Which PG should Kings keep for next year? (revisited)

Discussion in 'Personnel moves' started by Kingsfan23, Apr 13, 2017.


Which point guard should the Kings keep?

  1. Collison

  2. Evans

  3. Galloway

  4. Lawson

  5. None

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Kingsfan23

    Kingsfan23 Well-Known Member

    Any different ideas on this? Towards the end of the season Ty showed some things as a starter. I guess it depends on price for me. Who can be signed for the cheapest as a fill in for the pick
  2. Kingz19

    Kingz19 Well-Known Member

    Lawson. Still figures to be cheap and not seeking long term offers to boost his value more. He played well but I'm not sure he restored his image around the league.

    Good continuity for the kids and probably makes the game easier for them more so than Collison via being a better playmaker.

    I like Darren Collison. No complaints about his tenure here but he is going to get a multi year MLE or better from a team that's further along to be a rotation player. Returning doesn't make sense for him or the team. Lawson does.
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  3. Kingster

    Kingster Well-Known Member

    I really don't know the answer to the question. At some point, the Kings are probably going to groom a young point guard of the future. It may be in this draft that they get one. In thinking about a veteran point guard, my main consideration would be who would be the best teacher for the young point guard. I don't know enough about either Collison or Lawson to know the answer to that question. Maybe neither?
  4. ockingsfan

    ockingsfan Well-Known Member

    I think Lawson is the better playmaker, Collison the better shooter.

    I think for the Kids development, we need the better playmaker at PG, until the rookie PG gets ready.

    If Lawson stays out of trouble, I would bring back Lawson on something like the MLE 3 year contract.
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  5. Kingster

    Kingster Well-Known Member

    Lawson is the better playmaker. But as you imply, he has had "trouble," and as an ordinary fan, it's hard to know whether you want to take a risk on him going forward.
  6. Hoovtrain

    Hoovtrain Well-Known Member

    Unless they can get a bonafide starting PG via the draft and/or FA, I would sign them both (Lawson and Collison) back
    lwc, pshn80 and King Baller like this.
  7. pshn80

    pshn80 Well-Known Member

    We have a great tandem in Collison and Lawson. Keep 'em. Priority in draft or other signing is SF to develop behind Gay. Otherwise BPA. Second round a PG could be a good pickup. When you have good quality personnel on the payroll you don't dump them for a chance on a rookie 13th grader.
    King Baller likes this.
  8. allrightythen

    allrightythen Well-Known Member

    I said Collison just cause he's the safe choice. I could see several different scenarios play out where we kept both or none though. If we draft a PG with a lottery pick we probably just keep one. We could move up and target someone specific (SF or PG) which could lead to keeping one or both of them. They may have another free agent PG in mind or a trade target. As is I would say keep Collison. Lawson's off court issues are troubling and we're not sure how much more he'll have to deal with. It may be over in which case I wouldn't mind him back, but right now I'm taking DC and hopefully a lottery PG.
    parker likes this.
  9. The_Jamal

    The_Jamal Well-Known Member

    Easily Ty Lawson. He's the far better playmaker and floor general. Collison is nice playing off another star, but he's not a guy we really want (or should) rely on to be the lead playmaker for a bunch of kids.
  10. HndsmCelt

    HndsmCelt Well-Known Member

    I picked DC based more on who I would like to see mentor a a young PG or two from the draft. Now if we can bring in an old pro near retirment like say Beno Udrich for vet min with limited min along with Ty as a starter that might be the best of both worlds.
  11. VF21

    VF21 #KingsFansForever Staff Member Contributor

    I brought new comments from the old thread here and added a new poll (since the old one was from early March). Note that multiple responses are allowed in the poll.
  12. Jimbob

    Jimbob Well-Known Member

    I like both players, but if it comes down to drafting a PG and wanting only one of the two as a vet influence, I'll go Ty.
    I like his comeback story and would enjoy a player that see's Sac as more than just a place to revitalize his career.
    I also like his game and game history as he was considered one of the more accomplished floor generals not that long ago.
  13. Blob

    Blob Well-Known Member

    Are you sure this is going to be enough PGs?! :p
  14. King Baller

    King Baller Well-Known Member

    I hear Teams can keep 18 guys on the roster for 1017/2018. So I chose Darren, Ty and Langston.
  15. VF21

    VF21 #KingsFansForever Staff Member Contributor

    Where are you hearing that? According to Larry Coon, the maximum roster size is 15 (20 during the off-season before final cuts are made).
  16. HndsmCelt

    HndsmCelt Well-Known Member

    lOl I am thinking 3 either 1 kid and 2 vets or 2 vets and a kid.
  17. c-webb1s#1

    c-webb1s#1 Well-Known Member

    On one hand I really thin we're still going to need collisons scoring ability. On the other hand though I feel like Lawson just simply fits in better with our youngsters. Collison is not a good play maker by any means. He's always looking for his own shot, and rightfully so...thats why he's in this league still. I feel like Lawson wouldn't mind starting or coming off the bench. So if we draft a rookie PG he could have all the room to grow as he needs. Lawson would also be a better mentor.

    I definitely feel like we need to keep one of the two though. We should have vets that each player at their position can learn from. Loading up on young talent is fine imo, but it could create a hectic product on the court. Look at the sixers, their young guys play like chickens with their heads cut off because their "vets" are just as equally inept.

    I want to see Lawson, Temple, Tolliver, and maybe Koufos back next season. I'm not sure where Rudy fits in all of this. He could be immensely valuable though in helping keep the ship upright. His game would fit perfectly with our other rooks and youngsters.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  18. King Baller

    King Baller Well-Known Member

    OK, maybe it is 17:)

    Here is a link to an article--> http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/12/14/13198978/nba-cba-new-details-changes-differences-lockout

    Here is an excerpt:

    The introduction of two-way contracts will help the D-League grow
    Teams will be able to develop two players in the D-League on two-way contracts, a big step forward in the road towards setting up a true minor league, per the Vertical’s Adrian Wojnarowski. This change will increase the maximum roster size to 17.

    The new rule will allow franchises to keep control of prospects they intend to develop while making sure the players get a bump in salary when they contribute to the parent team. In addition, their D-League salaries are getting a boost.

    Currently, top-rated Development League players make $26,000, with the lower-tiered guys netting $19,000. But D-League salaries for players on two-way contracts are expected to more than double into the $50,000-to-$75,000 range, per ESPN’s Marc Stein, making the league more competitive with overseas salaries.
  19. kingdivac

    kingdivac Well-Known Member

    Gay is a complete question-mark healthwise. It'll be a marvel if he can make it back to 90% of his former play.
  20. Sac.1989

    Sac.1989 Well-Known Member

    has Lawson truly turned a corner with his off court discrepancies ? If character matters and all that then you have to look at this twice.

    Anyway personally im signing him up and using his off court discrepancies to get the better deal if possible because in this market someone will pay him
  21. hrdboild

    hrdboild Well-Known Member

    I'm leaning towards none but that's also because I'm hoping we draft a PG with one of our picks. It doesn't make sense to use a top pick on a PG and then bury them for multiple years in the depth chart. It also doesn't make sense to throw them to the wolves before they're ready so we would need a veteran stopgap, but I don't think that stopgap veteran needs to be either Lawson or Collison. At least not to the point where I'd bid against multiple suitors for their services. If Collison wants to come back and the price is reasonable (not much more than he made this year) I'd lean that way because he's been here for 3 years and keeping some continuity isn't a bad idea. I expect he'll get a bigger contract than that though and might want a better chance to win toward the end of his career.

    There's a certain frame of mind where you could say that maybe rebuilding our image into more of a player-friendly franchise is more important than on-court product right now so we need to make sure we do right by these guys. I don't know that we owe Lawson a lot, we gave him a shot to rebuild his value and he's going to use that to get the best long-term deal he can if there's interest out there. Collison though is pretty firmly part of the Kings family already so he should get some special consideration. Let him know he's got a guaranteed spot here for 'X' amount for 3 years and he's welcome to seek out a bigger deal elsewhere if he decides that's better for his family. I also think Isaiah Cousins deserves a legit shot at making the team as the third option PG after playing well in the D-League all year, especially now that we have his college teammate Buddy here.


    I'm still leaning no on both but it's a soft no. If there aren't any better options that emerge, I'd be fine with bringing one or both of them back.
  22. Suicide King

    Suicide King Well-Known Member

    You make a lot of good points. One thing to consider however is with a new PG drafted it may be beneficial to retain at least one of our PGs for their familiarity with coach and his system.
  23. lwc

    lwc Well-Known Member

    I'm there too. If we draft a top 4-5 PG then we bring back only one of them. However, it is tough to get talent to Sacramento, so I would probably retain any talent that can be acquired on a reasonable deal.

    The real difficulty is neither of them is good enough defensively to step over to the 2 for them to play together in the backup rotation.
    Hoovtrain likes this.
  24. Hoovtrain

    Hoovtrain Well-Known Member

    Exactly. Ideally I'd like to grab a #1 starting PG then resign one of the 2 as the backup
    lwc likes this.
  25. parker

    parker Well-Known Member

    From my understanding, money shouldn't be a problem for the Kings next year. They are going to have a roster full of young guys and likely won't be bringing in high priced free agents, so if they need to pay a little extra to bring back Collison or Lawson, that should not factor in their decision.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  26. Section 101

    Section 101 Well-Known Member

    He still has a court date and could have his probation revoked.
    Sac.1989 likes this.
  27. Suicide King

    Suicide King Well-Known Member

    Regarding Lawson if anything they would likely extend probation, not revoke. Thats if the discrepancies he is accused of prove true. If not they likely release him from his probation.
    VF21 likes this.
  28. hrdboild

    hrdboild Well-Known Member

    It's not the money I'm concerned about really, it's making a substantial commitment to players we don't need. The core group now are the 4 rookies. We need a SF and a PG and my preference would be to get them through the draft and let the young group play together and build chemistry as a unit almost like a college team. Collison I wouldn't mind having back in a mentorship role but I wouldn't pay him starters money or give him a 4 year deal because that's locking us into another veteran who will probably be a negative value in the future. Short-term deals for role-player player/coach type guys and playing the kids all the minutes they can handle is what I want to see. I'd make an exception for a stopgap PG so whichever kid we draft can be brought along slowly and get their feet wet in the D-League first like we did with the rookies this year. (We already have more than enough wings to cover SF without signing a stopgap vet there.) But like I said before I don't think that PG needs to be Collison or Lawson. If it makes sense to bring them back for a few years and they accept that their role will be slowly phased out, cool.

    Frankly I'm just sick and tired of rewriting the roster every year. Our goal shouldn't be to find patches for next season it should be to find key players to build around for the next decade. Ideally players who are going to work hard on defense and help to transform the identity of the team into the blue collar type of unit Joerger has been successful with before. Start them young and then keep them together. Everything else is secondary to that. That's my take anyway. There's a respectful way to convey this to our free agents and let them make the decision themselves whether they want to be a part of building that culture even if it means deferring playing time to the young guys or they want a chance to compete sooner with a club that's not starting over like we are.
  29. HndsmCelt

    HndsmCelt Well-Known Member

    @hrdboild, I feel you on this and more or less agree that building for stability is important, but giving Collision or even Lawson a heavily front-loaded contract for 3 years with a player option on year 3 could be a nice way to provide stability, mentoring and also put the team in position to move on to a replacement as soon as a new recruit is ready while avoiding the same disaster of hurrying him into the starting line up.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2017
    parker likes this.
  30. 206Fan

    206Fan Well-Known Member

    None. I don't want guys with off-field issues on this team.

Share This Page