Free Agency Open Thread (NBA and Kings!)

[Warhawk]

Just because the "roster is full" it doesn't mean you stop collecting assets.

Where did I claim Vlade doesn't know what he's doing? Where did I insinuate that Vlade wasn't holding talks with the Raptors? You're accusing me of something I never suggested. It's possible he did and it's possible he didn't. You and I will never know. All I'm doing is commenting on this particular trade saying that I would have done it as the Kings GM. I'm not posting on here bashing our FO and calling for Vlade's head. I'm simply expressing my opinion. And my opinion is that I would have made th deal if I had the opportunity.

I never said draft picks are the end all be all. Culture, veteran mentors, etc. play a big role as well, but unlike many here, they seem to want to sacrifice th collection of assets for the sake of culture/veteran mentorship while I want all three (collecting asssets, culture, veteran mentor ship).

Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

You have called not doing this trade "lunacy", etc. Sure sounds like a sharp criticism on the FO (based on no tangible information) to me. Not that I care, maybe I was just reading more into your posts than you intended.

I would rather have Vince based on his history with the coach, his documented efforts on mentoring and training young players, his assessment of the team and where he feels he can contribute based on recent interviews, etc. I trust the FO to make the right decision on which vets to bring in to do such mentoring based on their personal and first hand experinece with these players.

I think that you are considering the mentorship that Vince will provide as equal to that of Carroll. Obviously the team does not feel that they are equal and are placing more emphasis and focus on the development of the ten (10!!!) rookie-scale players we already have on the team than a couple possible late picks to be determined later. You don't sacrifice the betterment of the players we have now for a possible late draft pick in the future, not when we have so many with promise. They felt that Vince, Zach, and George are better options than Carroll and a couple late picks, all things considered. And I don't think I disagree with that assessment. Not when we are brimming with young talent already.

I get what you are saying. Really, I (and others) do. But at some point you have to stop being Philly and actually, you know, try to get better. Stability and development. See what you have already (because the grass isn't always greener in the draft).

 

[steelevt]

hey guys, I was upset at us being ok with spending $8millon on VC, but not willing to take on Carrol's' 2 year contract for a 1st rounder too. After re-thinking it, it's alright. Carrol is not nearly good enough for us to be arguing over lol

i dont think everyone is getting upset about carroll. i think its one side or the other going to the extreme to make there point. like there is no in between. either you want carroll and dont want any veteran leadership, want to waste ALL our capspace and future flexibility, and only want to play a team full or rookies. or you dont want him at all, dont want to acquire any assets at all and believe our allstar vets will teach the rookies to win a ring. i even think some posters, like you and i, dont even care anymore since its in the past, but the fact others group some people into one extreme side or the other is annoying because you cant even get your point across because they assume what you will type instead of reading it.

 

[twslam07]

You have called not doing this trade "lunacy", etc. Sure sounds like a sharp criticism on the FO (based on no tangible information) to me. Not that I care, maybe I was just reading more into your posts than you intended.

I would rather have Vince based on his history with the coach, his documented efforts on mentoring and training young players, his assessment of the team and where he feels he can contribute based on recent interviews, etc. I trust the FO to make the right decision on which vets to bring in to do such mentoring based on their personal and first hand experinece with these players.

I think that you are considering the mentorship that Vince will provide as equal to that of Carroll. Obviously the team does not feel that they are equal and are placing more emphasis and focus on the development of the ten (10!!!) rookie-scale players we already have on the team than a couple possible late picks to be determined later. You don't sacrifice the betterment of the players we have now for a possible late draft pick in the future, not when we have so many with promise. They felt that Vince, Zach, and George are better options than Carroll and a couple late picks, all things considered. And I don't think I disagree with that assessment. Not when we are brimming with young talent already.

I get what you are saying. Really, I (and others) do. But at some point you have to stop being Philly and actually, you know, try to get better. Stability and development. See what you have already (because the grass isn't always greener in the draft).

I mentioned it was lunacy if you wouldn't do this deal. It doesn't mean Vlade wasn't willing.

Feel free to trust the FO to make the right decision, but at the same time Vlade might have wanted to make that deal but perhaps the Nets slightly outbid us. With that line of thinking you could all of a sudden align with the argument I'm making. Hitching yourself to the ideas of others off blind faith seems odd. Why not assess, analyze, and come up with your own stance? To each their own...

Where did I say Carroll and Carter are equal as mentors? If we had absolutely no veteran mentors and 14 rookie scale players, then yes you probably need to turn this deal down and pickup a guy like Carter. But when you have a collection of Temple, Randolph, and Koufos already, it tips the scale for me. Everything isn't always black and white. There's a balance, and I'd rather have the asset while still having 5 veteran mentors but no Carter.

Have we been Philly? We traded away our franchise player just last year. When have we been routinely tanking year after year? We have not been Philly. Not even close but we need to be smart about how we rebuild. Rushing it does us no good.

 

[Suicide King]

Because they talk about those assets like they are nearly worthless or try to explain how Carrol isnt a good player. Or try to explain why using all our cap space on vets in a year that we will suck anyway is a better idea. Obviously Carroll isnt worth his contract if a team is willing to give up 1st and 2nd rounder for him. But diminishing the value of those draft picks implicates that they dont understand the real value of renting cap space and with what price is team willing dump their unwanted salary. That Carrol deal was a pretty good return for the nets and if the Kings would expect a lot better return then they clearly arent realistically expecting any deals like that.

Well they aren't worthless, but neither are they high value. There is plenty of time to make asset grabs and things like cap space have more value at the trade deadline.

Also, if they couldn't be moved in a deal, we would have find room for 4 picks to play, or they lose value.

 

[Suicide King]

I think some are arguing the same point and don't even realize it. The deal is gone and wasn't for us for whatever reason. I am for both Vets for mentorship, and good deals for assets. Not being privy to what our front office has in mind for the next couple of years, it is pointless for me to argue for or against one specific deal.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Carter>Carrol. Nuff said

Dude is on the wrong side of 40. He's a marvel. But at any stage dude can begin to shoot .36% and not move on D. Who knows when it is. Hope he does get it done

 

[Warhawk]

I mentioned it was lunacy if you wouldn't do this deal. It doesn't mean Vlade wasn't willing.

Feel free to trust the FO to make the right decision, but at the same time Vlade might have wanted to make that deal but perhaps the Nets slightly outbid us. With that line of thinking you could all of a sudden align with the argument I'm making. Hitching yourself to the ideas of others off blind faith seems odd. Why not assess, analyze, and come up with your own stance? To each their own...

Where did I say Carroll and Carter are equal as mentors? If we had absolutely no veteran mentors and 14 rookie scale players, then yes you probably need to turn this deal down and pickup a guy like Carter. But when you have a collection of Temple, Randolph, and Koufos already, it tips the scale for me. Everything isn't always black and white. There's a balance, and I'd rather have the asset while still having 5 veteran mentors but no Carter.

Have we been Philly? We traded away our franchise player just last year. When have we been routinely tanking year after year? We have not been Philly. Not even close but we need to be smart about how we rebuild. Rushing it does us no good.

I don't "hitch myself to the ideas of others off blind faith", but at a certain point you have to assume that the professionals kinda know what they are doing. Vlade and Co. (including the coach) have a lot of personal experience with Vince and Zach over years - I am going to trust that first-hand experience at this point. A lot more than my blind intuition about how a player would be as a mentor based on seeing him play a few minutes a year agains the Kings. Vlade and Coach know what this team needs to develop and they went out and got it.

The FO has indicated that mentoring and developing the players we have is basically priority #1, as well as trying to win along the way. It sounds like they are done tanking and grabbing all the draft picks they can. Does that mean they won't grab some along the way? Of course not - but it has to make sense financially and fit into their plan and goals for the team. But that also means getting some of the best mentors you can at all the posistions, which I think they have done. Basically every position has a solid, hard-working, high-character vet to show the kids the ropes. I don't think they are working on the same sliding scale you are, and I like their approach. If you only have a few vets, get the best ones you can to meet your goals. Don't half-*** that part.

Philly just kept trading to gather picks and accumulate assets without seriously developing the ones they had. I think the FO feels like they have their (10!) high-quality kids, now it is time to develop them. We don't need to keep adding more youth to the stable at this point - that is what Reno is for now. Let's see what we have. We can always make trades for picks later if we need to. I think at this point we are done with the "unknown" of the draft as the major component of building up this team. Now it is time to mentor and develop for a couple years and when the vet contracts start coming due we can trade those for other kids/vets/picks as desired. We have very solid vets who can still perform at a high level, but they are on reasonable contracts. We are in a good position for the future - lots of young talent, quality vets on good contracts, and no dead weight. I don't think that is lunacy by any means.

 

[206Fan]

KCP agreed to a 1 year $18million deal with the Lakers.

lol him and his agents are idiots. Turned down 5 years $80million thinking they could get max money..

 

[Capt. Factorial]

KCP agreed to a 1 year $18million deal with the Lakers.

lol him and his agents are idiots. Turned down 5 years $80million thinking they could get max money..

That's a match made in purgatory.

 

[kingsboi]

KCP agreed to a 1 year $18million deal with the Lakers.

lol him and his agents are idiots. Turned down 5 years $80million thinking they could get max money..

do KCP & George Hill have the same agent?

 

[kingjatt]

Personally Ill take KCP over the deals we gave ZBO and Vince, hes another young guy who has shown promise, cant ever have enough shooting and defending, espcially with not having to give multiple years.

I wonder if Philly regrets the 25 it gave Riddick over KCP for a possible 18?

 

[Ozymandias]

Personally Ill take KCP over the deals we gave ZBO and Vince, hes another young guy who has shown promise, cant ever have enough shooting and defending, espcially with not having to give multiple years.

I wonder if Philly regrets the 25 it gave Riddick over KCP for a possible 18?

Yup. Hate to say it but it sorta reminds me of the Jazz trading for Boris Diaw and signing Joe Johnson last season instead of maxxing Harrison Barnes, which IMO would've been better for them last season, and now that Hayward bailed it'd have been way safer moving forward......

I do actually think KCP has his sights set on a bigger deal next summer though.. Next to Lonzo in a high-paced offense is a much better fit than that awful offense the Pistons ran last year with Reggie Jackson overdribbling and running P'n'R over and over and over.

 

[ParniValjak]

When will I stop getting lumped into the group that thinks we don't need veteran mentors. I don't think that! Temple, Carter, Koufos, and Randolph are all fine in that role. You need a few of those players to bring the young guys along.

If Carroll plays better than or young guys, fine. Play him. Make the young guys earn it. I don't want any handouts to our young guys. I think you're arguing a point I agree with it.

Less cap space next year (notice how I didn't say no cap space) is a small price to pay for a team who really shouldn't be signing older veterans to help catapult them to a treadmill of mediocrity. It's one of the reasons you see these trades happen so much. Cap space is not nearly as valuable to us as it is to other teams. Besides, the most crucial offseason is in 2019 and Carroll will be off th books by then (along with Randolph, Hill, Temple, and Koufos). That's when we should consider spending big. When we have a boat load of cap space and it being the year before having to pay our sophomores.

Just because you think that we should not be spending next year doesn't mean that the front office is taking that approach. You also assume that cap space is only valuable to sign someone. Cap space also becomes valuable in trades where teams are prepared to "blow it up" and trade their star for cap space and young assets.

If people are paying attention it is pretty clear that the front office values cap flexibility very highly going forward. Vince was only signed for 1 season and both Koufos and Temple have player options next season. Potentially, this gives the Kings room for MAX player. It gives them room to move and be dynamic with their strategy depending on what happens next season. The situation is pretty fluid at the moment. No one really knows if the kids we have are the real deal or not. If by the end of next season the Kings are convinced that they have 3 all-stars/franchise level players on the roster already, then their strategy would be very different to if they realize that they don't have a single rotation guy on a good playoff team. Rebuilt is part acquiring assets and part keeping cap flexibility to strike when the opportunity arises. Locking up your cap room for 2 years and spending $30m doing so just to get one late 1st round pick is a steep price to pay when some of the tax teams are always looking to either sell their 1st round pick or trade out of the first round for 2nd round picks/ if the Kings really want another 1st round pick they can always get it if they think the price is right. I suspect any reasonable manager (who has to keep track of the finances if they are any good) will look at that $30m price tag and cap getting locked up for 2 years as not a great deal to take on.

I had no problem taking on Mo Harkless' contract from Portland because I think he is a good enough player, young enough and playing a position of need so even if my cap is locked for another 3 years, it is on a 24 year old who at the very least has proven to be a capable starter for an NBA playoff team.

 

[steelevt]

KCP agreed to a 1 year $18million deal with the Lakers.

lol him and his agents are idiots. Turned down 5 years $80million thinking they could get max money..

Damn I was hoping they'd make another mozgov/deng type signing

 

[Blob]

KCP agreed to a 1 year $18million deal with the Lakers.

lol him and his agents are idiots. Turned down 5 years $80million thinking they could get max money..

That's good signing for them (unfortunately), for Ball as a passing target, so they don't finish 2-5 and give their pick to BOS.

Ball
KCP
Ingram
Randle
Lopez

Not a terrible team, we'll see....

 

[Suicide King]

That's good signing for them (unfortunately), for Ball as a passing target, so they don't finish 2-5 and give their pick to BOS.

Ball
KCP
Ingram
Randle
Lopez

Not a terrible team, we'll see....

Lakers lose the pick regardless where it falls though. I am sure you knew that, I just like typing it out.

 

[The Effort Police]

That's good signing for them (unfortunately), for Ball as a passing target, so they don't finish 2-5 and give their pick to BOS.

Ball
KCP
Ingram
Randle
Lopez

Not a terrible team, we'll see....

I wouldn't be against it; we would have something extra to root for in the 18-19 season: screwing over the Celtics. I was kind of hoping the Lakers would do just enough to get in the 6-9 lottery range.

The Lakers will be better but that's a weird fitting team. My guess is that they'll try to get out in transition often because of Ball but revert back to the me-first iso we've come to know from the Lakers in the half court when it becomes apparent Ball can't create anything there.

If they're better then it will be because their defense went from laughably bad to just bad, but any team that runs out Ball, Randle, and Clarkson is still capped defensively in the future.

 

[twslam07]

I don't "hitch myself to the ideas of others off blind faith", but at a certain point you have to assume that the professionals kinda know what they are doing. Vlade and Co. (including the coach) have a lot of personal experience with Vince and Zach over years - I am going to trust that first-hand experience at this point. A lot more than my blind intuition about how a player would be as a mentor based on seeing him play a few minutes a year agains the Kings. Vlade and Coach know what this team needs to develop and they went out and got it.

The FO has indicated that mentoring and developing the players we have is basically priority #1, as well as trying to win along the way. It sounds like they are done tanking and grabbing all the draft picks they can. Does that mean they won't grab some along the way? Of course not - but it has to make sense financially and fit into their plan and goals for the team. But that also means getting some of the best mentors you can at all the posistions, which I think they have done. Basically every position has a solid, hard-working, high-character vet to show the kids the ropes. I don't think they are working on the same sliding scale you are, and I like their approach. If you only have a few vets, get the best ones you can to meet your goals. Don't half-*** that part.

Philly just kept trading to gather picks and accumulate assets without seriously developing the ones they had. I think the FO feels like they have their (10!) high-quality kids, now it is time to develop them. We don't need to keep adding more youth to the stable at this point - that is what Reno is for now. Let's see what we have. We can always make trades for picks later if we need to. I think at this point we are done with the "unknown" of the draft as the major component of building up this team. Now it is time to mentor and develop for a couple years and when the vet contracts start coming due we can trade those for other kids/vets/picks as desired. We have very solid vets who can still perform at a high level, but they are on reasonable contracts. We are in a good position for the future - lots of young talent, quality vets on good contracts, and no dead weight. I don't think that is lunacy by any means.

If that's the case (and I emphasize "if") than I disagree with the FO.

We should be developing our players AND in the business of acquiring assets. Again, they are not mutually exclusive. We can have the best of both worlds. I'm not sure why (not necessarily you) so many here think that you have to have one or the other.

The number of kids we have is not nearly as important to me as the quality of kids we have. You mention that you think the FO feels like they have "10 high quality kids". First off, what is considered high quality? I see 4 players on this team that have star potential with one player probably having an okay shot at getting there (F0x). The rest are long shots in my opinion. Secondly, having a bunch of kids who's ceilings are most likely role player-low level starter should not deter us from continuing to put ourselves in a position to find young kids who have a much better shot at becoming a star. I get the sense that were settling for average or good. Good is the enemy of great.

You also mentioned that you think the FO might be of the mindset that it is now time to develop them. This comes back to that mutually exclusive argument. You don't need to give up on asset acquisition to develop young kids.

 

[dude12]

If that's the case (and I emphasize "if") than I disagree with the FO.

We should be developing our players AND in the business of acquiring assets. Again, they are not mutually exclusive. We can have the best of both worlds. I'm not sure why (not necessarily you) so many here think that you have to have one or the other.

The number of kids we have is not nearly as important to me as the quality of kids we have. You mention that you think the FO feels like they have "10 high quality kids". First off, what is considered high quality? I see 4 players on this team that have star potential with one player probably having an okay shot at getting there (F0x). The rest are long shots in my opinion. Secondly, having a bunch of kids who's ceilings are most likely role player-low level starter should not deter us from continuing to put ourselves in a position to find young kids who have a much better shot at becoming a star. I get the sense that were settling for average or good. Good is the enemy of great.

You also mentioned that you think the FO might be of the mindset that it is now time to develop them. This comes back to that mutually exclusive argument. You don't need to give up on asset acquisition to develop young kids.

Who besides you used the term mutually exclusive? I don't think anyone it's arguing against asset collection. At some point you need to actually focus on the assets you have in hand and there is why I and others believe the 3 FA signings were home runs or best path for this year and next. We are going to have a high lotto pick and that is another chance for a star player. The 2 year plan in place right now (that's what it appears based on the new vet contracts) is a solid plan.

I think the disconnect for some is that they see don't see a Carter or Zbo as an asset in the short term where others see them as incredibly important......and that would include Joerger. If Joerger wants these 2 payers here, he's got good reason.

 

[KingsSelecao]

The issue that very few take into consideration is the possibility of these vets spending a lot of time on the bench due to injuries. These are not young guys.
Hill has not played a full season in 3 years. Missed 83 games over the last 3 years due to injuries. Missed the last two games in the Jazz playoffs because of a recurring toe issue.
Zack has only missed about 10 games a year over the last 2 years, but he's turning 36 in July and Father time could just catch up to him in the injury dept.
Vince only missed 9 games last year. Played about 24 min. But, Joerger is going to highly rely on him. So, increased minutes will probably be the case. That also sets up for possible injuries.

 

[Tetsujin]

Personally Ill take KCP over the deals we gave ZBO and Vince, hes another young guy who has shown promise, cant ever have enough shooting and defending, espcially with not having to give multiple years.

I wonder if Philly regrets the 25 it gave Riddick over KCP for a possible 18?

Jeebus, he plays the same position as three of our other top prospects (Buddy/Bogdan/Malachi). Accumulating assets is great but a certain point, you start having diminishing returns because there aren't enough minutes to develop these guys.

 

[steelevt]

It's all moot since Washington matched but this is the first time ive heard that we actually didn't offer porter a max contract. I never saw the interview that said vlade said it himself. Anyone catch it?

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washi...ee-agent-otto?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

 

[dude12]

Personally Ill take KCP over the deals we gave ZBO and Vince, hes another young guy who has shown promise, cant ever have enough shooting and defending, espcially with not having to give multiple years.

I wonder if Philly regrets the 25 it gave Riddick over KCP for a possible 18?

KCP shot 40% from the floor, 35% from 3. Isn't a great defender. Riddick shot 43% from 3. Is KCP even better than McLemore?

 

[kingjatt]

Jeebus, he plays the same position as three of our other top prospects (Buddy/Bogdan/Malachi). Accumulating assets is great but a certain point, you start having diminishing returns because there aren't enough minutes to develop these guys.

Malichi, Buddy and espcially Bogdan have not shown enough in an NBA setting for me to not take a shot at KCP if he is attainable, hes a young guy who fits the modern NBA perfectly(Defends perimeter/hits 3s) and would theoretically fit in great with a ball dominant Fox.

Theres a reason he was offered 80 milion, he has shown that he can ball.

We are not in a position to worry about overloading at any particular position, we do not have a young core locked in yet. We still need talent. You can never have enough young promising talent if your in a situation like ours, odds are that one of Bogdan/Buddy/Mali are going to be a bust or not fit in with what we are doing.

We know who ZBO and Vince are and they are not a part of the future, there timelines do not match the rest of guys timelines. Taking a shot on a guy like KCP is one of the things we should be doing right now, not spending 20 million on potentially washed up guys who have nothing to do with the future.

"Mentoring" can be had for much cheaper than 20 million, 20 million would have been better spent on KCP.

 

[kingjatt]

KCP shot 40% from the floor, 35% from 3. Isn't a great defender. Riddick shot 43% from 3. Is KCP even better than McLemore?

I dont even want to argue with you if your seriously just looking at shooting percentages and comparing him to a bench scrub like Mclamore. Do you watch the Pistons? theres a reason why he was offered 5 years 80 million, he is an asset on both sides of the ball, he is young and still getting better every year.

Definately worth a one year flyer while we are rebuilding. If he works out we have his bird rights, if not he can sign elsewhere.

 

[kingsboi]

It's all moot since Washington matched but this is the first time ive heard that we actually didn't offer porter a max contract. I never saw the interview that said vlade said it himself. Anyone catch it?

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washi...ee-agent-otto?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

If true, I applaud Vlade for not handing out a max offer for a role player. Bravo.

 

[Kingster]

To the expert capologists on the board:

I've heard several times that next year is going to see a plethora of teams go over the cap and pay the "tax" because of it. The overall environment for the league will be one of desperation to get under the cap. If we take that as a given, isn't the Kings cap space next year worth more than Kings' cap space this year? Won't you have a situation next year where the demand for getting under the cap is far greater than this year, and because of that teams will be willing to "pay" a team more in players/picks to get under the cap? I'm just trying to figure out what the Kings' strategy is with their cap $ going forward. Thanks.

 

[allrightythen]

Personally Ill take KCP over the deals we gave ZBO and Vince, hes another young guy who has shown promise, cant ever have enough shooting and defending, espcially with not having to give multiple years.

I wonder if Philly regrets the 25 it gave Riddick over KCP for a possible 18?

I'm sure they do. I like his game although the DWI is a little concerning.

My question would be why would KCP consider coming to the Kings for the same offer when he's all but guaranteed bigger minutes and less competition in LA? Especially if he's going to take a 1 year "bet-on-himself" type of deal. Most teams are better options for him than the Kings right now. He should have taken the deal Detroit offered.

 

[kingjatt]

I'm sure they do. I like his game although the DWI is a little concerning.

My question would be why would KCP consider coming to the Kings for the same offer when he's all but guaranteed bigger minutes and less competition in LA? Especially if he's going to take a 1 year "bet-on-himself" type of deal. Most teams are better options for him than the Kings right now. He should have taken the deal Detroit offered.

I dont think we could get him for 1 year 18 million but why not 20-22 million? We have the space and its still only one year.

Yeah im sure Vince had better situations too( contention wise and where he is in his career) but in the end money talks, I would have put the 20-22 offer in and dared him to turn it down.

The DWI is a concern but mistakes happen and by all accounts he is an incredibly hard worker plus has shown real results and improvement on the court. Again we would only be commiting to one year.

 

[ockingsfan]

It's all moot since Washington matched but this is the first time ive heard that we actually didn't offer porter a max contract. I never saw the interview that said vlade said it himself. Anyone catch it?

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washi...ee-agent-otto?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

It was always assumed we offered the max. I bet Porter's agent put out the "Kings offered max deal" narrative to get the Nets to do the same and then Washington would ultimately have to have to match the max deal.

Porter's agent did a brilliant, class A+ job for Porter. He got Porter exactly what he wanted and it cost the Kings nothing to get their names in the news, in a positive light.

Vlade and Co. probably felt like they were being used for leverage, so the offer sheet probably never came out during the meeting.

No harm and no foul in the end for us. Cost Washington plenty of extra money in the end though.