Why sign Isaiah Thomas for four years and $27 million instead of Darren Collison at $16 million over three seasons?
Because it's obviously the right thing to do.
The Sacramento Kings feel right being oh so wrong, apparently.
Replacing Thomas with Collison remains a head-scratcher. The former averaged 20.3 points and 6.3 assists on 45.3 percent shooting last season; the latter backed up Chris Paul with the Los Angeles Clippers, has never shown he can be an everyday starter on a good basketball team and closed out 2013-14 averaging 11.4 points and 3.7 assists on a slightly better 46.7 percent shooting.
There is little evidence to suggest Collison is the better fit in Sactown, other than the fact that he helps the Kings duck luxury-tax bills.
Given how the Kings played last season, Grantland's Zach Lowe argues that, well, there isn't even an argument—Thomas is the better fit:
Collison has never been Thomas’s equal as a scorer or a passer. He’s hesitant about penetrating the defense in the half court, and his inability to read the floor has frustrated coaches at just about every stop. Ask the Mavericks about him sometime.
Collison is a speed demon, but the Kings ranked about average in pace last season, and — get this — they played much faster with Thomas on the floor. ...
... The Kings with Thomas on the floor played at a faster pace than the Clippers did with Collison, regardless of whether Paul was also playing, per NBA.com.
So, yeah. Sacramento's thinking here is weird, even if it's financially driven.
Thomas told Bob Young of AZCentral Sports: “I felt very disrespected. Every year it was somebody new. I felt I did a good enough job to show them I was a starting point guard or a guy who could play a big role with their team."
Don't feel bad, Isaiah. Kings gonna Kings.
Not to mention there's always the chance Collison pulled a Monstars and stole Paul's point guard powers, Space Jam-style.