Kingsfan23
All-Star
Any different ideas on this? Towards the end of the season Ty showed some things as a starter. I guess it depends on price for me. Who can be signed for the cheapest as a fill in for the pick
Which PG should Kings keep for next year? (revisited)
- Thread starter Kingsfan23
- Start date
Kingz19
Hall of Famer
Lawson. Still figures to be cheap and not seeking long term offers to boost his value more. He played well but I'm not sure he restored his image around the league.
Good continuity for the kids and probably makes the game easier for them more so than Collison via being a better playmaker.
I like Darren Collison. No complaints about his tenure here but he is going to get a multi year MLE or better from a team that's further along to be a rotation player. Returning doesn't make sense for him or the team. Lawson does.
Good continuity for the kids and probably makes the game easier for them more so than Collison via being a better playmaker.
I like Darren Collison. No complaints about his tenure here but he is going to get a multi year MLE or better from a team that's further along to be a rotation player. Returning doesn't make sense for him or the team. Lawson does.
Last edited:
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I really don't know the answer to the question. At some point, the Kings are probably going to groom a young point guard of the future. It may be in this draft that they get one. In thinking about a veteran point guard, my main consideration would be who would be the best teacher for the young point guard. I don't know enough about either Collison or Lawson to know the answer to that question. Maybe neither?
ockingsfan
Starter
I think Lawson is the better playmaker, Collison the better shooter.
I think for the Kids development, we need the better playmaker at PG, until the rookie PG gets ready.
If Lawson stays out of trouble, I would bring back Lawson on something like the MLE 3 year contract.
Last edited:
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Lawson is the better playmaker. But as you imply, he has had "trouble," and as an ordinary fan, it's hard to know whether you want to take a risk on him going forward.
We have a great tandem in Collison and Lawson. Keep 'em. Priority in draft or other signing is SF to develop behind Gay. Otherwise BPA. Second round a PG could be a good pickup. When you have good quality personnel on the payroll you don't dump them for a chance on a rookie 13th grader.
allrightythen
Starter
I said Collison just cause he's the safe choice. I could see several different scenarios play out where we kept both or none though. If we draft a PG with a lottery pick we probably just keep one. We could move up and target someone specific (SF or PG) which could lead to keeping one or both of them. They may have another free agent PG in mind or a trade target. As is I would say keep Collison. Lawson's off court issues are troubling and we're not sure how much more he'll have to deal with. It may be over in which case I wouldn't mind him back, but right now I'm taking DC and hopefully a lottery PG.
I like both players, but if it comes down to drafting a PG and wanting only one of the two as a vet influence, I'll go Ty.
I like his comeback story and would enjoy a player that see's Sac as more than just a place to revitalize his career.
I also like his game and game history as he was considered one of the more accomplished floor generals not that long ago.
I like his comeback story and would enjoy a player that see's Sac as more than just a place to revitalize his career.
I also like his game and game history as he was considered one of the more accomplished floor generals not that long ago.
Blob
Starter
King Baller
All-Star
I hear Teams can keep 18 guys on the roster for 1017/2018. So I chose Darren, Ty and Langston.
Where are you hearing that? According to Larry Coon, the maximum roster size is 15 (20 during the off-season before final cuts are made).
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
lOl I am thinking 3 either 1 kid and 2 vets or 2 vets and a kid.Are you sure this is going to be enough PGs?!
c-webb1s#1
Starter
On one hand I really thin we're still going to need collisons scoring ability. On the other hand though I feel like Lawson just simply fits in better with our youngsters. Collison is not a good play maker by any means. He's always looking for his own shot, and rightfully so...thats why he's in this league still. I feel like Lawson wouldn't mind starting or coming off the bench. So if we draft a rookie PG he could have all the room to grow as he needs. Lawson would also be a better mentor.
I definitely feel like we need to keep one of the two though. We should have vets that each player at their position can learn from. Loading up on young talent is fine imo, but it could create a hectic product on the court. Look at the sixers, their young guys play like chickens with their heads cut off because their "vets" are just as equally inept.
I want to see Lawson, Temple, Tolliver, and maybe Koufos back next season. I'm not sure where Rudy fits in all of this. He could be immensely valuable though in helping keep the ship upright. His game would fit perfectly with our other rooks and youngsters.
I definitely feel like we need to keep one of the two though. We should have vets that each player at their position can learn from. Loading up on young talent is fine imo, but it could create a hectic product on the court. Look at the sixers, their young guys play like chickens with their heads cut off because their "vets" are just as equally inept.
I want to see Lawson, Temple, Tolliver, and maybe Koufos back next season. I'm not sure where Rudy fits in all of this. He could be immensely valuable though in helping keep the ship upright. His game would fit perfectly with our other rooks and youngsters.
Last edited:
King Baller
All-Star
OK, maybe it is 17
Here is a link to an article--> http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/12/14/13198978/nba-cba-new-details-changes-differences-lockout
Here is an excerpt:
The introduction of two-way contracts will help the D-League grow
Teams will be able to develop two players in the D-League on two-way contracts, a big step forward in the road towards setting up a true minor league, per the Vertical’s Adrian Wojnarowski. This change will increase the maximum roster size to 17.
The new rule will allow franchises to keep control of prospects they intend to develop while making sure the players get a bump in salary when they contribute to the parent team. In addition, their D-League salaries are getting a boost.
Currently, top-rated Development League players make $26,000, with the lower-tiered guys netting $19,000. But D-League salaries for players on two-way contracts are expected to more than double into the $50,000-to-$75,000 range, per ESPN’s Marc Stein, making the league more competitive with overseas salaries.
Gay is a complete question-mark healthwise. It'll be a marvel if he can make it back to 90% of his former play.
Sac.1989
Starter
has Lawson truly turned a corner with his off court discrepancies ? If character matters and all that then you have to look at this twice.
Anyway personally im signing him up and using his off court discrepancies to get the better deal if possible because in this market someone will pay him
Anyway personally im signing him up and using his off court discrepancies to get the better deal if possible because in this market someone will pay him
I'm leaning towards none but that's also because I'm hoping we draft a PG with one of our picks. It doesn't make sense to use a top pick on a PG and then bury them for multiple years in the depth chart. It also doesn't make sense to throw them to the wolves before they're ready so we would need a veteran stopgap, but I don't think that stopgap veteran needs to be either Lawson or Collison. At least not to the point where I'd bid against multiple suitors for their services. If Collison wants to come back and the price is reasonable (not much more than he made this year) I'd lean that way because he's been here for 3 years and keeping some continuity isn't a bad idea. I expect he'll get a bigger contract than that though and might want a better chance to win toward the end of his career.
There's a certain frame of mind where you could say that maybe rebuilding our image into more of a player-friendly franchise is more important than on-court product right now so we need to make sure we do right by these guys. I don't know that we owe Lawson a lot, we gave him a shot to rebuild his value and he's going to use that to get the best long-term deal he can if there's interest out there. Collison though is pretty firmly part of the Kings family already so he should get some special consideration. Let him know he's got a guaranteed spot here for 'X' amount for 3 years and he's welcome to seek out a bigger deal elsewhere if he decides that's better for his family. I also think Isaiah Cousins deserves a legit shot at making the team as the third option PG after playing well in the D-League all year, especially now that we have his college teammate Buddy here.
So...
I'm still leaning no on both but it's a soft no. If there aren't any better options that emerge, I'd be fine with bringing one or both of them back.
There's a certain frame of mind where you could say that maybe rebuilding our image into more of a player-friendly franchise is more important than on-court product right now so we need to make sure we do right by these guys. I don't know that we owe Lawson a lot, we gave him a shot to rebuild his value and he's going to use that to get the best long-term deal he can if there's interest out there. Collison though is pretty firmly part of the Kings family already so he should get some special consideration. Let him know he's got a guaranteed spot here for 'X' amount for 3 years and he's welcome to seek out a bigger deal elsewhere if he decides that's better for his family. I also think Isaiah Cousins deserves a legit shot at making the team as the third option PG after playing well in the D-League all year, especially now that we have his college teammate Buddy here.
So...
I'm still leaning no on both but it's a soft no. If there aren't any better options that emerge, I'd be fine with bringing one or both of them back.
Suicide King
Starter
lwc
Starter
I'm there too. If we draft a top 4-5 PG then we bring back only one of them. However, it is tough to get talent to Sacramento, so I would probably retain any talent that can be acquired on a reasonable deal.
The real difficulty is neither of them is good enough defensively to step over to the 2 for them to play together in the backup rotation.
parker
Bench
From my understanding, money shouldn't be a problem for the Kings next year. They are going to have a roster full of young guys and likely won't be bringing in high priced free agents, so if they need to pay a little extra to bring back Collison or Lawson, that should not factor in their decision.
Last edited:
Section 101
All-Star
He still has a court date and could have his probation revoked.
Suicide King
Starter
Regarding Lawson if anything they would likely extend probation, not revoke. Thats if the discrepancies he is accused of prove true. If not they likely release him from his probation.
It's not the money I'm concerned about really, it's making a substantial commitment to players we don't need. The core group now are the 4 rookies. We need a SF and a PG and my preference would be to get them through the draft and let the young group play together and build chemistry as a unit almost like a college team. Collison I wouldn't mind having back in a mentorship role but I wouldn't pay him starters money or give him a 4 year deal because that's locking us into another veteran who will probably be a negative value in the future. Short-term deals for role-player player/coach type guys and playing the kids all the minutes they can handle is what I want to see. I'd make an exception for a stopgap PG so whichever kid we draft can be brought along slowly and get their feet wet in the D-League first like we did with the rookies this year. (We already have more than enough wings to cover SF without signing a stopgap vet there.) But like I said before I don't think that PG needs to be Collison or Lawson. If it makes sense to bring them back for a few years and they accept that their role will be slowly phased out, cool.
Frankly I'm just sick and tired of rewriting the roster every year. Our goal shouldn't be to find patches for next season it should be to find key players to build around for the next decade. Ideally players who are going to work hard on defense and help to transform the identity of the team into the blue collar type of unit Joerger has been successful with before. Start them young and then keep them together. Everything else is secondary to that. That's my take anyway. There's a respectful way to convey this to our free agents and let them make the decision themselves whether they want to be a part of building that culture even if it means deferring playing time to the young guys or they want a chance to compete sooner with a club that's not starting over like we are.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
@hrdboild, I feel you on this and more or less agree that building for stability is important, but giving Collision or even Lawson a heavily front-loaded contract for 3 years with a player option on year 3 could be a nice way to provide stability, mentoring and also put the team in position to move on to a replacement as soon as a new recruit is ready while avoiding the same disaster of hurrying him into the starting line up.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
