We need to drop a PG

[tyreeeke]

Just imagine if Jimmer had the free reign and minutes that this year's #10 pick, Austin Rivers, has. Rivers has been atrocious and still receives the proper opportunity. I guarantee Jimmer would blow up if given Rivers' situation.

[andremiller07]

If we trade MT, one of the AB/IT/Jimmer, or even Cisco/Salmons can take over his minutes. This is apart from whom we get in return, someone again we would expect to receive some minutes.

Unless we can get something great in return than you don't trade Thornton, hes one of three legit match winners the Kings have (Reke and Cuz being the other 2), if anything the Kings should be upping Thorntons mins its not like Tyreke can't defend SF's. To me atm Jimmer, Salmons and Cisco are all massive downgrades to Thornton I just don't see how Salmons can get more mins than MT

[macadocious]

Just imagine if Jimmer had the free reign and minutes that this year's #10 pick, Austin Rivers, has. Rivers has been atrocious and still receives the proper opportunity. I guarantee Jimmer would blow up if given Rivers' situation.

Serious question, why is your SN tyreeeeke?

[tyreeeke]

Serious question, why is your SN tyreeeeke?

I love him.

[kingsfan101]

Unless we can get something great in return than you don't trade Thornton, hes one of three legit match winners the Kings have (Reke and Cuz being the other 2), if anything the Kings should be upping Thorntons mins its not like Tyreke can't defend SF's. To me atm Jimmer, Salmons and Cisco are all massive downgrades to Thornton I just don't see how Salmons can get more mins than MT

Of course. I'm not suggesting to give MT away. We should get something concrete back. Just a suggestion that if we ever think of trading a guard, we do not have to think only in terms of trading one of the PGs.

[origkds]

THAT is why you're the best poster these boards have ever seen. Plus, I love your continued analysis of draft prospects. I'd love to see you become a moderator on this board, and possibly a commentator on ESPN.

Baja:

I thought about saying something a little positive about Jimmer but I'm already married. He's all yours.

[Gary]

I would take a player that I believe would fit with what this team needs who has less value than the one traded.

For instance if someone wanted JT and a choice of one of our guards (Evans/Brooks/MT) for John Wall and Nene or Okafor I would probably bite. That's if both Wall and Nene were healthy. I am just using this as an example and not a thought out trade idea. If the Kings are interested in trading away a guy like Evans I believe we need to get a pure PG. If they are wanting to get rid of guys like MT/IT or Brooks they should look for a stud shooting SF.

I would LOVE to get my hands on Jordan Hamilton from Denver or someone like him who has the ability to light it up but is behind better players. Denver seems to slide Iggy to SF more than they have to, kinda like we do with Evans. They play only 3 guards as well. When Hamilton is in though he can definitely hit the 3pt shots which we really need. I can't see the Nuggets trading for another guard though unless they unloaded one on us or a salary they don't want to pay.

Anyhow, between IT/Brooks/MT I would probably be most inclined to get rid of Brooks. I just don't know a team that would want him.

[Padrino]

in my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad idea to trade one of the PG's, but its not necessary. what IS necessary is the self-control of the kings' head coach, who need not dole out minutes to every player on his roster in a given game. evans, thornton, and brooks should be the primary guards in the rotation. then ONE of jimmer fredette and isaiah thomas should receive additional (but minimal) minutes in support of that rotation. i'd suggest fredette, whose value as a spot shooter is more valuable than thomas' bite-sized schtick. i love thomas' team-oriented attitude and fount of spirit, so hand the young man a towel to wave...

[kingsnation]

Unless we can get something great in return than you don't trade Thornton, hes one of three legit match winners the Kings have (Reke and Cuz being the other 2), if anything the Kings should be upping Thorntons mins its not like Tyreke can't defend SF's. To me atm Jimmer, Salmons and Cisco are all massive downgrades to Thornton I just don't see how Salmons can get more mins than MT

Winners. You might want to change your wording here since none of them have actually won anything in the NBA. I believe I see what I think you mean, but yeah, winners isn't the right word.

[roasthawg]

I don't really think we have to get rid of any of our point guards. Two of them are very cheap, and the other one, Brooks isn't very expensive either. Other than causing some possible desent on the team, I don't see a problem. However, if I have to choose one to depart, it would be IT. I think Brooks is a better all around player right now, and I think Jimmer has too much potential to trade without knowing exactly what you have. I want to read you some quotes from Draft Express.

"Not a factor defensively. Doesn't have good lateral quickness. Does poor job in help side, getting out of position and sagging into the paint. Has a hard time getting through screens. Forces his team to make strange defensive assignments to minimize his ineffectiveness on the defensive side of the ball"

Talking about Jimmer? No, talking about Steve Nash prior to the draft in 1996. Here's another quote from another site.

"His biggest weakness is his man to man defense. His average foot speed makes him an easy target for small, quick point guards to blow by. His lack of physical strength does not bode well for handling the bigger, stronger point guards in the NBA in the post."

Here is an excerpt about Nash and Fredette.

In a recent episode of the ESPN NBA Today Podcast with Ryen Russillo (a must listen), draft expert Chad Ford talked about the Phoenix Suns possibly taking Jimmer Fredette with the 13th overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. There's been oodles already written about Jimmer and the Suns, but this one struck me due to a bit of revisionist history by Ford when he was comparing Jimmer to Steve Nash coming out of college.
The point Ford was trying to make is that Nash, like Jimmer, wasn't considered a "true point" out of college but with some tutelage under the Canadian master, Jimmer could find his inner facilitator. It makes enough sense and is probably moot since Jimmer isn't likely to be on the board at 13 anyway.
"Nash was a very similar player coming out of college. People don't remember this, but out of Santa Clara he was more of scorer than a point guard, a guy who could really light it up.
The Suns played him off the ball for the start of his career, they traded him to Dallas in part because they weren't sold he could ever be a full time point guard and then he evolved into one of the greatest point guards ever."
It's true that Nash was scorer at Santa Clara (21.8 ppg / 4 apg his senior year) and like Jimmer was forced into that role based on the teammates around him. Nash also didn't pass much his first two years with the Suns and he did play off the ball. Of course, he was also teammates with a 30-year-old Kevin Johnson and a 24-year-old Jason Kidd. It's a wonder the Suns drafted Nash at all given their point guard depth.

Am I saying that Jimmer is the next Steve Nash? No, of course not! I have no idea how good he'll eventually be. But I do know that if he were here right now instead of Jimmer, some of you would want him traded. The Sun's fans booed when he was drafted, and the Sun's gave up on Nash way too early, and eventually managed to get him back. So what I'am saying is that we shouldn't give up on Jimmer until we know for sure exactly what we have.

Both players played in smaller conferences. Both players were known shooters, and both players had the rep of being bad defenders. Both players played on fairly bad teams and both became the focus of their teams offense. Neither was known as a playmaker in college, but both showed good court vision at times.

Freshman year:
Nash: 8.1 PPG - 42.4% FGP - 40.8% 3PP - 2.2 APG - 2.0 TO - 2.5 RPG
Fredette: 7.0 PPG - 40.7% FGP - 33.6% 3PP - 1.7 APG - 1.2 TO - 1.1 RPG

Senior year:
Nash: 17 PPG - 43.0% FGP - 34.4% 3PP - 6.0 APG - 3.6 TO - 3.5 RPG
Fredette: 28.9 PPG - 45.2% FGP - 39.6% 3PP - 4.3 APG - 3.5 TO - 3.4 RPG

Their sophmore and junior years were very similiar, so I won't bore you with those stats. Personally I think Nash was a little better ballhandler coming out of college, and he had mastered the art of changing speeds and getting by opposing PG's. Something that Jimmer has to work on. Changing speeds and hesitation moves gives the appearance of being quicker than your actually are.

Right now, IT and Jimmer are chump change investments, and it would be foolish to just throw one of them away. As Bricky said, decide which one you want in the rotation and ride that horse for a while. If need be, send the other one to the Developmental League for a while so he can get playing time.

Excellent post. Jimmer is one of the guys on this team I definitely want to keep. Would love to see more Reke/Jimmer in the backcourt. Jimmer brings elite shooting to the table... plus he's a gym rat so it's a safe bet that he's only going to get better and better over the next few seasons. I'd like to see what he can develop into as well.

[sqwalk]

Baja, great analysis. Even though you probably don't care, I want to give you props, as I always enjoy reading your posts. Thanks!

[swisshh]

Who was the Real PG? Bibby, Bobby J or Doug Christie?

KB

Don't ask me stupid questions.

Yes, I had a nicer reply, but I do put up with too much foolishness here.

[bajaden]

Baja:

I thought about saying something a little positive about Jimmer but I'm already married. He's all yours.

LOL! I don't think my wife would be into a threesome. So I'll pass...

[Hadlowe]

I voted Jimmer, both to force Smart into logical lineups and for Jimmer's development. Both Jimmer and IT have had a pretty good year so far in limited minutes, yet Smart keeps them both on pretty short leashes.

In any case, you can't ship them out without getting back a complementary piece for the Kings, so either a shot blocker or a full-size defensive three who can shoot 35% from the arc.

If you have to ship one of them out, George Karl has said good things about IT in the past, and he might fit in well as a backup to Lawson for a running Denver squad. Conveniently enough, Denver has a wealth of wing players.

With Jimmer, you might get some interest from a few contending teams who need to shore up their second unit, but I doubt you could get a real piece back to fill in that shot blocking or shooting hole here. You would probably end up with an Anthony Morrow type and a draft pick.

[andremiller07]

If you have to ship one of them out, George Karl has said good things about IT in the past, and he might fit in well as a backup to Lawson for a running Denver squad. Conveniently enough, Denver has a wealth of wing players.

There is no way in this world IT will ever get mins over Andre Miller in any team or league as a starter or back up, maybe when he retires, although I would be interested in getting Wilson Chandler

[King Baller]

Don't ask me stupid questions.

Yes, I had a nicer reply, but I do put up with too much foolishness here.

Aren't you the charmer. Hey everybody wants CP3 on their team. My point is that there are other ways for guards to be successful. The Adelman/Bibby/Christie/Bobby J Era Kings are but one example.

KB

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Excellent post. Jimmer is one of the guys on this team I definitely want to keep. Would love to see more Reke/Jimmer in the backcourt. Jimmer brings elite shooting to the table... plus he's a gym rat so it's a safe bet that he's only going to get better and better over the next few seasons. I'd like to see what he can develop into as well.

Elite shooter?? Not sure about that..
good shooter, yes...but right now he's looking like the 2nd coming of Steve Alford, but that probably falls on Smart's rotational craziness. He may develop later after he's left the Kings.

[ESP47]

I don't really think we have to get rid of any of our point guards. Two of them are very cheap, and the other one, Brooks isn't very expensive either. Other than causing some possible desent on the team, I don't see a problem. However, if I have to choose one to depart, it would be IT. I think Brooks is a better all around player right now, and I think Jimmer has too much potential to trade without knowing exactly what you have. I want to read you some quotes from Draft Express.

"Not a factor defensively. Doesn't have good lateral quickness. Does poor job in help side, getting out of position and sagging into the paint. Has a hard time getting through screens. Forces his team to make strange defensive assignments to minimize his ineffectiveness on the defensive side of the ball"

Talking about Jimmer? No, talking about Steve Nash prior to the draft in 1996. Here's another quote from another site.

"His biggest weakness is his man to man defense. His average foot speed makes him an easy target for small, quick point guards to blow by. His lack of physical strength does not bode well for handling the bigger, stronger point guards in the NBA in the post."

Here is an excerpt about Nash and Fredette.

In a recent episode of the ESPN NBA Today Podcast with Ryen Russillo (a must listen), draft expert Chad Ford talked about the Phoenix Suns possibly taking Jimmer Fredette with the 13th overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. There's been oodles already written about Jimmer and the Suns, but this one struck me due to a bit of revisionist history by Ford when he was comparing Jimmer to Steve Nash coming out of college.
The point Ford was trying to make is that Nash, like Jimmer, wasn't considered a "true point" out of college but with some tutelage under the Canadian master, Jimmer could find his inner facilitator. It makes enough sense and is probably moot since Jimmer isn't likely to be on the board at 13 anyway.
"Nash was a very similar player coming out of college. People don't remember this, but out of Santa Clara he was more of scorer than a point guard, a guy who could really light it up.
The Suns played him off the ball for the start of his career, they traded him to Dallas in part because they weren't sold he could ever be a full time point guard and then he evolved into one of the greatest point guards ever."
It's true that Nash was scorer at Santa Clara (21.8 ppg / 4 apg his senior year) and like Jimmer was forced into that role based on the teammates around him. Nash also didn't pass much his first two years with the Suns and he did play off the ball. Of course, he was also teammates with a 30-year-old Kevin Johnson and a 24-year-old Jason Kidd. It's a wonder the Suns drafted Nash at all given their point guard depth.

Am I saying that Jimmer is the next Steve Nash? No, of course not! I have no idea how good he'll eventually be. But I do know that if he were here right now instead of Jimmer, some of you would want him traded. The Sun's fans booed when he was drafted, and the Sun's gave up on Nash way too early, and eventually managed to get him back. So what I'am saying is that we shouldn't give up on Jimmer until we know for sure exactly what we have.

Both players played in smaller conferences. Both players were known shooters, and both players had the rep of being bad defenders. Both players played on fairly bad teams and both became the focus of their teams offense. Neither was known as a playmaker in college, but both showed good court vision at times.

Freshman year:
Nash: 8.1 PPG - 42.4% FGP - 40.8% 3PP - 2.2 APG - 2.0 TO - 2.5 RPG
Fredette: 7.0 PPG - 40.7% FGP - 33.6% 3PP - 1.7 APG - 1.2 TO - 1.1 RPG

Senior year:
Nash: 17 PPG - 43.0% FGP - 34.4% 3PP - 6.0 APG - 3.6 TO - 3.5 RPG
Fredette: 28.9 PPG - 45.2% FGP - 39.6% 3PP - 4.3 APG - 3.5 TO - 3.4 RPG

Their sophmore and junior years were very similiar, so I won't bore you with those stats. Personally I think Nash was a little better ballhandler coming out of college, and he had mastered the art of changing speeds and getting by opposing PG's. Something that Jimmer has to work on. Changing speeds and hesitation moves gives the appearance of being quicker than your actually are.

Right now, IT and Jimmer are chump change investments, and it would be foolish to just throw one of them away. As Bricky said, decide which one you want in the rotation and ride that horse for a while. If need be, send the other one to the Developmental League for a while so he can get playing time.

I don't want to trade any of our PG's at this point. Especially Jimmer because we haven't given him time to develop and it's not like he's keeping us from winning or anything. It only seems like a log jam because Smart doesn't set rotations correctly. I don't see the logic in your Nash and Jimmer comparison though. Just because Nash improved doesn't mean Jimmer is going to improve. I'm sure there are a handful of hall of fame players that had scouting reports similar to Jimmer's. There are also thousands that never made it either. By that logic, we should keep every Quincy Douby, Justin Williams and Jon Brockman that we get our hands on because they could be the next ____ fill in the blank player.

You're taking a chance anytime you trade someone. We had no idea Peja would fall off the wagon so quickly after trading him. We also didn't think Webber had 2 and a half more solid years left in him where we could have contended for championships for a few years longer. Any time you trade a player or release them, you're taking a chance to an extent. You can only hope the team exhausts every opportunity to let the player succeed before letting them go. I'd venture to say most of our players would improve on most any other team. That's all on our coaching staff though.

[Kingster]

If you want to trade somebody, trade the guy whose value is the highest on this board as of this moment in time - Tyreke Evans. You'll actually get some value for him. I'd talk to Utah in particular, as he typically kills them. They have some very nice young bigs over there. If you want to trade IT, you should have done it last year when he was getting pt and playing great. If you want to trade Jimmer, wait until he has a string of games in which he is burying 3 point shots and there is Jimmermania everywhere.

Typically, this board wants to trade the player(s) with the least popularity on this board, usually because of the performances (or lack therof) of the last few games. It's as if there are GMs around the league just dying to pay up for the players this board doesn't like in the latest news cycle. Good luck with that. I say, think seriously about trading the players that are playing well. You might get somebody to overpay for that kind of guy, whereas if you trade the player that isn't playing well or getting little playing time, you're going to be very lucky to get back more than chump change.

[Padrino]

If you want to trade somebody, trade the guy whose value is the highest on this board as of this moment in time - Tyreke Evans. You'll actually get some value for him. I'd talk to Utah in particular, as he typically kills them. They have some very nice young bigs over there. If you want to trade IT, you should have done it last year when he was getting pt and playing great. If you want to trade Jimmer, wait until he has a string of games in which he is burying 3 point shots and there is Jimmermania everywhere.

Typically, this board wants to trade the player(s) with the least popularity on this board, usually because of the performances (or lack therof) of the last few games. It's as if there are GMs around the league just dying to pay up for the players this board doesn't like in the latest news cycle. Good luck with that. I say, think seriously about trading the players that are playing well. You might get somebody to overpay for that kind of guy, whereas if you trade the player that isn't playing well or getting little playing time, you're going to be very lucky to get back more than chump change.

it doesn't really matter how well an individual is playing when trade scenarios must account for matching salaries. shipping off unproven, second-year players like jimmer or thomas would net very little in return on their own, unless someone was willing to give up draft picks to get a guy who has so far underperformed according to his draft position, or a guy who has already outperformed his draft position. that said, any trade involving jimmer or thomas would likely be a consolidation of packaged-together and ill-fitting movable parts to obtain something that fits better...

of the kings' guards, tyreke evans obviously has the most trade value, then marcus thornton, then aaron brooks. of course, those three also have the most potential to carry this team forward, brooks' redundancy aside. because of that duplication of skills, i'd be willing to move brooks for a veteran point guard who can handle the ball, pass it efficiently, shoot with relative consistency from outside, and otherwise stay out of the way. funny how we had a guy like that not too long ago in beno udrih, though i'd say brooks is certainly a stronger defender than beno ever was for the kings...

all told, and considering the options out there, i'd rather just go with what has the potential to work well with a little massaging from the coaching staff: a primary guard rotation of evans, brooks, and thornton as sixth man. salmons will split time between the 3 and 2, jimmer gets limited minutes off the bench, and isaiah thomas gets relegated to towel-waver and good-guy locker room presence. that would be a bummer for IT, but every team needs capable deep bench players who can step in in the case of injury, and maintain a positive disposition despite the lack of playing time. thomas fits that bill perfectly...