Nik Stauskas

Should Nik Stauskas start the last 2 games?

  • NO- He does not deserve to get a start

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • NO- He may ruin the little trade value he has

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • YES- Let's see if he has any game

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • YES- He may go off and INCREASE his trade value 10X

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
#1
Why not give Nik or Sauce Castillo a chance to start over the final two games, since we are in full tank mode and Rudy Gay is out anyways.

Lets see what this kid's got. That way we can go into the summer with an idea if this kid can play or not.

I Say Lets Start the Sauce and see what we got!

Should we or shouldn't we start the SAUCE?
 
#2
He struggles against benches lately. Do you want 40 minutes of struggle?
At the same time Fakers start passive role players at both wing positions and Ryan Kelly and all his power at PF, so Nik/Ben/Omri might work.
 
#4
I voted no.

If you start Stauskas, you risk two things. You risk McLemore's confidence going down as he was just replaced by a rookie SG in the rotation. You also risk Stauskas having a bad couple of games as a starter thus possibly hurting his confidence. Stauskas has found some "success" off the bench. I would rather keep his confidence up going into the offseason. McLemore has been starting at SG since the trade deadline last year, let's not "demote" him these last two games and possibly shoot down his confidence in the process.

This notion that "let's see what we have in Stauskas by starting him" is silly. If you don't know what we have in him by now, then I suggest you watch more Kings games. A player doesn't need to start for you to know who he is as a player. I would rather coddle our young players (while we can) and do what's best for their development. Next year will be a different story, but I would rather have both my young SG's confidence high (or relatively high) going into the offseason.
 
Last edited:
#5
Didn't vote. My old fashioned view is leave it to the coach. I'd love to see him start a few games and get tested in a way he hasn't to date.
 
#7
Why not a lineup of:
McCallum/McLemore/Stauskas/Casspi/Thompson?
Yes. I would rather see what Stauskas can do, than starting DWill. BMac can play the swing forward/guard position and Stauskas can play the SG/PG role.

Starting DWill, like the last game, is useless in the grand scheme of things.
 
#8
I voted no.

If you start Stauskas, you risk two things. You risk McLemore's confidence going down as he was just replaced by a rookie SG in the rotation. You also risk Stauskas having a bad couple of games as a starter thus possibly hurting his confidence. Stauskas has found some "success" off the bench. I would rather keep his confidence up going into the offseason. McLemore has been starting at SG since the trade deadline last year, let's not "demote" him these last two games and possibly shoot down his confidence in the process.

This notion that "let's see what we have in Stauskas by starting him" is silly. If you don't know what we have in him by now, then I suggest you watch more Kings games. A player doesn't need to start for you to know who he is as a player. I would rather coddle our young players (while we can) and do what's best for their development. Next year, will be a different story, but I would rather have both my young SGs confidence high (or relatively high) going into the offseason.
BMac wouldn't need to be benched. Stauskas can play the SG/PG role and BMac can play the swing SG/SF role.

What's the use of starting DWill. Like the last game against Denver?
 
#13
So both young players are doing relatively well in their current roles, during a year of upheaval and chaos. Why jerk them around when you don't have to?

Play him some extra minutes, sure. But why does he have to start? What does promoting him and demoting someone else do?
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#19
Not sure I see the point. What possible difference could two games make. And it would have nothing to do with McLemore's confidence. When ever I got sat for whatever reason, I just figured the manager was an idiot. Never shook my confidence. What shook my confidence was someone with a wicked curve ball. You want to start him, fine, then just start him at SF. He's 6'6"so he's not giving away that much height at the SF position. But once again, I don't see the point. He's been playing with back spasms, and probably the best thing for him would be to sit out the next two games and get healthy for summer league. Right now, I'm sure Karl is trying different people on the floor together to see how they play. So whatever his agenda is, I'm fine with.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#21
Interesting that 7 people say Nik doesn't deserve to start, they must've been confused with Ben.
I said NO, but I didn't really agree with the "doesn't deserve to start" part of the response. I think based on some of the comments some others may have felt the same way.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#22
No, we should not start Stauskas. Why would we, because some people have hate in their hearts for Ben McLemore? **** 'em. You move a player into the starting lineup because he outplayed the guy ahead of him, or because the guy ahead of him is injured, and neither one of those things is true.
 
#23
No, we should not start Stauskas. Why would we, because some people have hate in their hearts for Ben McLemore? **** 'em. You move a player into the starting lineup because he outplayed the guy ahead of him, or because the guy ahead of him is injured, and neither one of those things is true.
I assumed this thread meant start Ben and Nik together..
 
#24
I assumed this thread meant start Ben and Nik together..
I know a lot of Kings Fans get sucked into this "positionless" basketball idea, but I would prefer to stay the course and not play players out of position. Especially when they're delicate rookies.

Stauskas is finally starting to come around. Keep his role consistent to end the year.
 
#25
I know a lot of Kings Fans get sucked into this "positionless" basketball idea, but I would prefer to stay the course and not play players out of position. Especially when they're delicate rookies.

Stauskas is finally starting to come around. Keep his role consistent to end the year.
I agree with you. However, I think positionless basketball is becoming more of a reality. We saw it in Phoenix where they had two guys who could handle the ball. We also see it a lot in the NBA everywhere with PFs and Cs aren't really PFs or Cs... then we see a lot of wings who play both the 3-4 in small lineups. You have Green as a PF with the Warriors, despite being more of a SF.

I think we are seeing a lot of the positonless basketball around the NBA, but the Kings are the first to sort of patent it.
 
#26
I agree with you. However, I think positionless basketball is becoming more of a reality. We saw it in Phoenix where they had two guys who could handle the ball. We also see it a lot in the NBA everywhere with PFs and Cs aren't really PFs or Cs... then we see a lot of wings who play both the 3-4 in small lineups. You have Green as a PF with the Warriors, despite being more of a SF.

I think we are seeing a lot of the positonless basketball around the NBA, but the Kings are the first to sort of patent it.
I could care less what other teams are doing. What has Phoenix done to warrant respect with their Bledsoe - Dragic combo? The Warriors have yet to win anything and Green is up for DPOY. GSW fans will actually debate you until they are blue in the face that he is a PF, and could you blame them? If you're playing PF and a DPOY candidate, I think it's pretty safe to say you can more than handle your own at that position.

Modeling yourself after teams that haven't amounted to anything is a recipe for disaster. With less and less skilled big men coming into the league, it allows teams to go with these small/soft big men in their lineups because they don't have to worry about stopping a skilled big on the other side. However, playoff teams usually have skilled big men on their roster. This usually results in early exits for these small/positionless teams because they have no answer to stop these players down low. So sure, you can have a good regular season record with these lineups, but you're going to have a hard time winning in the playoffs.

Green is small for his position but he also happens to be a player who can stop skilled big men down low. I would not make general rationalizations and point to such a unique/special player like Green as evidence.
 
#27
I could care less what other teams are doing. What has Phoenix done to warrant respect with their Bledsoe - Dragic combo? The Warriors have yet to win anything and Green is up for DPOY. GSW fans will actually debate you until they are blue in the face that he is a PF, and could you blame them? If you're playing PF and a DPOY candidate, I think it's pretty safe to say you can more than handle your own at that position.

Modeling yourself after teams that haven't amounted to anything is a recipe for disaster. With less and less skilled big men coming into the league, it allows teams to go with these small/soft big men in their lineups because they don't have to worry about stopping a skilled big on the other side. However, playoff teams usually have skilled big men on their roster. This usually results in early exits for these small/positionless teams because they have no answer to stop these players down low. So sure, you can have a good regular season record with these lineups, but you're going to have a hard time winning in the playoffs.

Green is small for his position but he also happens to be a player who can stop skilled big men down low. I would not make general rationalizations and point to such a unique/special player like Green as evidence.
I highly disagree with you. Let's take a look playoff teams around the league right now with traditional pure 1-2-3-4-5's:
Hawks- Yes
Cavaliers-Yes
Bulls-No
Raptors-No
Wizards-Yes
Bucks-No
Celtics-No
Pacers-???Too many injuries to tell

Warriors- No
Spurs-Yes
Rockets-No/Too many injuries
Blazers-Yes
Clippers-Yes
Grizzlies-Yes
Mavericks-No
Pelicans-No
 
#28
I highly disagree with you. Let's take a look playoff teams around the league right now with traditional pure 1-2-3-4-5's:
Hawks- Yes
Cavaliers-Yes
Bulls-No
Raptors-No
Wizards-Yes
Bucks-No
Celtics-No
Pacers-???Too many injuries to tell

Warriors- No
Spurs-Yes
Rockets-No/Too many injuries
Blazers-Yes
Clippers-Yes
Grizzlies-Yes
Mavericks-No
Pelicans-No
I'm not really sure how this applies and what your definition of a traditional lineup is. However, I think you are missing the point.

If you want to have a chance at contending, you're going to need post offense and post defense. Having tweeners who can't defend can leave you vulnerable and have generally never worked out in the past. Successful teams have their go-to guys and then surround them with defenders. That's been the blueprint of a successful team from the beginning. Lately, post defenders haven't been as essentially considering the lack of skilled big men in the league. Therefore, teams that play these smallball lineups can get away with it and produce a good record in the regular season. However, the more complete teams (and thus the more competitive teams) have skilled big men, so when these smallball lineups go up against these teams, they hit a wall and are unable to compete.

A team like GSW has success playing a small PF because that PF happens to be an excellent defender. In general, most undersized PFs are lacking defensively. However, the anomaly that is Draymond gives them an advantage because of his play on the defensive end and the ability to stretch the floor and handle the ball on offense.

Just because there is an undersized PF on a successful team, doesn't mean that is where the league is headed. If there were Draymond Green's lying around everywhere, I bet we would see more successful teams with a small PF. Unfortunately, Green is a very unique player. Insinuating that teams are capable of winning with a small PF is not technically untrue (LeBron, Green), but if you have to bank on finding a LeBron or Draymond to play PF, you're going to be s*** out of luck. Those players are rare. Why not build a team the more conventional way that has already proved to be a winner in the past?

I'm not sure how you highly disagree with that, but please, feel free to take a stab at it.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#29
I could care less what other teams are doing. What has Phoenix done to warrant respect with their Bledsoe - Dragic combo? The Warriors have yet to win anything and Green is up for DPOY. GSW fans will actually debate you until they are blue in the face that he is a PF, and could you blame them? If you're playing PF and a DPOY candidate, I think it's pretty safe to say you can more than handle your own at that position.

Modeling yourself after teams that haven't amounted to anything is a recipe for disaster. With less and less skilled big men coming into the league, it allows teams to go with these small/soft big men in their lineups because they don't have to worry about stopping a skilled big on the other side. However, playoff teams usually have skilled big men on their roster. This usually results in early exits for these small/positionless teams because they have no answer to stop these players down low. So sure, you can have a good regular season record with these lineups, but you're going to have a hard time winning in the playoffs.

Green is small for his position but he also happens to be a player who can stop skilled big men down low. I would not make general rationalizations and point to such a unique/special player like Green as evidence.
I just hope management doesn't become too obsessed with being entertaining rather than winning games when they count the most. The foundation is in place...the clock is ticking as we speak to do something with that foundation and become something relevant again.
 
#30
I'm not really sure how this applies and what your definition of a traditional lineup is. However, I think you are missing the point.

If you want to have a chance at contending, you're going to need post offense and post defense. Having tweeners who can't defend can leave you vulnerable and have generally never worked out in the past. Successful teams have their go-to guys and then surround them with defenders. That's been the blueprint of a successful team from the beginning. Lately, post defenders haven't been as essentially considering the lack of skilled big men in the league. Therefore, teams that play these smallball lineups can get away with it and produce a good record in the regular season. However, the more complete teams (and thus the more competitive teams) have skilled big men, so when these smallball lineups go up against these teams, they hit a wall and are unable to compete.

A team like GSW has success playing a small PF because that PF happens to be an excellent defender. In general, most undersized PFs are lacking defensively. However, the anomaly that is Draymond gives them an advantage because of his play on the defensive end and the ability to stretch the floor and handle the ball on offense.

Just because there is an undersized PF on a successful team, doesn't mean that is where the league is headed. If there were Draymond Green's lying around everywhere, I bet we would see more successful teams with a small PF. Unfortunately, Green is a very unique player. Insinuating that teams are capable of winning with a small PF is not technically untrue (LeBron, Green), but if you have to bank on finding a LeBron or Draymond to play PF, you're going to be s*** out of luck. Those players are rare. Why not build a team the more conventional way that has already proved to be a winner in the past?

I'm not sure how you highly disagree with that, but please, feel free to take a stab at it.
I don't think I'm missing the point. Like Green, Nik is a very unique player with a versatile skill set. He has the ability to handle the ball and create for his teammates. He also has the length to guard positions 1-3, but he doesn't have the size. There's no reason why we couldn't play a lineup of McLemore and Stauskas together.



You said:
I know a lot of Kings Fans get sucked into this "positionless" basketball idea, but I would prefer to stay the course and not play players out of position. Especially when they're delicate rookies.
I provided you with playoff teams that play out of position in starting lineups. My point is that there is nothing wrong with having a starting lineup without a traditional PG-SG-SF-PF-C at each and every position.

I'm thinking that we have different definitions of "positionless basketball".

I think positionless basketball is when a starting lineup doesn't have a traditional 1-2-3-4-5 at every slot.

For example, I pulled out the Raptors. They have Lowry-DeRozan-Ross-Johnson-Valanciunus. This is positionless basketball because Ross is out of position. He's more of a SG who's playing SF. That is a magnified tiny example of positonless basketball. It's what we'd see if we had Nik in the starting lineup.

An example of a heavy positonless basketball team are the Bucks.
They have MCW-Middleton-Giannis-Ilyasova-Zaza
Middleton is a combo SG/SF. He has the length and size to guard positions 1-3, but he plays as the "2" here because of his teammates around him. Giannis is 6'11 and ATHLETIC, but he can't shoot too well yet, and he doesn't have the weight..so he plays the "3". Ilyasova is a lengthy "4" who has a lot of game around the perimeter. He's a "stretch 4" in this lineup.
None of those three players are natural at their current positions if you're going by the traditional 2-3-4. They're just put together in a lineup because they compliment another.

That right there, is positionless basketball imo. A lot of the league has at least 1 player out of position in their starting lineup. People over look this because it's not a huge change. Many people think of 5 guards at the same time, or 4 D-Wills on the floor at the same time when they think about positionless basketball, but that's not how I see it.

Even if Green is a unique player, the Warriors STILL have positionless basektball incorporated into their team. Green is not a traditional 4, and he's really more of a small forward/elite wing type of player.