Who Would You Want for Gay?

[ockingsfan]

I wonder if Coach Joeger sees Rudy as a Sixth Man candidate and has told him accordingly, thus Rudy wanting to be traded.

With Joeger wanting to go defensive in his moves, maybe if Rudy is not traded, he may be moved to Sixth Man and either Caspi or Barnes would start at Small Forward.

This could explain why Rudy seems to want to be moved, even though he would have a clean slate with a coach who he is familiar with.

 

[The_Jamal]

At this point I don't think your gonna get anything better for Rudy. Might as well keep him on the team and hope we win which might change his mood. Defense can be contagious and I think if everyone is buying in and playing hard so will Rudy.
The team as it is just doesnt have enough offense for when DMC goes to the bench. What will we do if he gets injured?!
Vlade isn't going to trade him for anything that doesn't make us better and I just don't see any team giving up more to get Rudy. Odds are we are going to go into the season with Rudy unless he is packaged with Ben and KK for a GOOD player.

As is pointed out every single game Boogie misses, our team record the last 3 seasons is like 7-30 or something like that. So this really isn't an argument as he doesn't move the needle or step up his game when we need him to

 

[twslam07]

Well, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if somebody thinks my posts are "weak and vulnerable." His track record suggests that the teams he has played for usually end up better after he's gone (more so in Toronto). I've been around basketball my entire life and I go by feel a lot. I just don't think that Rudy helps a team much. Individually, he has some great qualities but it doesn't translate to winning basketball.

Again, that is the lazy approach for someone who doesn't actually want to take the time to understand what actually happened.

Gay's time in Toronto gets blown way out of proportion. I honestly can't remember another time where I have seen so many people misunderstand Gay's journey. I'm going to try and settle once and for all the common statements I hear about Gay.

FALSE STATEMENT #1: Gay is an inefficient chucker

During his time in Toronto, Gay was asked to be a #1 option. This is what he produced:

35.0 MPG / .297 USG% / .497 TS% / 17.6 FGA / .411 FG% / 3.7 3PA / .347 3PT% / 4.5 FTA / .824 FT% / 19.5 PPG / 6.8 RPG / 2.6 APG / 1.7 SPG / 0.9 BPG / 3.0 TOPG

Gay is not a #1 option. That is horrible efficiency. If your #1 scorer has a 30% usage with a TS% below 50%, you are not going to be very successful as a team. The Gay as a #1 option was attempted and failed. Now just because he failed as a #1 scorer, DOES NOT mean he doesn't have value as a secondary scorer. Ever since he has come to Sacramento, he has found a role that fits him. As a secondary scorer, he has become much, much more efficient due to defenses focusing their attention elsewhere which allows Gay to face more favorable match-ups at a more frequent rate. During his 3 seasons with us, this is what he has produced:

34.6 MPG / .252 USG% / .553 TS% / 15.4 FGA / .465 FG% / 3.0 3PA / .342 3PT% / 4.9 FTA / .830 FT% / 19.4 PPG / 6.0 RPG / 2.8 APG / 1.2 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 2.5 TOPG

So his usage dropped by 4.5%, his FGA dropped by 2.o a game, & he is a secondary scorer. So what do we see now? His TS% shot up by 5.6% to a very solid 55.3% (league average is 54% and this number is usually inflated due to role-players who take nothing but high percentage looks) while still averaging essentially the same amount of points per game that he did in Toronto! Not to mention his Assist/Turnover ratio shot up from 0.88 to 1.11 which is very respectable. In fact, the list of SFs who averaged over 19.3 PPG, over a 55.2% TS%, & over a 1.10 A/T Ratio are LeBron, Durant, Leonard, George, Hayward, & Gallinari. That is not bad company to be in at all.

In fact, his numbers & effectiveness during his tenure here were impacted due to Karl's ineptitude. As most of us know, Gay had a down year last year. A lot of that had to do with how Karl was using him (some of it was lack of effort but I understand the frustrations that come along when a coach is misusing both him and his teammates). In his first two seasons with the Kings, Gay played 90% of his minutes at SF (his best position statistically) whereas this past season he saw that number drop to 75% while seeing more time as a smallball PF. As some of you may have noticed, Gay tends to struggle against length. Gay has never been one to completely burn by his man and score at the rim. He usually makes a little move to get his man off balance/create separation and then shoots over him. When he's matched up with bigger players, it makes it more difficult for him to shoot over them because of that length. Gay is at his best when he can take utilize his length advantage. Karl hindered that somewhat by playing him more at PF. I think it's one of the reasons the team does better with him playing SF (Off Rating: 107.1 / Def Rating: 106.0 / Net Rating: +1.1) rather than PF (Off Rating: 104.1 / Def Rating: 114.9 / Net Rating: -10.8). Not to mention he's more fit to defend SFs vs. PFs.

So again, if we discount last year's numbers due to the misuse of Gay, he has been even better for us:

35.0 MPG / .268 USG% / .561 TS% / 15.9 FGA / .467 FG% / 2.9 3PA / .341 3PT% / 5.6 FTA / .848 FT% / 20.6 PPG / 5.7 RPG / 3.4 APG / 1.1 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 2.8 TOPG

TS% went up another 0.8% despite usage being 1.6%, and his AST/TO Ratio went up from 1.11 to 1.20.

To wrap things up, yes, Gay is a very inefficient #1 option. He proved that in Toronto and has proved that here to an extent (.526 TS% in games when Cousins doesn't play). However, he is a very solid secondary option who can score at an above average efficiency while maintaining a high volume of shots.


FALSE STATEMENT #2: Gay makes teams worse and teams improve after he leaves

Although this is a popular belief, this is also false. Gay has been in some unfortunate circumstances that make it seem like he is bringing a team down when in fact it's the roster balance & chemistry that is bringing the team down.

Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day. To the casual fan or the "lazy" fan, someone would look at that and say "wow, Gay was really holding them back. He must have a negative effect on winning." But when you actually deep dive into it, you discover that wasn't the case.

Gay was not the problem in Toronto. The problem was roster balance. Their starting lineup was Lowry/DeRozan/Gay/Johnson/Valanciunas. Lowry/DeRozan/Gay is not a balanced nor complementary perimeter by any means. I don't think anyone can argue that point. Every single one of those players needs the ball in their hands to be effective. And you're really looking at 3 players who naturally settle in between 25%-30% usage. You don't see many successful teams have that type of makeup especially when they are just okay at stretching the floor. If you remove one of their ball dominant players from the lineup, it instantly balances out the team. Replacing Gay with Ross gives them a guy who can defer to Lowry & DeRozan, a guy who can spread the floor, and a guy who helps build chemistry due to a lack of touches among your primary players.

In fact, I would argue that if the Raptors traded DeRozan instead of Gay, they would have been more successful in the near term. The combination of Gay & Lowry had a net rating of +2.2 while the combination of DeRozan & Lowry had a net rating of only +0.3. Moving DeRozan and replacing him with Ross could have produced more wins in the 2013-2014 season. Having said that, I think moving Gay was the correct move because DeRozan was only 24 at the time and still was getting better, but again, I could argue in the short term, the team would have been better with Gay instead of DeRozan.

Turning towards the Kings, Gay helps us win. He does not hurt this team. Since coming to the Kings, these are his on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

2013-2014: +2.8 points
2014-2015: +4.4 points
2015-2016: +1.3 points

Every year, we've been better with him on the floor. You'll notice this last year, his on/off went down. Again, I think this can be attributed to Karl playing him more minutes at PF this last year than he did in the 2 prior season. If you actually just look at the teams offensive & defensive rating when Gay is playing SF, his on/off last year bumps up to +4.2 points. PLAY THE MAN AT SF!!

His RPM has been positive the past 3 years as well which is another metric that shows we are better with him on the floor:

2013-2014: 1.53
2014-2015: 0.41
2015-2016: 0.17 (Karl year/more PF)

He also had a positive RAPM which again is another stat that measures a players contribution to a team winning (I don't have access to this data going back to the 2013-14 or 2014-15 season):

2015-2016: 0.40

There's really no evidence out there that says he hurts our team or that we play worse with him. He's a good player that contributes to the few wins we do get.

There's also the point that Gay, in the 2014-2015 season, was part of one of the 4th most effective lineup IN THE LEAGUE. That lineup was Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins and they were behind these 3 lineups:

LAC (+7.5 points) - Paul/Reddick/Barnes/Griffin/Jordan
CLE (+6.2 points) - Irving/Smith/LeBron/Love/Mozgov
GSW (+5.7 points) - Curry/Thompson/Barnes/Green/Bogut

That's it! Our starting lineup was right up there with 3 of the best teams in the league. Now consider this...McLemore & Thompson were part of that lineup. McLemore is one more mediocre season from being given up on while Thompson is essentially out of the league, so it comes down to Cousin, Gay & Collison. If Gay had a negative effect on winning, do we really think that only Cousins & Collison were not only able to overcome the negative effect from Gay, but also pickup the slack for the two other mediocre player in our lineup (McLemore, Thompson), OR is it far more likely that Gay is actually a player that helps a team win which means Cousins, Gay, & Collison were ALL helping carry this lineup to be right up there with the starting lineups of the Cavs, Warriors, & Clippers? The answer is pretty clear to me...

 

[twslam07]

Where is the option for "all"

Well that's unfair value

 

[KingMilz]

Again, that is the lazy approach for someone who doesn't actually want to take the time to understand what actually happened.

Gay's time in Toronto gets blown way out of proportion. I honestly can't remember another time where I have seen so many people misunderstand Gay's journey. I'm going to try and settle once and for all the common statements I hear about Gay.

FALSE STATEMENT #1: Gay is an inefficient chucker

During his time in Toronto, Gay was asked to be a #1 option. This is what he produced:

35.0 MPG / .297 USG% / .497 TS% / 17.6 FGA / .411 FG% / 3.7 3PA / .347 3PT% / 4.5 FTA / .824 FT% / 19.5 PPG / 6.8 RPG / 2.6 APG / 1.7 SPG / 0.9 BPG / 3.0 TOPG

Gay is not a #1 option. That is horrible efficiency. If your #1 scorer has a 30% usage with a TS% below 50%, you are not going to be very successful as a team. The Gay as a #1 option was attempted and failed. Now just because he failed as a #1 scorer, DOES NOT mean he doesn't have value as a secondary scorer. Ever since he has come to Sacramento, he has found a role that fits him. As a secondary scorer, he has become much, much more efficient due to defenses focusing their attention elsewhere which allows Gay to face more favorable match-ups at a more frequent rate. During his 3 seasons with us, this is what he has produced:

34.6 MPG / .252 USG% / .553 TS% / 15.4 FGA / .465 FG% / 3.0 3PA / .342 3PT% / 4.9 FTA / .830 FT% / 19.4 PPG / 6.0 RPG / 2.8 APG / 1.2 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 2.5 TOPG

So his usage dropped by 4.5%, his FGA dropped by 2.o a game, & he is a secondary scorer. So what do we see now? His TS% shot up by 5.6% to a very solid 55.3% (league average is 54% and this number is usually inflated due to role-players who take nothing but high percentage looks) while still averaging essentially the same amount of points per game that he did in Toronto! Not to mention his Assist/Turnover ratio shot up from 0.88 to 1.11 which is very respectable. In fact, the list of SFs who averaged over 19.3 PPG, over a 55.2% TS%, & over a 1.10 A/T Ratio are LeBron, Durant, Leonard, George, Hayward, & Gallinari. That is not bad company to be in at all.

In fact, his numbers & effectiveness during his tenure here were impacted due to Karl's ineptitude. As most of us know, Gay had a down year last year. A lot of that had to do with how Karl was using him (some of it was lack of effort but I understand the frustrations that come along when a coach is misusing both him and his teammates). In his first two seasons with the Kings, Gay played 90% of his minutes at SF (his best position statistically) whereas this past season he saw that number drop to 75% while seeing more time as a smallball PF. As some of you may have noticed, Gay tends to struggle against length. Gay has never been one to completely burn by his man and score at the rim. He usually makes a little move to get his man off balance/create separation and then shoots over him. When he's matched up with bigger players, it makes it more difficult for him to shoot over them because of that length. Gay is at his best when he can take utilize his length advantage. Karl hindered that somewhat by playing him more at PF. I think it's one of the reasons the team does better with him playing SF (Off Rating: 107.1 / Def Rating: 106.0 / Net Rating: +1.1) rather than PF (Off Rating: 104.1 / Def Rating: 114.9 / Net Rating: -10.8). Not to mention he's more fit to defend SFs vs. PFs.

So again, if we discount last year's numbers due to the misuse of Gay, he has been even better for us:

35.0 MPG / .268 USG% / .561 TS% / 15.9 FGA / .467 FG% / 2.9 3PA / .341 3PT% / 5.6 FTA / .848 FT% / 20.6 PPG / 5.7 RPG / 3.4 APG / 1.1 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 2.8 TOPG

TS% went up another 0.8% despite usage being 1.6%, and his AST/TO Ratio went up from 1.11 to 1.20.

To wrap things up, yes, Gay is a very inefficient #1 option. He proved that in Toronto and has proved that here to an extent (.526 TS% in games when Cousins doesn't play). However, he is a very solid secondary option who can score at an above average efficiency while maintaining a high volume of shots.


FALSE STATEMENT #2: Gay makes teams worse and teams improve after he leaves

Although this is a popular belief, this is also false. Gay has been in some unfortunate circumstances that make it seem like he is bringing a team down when in fact it's the roster balance & chemistry that is bringing the team down.

Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day. To the casual fan or the "lazy" fan, someone would look at that and say "wow, Gay was really holding them back. He must have a negative effect on winning." But when you actually deep dive into it, you discover that wasn't the case.

Gay was not the problem in Toronto. The problem was roster balance. Their starting lineup was Lowry/DeRozan/Gay/Johnson/Valanciunas. Lowry/DeRozan/Gay is not a balanced nor complementary perimeter by any means. I don't think anyone can argue that point. Every single one of those players needs the ball in their hands to be effective. And you're really looking at 3 players who naturally settle in between 25%-30% usage. You don't see many successful teams have that type of makeup especially when they are just okay at stretching the floor. If you remove one of their ball dominant players from the lineup, it instantly balances out the team. Replacing Gay with Ross gives them a guy who can defer to Lowry & DeRozan, a guy who can spread the floor, and a guy who helps build chemistry due to a lack of touches among your primary players.

In fact, I would argue that if the Raptors traded DeRozan instead of Gay, they would have been more successful in the near term. The combination of Gay & Lowry had a net rating of +2.2 while the combination of DeRozan & Lowry had a net rating of only +0.3. Moving DeRozan and replacing him with Ross could have produced more wins in the 2013-2014 season. Having said that, I think moving Gay was the correct move because DeRozan was only 24 at the time and still was getting better, but again, I could argue in the short term, the team would have been better with Gay instead of DeRozan.

Turning towards the Kings, Gay helps us win. He does not hurt this team. Since coming to the Kings, these are his on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

2013-2014: +2.8 points
2014-2015: +4.4 points
2015-2016: +1.3 points

Every year, we've been better with him on the floor. You'll notice this last year, his on/off went down. Again, I think this can be attributed to Karl playing him more minutes at PF this last year than he did in the 2 prior season. If you actually just look at the teams offensive & defensive rating when Gay is playing SF, his on/off last year bumps up to +4.2 points. PLAY THE MAN AT SF!!

His RPM has been positive the past 3 years as well which is another metric that shows we are better with him on the floor:

2013-2014: 1.53
2014-2015: 0.41
2015-2016: 0.17 (Karl year/more PF)

He also had a positive RAPM which again is another stat that measures a players contribution to a team winning (I don't have access to this data going back to the 2013-14 or 2014-15 season):

2015-2016: 0.40

There's really no evidence out there that says he hurts our team or that we play worse with him. He's a good player that contributes to the few wins we do get.

There's also the point that Gay, in the 2014-2015 season, was part of one of the 4th most effective lineup IN THE LEAGUE. That lineup was Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins and they were behind these 3 lineups:

LAC (+7.5 points) - Paul/Reddick/Barnes/Griffin/Jordan
CLE (+6.2 points) - Irving/Smith/LeBron/Love/Mozgov
GSW (+5.7 points) - Curry/Thompson/Barnes/Green/Bogut

That's it! Our starting lineup was right up there with 3 of the best teams in the league. Now consider this...McLemore & Thompson were part of that lineup. McLemore is one more mediocre season from being given up on while Thompson is essentially out of the league, so it comes down to Cousin, Gay & Collison. If Gay had a negative effect on winning, do we really think that only Cousins & Collison were not only able to overcome the negative effect from Gay, but also pickup the slack for the two other mediocre player in our lineup (McLemore, Thompson), OR is it far more likely that Gay is actually a player that helps a team win which means Cousins, Gay, & Collison were ALL helping carry this lineup to be right up there with the starting lineups of the Cavs, Warriors, & Clippers? The answer is pretty clear to me...

What about Memphis who without him and OJ Mayo/Tony Allen taking on bigger roles beat a #1 seed Spurs team than losing to basically the exact same Clippers team with him and winning without him with Tayshaun Prince was that more unfortunate circumstance? It just seems whenever he's replaced with inferior players talent wise OJ Mayo/past prime Prince/Salmons/Vasquez/Patterson the other team seems to thrive/make it further without him.

 

[twslam07]

What about Memphis who without him and OJ Mayo/Tony Allen taking on bigger roles beat a #1 seed Spurs team than losing to basically the exact same Clippers team with him and winning without him with Tayshaun Prince was that more unfortunate circumstance? It just seems whenever he's replaced with inferior players talent wise OJ Mayo/past prime Prince/Salmons/Vasquez/Patterson the other team seems to thrive/make it further without him.

Sure. In 2010-2011, he was the #2 option behind Randolph. How did Gay end up doing? 55% TS% & 19.8 PPG. Again, goes along with what I mentioned in my earlier post, so thanks for bringing it up.

But Gay goes down with an injury before the 2011 playoffs... They still have their #1 option (Randolph) and they had an additional 3 scorers on top of that (Gasol, Conley, & Mayo). Gay's scoring was not missed especially since Gasol seamlessly stepped up into that efficient #2 scorer very nicely. So now what do they have? The Grizzlies have a guy who could act as a #2 scorer (15 PPG) at a very efficient rate for the playoffs (56% TS%) while improving their defense by swapping out Gay.

If you have a quality 2nd scorer, and you can replace Gay for defense, do it. The Kings don't have that luxury obviously.

As for the next year when Gay was healthy & they lost to the Clippers in the first round, I think you are forgetting that Randolph tore a ligament in his knee in January & was out for a couple months. When he came back, he was not the same player. Their 20 PPG, 55% TS% #1 option was no more. He averaged 12 PPG with a TS% of 50% (yuck!). In the playoffs, he averaged 14 PPG with a TS% of 46% (super yuck!). This is a HUGGEEEE difference from last year. He anchored that offense in the playoffs averaging 22PPG with a TS% of 53%.

Considering their #1 option was no more, Gay was looked at to be the #1 option to fill the void. How did he respond? 19 PPG and a TS% of 50%.

We have already proven that Gay is not a #1 option. He is useful as a secondary option. A playoff team without a solid #1 option is going to be easier to beat than a team with one (especially since defenses tend to clamp down in the playoffs). The fact that the Grizzlies had a guy like Gasol who could step into the secondary scorer role and do it efficiently only made it easier for them to compete in the 2011 playoffs (especially when they were able to supplement more defense), but without that #1 option, it made it difficult for them to compete (and it's not like they got swept. they still took them to 7 games).

Randolph's injury & the Grizzlies lack of a #1 that year should not be held against Gay. Again, this is the "lazy" approach by not actually looking into what happened, but instead, making generalizations with the little context people have.

 

[New Era]

Again, that is the lazy approach for someone who doesn't actually want to take the time to understand what actually happened.

Gay's time in Toronto gets blown way out of proportion. I honestly can't remember another time where I have seen so many people misunderstand Gay's journey. I'm going to try and settle once and for all the common statements I hear about Gay.

FALSE STATEMENT #1: Gay is an inefficient chucker

During his time in Toronto, Gay was asked to be a #1 option. This is what he produced:

35.0 MPG / .297 USG% / .497 TS% / 17.6 FGA / .411 FG% / 3.7 3PA / .347 3PT% / 4.5 FTA / .824 FT% / 19.5 PPG / 6.8 RPG / 2.6 APG / 1.7 SPG / 0.9 BPG / 3.0 TOPG

Gay is not a #1 option. That is horrible efficiency. If your #1 scorer has a 30% usage with a TS% below 50%, you are not going to be very successful as a team. The Gay as a #1 option was attempted and failed. Now just because he failed as a #1 scorer, DOES NOT mean he doesn't have value as a secondary scorer. Ever since he has come to Sacramento, he has found a role that fits him. As a secondary scorer, he has become much, much more efficient due to defenses focusing their attention elsewhere which allows Gay to face more favorable match-ups at a more frequent rate. During his 3 seasons with us, this is what he has produced:

34.6 MPG / .252 USG% / .553 TS% / 15.4 FGA / .465 FG% / 3.0 3PA / .342 3PT% / 4.9 FTA / .830 FT% / 19.4 PPG / 6.0 RPG / 2.8 APG / 1.2 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 2.5 TOPG

So his usage dropped by 4.5%, his FGA dropped by 2.o a game, & he is a secondary scorer. So what do we see now? His TS% shot up by 5.6% to a very solid 55.3% (league average is 54% and this number is usually inflated due to role-players who take nothing but high percentage looks) while still averaging essentially the same amount of points per game that he did in Toronto! Not to mention his Assist/Turnover ratio shot up from 0.88 to 1.11 which is very respectable. In fact, the list of SFs who averaged over 19.3 PPG, over a 55.2% TS%, & over a 1.10 A/T Ratio are LeBron, Durant, Leonard, George, Hayward, & Gallinari. That is not bad company to be in at all.

In fact, his numbers & effectiveness during his tenure here were impacted due to Karl's ineptitude. As most of us know, Gay had a down year last year. A lot of that had to do with how Karl was using him (some of it was lack of effort but I understand the frustrations that come along when a coach is misusing both him and his teammates). In his first two seasons with the Kings, Gay played 90% of his minutes at SF (his best position statistically) whereas this past season he saw that number drop to 75% while seeing more time as a smallball PF. As some of you may have noticed, Gay tends to struggle against length. Gay has never been one to completely burn by his man and score at the rim. He usually makes a little move to get his man off balance/create separation and then shoots over him. When he's matched up with bigger players, it makes it more difficult for him to shoot over them because of that length. Gay is at his best when he can take utilize his length advantage. Karl hindered that somewhat by playing him more at PF. I think it's one of the reasons the team does better with him playing SF (Off Rating: 107.1 / Def Rating: 106.0 / Net Rating: +1.1) rather than PF (Off Rating: 104.1 / Def Rating: 114.9 / Net Rating: -10.8). Not to mention he's more fit to defend SFs vs. PFs.

So again, if we discount last year's numbers due to the misuse of Gay, he has been even better for us:

35.0 MPG / .268 USG% / .561 TS% / 15.9 FGA / .467 FG% / 2.9 3PA / .341 3PT% / 5.6 FTA / .848 FT% / 20.6 PPG / 5.7 RPG / 3.4 APG / 1.1 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 2.8 TOPG

TS% went up another 0.8% despite usage being 1.6%, and his AST/TO Ratio went up from 1.11 to 1.20.

To wrap things up, yes, Gay is a very inefficient #1 option. He proved that in Toronto and has proved that here to an extent (.526 TS% in games when Cousins doesn't play). However, he is a very solid secondary option who can score at an above average efficiency while maintaining a high volume of shots.


FALSE STATEMENT #2: Gay makes teams worse and teams improve after he leaves

Although this is a popular belief, this is also false. Gay has been in some unfortunate circumstances that make it seem like he is bringing a team down when in fact it's the roster balance & chemistry that is bringing the team down.

Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day. To the casual fan or the "lazy" fan, someone would look at that and say "wow, Gay was really holding them back. He must have a negative effect on winning." But when you actually deep dive into it, you discover that wasn't the case.

Gay was not the problem in Toronto. The problem was roster balance. Their starting lineup was Lowry/DeRozan/Gay/Johnson/Valanciunas. Lowry/DeRozan/Gay is not a balanced nor complementary perimeter by any means. I don't think anyone can argue that point. Every single one of those players needs the ball in their hands to be effective. And you're really looking at 3 players who naturally settle in between 25%-30% usage. You don't see many successful teams have that type of makeup especially when they are just okay at stretching the floor. If you remove one of their ball dominant players from the lineup, it instantly balances out the team. Replacing Gay with Ross gives them a guy who can defer to Lowry & DeRozan, a guy who can spread the floor, and a guy who helps build chemistry due to a lack of touches among your primary players.

In fact, I would argue that if the Raptors traded DeRozan instead of Gay, they would have been more successful in the near term. The combination of Gay & Lowry had a net rating of +2.2 while the combination of DeRozan & Lowry had a net rating of only +0.3. Moving DeRozan and replacing him with Ross could have produced more wins in the 2013-2014 season. Having said that, I think moving Gay was the correct move because DeRozan was only 24 at the time and still was getting better, but again, I could argue in the short term, the team would have been better with Gay instead of DeRozan.

Turning towards the Kings, Gay helps us win. He does not hurt this team. Since coming to the Kings, these are his on/off numbers per 100 possessions:

2013-2014: +2.8 points
2014-2015: +4.4 points
2015-2016: +1.3 points

Every year, we've been better with him on the floor. You'll notice this last year, his on/off went down. Again, I think this can be attributed to Karl playing him more minutes at PF this last year than he did in the 2 prior season. If you actually just look at the teams offensive & defensive rating when Gay is playing SF, his on/off last year bumps up to +4.2 points. PLAY THE MAN AT SF!!

His RPM has been positive the past 3 years as well which is another metric that shows we are better with him on the floor:

2013-2014: 1.53
2014-2015: 0.41
2015-2016: 0.17 (Karl year/more PF)

He also had a positive RAPM which again is another stat that measures a players contribution to a team winning (I don't have access to this data going back to the 2013-14 or 2014-15 season):

2015-2016: 0.40

There's really no evidence out there that says he hurts our team or that we play worse with him. He's a good player that contributes to the few wins we do get.

There's also the point that Gay, in the 2014-2015 season, was part of one of the 4th most effective lineup IN THE LEAGUE. That lineup was Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins and they were behind these 3 lineups:

LAC (+7.5 points) - Paul/Reddick/Barnes/Griffin/Jordan
CLE (+6.2 points) - Irving/Smith/LeBron/Love/Mozgov
GSW (+5.7 points) - Curry/Thompson/Barnes/Green/Bogut

That's it! Our starting lineup was right up there with 3 of the best teams in the league. Now consider this...McLemore & Thompson were part of that lineup. McLemore is one more mediocre season from being given up on while Thompson is essentially out of the league, so it comes down to Cousin, Gay & Collison. If Gay had a negative effect on winning, do we really think that only Cousins & Collison were not only able to overcome the negative effect from Gay, but also pickup the slack for the two other mediocre player in our lineup (McLemore, Thompson), OR is it far more likely that Gay is actually a player that helps a team win which means Cousins, Gay, & Collison were ALL helping carry this lineup to be right up there with the starting lineups of the Cavs, Warriors, & Clippers? The answer is pretty clear to me...

I stopped reading your post about halfway because it was full of excuses for Rudy. I did like this little snippet:

"Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day."

That is a pretty telling statistic, IMO.

 

[whozit]

I stopped reading your post about halfway because it was full of excuses for Rudy. I did like this little snippet:

"Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day."

That is a pretty telling statistic, IMO.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Excuses or explanations. I thought twslam07 did a good job of explaining his position and also showing where Rudy wasn't so great.

 

[twslam07]

I stopped reading your post about halfway because it was full of excuses for Rudy. I did like this little snippet:

"Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day."

That is a pretty telling statistic, IMO.

I guess the "lazy" approach does fit the bill then...

 

[miltonap]

Apparently Houston interested in Gay? I'll take Pat Bev

 

[twslam07]

Apparently Houston interested in Gay? I'll take Pat Bev

Source?

 

[miltonap]

Hoopshype

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Apparently Houston interested in Gay? I'll take Pat Bev

I have a hard time believing that Beverley is on the market. Houston has nothing but Prigioni and two rookies backing him up. Collison would almost have to be in the deal - and that would kind of defeat the whole purpose - to get a second PG by trading Gay.

 

[miltonap]

I have a hard time believing that Beverley is on the market. Houston has nothing but Prigioni and two rookies backing him up. Collison would almost have to be in the deal - and that would kind of defeat the whole purpose - to get a second PG by trading Gay.

Yea you're probably right. They seem to be ditching defense though

 

[dude12]

Rockets don't seem like a fit in a deal

 

[biltalent]

Heres the original source:

The problem with trading Gay, who is owed $13.333 million this season, is that the Kings would have to take back some level of salary in the deal and find a team open to taking on Gay in what could be a one-year rental.

The next hurdle is value. League sources say while there are teams that have expressed interest in Gay – most notably the Houston Rockets – getting anything of real value back on what could be a one-year rental at Gay’s price tag is hard math to make work.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-am-fixing-the-sacramento-kings-culture/

Beverley would be a really good get. Tough competitor that never gives up. We would probably have to take on Brewer to match salaries but I'd be okay with that. Problem is that it would leave Houston without a PG. But because Beverley is not a D'antoni guy at all they are probably looking at other options anyway.

 

[miltonap]

Heres the original source:


http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-am-fixing-the-sacramento-kings-culture/

Beverley would be a really good get. Tough competitor that never gives up. We would probably have to take on Brewer to match salaries but I'd be okay with that. Problem is that it would leave Houston without a PG. But because Beverley is not a D'antoni guy at all they are probably looking at other options anyway.

True, D'Antoni usually runs high octane PG dominant offenses. I'm assuming Harden will play that role

 

[Jkbiker]

Heres the original source:


http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-am-fixing-the-sacramento-kings-culture/

Beverley would be a really good get. Tough competitor that never gives up. We would probably have to take on Brewer to match salaries but I'd be okay with that. Problem is that it would leave Houston without a PG. But because Beverley is not a D'antoni guy at all they are probably looking at other options anyway.

Beverly and KJ Mcdaniels also works on real GM Cory Brewer is a closer match on salary

McDaniels, younger, only 3.3 Mil, team option next year
Brewer is older, 15 Mil over 2 yrs with either one would not need Lamar so could take
either one to make 15 contracts

Which of the two does everyone like?

 

[Glenn]

Do we have room to take on extra players. I'm not paying attention all that well but I'm curious.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Do we have room to take on extra players. I'm not paying attention all that well but I'm curious.

Right now we have 15 contracts, but Lamar Patterson is unguaranteed and I'm not sure we intend to keep him past training camp unless he really shines. On the other hand, Isaiah Cousins is not signed and doesn't count towards those 15. Who knows what our intentions are with ICuz, but given our lack of PGs leaving a roster spot for him would probably be wise.

I don't really see anybody that we could flat out cut if we needed a spot, outside of Patterson. We have our three first-round rookies (safe), our four new free agents (safe), and then Cousins, WCS, Gay, Collison, Koufos, Casspi (none cuttable)...which leaves McLemore? Traded? Sure. Cut? I don't really see that happening. So, bottom line, I don't think we're looking for any one-for-two or two-for-three trades. We'd probably prefer to have balanced trades or even send two to get one (which would be tough with Rudy because of the size of his contract).

 

[Glenn]

Right now we have 15 contracts, but Lamar Patterson is unguaranteed and I'm not sure we intend to keep him past training camp unless he really shines. On the other hand, Isaiah Cousins is not signed and doesn't count towards those 15. Who knows what our intentions are with ICuz, but given our lack of PGs leaving a roster spot for him would probably be wise.

I don't really see anybody that we could flat out cut if we needed a spot, outside of Patterson. We have our three first-round rookies (safe), our four new free agents (safe), and then Cousins, WCS, Gay, Collison, Koufos, Casspi (none cuttable)...which leaves McLemore? Traded? Sure. Cut? I don't really see that happening. So, bottom line, I don't think we're looking for any one-for-two or two-for-three trades. We'd probably prefer to have balanced trades or even send two to get one (which would be tough with Rudy because of the size of his contract).

That's what my foggy memory remembered. It seems unlikely we would do a trade where we take back two and give up one or a similar trade where we take on an extra player. I haven't been impressed with iCuz but, gee, he's a pg. We need one or two. I hope Vlade has something in mind as we seem to be teetering on not having a well constructed team.

 

[KingMilz]

Kings/Rockets/Suns (works on ESPN trade)

Kings get: Knight/Beverley/Tucker
Rockets get: Rudy/Darren Collison
Suns get: Ariza/Mclemore

Kings Roster
PG: Knight or Bev
SG: Knight or AA
SF: Casspi/Tucker/Barnes
PF: WCS/Casspi/Barnes
C: Cousins/WCS

Both Knight and Bev are on VERY cheap deals (cap increase considered) for the next two to four years) where as both Rudy/DC are FA's who could/probably will get way bigger deals. We solve both the long term PG/SG issue with this trade since Brandon can play both and Bev can play as a starter or back up easily.

 

[John Galt]

Kings/Rockets/Suns (works on ESPN trade)

Kings get: Knight/Beverley/Tucker
Rockets get: Rudy/Darren Collison
Suns get: Ariza/Mclemore

Kings Roster
PG: Knight or Bev
SG: Knight or AA
SF: Casspi/Tucker/Barnes
PF: WCS/Casspi/Barnes
C: Cousins/WCS

Both Knight and Bev are on VERY cheap deals (cap increase considered) for the next two to four years) where as both Rudy/DC are FA's who could/probably will get way bigger deals. We solve both the long term PG/SG issue with this trade since Brandon can play both and Bev can play as a starter or back up easily.

Love the trade but how come KK isn't on the depth chart?

 

[Jkbiker]

Right now we have 15 contracts, but Lamar Patterson is unguaranteed and I'm not sure we intend to keep him past training camp unless he really shines. On the other hand, Isaiah Cousins is not signed and doesn't count towards those 15. Who knows what our intentions are with ICuz, but given our lack of PGs leaving a roster spot for him would probably be wise.

I don't really see anybody that we could flat out cut if we needed a spot, outside of Patterson. We have our three first-round rookies (safe), our four new free agents (safe), and then Cousins, WCS, Gay, Collison, Koufos, Casspi (none cuttable)...which leaves McLemore? Traded? Sure. Cut? I don't really see that happening. So, bottom line, I don't think we're looking for any one-for-two or two-for-three trades. We'd probably prefer to have balanced trades or even send two to get one (which would be tough with Rudy because of the size of his contract).

But if you cut Lamar and don't sign Icuz we can take Beverly and Brewer and have 15 contracts if we later trade Ben for a pick then we can sign I cuz or trade Ben for a third pg

cuz,Kosta,papa
Wcs,Tolliver,Skal
Brewer,Casspi,Barnes
Affalo,temple,Malachi Or Affalo,Ben,Malachi
DC,Beverly, Icuz or 3rd pg Or DC, Beverly, Temple

Even without a Ben Trade you have Temple as a 3rd PG

 

[Capt. Factorial]

But if you cut Lamar and don't sign Icuz we can take Beverly and Brewer and have 15 contracts if we later trade Ben for a pick then we can sign I cuz or trade Ben for a third pg

Because it's summer, we don't actually have to worry about the timing of everything. We can carry more than 15 contracts, we just have to cut down to 15 by...well, I'm not sure but somewhere around the end of training camp. So it's more about being at 15 or under at the start of the season.

Yes, if we trade Ben for a pick and don't get a player back, that's one way to get us some breathing room. But if we do start going over our roster limit that kind of puts us into "have to make some sort of move" mode, rather than "looking to see if there are any good moves available" mode.

 

[KingMilz]

Love the trade but how come KK isn't on the depth chart?

This is just my opinion on who should play so don't put much stock into it I like the player but I'm not sure he's needed much same with AT with Casspi/Barnes capable of playing against other back up PF's/stretch 4's and my personal belief WCS is better protecting the rim cause he has zero clue how to defend stretch 4's right now.

 

[The_Jamal]

One thing with the Rockets is EG is a really good ball-handler too so Houston might just go ahead and run a Harden-EG back-court and let them share the duties of bringing the ball up the floor.

 

[Jkbiker]

There are a couple of impacting issues in place regarding a potential trade with the Kings. First, while Gay can get out of his contract after earning $13.3 million this season, he also holds a player option for $14.3 million in 2017-18. And that’s the rub. After attempting to hold the line on negotiations beyond this year, it is unlikely the Heat would want to jump into such an amount beyond next season. In other words, the Heat likely would want Gay to agree to bypass his option year before any deal is made. Now, if the Heat know/learn that Chris Bosh won’t be able to play this season, and therefore potentially have to move Winslow to power forward, then the possibility of Gay could become somewhat more realistic. But even then, the Heat would have to send something close to Gay’s $13.3 million salary back to the Kings, a figure than cannot include any player signed this offseason (such deals are prohibited until Dec. 15). Working with that math and those limitations, it is difficult to build any package at the moment that doesn’t include Goran Dragic. Even if the Kings were interested in Josh McRoberts, his 2016-17 salary leaves you only at a $5.8 million starting point
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...iami-heat-ask-ira-rudy-gay-s081116-story.html

So I say Dragic or Bust

 

[Jkbiker]

If the Kings improve their camaraderie in the locker room, they would have a better chance to improve on the court. “That’s one value a lot of teams overlook a lot in the NBA,” Casspi said. “But if you look at at how they build and rebuild, you look at San Antonio and the Warriors, they don’t have bad locker room guys. And it comes to a point where everybody’s good, everybody can play. If I make Cuz (DeMarcus Cousins) better and Cuz can make Rudy better and Rudy can make Darren (Collison) better and we push one another, our locker room can push one another and have a healthy locker room, that goes a long way.”
– via Sacramento Bee

Dragic. Beverly, Knight ---- or This!!!

 

[bajaden]

I stopped reading your post about halfway because it was full of excuses for Rudy. I did like this little snippet:

"Obviously, everyone is familiar with Toronto going 23-28 in games when Gay played during his tenure at Toronto. When he was traded in the middle of the 2013-2014 season to the Kings, the Raptors went 42-22 the rest of the day."

That is a pretty telling statistic, IMO.

To put full responsibility on Gay is unfair. What would happen if you applied the same principles to Casspi? Actually, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if we were talking about Casspi would we? We'd be talking about his hustle and his improved three point shooting, and rightly so. The difference is expectation. Expectations are a funny thing. If your the first pick in the draft, your expected to be a star at some point in the future. Or, if you've put up significant numbers before, your expected to put them up again. I only wish it were that simple. The higher the expectation, the better the chance of being perceived a failure. Point is, it's not really an either/or.

Toronto's success had more to do with who they brought in, than who they lost. It was all about fit. Gay was asked to be the number one option on that team. Why? Because he appeared to be the best player on that team. And maybe he was, but that doesn't make him a number one option, and that folks isn't his fault. Being a great general practitioner doesn't make you a brain surgeon. Gay wasn't used properly in Toronto, and you can't be what your not. He was traded for players of lessor ability, but who fit better into what Toronto was trying to do. Am I saying that Gay is a good fit for us? No, and frankly I won't know until I see what kind of offense were going to run. But I do think that Gay can be an effective player when used properly.

If your going to criticize him for not being a number one or even a number two option, then that's on you for putting that expectation on him. But if you look at him as a number three option, someone that can get you 15 to 18 points a game, grab 5 to 7 rebounds, and play solid to decent defense in a team oriented defensive scheme, then he'll probably live up to your expectations. I happen to like Gay. And I think he can adapt and contribute enough to be valuable to the team. So rather than trade him for chump change, I'd rather have him play out the year and then, if he desires, let him walk for cap space. The option will be his.