Would you consider this deal with Hou?

[KingsFanSince85]

I remain mystified at how exactly people intend to get better defensively if they refuse to actually get defensive players to play any of our positions. Its like talking about the national debt after awhile. Everybody agrees its a bad thing, but nobody is willing to sacrifice THEIR programs/players to fix it. Always has to be somebody else's.

I understand your point. However, you can't build a championship team with 5 Bruce Bowens i.e. 5 defensive oriented players at all positions. Just because Lowry is a good or even great defender doesn't make him a great fit, especially considering the position he plays. Rondo is a great defender too, but he also provides elite playmaking at the PG position (nearly double the assists). Lowry does not. Lowry's assist numbers combined with his overall FG% doesn't get it done at that position. You need more from your PG than just defense and average playmaking / shooting. Steve Nash can't play a lick of defense, yet his teams are always a threat to go deep into the playoffs because of his playmaking / shooting skills. He usually averages 10+ assists and shoots better than 45% from the field (sometimes over 50%). If you want a player who plays defense like Lowry, it's better to have them at the SG/SF positions or as the 3rd guard, IMO.

 

[ParniValjak]

I understand your point. However, you can't build a championship team with 5 Bruce Bowens i.e. 5 defensive oriented players at all positions. Just because Lowry is a good or even great defender doesn't make him a great fit, especially considering the position he plays. Rondo is a great defender too, but he also provides elite playmaking at the PG position (nearly double the assists). Lowry does not. Lowry's assist numbers combined with his overall FG% doesn't get it done at that position. You need more from your PG than just defense and average playmaking / shooting. Steve Nash can't play a lick of defense, yet his teams are always a threat to go deep into the playoffs because of his playmaking / shooting skills. He usually averages 10+ assists and shoots better than 45% from the field (sometimes over 50%). If you want a player who plays defense like Lowry, it's better to have them at the SG/SF positions or as the 3rd guard, IMO.

I disagree with this whole heartedly. When you have a pure scorer as the 2 who himself can create and needs the ball in his hands, the last thing you need is a Rondo or Nash type. That is why Lakers won ****loads if championships with Fisher as their PG and that is why Mario Chalmers is starting for Miami and why Wade won with a washed up Jason Williams who gave you 5 assists per game and erratic shooting.

Lets say Tyreke is your SG going forward. Tyreke, without the jumpshot is capable of being 20ppg player. He is also capable of being 5apg player form that position. Now what you need next to Reke is some ball handing and play making but a PG that does not demand the ball. Someone that can play off the ball as well. You look at Lowry and what he brings in that scenario is a great defense at PG position, some ball handing ability, some play making ability and some 3pt shooting (check his percentages from 3 and they are better than Thornton's) and if you watch Houston games, a great deal of his 3pts are from way out there.

So with Lowry you get a player who can create, bring the ball up and play off the ball effectively. His 3pt shooting opens up the driving lanes for Tyreke and given Cousins space to work in. Defensively, he is a great defensive PG and despite being shortish for a PG, he is thick bull. He has the strengths to match up on players on the switch (something IT struggles in). Lowry for the last 2 season is a borderline all-star.

Now if your SG is Ray Allen, than you want someone with more playmaking and you will always go for Rondo. But if your SG can create for others himself and is a capable 5 apg guy, then you are not looking for a PG capable of averaging 10 apg. You want someone who will average 5-6 and you get the same from your SG.

If Reke is our SG, then you will be hard pressed to find a better fit at PG than Lowry. He brings what we lost with Beno and more. A Lowry - Reke backcourt would be one of the best 2 way backcourts in the game. Defensively, they would be hard to play against and offensively, both can handle, create, drive and in Lowry's case shoot a very good percentage from beyond the arc.

With all due respects to IT who I happen to like, if we gets to the bornerline all-star level that Lowry is currently at, he would have maximized his ability as an NBA pro.

 

[Uncia03]

I would be all for the majority of the trades mentioned here with the Rockets. (Provided that MKG doesn't slip to 5)
If we could turn our 5th pick + pieces to end up with Lowry and Jeffrey Taylor I would be very happy.

Taylor could come in and start on Day 1 as our starting SF, and though I'd prefer Tyreke at the PG spot, I would have no problems moving him over to SG if you brought in a PG like Lowry.
I would love to either get Dalembert or another mid-round 1st to pick up another defensive big, but would settle for resigning JT if all else failed, and hope for more development from Whiteside.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I disagree with this whole heartedly. When you have a pure scorer as the 2 who himself can create and needs the ball in his hands, the last thing you need is a Rondo or Nash type. That is why Lakers won ****loads if championships with Fisher as their PG and that is why Mario Chalmers is starting for Miami and why Wade won with a washed up Jason Williams who gave you 5 assists per game and erratic shooting.

Lets say Tyreke is your SG going forward. Tyreke, without the jumpshot is capable of being 20ppg player. He is also capable of being 5apg player form that position. Now what you need next to Reke is some ball handing and play making but a PG that does not demand the ball. Someone that can play off the ball as well. You look at Lowry and what he brings in that scenario is a great defense at PG position, some ball handing ability, some play making ability and some 3pt shooting (check his percentages from 3 and they are better than Thornton's) and if you watch Houston games, a great deal of his 3pts are from way out there.

So with Lowry you get a player who can create, bring the ball up and play off the ball effectively. His 3pt shooting opens up the driving lanes for Tyreke and given Cousins space to work in. Defensively, he is a great defensive PG and despite being shortish for a PG, he is thick bull. He has the strengths to match up on players on the switch (something IT struggles in). Lowry for the last 2 season is a borderline all-star.

Now if your SG is Ray Allen, than you want someone with more playmaking and you will always go for Rondo. But if your SG can create for others himself and is a capable 5 apg guy, then you are not looking for a PG capable of averaging 10 apg. You want someone who will average 5-6 and you get the same from your SG.

If Reke is our SG, then you will be hard pressed to find a better fit at PG than Lowry. He brings what we lost with Beno and more. A Lowry - Reke backcourt would be one of the best 2 way backcourts in the game. Defensively, they would be hard to play against and offensively, both can handle, create, drive and in Lowry's case shoot a very good percentage from beyond the arc.

With all due respects to IT who I happen to like, if we gets to the bornerline all-star level that Lowry is currently at, he would have maximized his ability as an NBA pro.

You make some solid points here. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding Lowry being anywhere near an all-star caliber player. He's not among the top 2 or 3 PG's in the conference, which is what it takes to make the all-star team. He's not even top 5. When Tyreke is played at PG, he's better than Lowry.

Lowry is an average player. He's middle of the pack. I get that some of you like him and his defense, which is fine, but let's not get carried away with the hyperbole. What has he ever done to warrant the praise some of you are heaping upon him? Has he put up eye-popping stats? Has he led teams deep into the playoffs? Has he won Defensive POY? Seriously, what's he done?

Off the top of my head, these Western Conference PG's are clearly better;

Chris Paul
Steve Nash
Tyreke Evans (when played at the position)
Ty Lawson
Tony Parker
Russell Westbrook

I'd contend there's really no evidence to suggest that he's clearly better than Mike Conley or Raymond Felton, which places him in near the middle of the pack. And those are just the PG's in the Western Conference.

Kyle Lowry may be a damn good defender, but he's not an all-star nor even a borderline all-star player. As and all-around PG, he's average. Is he better than what the Kings have IF they aren't playing Tyreke at the position? At the moment, probably so considering they have a rookie manning the position (as a starter, IT was better offensively). However the overall difference isn't so significant that they should throw all their eggs into the Kyle Lowry basket.

 

[The_Jamal]

You make some solid points here. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding Lowry being anywhere near an all-star caliber player. He's not among the top 2 or 3 PG's in the conference, which is what it takes to make the all-star team. He's not even top 5. When Tyreke is played at PG, he's better than Lowry.

Lowry is an average player. He's middle of the pack. I get that some of you like him and his defense, which is fine, but let's not get carried away with the hyperbole. What has he ever done to warrant the praise some of you are heaping upon him? Has he put up eye-popping stats? Has he led teams deep into the playoffs? Has he won Defensive POY? Seriously, what's he done?

Off the top of my head, these Western Conference PG's are clearly better;

Chris Paul
Steve Nash
Tyreke Evans (when played at the position)
Ty Lawson
Tony Parker
Russell Westbrook

I'd contend there's really no evidence to suggest that he's clearly better than Mike Conley or Raymond Felton, which places him in near the middle of the pack. And those are just the PG's in the Western Conference.

Kyle Lowry may be a damn good defender, but he's not an all-star nor even a borderline all-star player. As and all-around PG, he's average. Is he better than what the Kings have IF they aren't playing Tyreke at the position? At the moment, probably so considering they have a rookie manning the position (as a starter, IT was better offensively). However the overall difference isn't so significant that they should throw all their eggs into the Kyle Lowry basket.

Oh lordy, someone's never seen Lowry play. Lowry is at worst the 2nd best PG defender and one can easily make a case for him over Rondo. He can score in a variety of different ways and he's efficient while doing so. He's the best rebounding PG in the NBA and isn't afraid to be physical. The best part about him is that he's a real pg; he looks to run an offense rather than get his own. There's 4 PG's who you can definitively say are better than Lowry in the NBA:

Paul
Rose
Williams
Westbrook

and one can argue the 5th spot between Nash/Rondo/Lowry. I for one like 2-way players who can do everything which is why I love Lowry.

 

[bajaden]

He's also averaging over 6 assists a game. PG's often take more time to develop. Steve Nash didn't really arrive until his fifth year in the league. Until then, he was fairly predestrian. John Stocton took until his fourth year in the league, and really didn't totally arrive until his fifth year. Lowery's first good year was his 6th in the league, but if you discard the one one year he only played 20 something games, you could argue he arrived in his fifth year.

If you were to switch Lowery for Rondo, there's a good chance Lowery would have been playing in an all star game. Put Lowery on the Heat, and see how much better he gets. The great thing about Lowery is that he is a so called, true PG. I'd love to have him. But as I said earlier in a post. Right now, he's the only PG Houston has under contract. Now if they reach an agreement with Dragic, then maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[The_Jamal]

He's also averaging over 6 assists a game. PG's often take more time to develop. Steve Nash didn't really arrive until his fifth year in the league. Until then, he was fairly predestrian. John Stocton took until his fourth year in the league, and really didn't totally arrive until his fifth year. Lowery's first good year was his 6th in the league, but if you discard the one one year he only played 20 something games, you could argue he arrived in his fifth year.

If you were to switch Lowery for Rondo, there's a good chance Lowery would have been playing in an all star game. Put Lowery on the Heat, and see how much better he gets. The great thing about Lowery is that he is a so called, true PG. I'd love to have him. But as I said earlier in a post. Right now, he's the only PG Houston has under contract. Now if they reach an agreement with Dragic, then maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

If they do lock up Dragic, I could easily see them biting on a #5+contract for Lowry+#12 though. They love Dragic in Houston

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Oh lordy, someone's never seen Lowry play.

Entering into a discussion and starting off with the "never seen them play" card simply because I don't agree with your perception of a players value is not only a bad assumption, it's a bit unfair. I'd be more than willing to make a blind bet that I've seen Lowry play a lot more than most non-Memphis/Houston fans. Not only do I watch every single Kings game, as painful as that can often be, I've been an NBA League Pass subscriber for many years and watch a ton of games when the Kings aren't playing. I'm a sports junkie .. pure and simple.

Now, I'm not mentioning this as a means of proving that I'm right. It doesn't matter how many games someone watches, it doesn't make them an expert or prove that they are correct all the time. I just want to make that clear. I only mention it to provide context and to blow your assumption out of the water. Not only have I seen Lowry play, I've seen him play a lot during his 6 seasons in Memphis and Houston so I'm not at all providing a "blind" opinion or going off what others are saying about him.

Moving on ....

Lowry is at worst the 2nd best PG defender and one can easily make a case for him over Rondo.

I'm very open to listening to this argument. Please prove it or, at the very least, provide some factual evidence to support this premise. I'd love to know what you're basing your opinion on, how you conclude that Lowry is a better defender than Derrick Rose, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, and Rajon Rondo (possibly) and, lastly, how you can so easily make this case.

He can score in a variety of different ways and he's efficient while doing so.

He may be able to score in a variety of different ways, but he's not at all efficient at doing so. You lose this argument and the numbers back me up. Here are his FG percentages from each and every season he's been in the league:

FG% 3P%
06-07: 0.368 0.375
07-08: 0.432 0.257
08-09: 0.435 0.255
09-10: 0.397 0.272
10-11: 0.426 0.376
11-12: 0.409 0.374
Career: 0.420 0.330

Only his 3pt shooting from his rookie season and the past 2-seasons might be considered efficient, unless you can find many people that truly believe 42% overall and 27% 3pt are efficient percentages.

So, now I ask .. how exactly is he an efficient scorer?

He's the best rebounding PG in the NBA and isn't afraid to be physical.

Again, like your opinion regarding his defense, please provide some factual evidence to support this premise cause the numbers don't back you up.

Lowry's rebounding numbers the past 2 seasons (which are the 2 best of his career) are 4.5 and 4.1.

Rondo, CP3, Westbrook, Wall, Evans, Kidd, and Steph Curry have all put up equal or better numbers. Westbook, Evans, Kidd AND Wall's career averages are higher than the best individual season Lowry has ever managed while Rondo and CP3's career averages are only .1 below it.

In short, you are quite wrong .. except about the "being physical" part.

and one can argue the 5th spot between Nash/Rondo/Lowry. I for one like 2-way players who can do everything which is why I love Lowry.

One could certainly argue, but it's a different thing altogether finding many people that would agree with you. I feel pretty confident in saying that if every GM in the league was given the choice between Nash and Lowry or Rondo and Lowry for next season, not a single one would take Lowry. Even if somebody would, it wouldn't be many at all. If you believe otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

There's 4 PG's who you can definitively say are better than Lowry in the NBA:

Paul
Rose
Williams
Westbrook

I hate to break it to you, but those same GM's I mentioned above would easily take Kyrie Irving, Ricky Rubio, and Tyreke Evans over him (in addition to Nash and Rondo) and I'll bet a good many would take John Wall, Ty Lawson, Steph Curry, Mike Conley (Memphis already did), and Brandon Jennings over him as well. Pretty soon, Jeremy Lin might be added to this list as well.

You can debate some of those names, as I'm certain you or somebody else will, but several of them really can't be argued with a straight face.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

PG's often take more time to develop. Steve Nash didn't really arrive until his fifth year in the league. Until then, he was fairly predestrian. John Stocton took until his fourth year in the league, and really didn't totally arrive until his fifth year.

Agreed, and I've used these examples many times in the past when defending players. However, it's not like Kyle Lowry has seriously blown up. He's certainly improved and is more than a capable player. But he hasn't quite arrived in the same manner as the players you just mentioned.

If you were to switch Lowery for Rondo, there's a good chance Lowery would have been playing in an all star game. Put Lowery on the Heat, and see how much better he gets.

You could say the same for more than half the PG's in the league. Regardless, we're never gonna know unless he somehow gets traded into one of those situations. Besides, there are many PG's that aren't playing in ideal places or with a plethora of talent around them yet are still able to shine a lot more than Lowry (Tyreke, Irving, Curry, Rubio, Wall, Williams). If he's as good as some are claiming, it should be showing up a lot more despite not having Boston-like talent around him. It isn't. His numbers are pedestrian and his shooting percentage (sans 3pt) is subpar. But he plays good defense, though, so apparently that makes him a top player all of a sudden.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it the same as you guys. No worries. At least we've got something to debate about during this time of year ...

 

[Kingster]

I always believe that if you're thinking of it, someone else is too. That's why I doubt Taylor goes as low as 14. So that puts the kabosh on this deal from the get-go. If you don't have Taylor there at 14 you're outaluck. Also, I don't want to waste trade capital on a point guard when I have IT. This team wasn't crappy on D last year because of IT, and the defense wouldn't get appreciably better imo because of the addition of Lowry. If you analyze the defense and see it all breaking down because IT couldn't keep his man in front of him, then we see things differently. This D was very undisciplined and lazy. That's at least 70% of the cause behind it's failure; the rest you can attribute to guys being played out of position and certain guys (like Thornton and Jimmer just not having the talent on D). This FA is flush with point guards; that's where you should pick one up; that's where it's a buyer's market. Pick up Drag or Mr. X in FA and then you don't have to waste a #5 and Thornton on a point guard. If the Kings are fortunate to get Robinson at #5 then they can use Thornton and others to get a quality 3 if they so choose.

 

[Glenn]

Although I follow the idea that a trade for Lowry makes sense and even the deals postulated are reasonable. My objection is that we have more urgency to fill two other holes and if we are going to trade the very valuable #5 pick, let it be for a SF or big. Don't know how many times I have said that. If we use the #5 for a guard, we will most likely come up short in solving our problems in the two other positions. Put in the 100th way I have tried, an upgrade at PG will not make as dramatic change as an upgrade at other positions. Let's get the most bang for the buck as possible. We have an adequate starting PG. We don't have an adequate starting SF.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

For me, this deal largely depends on who is available at each pick.

If MKG or Drummond are available at #5, I think I keep it. Beal or Robinson and I let it go.

If Henson, Jones, or Meyers Leonard are available at #14, and then I assume Taylor will be there at #16, I do it. The talent in that case, along with team fit, are just too good to pass up.

Ideally though, you get a Hayes - Dalembert swap in that deal as well.

 

[Uncia03]

Although I follow the idea that a trade for Lowry makes sense and even the deals postulated are reasonable. My objection is that we have more urgency to fill two other holes and if we are going to trade the very valuable #5 pick, let it be for a SF or big. Don't know how many times I have said that. If we use the #5 for a guard, we will most likely come up short in solving our problems in the two other positions. Put in the 100th way I have tried, an upgrade at PG will not make as dramatic change as an upgrade at other positions. Let's get the most bang for the buck as possible. We have an adequate starting PG. We don't have an adequate starting SF.

For me, I do the deal with Houston with the assumption that I'll be able to select Taylor with a later pick. Taylor can come in and fill the SF spot.
So you get an upgrade at PG, you fill your SF spot with Taylor, and if you're really lucky, you get to swap Hayes for Dalembert and take care of the defensive big issue.
It's a wonderful idea that fills a lot of needs, and so therefore, will never actually happen...but it's fun to toss the idea around.