What to do with Thornton?

ESP47 said:
If there was an SF available who was the 2nd best player in the draft, then I much rather would have had him. The fact is that there was no player like that so there's no use in complaining about it. You guys want role players to "stay out of the way" rather than potential big numbers stars. Who are the role players going to stay out of the way from? Thornton chucking up shots? Tyreke missing open jumpers? Cousins not finishing under the basket? We don't have some superstar like Wade, Lebron or Durant that can command the ball and have everyone stand back and role play off them.
Click to expand...

The fundamental difference in opinion here comes from people who DO think that the Kings have their stars. That Cousins, Tyreke and in some cases Thornton are a legitimate contending core and the rest of the roster should be built around them.

The flip side of that line of thought is the one that says the Kings are a terrible team and have been for a while with the duo of Tyreke and Cousins have only led this team to wins 30% of the time the last two years. And that being the case, there's no reason to build around them so much as continue to add talent in any way you can to a bad team.

People with the first mindset don't understand people with the second mindset and vice versa.
 
IfAt1st said:
The Kings main problem the past 3 years has been their lack of scoring (in fact, their entire offense falls apart) whenever the defense ratchets up the pressure.
Click to expand...

FALSE the kings finished 6TH in PPG last season but 30th in PTS allowed. DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE.
 
The Kings are a bad team. Bad offensively and bad defensively. Yes, they finished 6th in PPG but they were not a good offensive team. And Mike Fratello's Cav's ranked at the top of opponent's PPG but they weren't a good defensive team. The Kings pushed the pace and the Cavs slowed it down which is why those raw statistics are so misleading.
 
upinsmoke said:
FALSE the kings finished 6TH in PPG last season but 30th in PTS allowed. DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE.
Click to expand...
Good general point, though it only addresses overall point output from last year (ignoring the previous 2 years) and forgets how the close games were lost last year.

Do you remember, whenever the games got close the Kings invariably crumbled against the pressure defenses?
Just because they gave up a lot of points, and therefore were able to score a lot of points the other way, doesn't mean their offense can reliably win in the NBA....

In other words, those were "fool's points" last year - not a good indicator of the actual team offensive strength.
 
funkykingston said:
The fundamental difference in opinion here comes from people who DO think that the Kings have their stars. That Cousins, Tyreke and in some cases Thornton are a legitimate contending core and the rest of the roster should be built around them.

The flip side of that line of thought is the one that says the Kings are a terrible team and have been for a while with the duo of Tyreke and Cousins have only led this team to wins 30% of the time the last two years. And that being the case, there's no reason to build around them so much as continue to add talent in any way you can to a bad team.

People with the first mindset don't understand people with the second mindset and vice versa.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. It's easy to kind of fall in love with good players on a bad team because they are all you've got. You don't realize how silly it is until they're gone and you replace them with someone better.

We don't have a single stand out offensive player on this team. Thornton is too streaky, Tyreke is too one dimensional and Cousins isn't efficient at all. If a guy like TRob can come in and take shots from them and make them at a higher percentage, then that's a great thing for the team. TRob scoring inside helps Cousins shoot less and take higher percentage shots. It helps free up Thornton for more open shots. It takes the load off of Tyreke by giving him another weapon to pass to instead of forcing a shot up.

upinsmoke, you need to remember that we had a high PPG because our defense was so bad. We give up points quickly and easily, therefore we score more points because we have more possesions. We are near the bottom of the league in FG%, 3PT% and FT%. We can't get the ball to go in the hoop, yet we score a lot because we get a bazillion possessions a game. It's like a crappy version of Nellie ball. Regardless of how good our D is, we're still going to struggle because we can't score efficiently. Our offense is crap right now and our defense is as well. We picked TRob because his offense far outweighed anyone elses defense we could have chosen at the 5th spot.

Early in the year we werent scoring any points but we were holding opponents to 85-95 points on a consistant basis. That's because we were slowing the game down. Once IT came in and we started running, all the sudden we were scoring 100+ every game and giving up 110. The offense and defense sucked all year but the counting stats were higher because both teams were getting more possessions.
 
Last edited:
I dont understand is why Thornton gets knocked so much? He's a clutch player with a better FG% than D. Rose, Kobe, M. Ellis, J. Terry just to name a few under a very fair contract and players like Maxwell, Jwill, Bibby, Bjax are fan favorites. I think his demeanor might have something to do with it but IMO he's the perfect 6th man for a team like us and hope he gets a chance to shine in the playoffs one day soon so silence his critics.
 
Cousins is the first option at this point. Evans and Robinson are options 2 and 3. It doesn't make sense to have another 20 point scorer in the starting lineup. Those other two spots need to go to glue guys. I like Terrence Williams as the other guard with Robinson in the lineup. He's a good physical defender, thinks pass-first, and doesn't need a lot of shots. He's Thabo Sefalosha to Tyreke's Westbrook and he might come with a comparative price tag ($3-4 million average salary). Which just leaves a hole at SF for a defensive specialist and/or spot-up shooter.

That doesn't mean we have to trade Thornton and IT though. Both would be great luxuries to have off the bench. Thornton is an instant offense type of guard. He can score from anywhere and he has an aggressive mentality. In the starting lineup his attitude was sometimes at odds with the team offense but bring him in off the bench to jump start the second unit and he can have the green light to fire away while Cousins and/or Robinson get some rest. And Thomas is an ideal backup PG to a guy like Tyreke because he's going to hit the accelerator as soon as he gets in the game and throw the other team off balance.
 
I don't think MT will accept coming off the bench. But if he did, then there's the salary issue where we're paying him close to 8M to come off the bench. Maybe not unreasonable, until you consider our apparent top objective going forward is resigning JT, who'll be a bench player and probably have to match on a 6M+ per year offer. In that scenario, we're paying MT/JT a combined 14M+, and we still haven't solved the need of a starting SF or 3rd big shotblocker behind TRob/Cuz. Then, you add to that Chuck's contract of 5.8M next year, as a 4th big, and we're paying our bench trio of MT/JT/Chuck a combined 19.8M, and we still haven't solved the SF/defensive 3rd big issue.

We need to stop wasting craploads of money on bench players who don't solve pertinent issues, while not forking over money to solve the said pertinent issues. Why we could very possible ending up spending 19.8M on MT/JT/Chuck to come off the bench and not instead throw 9-10M at an AK or GW to stabalize our starting lineup and plug a huge hole in our defense is beyond me. People need to start thinking about how we allocate our money. Why do I get the feeling we will end paying that trio about 20M, not even taking into account Salmons/Outlaw on the bench, which would mean those five bench players are being payed a combined ~30M!, and then turn around and say offering a legit SF 8-10M would be a waste.
 
Last edited:
rainmaker said:
I don't think MT will accept coming off the bench. But if he did, then there's the salary issue where we're paying him close to 8M to come off the bench. Maybe not unreasonable, until you consider our apparent top objective going forward is resigning JT, who'll be a bench player and probably have to match on a 6M+ per year offer. In that scenario, we're paying MT/JT a combined 14M+, and we still haven't solved the need of a starting SF or 3rd big shotblocker behind TRob/Cuz. Then, you add to that Chuck's contract of 5.8M next year, as a 4th big, and we're paying our bench trio of MT/JT/Chuck a combined 19.8M, and we still haven't solved the SF/defensive 3rd big issue.

We need to stop wasting craploads of money on bench players who don't solve pertinent issues, while not forking over money to solve the said pertinent issues. Why we could very possible ending up spending 19.8M on MT/JT/Chuck to come off the bench and not instead throw 9-10M at an AK or GW to stabalize our starting lineup and plug a huge hole in our defense is beyond me. People need to start thinking about how we allocate our money. Why do I get the feeling we will end paying that trio about 20M, not even taking into account Salmons/Outlaw on the bench, and then turn around and say offering a legit SF 8-10M would be a waste.
Click to expand...

Well crap. I guess the spurs are just SOL by paying Manu $13 mil a year to come off the bench.

And the Mavs never won a title with Terry making $11 mil off the bench.
 
Section 101 said:
See the edit.
Click to expand...

Read my post. I'm not talking about paying one bench player who's a borderline All Star to play 6th man. I'm talking about 30M going to our bench and not solving our glaring issues. Does SA have a huge defense hole? Do they have a huge problem with protecting the rim? Or did that all just fly over your head?

With Terry the Mavs didn't have defensive holes, nor a problem with shotblocking. Do you seriously not understand the obvious?
 
rainmaker said:
I don't think MT will accept coming off the bench. But if he did, then there's the salary issue where we're paying him close to 8M to come off the bench. Maybe not unreasonable, until you consider our apparent top objective going forward is resigning JT, who'll be a bench player and probably have to match on a 6M+ per year offer. In that scenario, we're paying MT/JT a combined 14M+, and we still haven't solved the need of a starting SF or 3rd big shotblocker behind TRob/Cuz. Then, you add to that Chuck's contract of 5.8M next year, as a 4th big, and we're paying our bench trio of MT/JT/Chuck a combined 19.8M, and we still haven't solved the SF/defensive 3rd big issue.

We need to stop wasting craploads of money on bench players who don't solve pertinent issues, while not forking over money to solve the said pertinent issues. Why we could very possible ending up spending 19.8M on MT/JT/Chuck to come off the bench and not instead throw 9-10M at an AK or GW to stabalize our starting lineup and plug a huge hole in our defense is beyond me. People need to start thinking about how we allocate our money. Why do I get the feeling we will end paying that trio about 20M, not even taking into account Salmons/Outlaw on the bench, which would mean those five bench players are being payed a combined ~30M!, and then turn around and say offering a legit SF 8-10M would be a waste.
Click to expand...
Well, in this scenario Thompson or theoretical(for this team mythical is more correct word) shot-blocking big is your 7th player and MT is your 6th. You can probably get away with paying your 4th and 5th starter less money than these 2 guys.
 
MT is expendable, because as great as he is and as fair as his contract is, you can find lots of scoring guards who are nearly as good.
Getting lucky with IT means he can fit that bench role to a T for much cheaper. And the volume scoring isn't near the need any more with a front line that will demand shots.

Moving MT for a 3 would also allow Tyreke (and Salmons/Garcia) to spend more time at the 2.
 
What to do with Thornton? Well, I have thought that I want Evans to start somewhere, he and Thornton have shown no ability to play well togher, the Thornton temperment doesn't appear compatible with coming off the bench, we would be better served if we found another team for Marcus, and getting value for him.

How do we do this? A trade but that's easier said than done. Good luck, Petrie, and do mean luck.
 
rainmaker said:
I don't think MT will accept coming off the bench. But if he did, then there's the salary issue where we're paying him close to 8M to come off the bench. Maybe not unreasonable, until you consider our apparent top objective going forward is resigning JT, who'll be a bench player and probably have to match on a 6M+ per year offer. In that scenario, we're paying MT/JT a combined 14M+, and we still haven't solved the need of a starting SF or 3rd big shotblocker behind TRob/Cuz. Then, you add to that Chuck's contract of 5.8M next year, as a 4th big, and we're paying our bench trio of MT/JT/Chuck a combined 19.8M, and we still haven't solved the SF/defensive 3rd big issue.

We need to stop wasting craploads of money on bench players who don't solve pertinent issues, while not forking over money to solve the said pertinent issues. Why we could very possible ending up spending 19.8M on MT/JT/Chuck to come off the bench and not instead throw 9-10M at an AK or GW to stabalize our starting lineup and plug a huge hole in our defense is beyond me. People need to start thinking about how we allocate our money. Why do I get the feeling we will end paying that trio about 20M, not even taking into account Salmons/Outlaw on the bench, which would mean those five bench players are being payed a combined ~30M!, and then turn around and say offering a legit SF 8-10M would be a waste.
Click to expand...
Completely spot-on.

The amount of salary that's wasted on non-starters on this team is atrocious.
Which is why I tried to spotlight before last season, "Who on this team is a bona-fide NBA starter" - not All-Star, but a serious threat on the court when crunch time comes in a game.
And this team is still in the same position it was before last season - paying too much for people who shouldn't be on the court in crunchtime.
They need to step up and pay reliable, clutch vets what they deserve. You don't get clutch vets on the cheap (at least not in Sacramento, and certainly not after losing this badly, this long). They keep trying the cheapo route, and it's not working, and now the bench is stocked with cheaper vets who just aren't competitive in the NBA.

If they'd just done what other winning teams have done (get pricey, solid vets), they wouldn't be in this mess.
They screwed up so badly last offseason, I just don't see any way around it - they destroyed their ability to pay for competitive vets by stocking up on long-term contracts for schlubs.

Salmons, Hayes, Outlaw - and seriously, will Cisco's contract EVER end?!
 
If you can move MT for a starting caliber defender you almost have to do it.

Starters:
Reke/Salmons/DEFENSE/Trob/Cuz
Strong enough lineup where you can get by without shotblocking, for now.

2nd unit:
Jimmer/Twill/Hayes/JT
The backcourt compliments each other well, and ideally Hayes is moved for a shot blocker, but good offense/defense combos.

Back of rotation:
Garcia/Honeycutt/Outlaw/Whiteside
Then you got a couple young projects, and a couple role players who you can plug in for injuries.

Depending on the quality of the new SF and how Trob/Jimmer develops, that can get to 500 and sniff a playoff spot. Then once they mature, you can add another scorer and shotblocker and really contend depending on how good Reke and Cuz become.

Moving MT also makes adding a veteran PG more feasible.
 
DesertFox said:
If you can move MT for a starting caliber defender you almost have to do it.

Starters:
Reke/Salmons/DEFENSE/Trob/Cuz
Strong enough lineup where you can get by without shotblocking, for now.

2nd unit:
Jimmer/Twill/Hayes/JT
The backcourt compliments each other well, and ideally Hayes is moved for a shot blocker, but good offense/defense combos.

Back of rotation:
Garcia/Honeycutt/Outlaw/Whiteside
Then you got a couple young projects, and a couple role players who you can plug in for injuries.

Depending on the quality of the new SF and how Trob/Jimmer develops, that can get to 500 and sniff a playoff spot. Then once they mature, you can add another scorer and shotblocker and really contend depending on how good Reke and Cuz become.

Moving MT also makes adding a veteran PG more feasible.
Click to expand...

I like this. As much as I love Thornton's clutchness, he's one of our only trade pieces and could be moved for someone who fills a bigger need. He's a player suited for the 6th man role. If he doesn't accept that then he's going to be bouncing from team to team or spend the rest of his career pouting. Offensively him and Reke aren't good together. Defensively, he and IT are atrocious. Unless he comes off the bench as our gunner, he doesn't really have a solid place on this team. I'd be all for packaging him for a solid defensive SF who can hit a 3 from time to time.
 
upinsmoke said:
He's our best game closer why in the world would we trade him? Bring him off the bench as a 6th man and use T-Rob as trade bait along with hayes, jimmer or Garcia to to make the numbers work and bring in a legit SF, Re-sign JT & T-Will, off-season done.
Click to expand...

1. Members name is perfect reaction to members thread above.
2. Marcus has proved his value as a 3-pt scorer and is good 2-guard, off bench or with Tyreke.
3. Until we know what Kings really have from Outlaw or Honeycutt we shouldn't rush into trades for a 3.
4. Unless of course one pops up that can't be refused for a starting 3.
5. Robinson will be a star and may be the perfect match with Cuz.

IT
Tyreke
Outlaw then maybe Honeycutt
JT then Robinson
Cuz
 
Question: Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Outlaw? Hmmm, let me think. I'd say yes.. Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Hayes? Hmmm, once again, let me think. Once again, I think I'd have to say yes. Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Salmons? Now this one might be a little tougher. You know what, all things consdered, I'd have to say yes. Now this last one is a toughy. Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Thornton? Well, he didn't score as much, but he grabbed more rebounds. I think on this one, I'd give the edge to MT.

So because we already have Hayes, Salmons, and Outlaw, we should let a player walk, that has more value than any of them. Strikes me, that what should be done, is get rid of one of some of them, not JT. Or am I being illogical. This guy is good, but because we already have three players we don't like, lets not sign this player we do like. Its not JT's fault that the other three don't fit here. JT is the perfect big off the bench. He can play both center and PF. He's still very young. He was the most efficient scorer on the team last season. He's always in top shape, and seldom gets injured. You probably get more money's worth per minute of hustle from him than just about every other player on the team.

In other words, its apples and oranges. The fact that some bad additions were made, doesn't have anything to do with JT. He's a good addition. He's the consumate team player. And I think you'll find out that Robinson is bred of the same cloth. He's also an unselfish team player. These are the kind of guys we need more of. If Thornton is a team player, then he'll be fine going to the bench to the 6th man role. And if he's not OK with that, then trade him for someone that is. I have no patience for players that are all about themselves. And personally, I think MT would be fine with coming off the bench. Hell, he'll still get his minutes, so whats the difference. Never know, he might even win the 6th man award when we win our championship. Gotta think big!
 
bajaden said:
Question: Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Outlaw? Hmmm, let me think. I'd say yes.. Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Hayes? Hmmm, once again, let me think. Once again, I think I'd have to say yes. Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Salmons? Now this one might be a little tougher. You know what, all things consdered, I'd have to say yes. Now this last one is a toughy. Was JT more valuable to this team last year than Thornton? Well, he didn't score as much, but he grabbed more rebounds. I think on this one, I'd give the edge to MT.

So because we already have Hayes, Salmons, and Outlaw, we should let a player walk, that has more value than any of them. Strikes me, that what should be done, is get rid of one of some of them, not JT. Or am I being illogical. This guy is good, but because we already have three players we don't like, lets not sign this player we do like. Its not JT's fault that the other three don't fit here. JT is the perfect big off the bench. He can play both center and PF. He's still very young. He was the most efficient scorer on the team last season. He's always in top shape, and seldom gets injured. You probably get more money's worth per minute of hustle from him than just about every other player on the team.

In other words, its apples and oranges. The fact that some bad additions were made, doesn't have anything to do with JT. He's a good addition. He's the consumate team player. And I think you'll find out that Robinson is bred of the same cloth. He's also an unselfish team player. These are the kind of guys we need more of. If Thornton is a team player, then he'll be fine going to the bench to the 6th man role. And if he's not OK with that, then trade him for someone that is. I have no patience for players that are all about themselves. And personally, I think MT would be fine with coming off the bench. Hell, he'll still get his minutes, so whats the difference. Never know, he might even win the 6th man award when we win our championship. Gotta think big!
Click to expand...

Great post Bajaden! I've been saying this for quite some time now...start Tyreke at his more natural SG spot, amd bring Thornton off the bench for instant offense, alla Vinny Johnson, Jason Terry and James Harden.
 
Ideally I'd like Evans at PG and Thorton at SG to just work and bring IT and T-Will off the bench. If push came to shove though and I was forced to trade either Reke or Thorton for a SF, I would probably rather trade Tyreke...not because I think Tyreke sucks, or is never going to get better, or that Thorton is more valuable to the team. In fact the reason i would rather trade Reke is just that.... because he is more valuable and would garner a higher return in a trade.

I would rather sport a lineup of

I.T.
Thorton
Gay/Iggy/Josh Smith/Luol Deng caliber player
Jason/TRob
Cousins

than a lineup of

I.T.
Tyreke
Dorell Wright/Kawhi Leanord/Marvin Williams caliber player
Jason/TRob
Cousins
 
Would have loved to have gotten Jeffery Taylor. He'd have fit perfectly for us at SF. Excellent defender, very good spot up shooter, high character and doesn't demand shots. I really wish we'd traded for another pick to get him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spike
What Do The Kings Mean to You?
Replies
6
Views
464
Siranthony
S
J
When Do We Blow It Up?
13 14 15
Replies
436
Views
19K
Joshyjosh31
J
AaronPDX
More Tank Talk! Plus, What is a Wing? (split from the [Game] thread}
2 3
Replies
80
Views
3K
serbiangoat
S
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
“THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
6K
The_Jamal
T
MizzouKing
Brook Lopez?
Replies
10
Views
889
The_Jamal
T
Back
Top