not saying that IT is going to develop to the same level Lawson is at now. However, I am saying that their first 2 seasons are not only very comparable, but that Lawson's size and shoot first mentality hasn't prevented him from starting and playing an important role on a successful 50+win team.

 

[Padrino]

It's not a huge deal, but people keep exaggerating IT's height, for good and bad reasons.

Tyreke is 6-4, 6-5.25 with shoes, and is listed 6-6.
IT is 5-9, 5-10.5 with shoes (which would be 5-11 for most NBA players) , but is listed 5-9.

height is important when you're playing with trees, but it's only half of the story. size, rather than height, paints a more accurate picture of the problem, and IT is undersized in every sense of the word at the nba level. this really can't be exaggerated. it's just fact. he's small. there isn't a starting PG in the league who can't shoot over him, but beyond that, his lack of size makes it more difficult for him to fight through screens. this is often why opposing penetration occurs so quickly in the shot clock, because isaiah's been caught on a pick, and when you're also weak defensively in the paint, you can't have matador defense coming from anywhere in your backcourt. i mean, there's a reason that the kings are dead last in points allowed per game. but don't misunderstand me. isaiah thomas is not the kings' biggest problem (usual suspects: maloofs, geoff petrie, keith smart). however, he is a component of a larger problem that chooses to ignore the kings' defensive weaknesses, as well as an offensive hierarchy in which the development of superior physical talents are at detriment...

these problems are, of course, only exacerbated by the fact that keith smart's defensive philosophy encourages the reach-in and asks that his players cheat off open shooters, but ultimately, you have to make decisions based on the level of competition across the league, and, across the league, PG's are not getting smaller. i've asked on numerous occasions for someone who believes IT is a starting caliber PG to provide me with a contemporary nba precedent in which a truly diminutive PG has found success as a starter, or has even been utilized as a starter in a long term capacity. the fact of the matter is that the nate robinson's of the league are journeymen, at best, because most every team apart from the sacramento kings respects the fact that height, size, and general physical aptitude matter in the contemporary nba. IT has footspeed going for him, and an outsized, never-quit napolean complex that drives his competitive spirit. these positive qualities will undoubtedly keep him in the league, though likely as a backup...

 

[spudfan]

Are you saying you would want Ty Lawson to be our starting point guard, or a player of his caliber? And you want that type of player to be next to Tyreke and Cousins? What ifs/comparisons aside, I wouldn't want Lawson next to Reke/Cousins over a point guard like Chalmers who knows his place and rarely tries to do too much. Cousins and Tyreke have a strong enough passing ability that they don't need a point guard to be holding the ball all the time and they certainly don't need a player who often shoots more shots than them. They need a guy who can play for the team and isn't a liability on defense.

 

[Padrino]

While you could end up being right about IT -- nobody knows yet for certain -- I can give you one example where you could be wrong about him. Ty Lawson.

Sure, Ty Lawson is a better player than IT right now. Nobody would argue that. Lawson has played twice as many games as Thomas and is further along in his development. He also plays with a better supporting cast.

Beyond that, there are reasonable comparison's to be made between the two.

Lawson isn't much bigger than Thomas and is also considered a very small PG. Like Thomas, Lawson is also a shoot first PG. In fact, his career numbers reflect that he actually takes more shots than IT given similar playing time. Lawson does own better career shooting percentages. But if you look at this current season (where IT has been given more of a starting role), their 2pt and 3pt shooting numbers are eerily similar. While Lawson is averaging 3 more APG this season, IT's assist numbers are comparable to what Lawson was doing his first 2 seasons in the league.

My point? Give IT a bit more time to prove/disprove himself. Just because he's small doesn't mean he can't get it done. Ty Lawson is the prime example demonstrating just that.

In his 2nd season, Lawson averaged 11.7ppg, 4.7 apg, 50% 2-pt, all while playing with a much more talented roster (Denver won 50 that season). Comparatively, IT is averaging 13.8ppg, 3.9 apg, 45% 2-pt, 36% 3-pt during his 2nd season, while on a team that may not win 30 games.

In summary, I'm not saying that IT is going to develop to the same level Lawson is at now. However, I am saying that their first 2 seasons are not only very comparable, but that Lawson's size and shoot first mentality hasn't prevented him from starting and playing an important role on a successful 50+win team.

lawson is certainly small for a PG, but he's still a couple of inches taller and 10 pounds heavier than isaiah thomas. and, believe it or not, it makes a difference. in a professional sport, every inch, every pound, every step, every breath can mean the difference between winning and losing. if vlade divac drops his smoking habit long enough to be in the kind of shape necessary to secure an important late game rebound in an important western conference finals series against the lakers, rather than tipping the ball haphazardly to an open three-point shooter on the other team, the kings might have an nba champion banner hanging in the rafters (and i say this with nothing but love for vlade). the point is, there's a reason you don't see diminutive PG's like thomas starting in the contemporary nba. unless they are of superior talent and athleticism, like ty lawson, it just makes more sense to bring such a player off the bench, where their size might be less of a concern when going up against the league's best...

 

[spudfan]

height is important when you're playing with trees, but it's only half of the story. size, rather than height, paints a more accurate picture of the problem, and IT is undersized in every sense of the word at the nba level. this really can't be exaggerated. it's just fact. he's small. there isn't a starting PG in the league who can't shoot over him, but beyond that, his lack of size makes it more difficult for him to fight through screens. this is often why opposing penetration occurs so quickly in the shot clock, because isaiah's been caught on a pick, and when you're also weak defensively in the paint, you can't have matador defense coming from anywhere in your backcourt. i mean, there's a reason that the kings are dead last in points allowed per game. but don't misunderstand me. isaiah thomas is not the kings' biggest problem (usual suspects: maloofs, geoff petrie, keith smart). however, he is a component of a larger problem that chooses to ignore the kings' defensive weaknesses, as well as an offensive hierarchy in which the development of superior physical talents are at detriment...

these problems are, of course, only exacerbated by the fact that keith smart's defensive philosophy encourages the reach-in and asks that his players cheat off open shooters, but ultimately, you have to make decisions based on the level of competition across the league, and, across the league, PG's . i've asked on numerous occasions for someone who believes IT is a starting caliber PG to provide me with a contemporary nba precedent in which a truly diminutive PG has found success as a starter, or has even been utilized as a starter in a long term capacity. the fact of the matter is that the nate robinson's of the league are journeymen, at best, because most every team apart from the sacramento kings respects the fact that height, size, and general physical aptitude matter in the contemporary nba. IT has footspeed going for him, and an outsized, never-quit napolean complex that drives his competitive spirit. these positive qualities will undoubtedly keep him in the league, though likely as a backup...

This bolded part drives me a little bonkers from time to time. Most people who argue for IT hold a misconception that we hate him, think he is a worthless player, and is the main reason we are struggling... which isn't an argument I can say I have seen on here. At least we get great posts, many from you which help explain this away

 

[Agent23]

While you could end up being right about IT -- nobody knows yet for certain -- I can give you one example where you could be wrong about him. Ty Lawson.

Sure, Ty Lawson is a better player than IT right now. Nobody would argue that. Lawson has played twice as many games as Thomas and is further along in his development. He also plays with a better supporting cast.

Beyond that, there are reasonable comparison's to be made between the two.

Lawson isn't much bigger than Thomas and is also considered a very small PG. Like Thomas, Lawson is also a shoot first PG. In fact, his career numbers reflect that he actually takes more shots than IT given similar playing time. Lawson does own better career shooting percentages. But if you look at this current season (where IT has been given more of a starting role), their 2pt and 3pt shooting numbers are eerily similar. While Lawson is averaging 3 more APG this season, IT's assist numbers are comparable to what Lawson was doing his first 2 seasons in the league.

My point? Give IT a bit more time to prove/disprove himself. Just because he's small doesn't mean he can't get it done. Ty Lawson is the prime example demonstrating just that.

In his 2nd season, Lawson averaged 11.7ppg, 4.7 apg, 50% 2-pt, all while playing with a much more talented roster (Denver won 50 that season). Comparatively, IT is averaging 13.8ppg, 3.9 apg, 45% 2-pt, 36% 3-pt during his 2nd season, while on a team that may not win 30 games.

In summary, I'm not saying that IT is going to develop to the same level Lawson is at now. However, I am saying that their first 2 seasons are not only very comparable, but that Lawson's size and shoot first mentality hasn't prevented him from starting and playing an important role on a successful 50+win team.

Yea, let the team invest alot of time in developing the last pick of the draft instead of worrying about the development of their ELITE prospects in Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins. The fact is, the development of Isaiah Thomas doesn't make or break this team. The development of Evans and Cousins makes or breaks this team. You build around star players not role players. Isaiah Thomas is a role player.

 

[Padrino]

This bolded part drives me a little bonkers from time to time. Most people who argue for IT hold a misconception that we hate him, think he is a worthless player, and is the main reason we are struggling... which isn't an argument I can say I have seen on here. At least we get great posts, many from you which help explain this away

indeed. IT is but a small link in a chain of problems, but those problems are all connected, and when you're at the bottom of the league in damn near all major defensive categories, you have to commit to fixing the problems if you are serious about making a push for the playoffs in the near future. for eight more games, IT can happily remain a starter. i take no issue with that. the season's lost, and there's not much sense in attempting to shake things up so late in the game. but the kings need a long term solution at the starting PG position, and it's really not that hard to find a serviceable role player who can fill that gap. we had one not too long ago. his name was beno udrih, and while he was also a problem, defensively, at least he provided a steady, veteran, and, perhaps most importantly, complementary presence to tyreke evans in the backcourt. he knew how to run an offense, effectively moved the ball, picked his spots, and hit open jumpers (his midrange game is spectacularly underrated), while letting tyreke carve up the paint...

there's a reason bobby jackson wasn't the starter in sacramento, and he wasn't even undersized for his position. mike bibby was just a steadier presence, and bobby jackson acted as lightning in a bottle off the bench. his style of play was conducive to a 6th man role, as is isaiah thomas'. i'm not on some sorta anti-IT crusade. i like the kid well enough. he's certainly a good locker room presence, and he's equipped to serve a particular role on this team. i just happen to think that, similar to how tyreke was played out of position as a SF, isaiah thomas is being misused as a starting PG. i believe in putting your team in a position to succeed, and that means finding balance in your rotation. finding the next beno udrih to start at PG, shipping out marcus thornton as trade bait (potentially to acquire a starting caliber SF), and shifting isaiah thomas into a 6th man role would go a looooooooong way towards balancing the rotation. again, as with bobby jackson in sacramento, there's a reason that, say, gregg popovich often favors bringing manu ginobili off the bench in san antonio. sometimes it's better for the team. isaiah thomas is not the big fish in the kings' pond. they won't succeed if they treat him as if he is, or if he starts to believe that he is. as constructed, demarcus cousins and tyreke evans are the big fish, and if it is the intention of the new owners to see how far they can get with those two unique talents, it makes so much more sense to pursue an offseason plan that eventually sees thomas moved back into a reserve role...

 

[rainmaker]

Ty Lawson would not work as well here as he does in Den. That's the thing and what some in the IT crowd don't get, we don't need a shoot first PG and volume scorer next to Reke/Cuz, even if his scoring numbers and %'s look good.

The other aspect is Den has a roster where a scoring PG makes sense. They've got defenders in the lineup as well as better off the ball, catch and shoot players like Gallo(until yesterday unfortunately).

This is the same mistake our FO makes. Hey, IT is scoring well so he must be great. Brooks can score well so he must fit great. Jimmer scored well in college so he must fit great. MT is a pure scorer so he must fit great. Salmons is best as a 1v1 player and can score so he must fit great. It's not about the freakin scoring, it's about roles and fit. There's a reason OKC doesn't add a ball dominant scoring SG next to Westbrook. There's a reason Chi doesn't have a ball dominant scorer next to Rose. There's a reason Mia doesn't have a shoot first PG. There's a reason there isn't a ball dominant SG next to CP3. Or a ball dominant SG next to Parker. There's a reason why Lin/Harden are surrounded by defensive role players or off the ball shooters. There's a reason GS ditched Monta and went with Curry/Klay, as Klay excels off the ball while Monta needed it. And, bringing it back to Lawson, there's a reason Den doesn't have a ball dominant SG next to him. Other aspect is the players next to Lawson excel with him. They fit. They don't all need the ball. Here, Reke/Cuz do not excel next to IT. It's usually either/or.

It's not IT's talent, skill level or scoring ability which is the issue, it's the role he's attempting to fill. Then we get to the defensive issues as well. He has 6th man written all over him.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Padrino,

the difference in size between Lawson and Thomas is negligible. It really is. Lawson's extra weight may help him a bit defensively, but Thomas' jumping ability and quickness off his feet helps him overcome the little height difference. He gets his shot off quickly and gets such good elevation on his drives to the hoop that you don't see his shot blocked all that often.


Rainmaker,

I think you've misunderstood my point. I was simply pointing out how flawed the statement was that IT's size and shoot first mentality would prevent him from being a starting guard on a good team. Lawson is able to do it, regardless of how the team is constructed. Whether Lawson could succeed on this Kings team is an altogether different discussion.

 

[Spike]

Wow.

 

[Bricklayer]

Halftime:

5'9" PG = 11FGA + 1Ast

what to do with that indeed

 

[Sac.1989]

id love to bring him off the bench

 

[HereWeBoogie]

TRADE HIM. Nate Robinson 2.0

sometimes his box scores look good but he doesnt help the team.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

TRADE HIM. Nate Robinson 2.0

sometimes his box scores look good but he doesnt help the team.

jay jay barea 5'7 scorer. package him with thornton and get a SF

 

[Padrino]

Padrino,

the difference in size between Lawson and Thomas is negligible. It really is. Lawson's extra weight may help him a bit defensively, but Thomas' jumping ability and quickness off his feet helps him overcome the little height difference. He gets his shot off quickly and gets such good elevation on his drives to the hoop that you don't see his shot blocked all that often.


Rainmaker,

I think you've misunderstood my point. I was simply pointing out how flawed the statement was that IT's size and shoot first mentality would prevent him from being a starting guard on a good team. Lawson is able to do it, regardless of how the team is constructed. Whether Lawson could succeed on this Kings team is an altogether different discussion.

no, it's not negligible. if it was, thomas wouldn't be the defensive liability that he is. he gets caught on screens. he gets posted up. he gets shot over. these are realities that he and the team he belongs to will always have to deal with. basketball is a game of inches and pounds. failing to see that is to fail as the kings front office has failed for years, bringing in tweener after tweener, undersized big after undersized big, etc. the result? bottom of the barrel defense every. single. season. the stats don't lie, friend. isaiah thomas has utility as an off-the-bench scorer, but his size truly is a problem, whether an unfortunate swath of kings fans want to believe it or not...

 

[Kingster]

Start him. Play him on average 30 minutes a game. Play him when the game is on the line. The guy is a winner. He just needs more and experience and coaching to become one of the better pgs in the league.

 

[KingMilz]

jay jay barea 5'7 scorer. package him with thornton and get a SF

Comparing IT to Barea is a disgrace imo, Barea helped a team win a title ripping apart teams like Miami/OKC and is a far better passer than IT and impacts games a lot more to.