[KINGS] Comments that don't warrant their own thread (Redux)
- Thread starter Section 101
- Start date
We'll probably never know what Monte thought he was cooking up for this past FA season clearing up Richaun's contract space so it's easy to forget that was the original proposition here and the consolation was locking up Domas and re-signing HB. After signing Monk the year prior and coming off the 3 seed with an exciting young team I can see why Monte thought maybe he could be a player last summer. In the grand scheme of learning the hard way about Sac as a FA destination this was a lot less painful than what Vlade did when he tried to free up cap space.
Maybe someone wants to see some old and good basketball game - 1986 world championship final USSR vs USA, where you can see Domantas father Arvydas Sabonis playing and where he was before injuries and in much better shape before he came to NBA.... Also Sabonis vs David Robinson it is nice to watch 
Muggsy Bogues is also catchy.
Muggsy Bogues is also catchy.
Last edited:
Although Slawson projects closer to a big man (he's still what we used to call a tweener though, isn't he?) I would think Jones is a better example and someone who at least sniffed big boy minutes and generates excitement.
If Slawson does work out though that's a bonus. If he doesn't he's just eating up one of three 2-way spots.
If Slawson does work out though that's a bonus. If he doesn't he's just eating up one of three 2-way spots.
Obviously there is concern about tampering, but as long as the league is trying to put forth the impression that nobody is allowed contact before July 1, then they would have to punish teams obviously contacting free agents in the week prior. I mean, just in this year's draft the Suns and the Sixers lost their second round picks for early free agent contact so it's not like that sort of thing would be risk-free.
I think what @pdxKingsFan was talking about was trade talks surrounding Beal. He is suggesting that once we didn't land Beal, we pivoted to HB's extension.
I think what @pdxKingsFan was talking about was trade talks surrounding Beal. He is suggesting that once we didn't land Beal, we pivoted to HB's extension.
I was definitely more than guilty of misremembering the exact timeline, but a lot of stuff happened between the draft when we made the trade for space and the opening of free agency, including the Beal move, players agreeing to extensions and not entering free agency, and I think that is when Monte quickly re-signed Barnes before allowing him to enter FA. Let's not forget Monte also got burned with early negotiations in the Bogi-DDV deal so I am sure he was treading carefully but until the Beal move happened which had more than a few dominoes along with it the expectation was Barnes was gone.
Hey @Capt. Factorial one of the changes I have heard about in the updated CBA is the 200% rule on trades of a player making under 7.5MM, but it was stated that these can be aggregated. So two 7.5MM players could bring back one 30MM player.
Is this accurate as far as you know. It didnt seem accurate to me.
Is this accurate as far as you know. It didnt seem accurate to me.
Well, the principle is right. What I mean by that is that the 200% rule applies to aggregated salaries, so if one could apply the 200% rule to this situation, then $7.5M + $7.5M = $15M, and 200% of that is $30M.
But the problem is that you can't apply the 200% rule to $15M worth of outgoing salary.
There are actually THREE rules that each output a different maximum incoming salary (based on outgoing salary), where A is the lesser of A1 and A2, and the final value is the greater of A and B. It's kind of crazy. The rules are as follows:
A1) Max incoming = 200% of outgoing, plus $250K
A2) Max incoming = 100% of outgoing, plus $7.5M (with the $7.5M adjusted upwards proportionally as the salary cap increases)
A = Lesser of A1 and A2
B) Max incoming = 125% of outgoing, plus $250K
Final Max incoming is greater of A and B.
So, assuming $15M outgoing, the maximum incoming value according to each of the rules is:
A1) $30,250,000
A2) $22,775,000 (approx. for '24-'25)
so A = $22,775,000
B) $19,000,000
So in this case, rule A (technically A2) wins and the max incoming would be $22.75M.
Basically, rule A1 wins for low salaries (anything below $7.5M outgoing), rule A2 wins for middle salaries ($7.5M - $30M outgoing), and rule B applies for high salaries ($30M+ outgoing). These levels will change upwards a bit as the salary cap goes up, but not a lot.
Of course rules A/B only apply if the post-trade team salary does not place the team over the apron. If it does, then rules A/B do not apply and instead rule C (100% of outgoing, plus $250K) applies regardless of outgoing salary level.
But the problem is that you can't apply the 200% rule to $15M worth of outgoing salary.
There are actually THREE rules that each output a different maximum incoming salary (based on outgoing salary), where A is the lesser of A1 and A2, and the final value is the greater of A and B. It's kind of crazy. The rules are as follows:
A1) Max incoming = 200% of outgoing, plus $250K
A2) Max incoming = 100% of outgoing, plus $7.5M (with the $7.5M adjusted upwards proportionally as the salary cap increases)
A = Lesser of A1 and A2
B) Max incoming = 125% of outgoing, plus $250K
Final Max incoming is greater of A and B.
So, assuming $15M outgoing, the maximum incoming value according to each of the rules is:
A1) $30,250,000
A2) $22,775,000 (approx. for '24-'25)
so A = $22,775,000
B) $19,000,000
So in this case, rule A (technically A2) wins and the max incoming would be $22.75M.
Basically, rule A1 wins for low salaries (anything below $7.5M outgoing), rule A2 wins for middle salaries ($7.5M - $30M outgoing), and rule B applies for high salaries ($30M+ outgoing). These levels will change upwards a bit as the salary cap goes up, but not a lot.
Of course rules A/B only apply if the post-trade team salary does not place the team over the apron. If it does, then rules A/B do not apply and instead rule C (100% of outgoing, plus $250K) applies regardless of outgoing salary level.
Last edited:
Colby Jones' advanced defensive metrics in the GLeague have actually been better than Prosper's so far.
He's more of a 2/3 defender vs. 3/4 defender like OMax, which is admittedly a but more valuable for the Kings as currently constructed, but in terms of impact and future productivity, I would say Jones looks like a better prospect overall.
He's more of a 2/3 defender vs. 3/4 defender like OMax, which is admittedly a but more valuable for the Kings as currently constructed, but in terms of impact and future productivity, I would say Jones looks like a better prospect overall.
I hope not.
But just in general I see a general narrative that if the Kings lose Monk they need a big scoring/shooting threat off the bench. That's true to some extent, but I think it really overlooks just how much value Malik brings as a playmaker. I think that's actually the more important piece. That and just the energy he brings because he's such a dynamic and exciting player.
Sure Buddy puts up empty calorie scoring numbers, but Malik is an explosive, playmaking, scoring option who is also an amazing teammate.
But just in general I see a general narrative that if the Kings lose Monk they need a big scoring/shooting threat off the bench. That's true to some extent, but I think it really overlooks just how much value Malik brings as a playmaker. I think that's actually the more important piece. That and just the energy he brings because he's such a dynamic and exciting player.
Sure Buddy puts up empty calorie scoring numbers, but Malik is an explosive, playmaking, scoring option who is also an amazing teammate.