Your thoughts on the Kings rebuild...

[Superman]

There absolutely is a group think mentality on this forum, I don't want to go off topic but most times I know what 95% of the posters are going to say on any given thread even before I read it. There is minimal dissenting opinion on this board. That's a fact and a lot of the fans who I know stopped coming here. The homogeneousness simply has gotten boring. Furthermore, there tends to be much hostility and nastiness direct at the dissenting voice. Just read thru some of the posts on this thread. Capt, I think you're one of the few respectable posters left on this forum, I hope there's more like you but with differing opinion on the popular belief. Fortunately, there are more and more alternative to this forum, unlike a few years ago.

For the record I was against drafting Rubio, against firing Theus (because I knew Natt sucks), against handing out PT to Hawes before he earned it, against doing the same to JT, against the popular belief that Petrie only likes soft shooters, against the signing of Beno. So you can imagine the blunt of the insults I took over the years; not from you of course, but from the rest of board who could not tolerate differences of opinion. And I have to say, it'd be much easier to keep quiet and just let it be, but as a diehard Kings fan, I feel like I should contribute to the discussion, even though I could feel another wrath of nastiness coming my way again.

Back to the topic at hand. Knowing that not-All-Star but solid big man like Drew Gooden and Paul Millsap got paid $6-8 millions per, what is the going rate for Hickson? Based on his performance last season and let's assume for a minute the old CBA remains in place, Hickson can probably fetch $7-8 millions per from somebody, in the Charlie Villanueva range. That's the going rate for him now, and if he doesn't improve he will still probably commands similar range of salary, anyone thinking of signing him for the MLE (assuming there is still one) is dreaming. Would you re-sign Hickson for $7-8 millions per? Let's do the math, three years from now Tyreke, Cousins, JT, and Thorton are all up for or already had their extension. That's already about $35 millions committed to four players, and that's assuming Dalembert doesn't re-sign. If you add Hickson's $7-8 millions that's $43 millions to five players. It's doable but not very flexible and it certainly does not leave enough room to go after a big name FA in the near future.

On top of that, whether you believe Hickson can improve his defense, he is not and never will be a shot-blocking seven-footer that Cousins need next to him. So why would the Kings re-sign a guy that isn't really a great fit next to Cousins? Personally I wouldn't re-sign Hickson unless he put up Al Jefferson-like performance, but the catch is that if he does, he will cost too much.

I think it's funny that you make yourself a martyr just because your opinion is sometimes disagreed with by the majority. Won't deny that sometimes people are overly critical of dissenting opinions, but you make it sound like you're the lone wolf. I think you go too far.

Regardless, when it comes to Hickson's contract, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. Any concern about contract issues should be tabled until we have a new CBA. I feel the same way about market values as you do; Gooden, Millsap, Villanueva, Haywood, etc., all got grossly overpaid for their services, and it bodes ill for teams with middling players coming up on contract years. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a major market correction once a new CBA is done. These guys who have been in the $6-9 million range for the last three or four years will probably have their compensation cut in half over the next couple of years. At least, that's what I anticipate. Either way, I think your projections for Hickson's next contract might be a bit high. We just have to wait and see. Same thing for every other contract extension we plan on giving out in the next few years, and any new deal for Dalembert.

I don't think Hickson is an ideal starter alongside Cousins, but I do think we'll get more out of him than we would Casspi, even if it's just for one season. My only trepidation about this deal is whether we'll miss having that pick, whenever we happen to lose it. The protection works out to our benefit, but that's still up in the air. And even if he turns into a super-productive Al Jefferson type guy (which I think is a very aggressive projection), he's still not the ideal frontcourt mate for Cousins. But I would still say we came out on top in the trade. We'd still need to make some upgrades defensively, if we were to lose Dalembert. I just don't think worrying about his contract is an issue at this point.

 

[SacKings7]

I think a good rule in the new CBA would be compensation picks (and $) for teams that lose players via FA. Similar to the way MLB does it. This would really help small market teams recoup talent quickly.

Not just MLB, the NFL and NHL do it as well. Though in the NHL's case, I believe it's only when teams sign RFA's

 

[Bricklayer]

Not just MLB, the NFL and NHL do it as well. Though in the NHL's case, I believe it's only when teams sign RFA's

What pick could Miami possibly give Cleveland that would remotely make up for LeBron? That's the problem -- in basketball elite talents are SO much more important than they are in any other sport, save QBs in football. So when a team like Miami or the Lakers nab one, they are almost guaranteed fo elite status. And because they have eltie status, the picks they might have to give uyp will never be higher then #25-#30, whihc is almost no compensation at all.

 

[Superman]

What pick could Miami possibly give Cleveland that would remotely make up for LeBron? That's the problem -- in basketball elite talents are SO much more important than they are in any other sport, save QBs in basketball. So when a team like Miami or the Lakers nab one, they are almost guaranteed fo elite status. And because they have eltie status, the picks they might have to give uyp will never be higher then #25-#30, whihc is almost no compensation at all.

This is a valid consideration. The idea that Cleveland should be compensated for losing their best player is debatable, but if we're giving them compensation, then we should make sure it's considerable. And a first round pick from a good team probably won't be.

Here was my proposal from last year (one of them, anyway):

2) Compensatory draft picks: Teams that lose players via free agency get extra picks in the next summer's draft. Set up a compensatory round after the first round of the draft, and another after the second round, and that's where these compensatory picks come from. If you offer your own free agent a contract and he signs with another team, whether you have Bird rights or not, you are awarded a compensatory pick. If you offer a max contract and he signs elsewhere, you get two compensatory picks. If he signs for less, you get two picks in the next draft, and a third in the following draft. Each team is allowed a max of three compensatory picks in a given year. There would have to be a formula for determining the order and value of the compensatory picks.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Toronto receives two Level A compensatory picks, and a third Level B pick, in next year's draft. There's a total of ten Level A compensatory picks and four Level B picks. Along with the fact that they're going to pretty bad next season, let's assume they wind up fifth in the Lottery, they could conceivably wind up picking 5th, 31st, 36th, 45th, and 71st. Five picks in one draft, three in the top 40. Might not make up for losing their star power forward, but they get some form of compensation.

Concession: Restricted free agency. Much like the NFL, a team has the option to place a tender value on their star player. They would determine whether they want an average value on their player (a second round pick), a high value (a first round pick), or the highest value (two first round picks). The difference from the NFL's restricted free agency is that, along with that tender, they'd be offering a long term contract to that player, not just a one year deal. Values for the tendered contracts would be based on the average and max contracts allowable that season, same as MLE and max contracts now. If a team wants to sign your tendered player, they have to match that contract AND be willing to part with the picks that go along with the contract. Those picks have to be available starting the next season, so if you don't have them, you can't offer the contract. Trades are allowed outside of the restricted free agency process, so if the other team is willing to work out a deal with you, that's fine.

Hypothetical, the Raptors place a Level A tender on Chris Bosh, which includes a max contract. If the Heat want to sign him, they have to match the contract, plus surrender this year's first rounder and next year's first rounder, otherwise, they can't sign him. If the Heat are open to working out a sign and trade, that's allowable, but they ensure themselves compensation. (This would have killed the Miami fiasco.) At the same time, the player doesn't have to sign with just any team. If the Clippers are willing to match the Raptors tender, Bosh doesn't have to accept, but that might mean he stays in Toronto, where he doesn't want to be. Might throw in a player option after Year 4 of a six year deal, but free agency is still restricted.

I probably prefer the restricted free agency route as a way to prevent the Miami deal and give the home team a chance, and if you also boost Bird rights, then we'll never see that happen again. But the point is that, if a team loses their best player, they get something for it, as long as they made a reasonable attempt to keep him. The point is not to make sure they don't lose their best player, or even to make sure they are made whole if they do. It's just to give them some help moving forward, and it impacts the signing team because they lose (in this case) two draft picks.

For Toronto, losing Bosh would have meant an extra first rounder this year and next year, plus they picked 5th this year and will probably pick high next year. They could have also worked out a different agreement for compensation, including players and/or cash. But the real deal is that the Heat would not have been able to sign James and Bosh in the same offseason, because they wouldn't have had the picks to surrender. They wouldn't have been able to sign both to offer sheets.

 

[SacKings7]

What pick could Miami possibly give Cleveland that would remotely make up for LeBron? That's the problem -- in basketball elite talents are SO much more important than they are in any other sport, save QBs in basketball. So when a team like Miami or the Lakers nab one, they are almost guaranteed fo elite status. And because they have eltie status, the picks they might have to give uyp will never be higher then #25-#30, whihc is almost no compensation at all.

I didn't say I was supporting it, I was just clarifying to Hallama that all other major sports do it, not just MLB (which I don't follow as closely so I was actually unaware of that). I understand that draft picks are much more valuable in other sports than they are in the NBA, simply because of the number of rounds and the number of players per team, and like you said, an elite player in the NBA does much more for a team than an elite player in any of the other major sports.

 

[Kingster]

Clarification: Salmons is an above average on-ball defender who provides no help defense, does not rotate, does not hustle, and plays soft at times to stay from foul trouble.

If John Salmons is this defensive stopper that you're making him out to be, we wouldn't have traded him, the Bull wouldn't have traded him, and the Bucks wouldn't have traded him. How soon we forget - Salmons is above average defending the 2, he's average defending the three. Anyone taller than 6'7 or weight more than 200 has a tendency to light him up. You are living in fantasy land if you think he has any chance of stopping Kirilenko, Prince, Lebron, Durrant, Carmelo, Hayward, Josh Smith, etc. I'll give you that he can probably hold his own against Trevor Ariza or Linas Kleiza. Plus, he is one of main reasons the Kings' defensive rotation were so bad during the Brad/KMart/John era.

No one is writing Hickson off, he is a 15-9 guy who plays no defense. If you're ok with that, fine. But if you're attempting to make him out to be a two-way player like Al Horford, stop right there.

And of course you focus on a secondary issue and fail to address the main issue with Hickson's acquisition - he's leaving unless he gets paid. Did you not realize that this is his contract year? Did you not realize that he's looking for a mega contract, aka starter's money? Are you saying the Kings should sign him long term and turn the franchise's cap upside down? For a guy who doesn't compliment Cousins defensively? If Hickson is locked up for a reasonable rate then that's a different story, but the Kings gave up a pick for a player who could leave in a couple years. If Hickson does in fact leave next season, or even the season after, that's a bad trade.

I agree with the Salmon's analysis - good one-on-one defender; not so good weak-side defender. Still, he's an upgrade in talent over what we had. It's just that he's a negative when it comes to intangibles.

Regarding Hickson, the rap on him is that he doesn't play D when he doesn't get the ball. Well, on this team he may not get the ball very much at all because of all the other players that will demand the ball. I'll be watching to see how he handles that situation. (I'll also be watching to see how Thompson deals with fewer shot opportunities). I'm not going to say though that Hickson isn't somewhat of a risk, for the reasons that you state. I just think he's a good risk to take, especially when you give up a risky 1st rounder and a very risky Casspi.

 

[pshn80]

Leaving aside the intangibles, I still think ball handling is a fundamental weakness on this team. Some seem sure that the young players we have will become much better in the assist/turnover area. We'll see. Personally, I'm not as optimistic on that happening next year unless we get a guard that is in fact an excellent ball handler.

My feelings exactly. Clearly, improvement - big improvement is necessary. My confidence level that it will happen this coming season, especially with Evans and Cousins, is not very high. In my view, the excellent ball handling guard that we don't yet have is a must for this team of otherwise talented players to continue developing as we hope. Good post.

 

[Glenn]

Ok, folks. I'm not trolling and I'm not trying to stir things up. I am ignorant about the need for a ball handler. I must admit I'm not even sure what is meant by the term. For example, a healthy Reke can do things with a basketball when attacking the rim that is pretty special. Apparently that does not make him an adequate ball handler. Could someone define "ball handler" and educate me why it is so important to the Kings to have a ball handler?

 

[Telemachus]

I agree with the Salmon's analysis - good one-on-one defender; not so good weak-side defender. Still, he's an upgrade in talent over what we had. It's just that he's a negative when it comes to intangibles.QUOTE]

How much of this analysis do you base on Salmon's playing time with the Kings, and how much on what he has done with other teams? I agree that he wasn't much of a team defender with the Kings, but I would also point out that NO ONE on the Kings was playing help defense either. Last season was the first time in several years that I saw the Kings "trying" to play team defense and talking to each other. I can remember JT's 2nd season watching him try to help his teammates the first half of the season (often being left out to dry when no one switched on his man) only to give it up during the second half of the season.

I only bring this up because while I watched Salmons some with the Bulls and the Bucks, I didn't watch enough to make a real judgement as to his defense (although he seemed to be playing more team defense to me).

 

[whozit]

Ok, folks. I'm not trolling and I'm not trying to stir things up. I am ignorant about the need for a ball handler. I must admit I'm not even sure what is meant by the term. For example, a healthy Reke can do things with a basketball when attacking the rim that is pretty special. Apparently that does not make him an adequate ball handler. Could someone define "ball handler" and educate me why it is so important to the Kings to have a ball handler?

Possibly by better ball handler they mean better ball distributers. I am hopeful to a certain degree that given time to grow together, provided it doesn't take half a season to settle on a rotation, this "fundemental weakness" will become less of one.

 

[bajaden]

I agree with the Salmon's analysis - good one-on-one defender; not so good weak-side defender. Still, he's an upgrade in talent over what we had. It's just that he's a negative when it comes to intangibles.

Regarding Hickson, the rap on him is that he doesn't play D when he doesn't get the ball. Well, on this team he may not get the ball very much at all because of all the other players that will demand the ball. I'll be watching to see how he handles that situation. (I'll also be watching to see how Thompson deals with fewer shot opportunities). I'm not going to say though that Hickson isn't somewhat of a risk, for the reasons that you state. I just think he's a good risk to take, especially when you give up a risky 1st rounder and a very risky Casspi.

I doubt it will affect Thompson very much. He only averaged 7 shots a game last season, and I doubt his number was called on most of them. Part of what makes JT valuable. He doesn't demand the ball, and just takes whats there. But he does the little things, like set screens, rebound, and play defense. JT's a team guy, so I don't think he'll be a problem..

 

[bajaden]

Ok, folks. I'm not trolling and I'm not trying to stir things up. I am ignorant about the need for a ball handler. I must admit I'm not even sure what is meant by the term. For example, a healthy Reke can do things with a basketball when attacking the rim that is pretty special. Apparently that does not make him an adequate ball handler. Could someone define "ball handler" and educate me why it is so important to the Kings to have a ball handler?

I'll give you my definition. Its someone that can put the ball on the floor and dribble where he wants without turning the ball over, and doing it with either hand. Tyreke is a terrific ballhandler when healthy. Thornton is a pretty good ballhandler. And people will see that Fredette is a very good ballhandler. Cisco is average. Greene not so good. Casspi was better than Greene, but no by much. Neither could go into traffic very well. Cousins isn't bad for a guy his size. Personally, I'm not too thrilled with 6'11" 280 pound guys dribbling the ball through the key. But he proved he could do it when he picked the right moment. Salmons is a very good ballhandler. Of course, one of the traits that some good ballhandlers aquire, is overdribbling.

While poor ballhandling can lead to turnovers, a good ballhandler can turn the ball over just as easily by making bad decisions. Same way a good passer can. A large majority of Cousins turnovers came from making bad decisions, and not from inability.

 

[pshn80]

I'll give you my definition. Its someone that can put the ball on the floor and dribble where he wants without turning the ball over, and doing it with either hand. Tyreke is a terrific ballhandler when healthy. Thornton is a pretty good ballhandler. And people will see that Fredette is a very good ballhandler. Cisco is average. Greene not so good. Casspi was better than Greene, but no by much. Neither could go into traffic very well. Cousins isn't bad for a guy his size. Personally, I'm not too thrilled with 6'11" 280 pound guys dribbling the ball through the key. But he proved he could do it when he picked the right moment. Salmons is a very good ballhandler. Of course, one of the traits that some good ballhandlers aquire, is overdribbling.

While poor ballhandling can lead to turnovers, a good ballhandler can turn the ball over just as easily by making bad decisions. Same way a good passer can. A large majority of Cousins turnovers came from making bad decisions, and not from inability.

Baja, thank you for posting that. When I said ball handling in my post above I mis-stated. What I meant is those things a player does with the ball that are unproductive in the long run, like a turnover because of poor ball handling, poor passing, poor shooting, poor decisions of any kind. With Cousins for instance it is those things he does when he has the ball that are unproductive, and he is diverse in this area. I would guess that that he has the highest ratio of bad results to good results on the Kings team, and that is really bad because the good he does is high also. We all expect that sort of thing to improve, and it will, but in my book not fast enough without the help of more reliable options. We have to cut down on both our physical and mental mistakes To help that along we need some experienced veteran quality players or even one good player to help set the example and help bring our young guys up quicker.

As I read what I wrote above I'm sorry to say that it sounds to esoteric or theoretical. I'm sorry but I believe the problem is quite significant, quite real, and quite in need of some impetus to solve it sooner rather than later. If I was as knowledgeable as some of our posters I could name examples of who we could get. Our team will continue to get better even with the players we have but I hope for some more veteran help to get these guys over the hump quicker.

 

[TheWileyVet]

I think the Kings have done a decent job at the rebuild so far.

Reke and Cousins? Great!
Thorton and Dalembert? Great! (assuming they resign)
Thompson is a solid 3rd big
Jimmer is intriguing
Salmons and Hickson? Meh... I'm not thrilled about Salmons after the first dance and I really feel like Hickson is a 1 yr rental.


So rebuild could be worse, but it def could be better.

 

[Kingster]

I agree with the Salmon's analysis - good one-on-one defender; not so good weak-side defender. Still, he's an upgrade in talent over what we had. It's just that he's a negative when it comes to intangibles.QUOTE]

How much of this analysis do you base on Salmon's playing time with the Kings, and how much on what he has done with other teams? I agree that he wasn't much of a team defender with the Kings, but I would also point out that NO ONE on the Kings was playing help defense either. Last season was the first time in several years that I saw the Kings "trying" to play team defense and talking to each other. I can remember JT's 2nd season watching him try to help his teammates the first half of the season (often being left out to dry when no one switched on his man) only to give it up during the second half of the season.

I only bring this up because while I watched Salmons some with the Bulls and the Bucks, I didn't watch enough to make a real judgement as to his defense (although he seemed to be playing more team defense to me).

I watched Salmons very closely when he was with the Kings; not as closely when he left. So, yes, maybe he's improved in off-the-ball D and I just haven't observed it.

 

[bajaden]

Baja, thank you for posting that. When I said ball handling in my post above I mis-stated. What I meant is those things a player does with the ball that are unproductive in the long run, like a turnover because of poor ball handling, poor passing, poor shooting, poor decisions of any kind. With Cousins for instance it is those things he does when he has the ball that are unproductive, and he is diverse in this area. I would guess that that he has the highest ratio of bad results to good results on the Kings team, and that is really bad because the good he does is high also. We all expect that sort of thing to improve, and it will, but in my book not fast enough without the help of more reliable options. We have to cut down on both our physical and mental mistakes To help that along we need some experienced veteran quality players or even one good player to help set the example and help bring our young guys up quicker.

As I read what I wrote above I'm sorry to say that it sounds to esoteric or theoretical. I'm sorry but I believe the problem is quite significant, quite real, and quite in need of some impetus to solve it sooner rather than later. If I was as knowledgeable as some of our posters I could name examples of who we could get. Our team will continue to get better even with the players we have but I hope for some more veteran help to get these guys over the hump quicker.

Cousins is the classic example of a very talented player whose worse emeny is himself. If your a very skilled player, it all comes down to the elimination of mistakes. And thats the case with Cousins. He's a terrific passer with great instincts. He can shoot the ball from 18 feet, and he has great footwork and instincts under the basket. The amazing part, is most of what he does, just comes naturally to him. This is a kid that watches someone else do something, and he just goes out into a game and trys to do it. Brilliant and stupid at the same time. But when you look at his ceiling, its up so high, you almost can't see it.

If Cousins can come back this coming season and correct a third of the mistakes he made last season, your looking at a potential all star player. If, in three years, he can limit his mistakes to 10% of what he did his rookie year, and increase by 40% in his overall abilities, your looking, barring injuries, at one of the top 2 or 3 centers in the league. Doesn't mean that it will happen. But the potential is there.

 

[Glenn]

Cousins is the classic example of a very talented player whose worse emeny is himself. If your a very skilled player, it all comes down to the elimination of mistakes. And thats the case with Cousins. He's a terrific passer with great instincts. He can shoot the ball from 18 feet, and he has great footwork and instincts under the basket. The amazing part, is most of what he does, just comes naturally to him. This is a kid that watches someone else do something, and he just goes out into a game and trys to do it. Brilliant and stupid at the same time. But when you look at his ceiling, its up so high, you almost can't see it.

If Cousins can come back this coming season and correct a third of the mistakes he made last season, your looking at a potential all star player. If, in three years, he can limit his mistakes to 10% of what he did his rookie year, and increase by 40% in his overall abilities, your looking, barring injuries, at one of the top 2 or 3 centers in the league. Doesn't mean that it will happen. But the potential is there.

I have watched Cuz with a different view but both views may end up in the same place. I want him to try everything he thinks he is capable of. Try every dumb a$$ pass and the like. Then he will learn where his skill level compares with the rest. I say try it Cuz and screw up or succeed, you will learn. How else is he tor learn how far his immense talents will take him? This may make him his own enemy, but how else is he to learn?

The trite phrase that you learn by your mistakes hopefully is operative with Cuz.

Those of us who have played or watched basketball for decades know what is going to work and what is not but he doesn't. How could he? He is also capable of far more than the average big guy and as to the variety of skilled moves or plays he can make, he stands out. Let us see if he has learned.

We'll see if he is learning over the next few years but I encourage him to try the wild a$$ plays and I think he is smart enough to learn.

 

[Glenn]

I'll give you my definition. Its someone that can put the ball on the floor and dribble where he wants without turning the ball over, and doing it with either hand. Tyreke is a terrific ballhandler when healthy. Thornton is a pretty good ballhandler. And people will see that Fredette is a very good ballhandler. Cisco is average. Greene not so good. Casspi was better than Greene, but no by much. Neither could go into traffic very well. Cousins isn't bad for a guy his size. Personally, I'm not too thrilled with 6'11" 280 pound guys dribbling the ball through the key. But he proved he could do it when he picked the right moment. Salmons is a very good ballhandler. Of course, one of the traits that some good ballhandlers aquire, is overdribbling.

While poor ballhandling can lead to turnovers, a good ballhandler can turn the ball over just as easily by making bad decisions. Same way a good passer can. A large majority of Cousins turnovers came from making bad decisions, and not from inability.

I have read notes from several people who say one of our main needs is a ball handling guard. You have described our guards as being very good at ball handling as a group. This is where I am confused. Some people are using a different definition of the term and I want to know what that definition is. What is our need for a "ball handling" guard? Don't we have them and didn't we draft one? This is like the term "athleticism." It is thrown about and people may have different ideas as to what it means. We aren't communicating if we can't agree as to what terms mean.

 

[Kingster]

Ok, folks. I'm not trolling and I'm not trying to stir things up. I am ignorant about the need for a ball handler. I must admit I'm not even sure what is meant by the term. For example, a healthy Reke can do things with a basketball when attacking the rim that is pretty special. Apparently that does not make him an adequate ball handler. Could someone define "ball handler" and educate me why it is so important to the Kings to have a ball handler?

I mean a guy who can get the ball up the floor (quickly), break a press, set up an offense (with a lot of time left on the clock), and get the ball into the right hands without turning it over. How about being able to get into an offense with 18 seconds on the shot clock? Others may call that a point guard.... We have nobody on this team that is very goodin that regard. Tyreke, even in his rookie year, didn't do a good job in getting the offense set up quickly and not overdribbling and getting it into the right hands. Last year he was terrible. Heck, he couldn't even run a three on two break. I don't feel very comfortable that we aren't going to have the same issues next year with our current crop of guards.

 

[Glenn]

I mean a guy who can get the ball up the floor (quickly), break a press, set up an offense (with a lot of time left on the clock), and get the ball into the right hands without turning it over. How about being able to get into an offense with 18 seconds on the shot clock? Others may call that a point guard.... We have nobody on this team that is very goodin that regard. Tyreke, even in his rookie year, didn't do a good job in getting the offense set up quickly and not overdribbling and getting it into the right hands. Last year he was terrible. Heck, he couldn't even run a three on two break. I don't feel very comfortable that we aren't going to have the same issues next year with our current crop of guards.

Take the ball out of Tyreke's hands. They did that a few times and what you wanted happened. With this team, I think it is a problem with the coach if this is the primary issue of concern. Certainly Jimmer can do what you want. If you are calling for the replacement of Tyreke on the team, that's a different matter.

 

[pshn80]

I mean a guy who can get the ball up the floor (quickly), break a press, set up an offense (with a lot of time left on the clock), and get the ball into the right hands without turning it over. How about being able to get into an offense with 18 seconds on the shot clock? Others may call that a point guard.... We have nobody on this team that is very goodin that regard. Tyreke, even in his rookie year, didn't do a good job in getting the offense set up quickly and not overdribbling and getting it into the right hands. Last year he was terrible. Heck, he couldn't even run a three on two break. I don't feel very comfortable that we aren't going to have the same issues next year with our current crop of guards.

Right on. It is one of our significant issues. No matter how good Jimmer might be he is "too junior" to command respect from Evans and Cousins. We need someone to have a chance at better commanding the respect of the team as a floor manager, ball handler, distributor, efficient in bringing the ball up court and starting the offense. We don't seem to have that now. I'm sure that is something that is in the plans, one way or another, of Petrie, Westphal, and FO.

 

[Superman]

Right on. It is one of our significant issues. No matter how good Jimmer might be he is "too junior" to command respect from Evans and Cousins. We need someone to have a chance at better commanding the respect of the team as a floor manager, ball handler, distributor, efficient in bringing the ball up court and starting the offense. We don't seem to have that now. I'm sure that is something that is in the plans, one way or another, of Petrie, Westphal, and FO.

If Jimmer can handle the rock and get the team into the offense quickly, his junior status ceases to matter. I think he's the ball-handling guard you're looking for.

 

[pshn80]

If Jimmer can handle the rock and get the team into the offense quickly, his junior status ceases to matter. I think he's the ball-handling guard you're looking for.

I sure hope you're right. He could be but it's just a big first year jump. Maybe if I chip in $10 bucks or so, both sides will sign a new CBA by the end of the month and I can see what happens next on the court.

 

[Spike]

Right on. It is one of our significant issues. No matter how good Jimmer might be he is "too junior" to command respect from Evans and Cousins.

Isn't he already older than those two? That'll count for something, even if he is a rookie.

 

[bajaden]

Isn't he already older than those two? That'll count for something, even if he is a rookie.

Yes, Jimmer is 22 years old.

 

[pshn80]

Jimmer's got them by age but they got more stars on their shoulders, higher picks, vets and an appropriate dose of ego. I don't think Tyreke is too bad that way and maybe not Cousins either. Of course Fredette has a little star power of his own and if he justs brings good basketball to camp that may do the trick. I guess I'm being a little selfish in that I don't want to wait too long to see it jell to a useful degree and with Fredette we would be starting from scratch for the third year in a row. Patience, Tom, patience.

 

[Superman]

Jimmer's got them by age but they got more stars on their shoulders, higher picks, vets and an appropriate dose of ego. I don't think Tyreke is too bad that way and maybe not Cousins either. Of course Fredette has a little star power of his own and if he justs brings good basketball to camp that may do the trick. I guess I'm being a little selfish in that I don't want to wait too long to see it jell to a useful degree and with Fredette we would be starting from scratch for the third year in a row. Patience, Tom, patience.

I just think that's all incredibly irrelevant. If he's the "point guard" then he'll be bringing the ball up the court and getting us into the offense (which are two totally different things, by the way). If he's the point, we can still run the offense through either Cousins or Evans, or anyone else. Or we can let Jimmer initiate at times. I think it's all much ado about nothing. If you want a good ball handler, I think Jimmer will be more than adequate. If you want to improve the offense, you need better cohesion and spacing. Better ball handling doesn't hurt, but it's not the silver bullet either.

 

[Superman]

Jimmer's got them by age but they got more stars on their shoulders, higher picks, vets and an appropriate dose of ego. I don't think Tyreke is too bad that way and maybe not Cousins either. Of course Fredette has a little star power of his own and if he justs brings good basketball to camp that may do the trick. I guess I'm being a little selfish in that I don't want to wait too long to see it jell to a useful degree and with Fredette we would be starting from scratch for the third year in a row. Patience, Tom, patience.

I just think that's all incredibly irrelevant. If he's the "point guard" then he'll be bringing the ball up the court and getting us into the offense (which are two totally different things, by the way). If he's the point, we can still run the offense through either Cousins or Evans, or anyone else. Or we can let Jimmer initiate at times. I think it's all much ado about nothing. If you want a good ball handler, I think Jimmer will be more than adequate. If you want to improve the offense, you need better cohesion and spacing. Better ball handling doesn't hurt, but it's not the silver bullet either.

 

[Kingster]

Take the ball out of Tyreke's hands. They did that a few times and what you wanted happened. With this team, I think it is a problem with the coach if this is the primary issue of concern. Certainly Jimmer can do what you want. If you are calling for the replacement of Tyreke on the team, that's a different matter.

I don't think there's any certainty that Jimmer can do the "ballhandling" that I describe above, at least not in his rookie year. First, he's a rookie point guard, and I don't give rookie point guards the benefit of the doubt as a rule because they typically don't perform very well early on. Certainly, there are exceptions (Rose, CP3 among them), but I don't see Jimmer in that class. Second, I don't see Jimmer as a press breaker or a great ball handler; that's not his primary talent by any means. Yes, he performed well in college as a ballhandler, but not great. But this isn't college. It's the NBA. If you aren't a "great" ballhandler in college I immediately have doubts about your ability to perform in that area as a rookie in the NBA. If I'm coaching against the Kings, and I have any quickness in my backcourt, I pick the Kings guards up in the backcourt and make them work to get it across the mid-line. Disrupt the initiation of the offense and you have a very good chance to disrupt the offense, period.

 

[Glenn]

I don't think there's any certainty that Jimmer can do the "ballhandling" that I describe above, at least not in his rookie year. First, he's a rookie point guard, and I don't give rookie point guards the benefit of the doubt as a rule because they typically don't perform very well early on. Certainly, there are exceptions (Rose, CP3 among them), but I don't see Jimmer in that class. Second, I don't see Jimmer as a press breaker or a great ball handler; that's not his primary talent by any means. Yes, he performed well in college as a ballhandler, but not great. But this isn't college. It's the NBA. If you aren't a "great" ballhandler in college I immediately have doubts about your ability to perform in that area as a rookie in the NBA. If I'm coaching against the Kings, and I have any quickness in my backcourt, I pick the Kings guards up in the backcourt and make them work to get it across the mid-line. Disrupt the initiation of the offense and you have a very good chance to disrupt the offense, period.

Other than endless arguing, what do you want? Name a person and how we get him.