Woj says Gay will exercise option and re-sign with Kings

[Dreadnought]

I'm a bit confused by the two extremes here. Some of you are ecstatic, some of you are upset.

To me, I think the opt-in is absolutely fine. It doesn't help us dramatically, nor does it really hurt us. We get one more year to prove to Rudy that we are a great team for him to stay longer at. His next contract will not be the albatross that he signed in Memphis. Some of you talk as if there were any free agents that have any interest in us.

 

[Kingster]

They said they will most likely negotiate a contract extension this summer keeping the tryout to a half a year.

Then that is concerning.

 

[Entity]

20 pts 5 reb 3 ast at 48% shooting is not concerning at all. best SF we have had in 10 years we are not a team that needs to turn nose up at a player like Rudy Gay. second best player we have had on the team in 10 years arguably

 

[Kingster]

20 pts 5 reb 3 ast at 48% shooting is not concerning at all. best SF we have had in 10 years we are not a team that needs to turn nose up at a player like Rudy Gay. second best player we have had on the team in 10 years arguably

I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on this board as to how good Gay is, or isn't. Also, discussion concerning whether he is the right fit for this team. It's not a given that Gay is the right piece for this team, especially when during his short Kings' stint we saw ISO ball up the ying yang.

 

[Entity]

I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on this board as to how good Gay is, or isn't. Also, discussion concerning whether he is the right fit for this team. It's not a given that Gay is the right piece for this team, especially when during his short Kings' stint we saw ISO ball up the ying yang.

well by all means lets get salmons or donte green back. how about nocionni.

 

[pshn80]

I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on this board as to how good Gay is, or isn't. Also, discussion concerning whether he is the right fit for this team. It's not a given that Gay is the right piece for this team, especially when during his short Kings' stint we saw ISO ball up the ying yang.

Let's see - IT is responsible for team ISO play, Gay is responsible for team ISO play, Cuz is a good "20 pts. per game" scorer, Gay is not a good "20 pts. per game" scorer, IT is not a good "20 pts, per game" scorer. Sure makes it tough on the coach and us fans.

 

[hrdboild]

Let's see - IT is responsible for team ISO play, Gay is responsible for team ISO play, Cuz is a good "20 pts. per game" scorer, Gay is not a good "20 pts. per game" scorer, IT is not a good "20 pts, per game" scorer. Sure makes it tough on the coach and us fans.

It's really not that complicated. Looking at each position individually and asking "who's the most talented player we can get at this spot" isn't the best way to build a team. It's the collective talent of the group that's going to win or lose for you. One-on-one skills are nice to have but you really do need to play a 5 man game to win in the NBA. All three of them may be ISO scorers but Cousins isn't going anywhere. Absent a 20-25 ppg scorer in the post you can maybe build a team around a volume shooting wing or score-first point guard. Those are inefficient strategies but not unprecedented. Two of these guys on the same team could work but your offense is predictable and easy to stop. Westbrook and Durant make it work but they're both elite at what they do and they're plus defenders. Three guys taking 80% of the team's shots never works. Replace IT and Rudy with good defenders who'll move the ball, get to their spots, and take the open shot and now you're competitive on both ends.

 

[Padrino]

I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on this board as to how good Gay is, or isn't. Also, discussion concerning whether he is the right fit for this team. It's not a given that Gay is the right piece for this team, especially when during his short Kings' stint we saw ISO ball up the ying yang.

of course it's not a given, but what the f*** is in the nba, particularly for a small market franchise that struggles to attract talent? the kings have had exactly one piece of the puzzle in place; demarcus cousins represents the team's best chance to nudge their way into the playoff conversation, and rudy gay represents a worthy second scoring option in pursuit of that goal. many of you act as if the kings have anointed rudy gay as their franchise player; that's simply not the case, and some of the overstatement in this thread is baffling, as if the kings aren't demarcus cousins' team, and as if the success of the team isn't dependent upon cousins' ability to fulfill his potential. that said, he needs help, and rudy gay can help...

i'll be the first to admit that i hope the kings don't decide to grossly overpay rudy via contract extension, but let's not pretend that the front office believes a duo of cousins/gay to be a sufficient answer to the question of how best to climb up the steep incline of the western conference standings. there are further [significant] additions that must be added to this puzzle in order for the playoffs to become more than just a pipe dream (hence all of the trade talk swirling around the kings' 8th pick)...

oh, and for the record, ISO ball is a systemic issue, and was always going to be a problematic feature of starting three ball dominant 20 ppg scorers in the same lineup, on a team experiencing extreme personnel upheaval, and for a head coach who earned his reputation with strong defensive principles but who doesn't have the most imaginative approach to the offensive side of the ball. the kings need to bring in a few more willing passers and defenders, the roster eventually needs to stabilize a bit, and mike malone needs to implement a more creative offensive system. rumor had it that the kings were pursuing alvin gentry to add to their bench. it wouldn't have been my favorite hire, but such a move represents an understanding that malone needs a bit of help putting his offense together (which is kinduva worrying notion in and of itself)...

 

[Big Cuz 15]

i'm glad he opt'd in. if he opt'd out we'd possibly lose more talent that seems to be really difficult to acquire for this ball club. hopefully gerbil doesn't hand him an outrageous extension and allows for flexibility to fill out the rest of the roster.

 

[BonziFan]

I feel like some of the people on this board would complain if lebron signed with us for the vet minimum. Some of you will never be happy.

 

[Jerichoholic]

I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on this board as to how good Gay is, or isn't. Also, discussion concerning whether he is the right fit for this team. It's not a given that Gay is the right piece for this team, especially when during his short Kings' stint we saw ISO ball up the ying yang.

I agree, much discussion has occurred and we all have our reasons as to why some think we should keep and others think we shouldn't, I'm sure most of you know my feelings at this point. Regardless of what I had hoped he has decided to stay and that is where we are. At this point we have him for one more year, a $19 million expiring contract. This is not a bad place to be. My only hope now is that we give this a wait and see approach. We have tremendous options if we give ourselves time. We don't need to be so desperate as to sign him to a huge extension immediately. If things go poorly this year then he leaves, if things go well then he probably stays anyway, why leave a team that you like and is doing well? Either way it works well for both parties. The only way this goes bad for both parties is if we sign him for too much too early and next year doesn't go so well. We shouldn't take that risk when we probably don't need to.

 

[Entity]

I feel like some of the people on this board would complain if lebron signed with us for the vet minimum. Some of you will never be happy.

well of course he isn't a good fit.

 

[Bricklayer]

People continue to act like Rudy Gay just joined the league two years ago or some such.

You would be hard pressed to find a more known quantity at this point in the league. Highly consistent production with the one down year.

Comparatively:
Hayward -- is he going to step forward? Can he be efficient?
Deng -- bad half year in Cleveland, lot of miles and injuries, will he slow down on his next contract?
Iguodala -- dramatic fall off in stats (although ESPN's laughable RAPM stat says he was the MVP!), at age, for a player who relies on athleticism
Gallinari -- what's he going to look like coming back from the knee
etc.

Rudy Gay is healthy, still in his prime, and has consistently been in the 18-20ppg 6rpg 2-3ast 1.5stl 1blk range his whole career. He's a flat known entity. You can offer a contract to Rudy Gay with confidence you know what you are getting. You can plan around his expected production. This isn't a tryout for him. The key of course will just be not making it such a number that he's unmoveable. At $19 mil he was almost unmoveable for Toronto, but they still did (for junk). At let's say $12mil it should be moveable should the need ever arise.

 

[Letsgokings13]

I feel like some of the people on this board would complain if lebron signed with us for the vet minimum. Some of you will never be happy.

Seems that way. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. We havent had a SF in years, now we have a big talent at SF and some people aren't happy. Doesn't make sense

 

[pshn80]

It's really not that complicated. Looking at each position individually and asking "who's the most talented player we can get at this spot" isn't the best way to build a team. It's the collective talent of the group that's going to win or lose for you. One-on-one skills are nice to have but you really do need to play a 5 man game to win in the NBA. All three of them may be ISO scorers but Cousins isn't going anywhere. Absent a 20-25 ppg scorer in the post you can maybe build a team around a volume shooting wing or score-first point guard. Those are inefficient strategies but not unprecedented. Two of these guys on the same team could work but your offense is predictable and easy to stop. Westbrook and Durant make it work but they're both elite at what they do and they're plus defenders. Three guys taking 80% of the team's shots never works. Replace IT and Rudy with good defenders who'll move the ball, get to their spots, and take the open shot and now you're competitive on both ends.

You can't have your cake and eat too. Which is more likely to work - that IT and Gay continue their good work and develop into much better team players or that two new defensive whizzes develop into rounded useful members of a better team? I'm not sure which way to bet. Work with the bird in hand.

 

[Padrino]

It's really not that complicated. Looking at each position individually and asking "who's the most talented player we can get at this spot" isn't the best way to build a team. It's the collective talent of the group that's going to win or lose for you.

i wouldn't disagree with you, but this strategy assumes ideal conditions. in a perfect world, "the collective talent of the group" would be wholly complementary and would operate like a well-oiled machine. in a perfect world, the 2014-2015 kings would resemble the golden era kings or any iteration of the san antonio spurs from the last decade-and-a-half. but it's not a perfect world, and the kings don't have the market size or track record of winning with which to coax top tier free agents. nor do they have the experience or the clout from their front office or from their coaching staff or from their roster to sell a vision that anyone should feel compelled to buy. they are starting at zero, and zero is a scary place to be in a league that moves very, very quickly...

that said, you work with the talent that's readily available to you. demarcus cousins has been locked in since the new regime arrived, but prior to rudy gay opting into his contract, that was it; cousins was the entire future of the team. everybody else was either peripheral flotsam or trade bait or free agency question marks. again, you'd like to sign that perfectly complementary free agent, and then trade for some other perfectly complementary piece of the puzzle, but those opportunities are so far and few between for a small market franchise desperately short of assets, coming off its eighth straight losing season, and with inexperience at all levels of the organization. and hemorrhaging legitimate talent just because it doesn't strike you as the best fit possible certainly also "isn't the best way to build a team."

here's an uncomfortable truth, kings fans: sometimes a team just has to learn to win with what they have and what they're able to acquire, rather than hoping that some ideal circumstance is going to arrive down the pipeline. the new regime was dealt a sh*tty roster by the maloofs, and they've gotta retool/reboot/rebuild/whatever you wanna call it around demarcus cousins before he decides he's had enough losing in sacramento to last a lifetime, and is ready to win somewhere else...

 

[Jerichoholic]

People continue to act like Rudy Gay just joined the league two years ago or some such.

You would be hard pressed to find a more known quantity at this point in the league. Highly consistent production with the one down year.

Comparatively:
Hayward -- is he going to step forward? Can he be efficient?
Deng -- bad half year in Cleveland, lot of miles and injuries, will he slow down on his next contract?
Iguodala -- dramatic fall off in stats (although ESPN's laughable RAPM stat says he was the MVP!), at age, for a player who relies on athleticism
Gallinari -- what's he going to look like coming back from the knee
etc.

Rudy Gay is healthy, still in his prime, and has consistently been in the 18-20ppg 6rpg 2-3ast 1.5stl 1blk range his whole career. He's a flat known entity. You can offer a contract to Rudy Gay with confidence you know what you are getting. You can plan around his expected production. This isn't a tryout for him. The key of course will just be not making it such a number that he's unmoveable. At $19 mil he was almost unmoveable for Toronto, but they still did (for junk). At let's say $12mil it should be moveable should the need ever arise.

That of course is an advantage, we do know what we are getting with Rudy Gay. The question isn't what is going to give you, the question is how much money is that worth and is he the right fit for your team. To be fair I wouldn't necessarily take those other players over Gay. Hayward and Gallinari are somewhat unknowns at this point and I have always thought that Deng and Iguodala were very overrated. I was glad when we decided not to sign Iguodala for $14 million/year, just too much for a player like that.

If we do decide to sign Gay to a long-term deal that I would hope it would be for around $12 million/year, I agree that it probably would be moveable if necessary. It's when you start getting near $15 million that problems start to arise.

 

[hrdboild]

that said, you work with the talent that's readily available to you. demarcus cousins has been locked in since the new regime arrived, but prior to rudy gay opting into his contract, that was it; cousins was the entire future of the team. everybody else was either peripheral flotsam or trade bait or free agency question marks. again, you'd like to sign that perfectly complementary free agent, and then trade for some other perfectly complementary piece of the puzzle, but those opportunities are so far and few between for a small market franchise desperately short of assets, coming off its eighth straight losing season, and with inexperience at all levels of the organization. and hemorrhaging legitimate talent just because it doesn't strike you as the best fit possible certainly also "isn't the best way to build a team."

here's an uncomfortable truth, kings fans: sometimes a team just has to learn to win with what they have and what they're able to acquire, rather than hoping that some ideal circumstance is going to arrive down the pipeline. the new regime was dealt a sh*tty roster by the maloofs, and they've gotta retool/reboot/rebuild/whatever you wanna call it around demarcus cousins before he decides he's had enough losing in sacramento to last a lifetime, and is ready to win somewhere else...

I think you're overlooking the obvious. We were hemorrhaging talent when we gave away Thomas Robinson for nothing and then let Tyreke Evans leave. That's not what's going on here. We're talking about whether or not we should offer Rudy Gay a new contract which likely lasts 3-4 years at substantial cost to the team. I'm actually in favor of learning to win with what we've got. And based on the comments here, I seem to have a higher opinion of the overall talent on our roster than most which are arguing against me. I don't see Cousins and nothing I see a lot of young talent with potential. I also see some huge holes (mostly at PG and PF/C) that neither Isaiah Thomas nor Rudy Gay is going to fill. I don't think it makes sense to add another 50 million into the pot and severely limit our ability to add to the roster in the future. For the right player, certainly you make that commitment. I don't think Rudy is the right player.

Let me remind you, this is a player we acquired for expendable roster filler mostly because Toronto didn't want his 19 million dollar option year hanging over their head. We're not hemorrhaging talent if we don't offer this guy a huge contract, we're making an irreversible decision about the future of the team. If we screw this up either way it's bad. But if we screw up by overpaying Gay and it doesn't work out we're in a much more difficult position. When you have no means of adding talent you need to look internally to improve your team. When you're thinking about offering a guy a large contract you need to be sure he's a great fit for your team.

And we don't need defensive whizzes here to improve, we simply need complete players. It's possible to replace a 20 point scorer with a 14 point scorer and improve the team. Most of the Rudy Gay fans on this board are talking up his raw counting stats as if they are irreplaceable numbers. Scoring is a nice skill to have, but it's hardly all there is to a basketball player. My message has been consistent the entire time I've been involved in these kinds of personnel discussions -- you can't overlook defense when analyzing the value a player adds to your team. If a player is an average defender and gets you 20 points per game but it takes him 16 shots and 3 turnovers to do it, his overall contribution is not irreplaceable. I'll take a 3 and D guy as a compliment to Cousins over a high usage volume scorer any day of the week.

People continue to throw up the same stupid straw man argument, implying that my disapproval of a Rudy Gay extension means I'm looking for a perfect player or I'm only capable of complaining and won't be happy with any decisions our front office makes. I've listed all of the reasons why I think the Rudy Gay extension is a bad idea and I've given my suggestion for what we should look for to replace him. I could start listing specific players if that's what people really want. I get that we disagree on this issue but that doesn't make my point of view irrational. Or at least I don't think it does. When I go down the list of needs I see defensive big and steady PG play as the biggest needs right now. I would address those issues ASAP even if it means letting the SF/wing scorer role remain unfilled for the time being. If McLemore is even half as talented as the front office seems to believe, he should be able to pick up some of the scoring load this season anyway.

 

[rainmaker]

Let's see - IT is responsible for team ISO play, Gay is responsible for team ISO play, Cuz is a good "20 pts. per game" scorer, Gay is not a good "20 pts. per game" scorer, IT is not a good "20 pts, per game" scorer. Sure makes it tough on the coach and us fans.

Not really. Stats hardly paint the real picture.

 

[Kingster]

well by all means lets get salmons or donte green back. how about nocionni.

Straw man, straw man, can't you make me a straw man?

 

[Kingster]

of course it's not a given, but what the f*** is in the nba, particularly for a small market franchise that struggles to attract talent? the kings have had exactly one piece of the puzzle in place; demarcus cousins represents the team's best chance to nudge their way into the playoff conversation, and rudy gay represents a worthy second scoring option in pursuit of that goal. many of you act as if the kings have anointed rudy gay as their franchise player; that's simply not the case, and some of the overstatement in this thread is baffling, as if the kings aren't demarcus cousins' team, and as if the success of the team isn't dependent upon cousins' ability to fulfill his potential. that said, he needs help, and rudy gay can help...

i'll be the first to admit that i hope the kings don't decide to grossly overpay rudy via contract extension, but let's not pretend that the front office believes a duo of cousins/gay to be a sufficient answer to the question of how best to climb up the steep incline of the western conference standings. there are further [significant] additions that must be added to this puzzle in order for the playoffs to become more than just a pipe dream (hence all of the trade talk swirling around the kings' 8th pick)...

oh, and for the record, ISO ball is a systemic issue, and was always going to be a problematic feature of starting three ball dominant 20 ppg scorers in the same lineup, on a team experiencing extreme personnel upheaval, and for a head coach who earned his reputation with strong defensive principles but who doesn't have the most imaginative approach to the offensive side of the ball. the kings need to bring in a few more willing passers and defenders, the roster eventually needs to stabilize a bit, and mike malone needs to implement a more creative offensive system. rumor had it that the kings were pursuing alvin gentry to add to their bench. it wouldn't have been my favorite hire, but such a move represents an understanding that malone needs a bit of help putting his offense together (which is kinduva worrying notion in and of itself)...

If the Kings signed Gay to a multi-year for a number that would make it easy to move him, I'd have no problem with that. We could then look at the Malone-Gay-ISO evidence over the course of time and see if in fact it is a good fit. If it isn't a good fit, then the problem is easily remedied. But if that mult-year turns into a contract not easily moved, I'm totally against it.

 

[Warhawk]

I think a lot of the issue here is we don't have a number for the extension. Folks are arguing back and forth on whether we should without figuring out what the value is first. If Rudy would sign for $1 mil/year for 5 years I don't know anyone who would not be all over that. Conversely, if he wants $19 mil/year on his extension nobody is supporting that. So, everyone, when you are arguing keeping or not keeping Rudy, maybe throw a number in there you are thinking of to make your point. That way everyone can compare apples to apples in the discussions - I think some are assuming higher extension values than others and many here may actually agree if $$$ are shown in the discussion.

Just my suggestion.

 

[Prince_XY]

If we do decide to sign Gay to a long-term deal that I would hope it would be for around $12 million/year, I agree that it probably would be moveable if necessary. It's when you start getting near $15 million that problems start to arise.

I'd rather pay Parsons for 7-8M/year, so I can have another 4M to spend on another full-sized PG (Patty Mills, Darren Collison, or Regie Jackson) at 3-4M/year.

I think Parsons can be cheaper, younger, and still could get better. I think he is almost of equal value as Gay in terms on what they can bring to a team. Stat-wise, he is also not that far behind Gay.

 

[King Baller]

Rudy Gay is one of the best SF's in the NBA. He is a solid talent and the Kings are lucky to have him. But most importantly he is signed to a contract to play for the Kings. He is already here. This is not some pie in the sky hope to get player A or player B. He is here!

People look at happened in Toronto and say "well see when Rudy Gay left they got better and I ran these stats and you see.........."

I watched all the Kings games. Once they got rolling with Rudy here they were in almost every game. Yes they lost a portion of those games but it is not because of Rudy Gay.

The Kings need to upgrade the team around Demarcus, Rudy and perhaps IT (If he can be signed and accepts a 6th man role.)

Go Kings!

 

[Bricklayer]

I'd rather pay Parsons for 7-8M/year, so I can have another 4M to spend on another full-sized PG (Patty Mills, Darren Collison, or Regie Jackson) at 3-4M/year.

I think Parsons can be cheaper, younger, and still could get better. I think he is almost of equal value as Gay in terms on what they can bring to a team. Stat-wise, he is also not that far behind Gay.

You can rather do all kinds of things, but you are Sacramento, and hence you are going to have to overpay for anybody you do sign on the open market. parson is in demand. Why would he come to the Kings? And Parson, versatile roleplayer that he is, is not a #2 option type. You can't run iso plays for him. Goto him to carry the team during dry spells. I like him a lot, but he was good where he was. As amusing as Morey's descent from stathead to fullfledged star chaser is, at a certain point its going to blow up in his face if he overloads on stars at the expense of his good support guys.

 

[Kingster]

You can rather do all kinds of things, but you are Sacramento, and hence you are going to have to overpay for anybody you do sign on the open market. parson is in demand. Why would he come to the Kings? And Parson, versatile roleplayer that he is, is not a #2 option type. You can't run iso plays for him. Goto him to carry the team during dry spells. I like him a lot, but he was good where he was. As amusing as Morey's descent from stathead to fullfledged star chaser is, at a certain point its going to blow up in his face if he overloads on stars at the expense of his good support guys.

I am soo freaking done with this organization overpaying because they are the little self-esteem deprived organization that they are. I don't care if it's Thomas, Tyreke, Gay, Thornton, Thompson, Landry, or whomever - don't freaking overpay. Time and time again we've seen this organization overpay and then eat it bigtime because they overpay, where literally the asset becomes a liability because of the sheer fact of overpayment. In addition, just the fact that there is a debate on this board should people pause about overpaying Rudy Gay. His value is debatable because it is in fact being debated.

As for Parsons, I don't care if you can't run iso plays for him - I don't want ISO ball to begin with. Parson would fantastic on this team with Cousins with the right offense that isn't ISO ball.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

What I can't comprehend,...is how did he get a contract that included this 19.3 million year in the first place? That is hard to fathom

 

[Bricklayer]

I am soo freaking done with this organization overpaying because they are the little self-esteem deprived organization that they are. I don't care if it's Thomas, Tyreke, Gay, Thornton, Thompson, Landry, or whomever - don't freaking overpay. Time and time again we've seen this organization overpay and then eat it bigtime because they overpay, where literally the asset becomes a liability because of the sheer fact of overpayment. In addition, just the fact that there is a debate on this board should people pause about overpaying Rudy Gay. His value is debatable because it is in fact being debated.

As for Parsons, I don't care if you can't run iso plays for him - I don't want ISO ball to begin with. Parson would fantastic on this team with Cousins with the right offense that isn't ISO ball.

You don't have a choice if you want ISO ball or not. you still need ISO players. 2-3 of them on every great team. That doesn't mean they should be playing ISO ball every play, indeed then the ball stopper effect comes into play. But every top team has a handful of guys who can create their shot, and they are the core. Even on the completely unattainable Spurs (Parker, Manu, Duncan), their Heat opponents (LeBron, Wade, and formerly Bosh), the Clippers (Paul, Blake (was better last year, my former criticism was that he was NOT an iso player), Crawford) etc. On Parsons team its Harden and Dwight. All the names you know, that's why you know them.

Parsons is an excellent roleplayer. He's quite good enough to be the top roleplayer/best non iso player on a team. On the old Rockets he would have been Rodney McCray. A very valuable piece once you have your stars/iso capable pieces in place. Insufficient until you do.

 

[upinsmoke]

What I can't comprehend,...is how did he get a contract that included this 19.3 million year in the first place? That is hard to fathom

That was the last of the era when teams where handing out super max contracts to players who were far from worthy. Amare Stoudamire, Carlos Boozer, Emeka Okafor, Eric Gordon, Deron Williams, Gilbert Arenas and Rudy to name a few.

 

[Uncia03]

That was the last of the era when teams where handing out super max contracts to players who were far from worthy. Amare Stoudamire, Carlos Boozer, Emeka Okafor, Eric Gordon, Deron Williams, Gilbert Arenas and Rudy to name a few.

Yep.

In Rudy's case the Grizzlies FO was so worried about not signing him to an extension and him testing free-agency that they offered him the max deal right at midnight to show that they really, really didn't want him to leave. It was talked about as a bad deal at the time, and it still is a bad deal.

He's not a max type of player. However, he is a very good player, and one that I am really hoping we can sign to a long-term deal. That deal just has to be well short of 20 million. (I'd prefer the 12-14 range and would probably balk at anything over 15)
Best case would be to see LeBron sign a new contract at well under his actual value with the hopes that Rudy might follow suit to help the Kings maintain some sort of cap flexibility. We'll see.

We are living in a different age in regards to how best to manage a cap to put the most competitive team on the floor that you possibly can. It would be great for the players to realize this and buy-in to the FO mind-set to help put the best product on the floor.