ImageImageImageImageImage

Declined Options

Moderators: KF10, codydaze

jeffjtk1234
Starter
Posts: 2,241
And1: 408
Joined: Jan 01, 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     

Declined Options 

Post#1 » by jeffjtk1234 » Fri Nov 1, 2013 7:29 pm

Looks like the FO has declined options on Jimmer (obvious), Grevis and Patterson.

Thoughts? Some of my buddies were upset about the Grevis and Patterson news but makes sense to me. New coach, new FO, need to see what these guys can bring first. I do think we end up retaining Grevis after the season, Patterson I am not sure about since we committed money to Landry
User avatar
ADoaN17
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,044
And1: 312
Joined: Feb 11, 2010
   

Re: Declined Options 

Post#2 » by ADoaN17 » Fri Nov 1, 2013 8:08 pm

I agree that Patterson will be gone and Vasquez will stay. The FO needs to free up some money for free agency.
Image
User avatar
Wolfay
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 7,656
And1: 649
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
       

Re: Declined Options 

Post#3 » by Wolfay » Fri Nov 1, 2013 8:27 pm

Jimmer is almost certainly a goner. What a wasted pick, but everybody involved in making that decision is gone, so continuing to be upset about it is pointless.

I think the organization has every intention of bringing back Vazquez back, unless of course he has a disastrous season. His first game the other night was VERY impressive, and he showed quite a bit of passion on the floor as well.

PPat is probably about 50/50 at this point. His ability to spread the floor has been pretty valuable, but when Landry comes back, finding a lot of minutes for him will become difficult.
Image
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 25,434
And1: 5,537
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: Declined Options 

Post#4 » by KF10 » Fri Nov 1, 2013 9:02 pm

I'm fine with them declining options for those guys.

Let them earn their worth and/or let the market dictate their value.

It's a nice change from the previous regime where they just give away contracts left and right.

I hope we manage keep all of them but most likely, Jimmer will be going out.

I thought Jimmer had a solid preseason and should have earned minutes last game but I don't know.

Thornton had a disaster preseason and a poor start of the season. Never liked his body attitude and his pout. If I was GM, McLemore gets the starting SG, Jimmer backs him and trade off Thornton w/ JT for something nice...a SF maybe?
User avatar
blind prophet
RealGM
Posts: 10,574
And1: 3,306
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
 

Re: Declined Options 

Post#5 » by blind prophet » Sat Nov 2, 2013 4:55 pm

Why would the organization not deal Jimmer before declining the option?
BossDejan
Ballboy
Posts: 30
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 04, 2012

Re: Declined Options 

Post#6 » by BossDejan » Sat Nov 2, 2013 6:24 pm

KF10 wrote:I'm fine with them declining options for those guys.

Let them earn their worth and/or let the market dictate their value.

It's a nice change from the previous regime where they just give away contracts left and right.

I hope we manage keep all of them but most likely, Jimmer will be going out.

I thought Jimmer had a solid preseason and should have earned minutes last game but I don't know.

Thornton had a disaster preseason and a poor start of the season. Never liked his body attitude and his pout. If I was GM, McLemore gets the starting SG, Jimmer backs him and trade off Thornton w/ JT for something nice...a SF maybe?


I agree with this 100%.. Jimmer single-handedly brought them back into games last season when given the chance to see the floor.. I have no idea why they would throw a fat contract at MT like this since he's just way too inconsistent. Give away MT/JT/Salmons (yes, all three), keep jimmer, and get a solid SF. It would definitely be a much smoother offense and less one-on-one play.

Return to Sacramento Kings