Preseason Grades v. Blazers 10/20/2013

[Kingster]

minor detail, but 6 assists

Nonetheless there is absolutely no doubt which one of the two will notch more assists every night.

Absolutely no doubt, hugh? Why is it when regularized for minutes played IT had more assists last night? Figure 30 minutes played for both and IT had close to 11 assists; Vasquez 9. Is this the once in lifetime aberration? Is it time to play the lottery?

In any case, minutes played doesn't hinge solely on assists. The Vasquez/IT subtopic will be an interesting one this season. Still wouldn't surprise me to see both playing on the floor together.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Absolutely no doubt, hugh? Why is it when regularized for minutes played IT had more assists last night? Figure 30 minutes played for both and IT had close to 11 assists; Vasquez 9. Is this the once in lifetime aberration? Is it time to play the lottery?

It's not a once-in-a-lifetime aberration, it's called small sample size.

Over his career, IT has averaged 5.5 assists per-36 with an assist% of 25.0. Over his career, Greivis has averaged 8.3 assists per-36 and an assist% of 38.7. There's no history whatsoever that suggests IT will have a better season for assists than Vasquez.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Start Jimmer at PG and this team makes the playoffs.
Jimmer will be an all-star in this league and very Nash-like.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Man that silky J

at 1:14 Outlaw could have given it to Ben for the open dunk

 

[macadocious]

Disagree. Start Jimmer at PG and this team makes the playoffs. Jimmer's game is all about getting to his second wind, then relaxing and then dominating. Once he finds his rhythm, which this team has never allowed him to do, he dominates the game. There were plenty of head scratcher first halves at BYU, just to see him come out in the 2nd half and blaze a fire. It will take a coach to put himself out on the line and believe in Jimmer, but once one does, Jimmer will be an all-star in this league and very Nash-like.

 

[Bosnian Diehard]

I voted for Thornton over McLemore since I haven't seen the majority of the preseason games, but after looking at the poll and his performance vs. Portland, I have completely changed my mind.

Cousins
Thompson
Mbah a Moute
McLemore
Vasquez

 

[bajaden]

Brick is too smart for us.

Speak for yourself! Oh wait, you are! Sorry......

 

[Sac.Kings]

What i mean by "create their own shot" doesn't mean literally a guy that gets offense for himself, but a guy that can consistently beat his man off the dribble and draw defenders for guards, and for big guys it would be a guy that can draw double teams. On this team we have 2 (Cousins and IT). No team can be be good in this league without guys that can do that consistently. IT can consistently beat his man and draw defenders, its too bad more often than not he puts up his blinkers and looks to score himself, if he could establish the pass first, he would get much easier looks for himself later on in the game. BTW Thornton is not someone that can create for himself, can't beat his man off the dribble, he is and should be an off ball scorer very much like McLemore.

We had that with Tyreke here in the last few seasons. It got us nowhere (not a knock against Tyreke whatsoever as we had a fair bit of other circumstances going on). Ball movement on the perimeter can lead to excellent opportunities. Back in the glory days, Bibby didn't blow past other guards night in and night out. Neither did Christie really. We played a motion offense with the ball going down low to the big man and the perimeter guys flying about to their spots and creating opportunities that way. Your idea would certainly work with a Rondo type of player, or a Tony Parker. A player quick enough and gifted at finding the open man or a player gifted enough to finish among the trees or find the open man consistently when driving. Too many times I have watched our players drive to the hoop into 3 opposing players and throw it up and hope for the best. Quick, purposeful ball movement with players that know in what spot to be when that ball gets passed from the post. In the preseason games thus far, Cousins has had the ball a large portion of the time. We went 3-1 with him doing that. There is obviously room for improvement, but there is structure now and not 4 guys watching while the other one drives to the hoop.

Also, there is the issue of IT's defense, or lack thereof. He just isn't very good at it. I'm not saying GV is a defensive monster, but he has length if nothing else and the effort is there. I can't say the same about IT. At the end of the day, I think IT is out to prove to the world that he can hang with the big boys and that it was a mistake drafting him at 60. That's absolutely fine as that is what gives him the fire he plays with, but it also causes him to not think as clearly as he should.

 

[The Truth Hurts]

I voted for the most popular picks along with most others:

Vasquez
McLemore
Mbah a Moute
Patterson
Cousins

I think we have a very athletic and good perimeter team with this lineup. Plus, Mbah a Moute can guard the other team's best guard night in and night out. I think having Patterson at the four is key because he can stretch the floor for Cousins when he has the ball in the post and create space. McLemore, to me, has already proven he can start in this league and be productive by moving without the ball, something no one else on our team seems to have a tendency to do. This lineup excites me more than any other for this season, and hopefully we can make a trade to upgrade the sf position and have Mbah a Moute off the bench. We're much deeper this year than we have been in the past, so I believe if Cousins can stay on the floor for 35+ min a night we'll be competitive most nights.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Quick note on LRMAM, I don't know how Malone can start a player from day one who will be in and out of the lineup all season. It's unfortunate, but his knee's are shot. If he can stay healthy than yes, I'd likely want to start him as well, but you need some level of continuity in your starting lineup and I don't even know if that is possible with Mbah A Moute.

 

[Dank]

I hear this said a lot, but I think its one of those urban myths that just gets repeated around in circles and nobody ever stops to really analyze it.

Now depending on how far out form the hoop you have to go to be a stretch 4 -- i.e. LaMarcus Aldridge is a jumpshooting 4 but I don't think most people would consider him a stretch 4, this is what you get with every starting PF in the league:

PTL Aldridge (jumpshooter)
GSW Lee
LAC Griffin
LAL Pau
PHX Morris? Fyre? (stretch, but suck)
UTH Favors
DEN Fareid/Hickson
HOU Asik? if its Montejunas he's a stretch,but he has played poorly in preseason.
DAL Dirk (kind of exceeds stretch label now, but the prototype)
SAN Splitter
MEM Randolph
MIN Love (stretch+)
OKC Ibaka (jumpshooter, not really stretch yet)
NOH Davis (Anderson comes off bench)
CHI Boozer
CLE Thompson
DET Monroe
TOR Johnson
MIL Henson probably (Ilyasova is the stretch, but likely a bench player)
IND West (jumpshooter)
PHI who knows
NYK Melo/Bargs (stretch)
NJN Garnett (jumpshooter)
BOS Humphries/Sullinger/Bass -- Bass is a jumpshooter
WSH Nene, Serpahin etc.
CHA Zeller?
ATL Milsap
ORL a mess Big Baby (jumpshooter) when healthy
MIA Bosh (jumpshooter), unless Anderson/Oden don't work when it could be Bron again.


Which is to say that unless you are counting the jumpshooting PFs, there are actually very few stretch 4s who start, and most of the ones that do are at a similar level as Patterson -- borderline guys that you hardly start trembling over and adjusting your lineup to match. But this "stretch 4" "stretch 4" thing just gets repeated in rounds again and again via the media, to the fans, back to the media. There are a lot of stretch 4s and SF converts wandering around out there, but most of them are bench players. Coaches remain oddly attached to PFs that actually play like PFs for the most part as part of their starting structures.

Yea I suppose your right about there not being to many stretch 4s in the league, forgot a few on the list but I didint realize there were actually that few. I don't know what coach Malone's plans are for Chuck Hayes but it looks like he plans to use him as the backup center. If it were up to me I would have tried starting Chuck Hayes at Power forward for a couple of preseason games then Patterson and JT a couple of games as well and see what works best. I also think when discussing starters that people to often don't realize that it doesn't matter who starts but instead who finishes the game. Oh and I laughed at what you wrote for Philadelphia so true hha.

 

[King Baller]

Quick note on LRMAM, I don't know how Malone can start a player from day one who will be in and out of the lineup all season. It's unfortunate, but his knee's are shot. If he can stay healthy than yes, I'd likely want to start him as well, but you need some level of continuity in your starting lineup and I don't even know if that is possible with Mbah A Moute.

In todays interview Luc stated his knee was overworked during the two a days and became inflamed. He practiced today and said he felt fine. Lets hope he can play a regular NBA schedule.

 

[mac]

We had that with Tyreke here in the last few seasons. It got us nowhere (not a knock against Tyreke whatsoever as we had a fair bit of other circumstances going on). Ball movement on the perimeter can lead to excellent opportunities. Back in the glory days, Bibby didn't blow past other guards night in and night out. Neither did Christie really. We played a motion offense with the ball going down low to the big man and the perimeter guys flying about to their spots and creating opportunities that way. Your idea would certainly work with a Rondo type of player, or a Tony Parker. A player quick enough and gifted at finding the open man or a player gifted enough to finish among the trees or find the open man consistently when driving. Too many times I have watched our players drive to the hoop into 3 opposing players and throw it up and hope for the best. Quick, purposeful ball movement with players that know in what spot to be when that ball gets passed from the post. In the preseason games thus far, Cousins has had the ball a large portion of the time. We went 3-1 with him doing that. There is obviously room for improvement, but there is structure now and not 4 guys watching while the other one drives to the hoop.

Also, there is the issue of IT's defense, or lack thereof. He just isn't very good at it. I'm not saying GV is a defensive monster, but he has length if nothing else and the effort is there. I can't say the same about IT. At the end of the day, I think IT is out to prove to the world that he can hang with the big boys and that it was a mistake drafting him at 60. That's absolutely fine as that is what gives him the fire he plays with, but it also causes him to not think as clearly as he should.

And yet almost every championship is won by a team that has multiple guys who create for themselves. Come playoff time offense tends to become very isolation-based because the defense that the teams face becomes a whole lot more serious. Even on a non-superstar level, guys like JR Smith and Nate Robinson played very key roles in helping their teams get as far as they did last season. IT/MT are similar to Smith and Robinson. The difference is that neither Smith nor Robinson are the primary options on their teams, and they don't share that chucker role with anybody else. We on the other hand, kind of have IT as our second option at the moment, and we have two similar players in Thomas and Thornton that don't play D and just want to shoot 20 shots a game. What we need is a real second star who can create for himself (and hence others).

 

[jalfa]

Also, there is the issue of IT's defense, or lack thereof. He just isn't very good at it. I'm not saying GV is a defensive monster, but he has length if nothing else and the effort is there. I can't say the same about IT. At the end of the day, I think IT is out to prove to the world that he can hang with the big boys and that it was a mistake drafting him at 60. That's absolutely fine as that is what gives him the fire he plays with, but it also causes him to not think as clearly as he should.

hang on, what? did you watch the third quarter? Vasquez got lit up pretty much as badly as can be and that's not an aberration, either. he's got terrible, terrible problems containing penetration and catching up to players after a screen. look at New Orleans last year, most of their starting five were at least average defensively and their team ranked as the third-worst defensive team in the league. Vasquez is about as much of a disaster on that end as Thomas is, if not more so. at any rate, we're going to be in for another season of giving up career nights to opposing PGs with those two.

 

[Sac.Kings]

And yet almost every championship is won by a team that has multiple guys who create for themselves. Come playoff time offense tends to become very isolation-based because the defense that the teams face becomes a whole lot more serious. Even on a non-superstar level, guys like JR Smith and Nate Robinson played very key roles in helping their teams get as far as they did last season. IT/MT are similar to Smith and Robinson. The difference is that neither Smith nor Robinson are the primary options on their teams, and they don't share that chucker role with anybody else. We on the other hand, kind of have IT as our second option at the moment, and we have two similar players in Thomas and Thornton that don't play D and just want to shoot 20 shots a game. What we need is a real second star who can create for himself (and hence others).

I stated in my previous post that there are players skilled enough to jack up 20 shots a game and win you the game. IT isn't. Frankly, neither is Thornton as he has been just off his game for a long while now (a great portion of that is due to Smart's brilliant rotations). I am not opposed to the drive and dish/score approach, but you better be damn talented and have a good to great ability to recognize when the shot is there for you and when it isn't (we lacked this). Also, the players you bring up don't have a dominant low post option like Cousins. Chandler? good for lobs and defense and clean up work. Noah? Slightly better offensively. Both of those guys have most likely peaked offensively or are close to it. Cousins has the potential to decimate down low. That can win you some playoff games by itself. Personally, I want to see a more traditional approach where we feed the big man, let him go to work, and have him kick out to open players. If you think about it, it's the same principle as driving to the hoop... the ball is in the post/close to the hoop, the big man is either going to score or kick it out to someone that's open. When you have an advantage over 27/29 teams on a nightly basis, why not use that? Why go away from it? So I can watch someone drive to the hoop, get stuck in midair, make a terrible pass, or crash into his own teammate? No thanks. What we need more than anything is someone who stops penetration and blocks shots. I like the set-up we have now with a passing PG and what looks to be a new and improved Cousins down low and Ben out on the wing.

However, I do admit that you are right in one particularly important regard. We do need a second star because when Cousins goes out, we fall apart. Unless we just draw up plays for Ben, but that will never happen with IT running the show off the bench.

 

[Sac.Kings]

hang on, what? did you watch the third quarter? Vasquez got lit up pretty much as badly as can be and that's not an aberration, either. he's got terrible, terrible problems containing penetration and catching up to players after a screen. look at New Orleans last year, most of their starting five were at least average defensively and their team ranked as the third-worst defensive team in the league. Vasquez is about as much of a disaster on that end as Thomas is, if not more so. at any rate, we're going to be in for another season of giving up career nights to opposing PGs with those two.

I did not watch the last game as I had some previous obligations to attend to, so you may be right.

 

[mac]

I stated in my previous post that there are players skilled enough to jack up 20 shots a game and win you the game. IT isn't. Frankly, neither is Thornton as he has been just off his game for a long while now (a great portion of that is due to Smart's brilliant rotations). I am not opposed to the drive and dish/score approach, but you better be damn talented and have a good to great ability to recognize when the shot is there for you and when it isn't (we lacked this). Also, the players you bring up don't have a dominant low post option like Cousins. Chandler? good for lobs and defense and clean up work. Noah? Slightly better offensively. Both of those guys have most likely peaked offensively or are close to it. Cousins has the potential to decimate down low. That can win you some playoff games by itself. Personally, I want to see a more traditional approach where we feed the big man, let him go to work, and have him kick out to open players. If you think about it, it's the same principle as driving to the hoop... the ball is in the post/close to the hoop, the big man is either going to score or kick it out to someone that's open. When you have an advantage over 27/29 teams on a nightly basis, why not use that? Why go away from it? So I can watch someone drive to the hoop, get stuck in midair, make a terrible pass, or crash into his own teammate? No thanks. What we need more than anything is someone who stops penetration and blocks shots. I like the set-up we have now with a passing PG and what looks to be a new and improved Cousins down low and Ben out on the wing.

However, I do admit that you are right in one particularly important regard. We do need a second star because when Cousins goes out, we fall apart. Unless we just draw up plays for Ben, but that will never happen with IT running the show off the bench.

I think you misunderstand my point a little. We are both in full agreement that IT/MT are not the players we need jacking up shots for himself. What I mean is that the concept of a guy who can create for himself in itself is something that is almost synonymous with winning teams (in response to your original post where you said "Why is this so important? I don't understand the fascination with these types of players"). Kobe, Jordan, Tony Parker, James, Wade, Paul Pierce have won multiple championships or made the finals numerous times, whereas Steve Nash and Chris Paul haven't, nor did the Sacramento Kings running a motion offense.

 

[Hadlowe]

And yet almost every championship is won by a team that has multiple guys who create for themselves. Come playoff time offense tends to become very isolation-based because the defense that the teams face becomes a whole lot more serious. Even on a non-superstar level, guys like JR Smith and Nate Robinson played very key roles in helping their teams get as far as they did last season. IT/MT are similar to Smith and Robinson. The difference is that neither Smith nor Robinson are the primary options on their teams, and they don't share that chucker role with anybody else. We on the other hand, kind of have IT as our second option at the moment, and we have two similar players in Thomas and Thornton that don't play D and just want to shoot 20 shots a game. What we need is a real second star who can create for himself (and hence others).

The Spurs disagree with your assessment. Tony Parker's isos per game could be counted on one hand. Iso plays are useful IF you have top 10 talent on your team. I think very highly of Tony Parker, but he is not top 10 talent. The Spurs managed to take the heat to 7 games with ball movement and role-playing scrubs.

 

[Padrino]

The Spurs disagree with your assessment. Tony Parker's isos per game could be counted on one hand. Iso plays are useful IF you have top 10 talent on your team. I think very highly of Tony Parker, but he is not top 10 talent. The Spurs managed to take the heat to 7 games with ball movement and role-playing scrubs.

i think you've proved mac's point for him, to be honest. the spurs of the last decade-and-a-half stand out as an exception that proves just about every rule of thumb you could write for the contemporary nba. and, ya know, having a once-in-a-generation, future hall of fame PF doesn't hurt, either...



that said, i've really gotta agree with mac. like it or not, the nba is a superstar's league. it just is. i know a great many kings fans have been clamoring for a return to a more fluid offense, one that reminds them of the uptempo, ball movement-oriented kings of the early 00's, but it's very difficult to win in this league without a top shelf talent that can create for themselves. nba defenses have become increasingly athletic, physical, and more sophisticated, despite rule changes that favor scoring, and all the ball movement in the world won't save you when every lane has been closed off. does that mean i would prefer a new york knicks-styled offense in which a player like carmelo iso's all game long? absolutely not. but, when push comes to shove, i want a guy that can get to the rim (or the free throw line) when the defense has taken away the early offense, the passing lanes, the easy shots, the points-off-turnovers, etc...

i mean, you've gotta admit, the spurs likely would have put away the heat in the finals had manu ginobili performed up to his rim-attacking standards...

 

[Hadlowe]

i think you've proved mac's point for him, to be honest. the spurs of the last decade-and-a-half stand out as an exception that proves just about every rule of thumb you could write for the contemporary nba. and, ya know, having a once-in-a-generation, future hall of fame PF doesn't hurt, either...



that said, i've really gotta agree with mac. like it or not, the nba is a superstar's league. it just is. i know a great many kings fans have been clamoring for a return to a more fluid offense, one that reminds them of the uptempo, ball movement-oriented kings of the early 00's, but it's very difficult to win in this league without a top shelf talent that can create for themselves. nba defenses have become increasingly athletic, physical, and more sophisticated, despite rule changes that favor scoring, and all the ball movement in the world won't save you when every lane has been closed off. does that mean i would prefer a new york knicks-styled offense in which a player like carmelo iso's all game long? absolutely not. but, when push comes to shove, i want a guy that can get to the rim (or the free throw line) when the defense has taken away the early offense, the passing lanes, the easy shots, the points-off-turnovers, etc...

i mean, you've gotta admit, the spurs likely would have put away the heat in the finals had manu ginobili performed up to his rim-attacking standards...

The question is, how many of those self-sufficient guys do you need? I would say that Cousins fills or can fill that role pretty well for the Kings. Ideally, I would like a slasher to slot next to him as the #2. Tyreke was close to the ideal wing-man for him, but the lack of an outside shot was a bigger problem than I would like to admit. Harden would have been the ideal wing-man. Absent one of those options, you surround him with shooters and defenders and play off his good post passing and try to build team chemistry to look for the open man off the post double-team.

IT is half of a good slasher, both literally and figuratively. He gets to the rim nearly at will and gets to the foul line well. He also settles for bad shots far too often. If he can develop better discipline on offense, he will be a great offensive weapon off the bench.

McLemore's off-ball cuts give me hope, but he will really have to develop his dribble-drive game to be more than a second/third option in the offense.

The big question becomes, what happens with the offense when Cousins is off the floor? The temptation is to give the ball to IT then, and let him do his thing. I would argue that the strength of the Kings is the bench depth. If IT is dominating the ball and not getting other guys involved, he is taking away that strength in favor of boosting his fantasy stats.

 

[Chupacabra]

ISO plays are useful if you have a player that can execute off of an isolation play. Its why guys like nate robinson and jamal crawford are valuable pieces. Top 10 shmop 10.

 

[mac]

The Spurs disagree with your assessment. Tony Parker's isos per game could be counted on one hand. Iso plays are useful IF you have top 10 talent on your team. I think very highly of Tony Parker, but he is not top 10 talent. The Spurs managed to take the heat to 7 games with ball movement and role-playing scrubs.

Being able to create for yourself doesn't necessarily equate to running iso plays all day long. What sets up the Spurs ball movement is Parker's ability to get to the basket. In fact he pretty much single-handedly carried them through the GS series. Creating for yourself can loosely be defined as being able to create off the dribble (in the case of perimeter players), and being able to take your defender 1 on 1 in the case of big men. Compare this to Ryan Andersen, Kyle Korver, Danny Green etc.. IMO the difference between guys like Kobe, Wade, James,Parker and Jamal Crawford/IT/Nate Robinson is the ability and strength to get to the rim. If defenses were really geared to stopping IT the same way they are to stopping Tony Parker he would get his shot blocked every single time he attacked the rim.

As for how many of such players we need the answer is 1-2 in addition to Cousins. That's how multiple championships have been won - with one dominant big and one dominant wing player.

Guys that can create for themselves are not a bad thing. It's bad when instead of developing a system that utilizes that (such as the Spurs have done) the coach just runs iso plays and 1-4 flats all day long, and doesn't COACH the team to move the ball.

 

[Sac.Kings]

I think you misunderstand my point a little. We are both in full agreement that IT/MT are not the players we need jacking up shots for himself. What I mean is that the concept of a guy who can create for himself in itself is something that is almost synonymous with winning teams (in response to your original post where you said "Why is this so important? I don't understand the fascination with these types of players"). Kobe, Jordan, Tony Parker, James, Wade, Paul Pierce have won multiple championships or made the finals numerous times, whereas Steve Nash and Chris Paul haven't, nor did the Sacramento Kings running a motion offense.

If we ever get a player on the level of a Wade or a Lebron, you will not hear a peep of negativity from me. All I would say is let 'em have it! Tyreke had the slashing ability on par with those guys, it's the rest of his offensive game that did not develop. Once again, I am not trying to stir up some recent memories. Also, the front office did not view him as highly as some of us did. What we now need is a #2 that can slash, pass, and score (if Ben somehow were to develop some great handles, he would instantly be #2, but handles are not easy to improve drastically). Whether that comes from the PG spot or SF spot I simply do not know. We also need a defensive big. Somehow I feel as if we are banking on next years draft to get our #2, but that's my opinion. I just don't see us getting a #2 any other way.

 

[Hadlowe]

If we ever get a player on the level of a Wade or a Lebron, you will not hear a peep of negativity from me. All I would say is let 'em have it! Tyreke had the slashing ability on par with those guys, it's the rest of his offensive game that did not develop. Once again, I am not trying to stir up some recent memories. Also, the front office did not view him as highly as some of us did. What we now need is a #2 that can slash, pass, and score (if Ben somehow were to develop some great handles, he would instantly be #2, but handles are not easy to improve drastically). Whether that comes from the PG spot or SF spot I simply do not know. We also need a defensive big. Somehow I feel as if we are banking on next years draft to get our #2, but that's my opinion. I just don't see us getting a #2 any other way.

Unfortunately, the Kings are probably the 10th or 11th worst team in the league as currently constituted. We are good enough to miss the top of the lottery but bad enough to miss the playoffs. Frustrating place at best.

Here's hoping that the Kigns can make a splash in the free agent market somehow.

 

[sdballer]

Unfortunately, the Kings are probably the 10th or 11th worst team in the league as currently constituted. We are good enough to miss the top of the lottery but bad enough to miss the playoffs. Frustrating place at best.

Here's hoping that the Kigns can make a splash in the free agent market somehow.

Unfortunately, unless salary is shed we won't have significant cap space next year. The front office didn't do itself much of a favor in how it handled this offseason so they definitely have work to do.

 

[The_Jamal]

Unfortunately, unless salary is shed we won't have significant cap space next year. The front office didn't do itself much of a favor in how it handled this offseason so they definitely have work to do.

how so? Mbah, Landry, Cousins, McLemore are the 4 players on a team they are responsible for committing to for 2+years. Which is less than 50% of our cap.

 

[Bricklayer]

how so? Mbah, Landry, Cousins, McLemore are the 4 players on a team they are responsible for committing to for 2+years. Which is less than 50% of our cap.

Thornton and JT and Hayes and Outlaw will all be on the books next year too, unless moved. Then there is the problem with both of your PGs going salary poof at the same time next summer, so you are going to have to pay to either keep them or replace them, but either way that's not truly free cap to add something, just to try to avoid losing it.

Of relatively minor importance anyway given Sacto's attractiveness to FAs.

 

[sdballer]

how so? Mbah, Landry, Cousins, McLemore are the 4 players on a team they are responsible for committing to for 2+years. Which is less than 50% of our cap.

I was speaking of next offseason's cap space.

 

[The_Jamal]

Thornton and JT and Hayes and Outlaw will all be on the books next year too, unless moved. Then there is the problem with both of your PGs going salary poof at the same time next summer, so you are going to have to pay to either keep them or replace them, but either way that's not truly free cap to add something, just to try to avoid losing it.

Of relatively minor importance anyway given Sacto's attractiveness to FAs.

Well that's my point. A majority of our salary is not on the new FO but the Maloofs

 

[Dank]

Disagree. Start Jimmer at PG and this team makes the playoffs. Jimmer's game is all about getting to his second wind, then relaxing and then dominating. Once he finds his rhythm, which this team has never allowed him to do, he dominates the game. There were plenty of head scratcher first halves at BYU, just to see him come out in the 2nd half and blaze a fire. It will take a coach to put himself out on the line and believe in Jimmer, but once one does, Jimmer will be an all-star in this league and very Nash-like.

hahahhaha oh man I need your dealers' number because you are obviously so high you've left then planet and are watching some other team from another galaxy. The absolute most idiotic thing ive ever read. period. I mean you just have to be trolling us. This team has given him way to many opportunists to find his rhythm. Guess what this is int college anymore Jimmer is going up against NBA defenses, I said this a month before he git drafted and am still 100% correct: Jimmers game does not fly against NBA defenses. I will guarantee you every cent ive ever made that Jimmer's best case scenario is a 9th man that plays 5-15min a night. Sorry to burst your bubble but jimmer is just simply not good enough for the NBA. Oh and for what its worth Im a die hard but Im not naive enough to believe we have a chance at the playoffs not matter who starts.