Amnesty John Salmons
- Thread starter Darren
- Start date
Nothing really bad about him, I actually enjoyed his play this season. Just not what he once was.
That contract though
I hope Vivek has that money to throw out there to make it a possibility.
We need to overpay for a superstar and resign Tyreke
That contract though
I hope Vivek has that money to throw out there to make it a possibility.
We need to overpay for a superstar and resign Tyreke
I'd try to trade him first. He has value as an ending contract. If Indiana wants to move Granger for instance, he could be a part of that deal.
I have no issue using amnesty on him, but I don't see any "superstars" that the Kings could realistically get.
For next year, his contract is only $1M guaranteed, so letting him go is almost painless. And you're right, just because we can amnesty doesn't mean we should. Outside of luxury tax concerns, you only ever amnesty if you need the cap space and are going to use the cap space. So if we have a free agent target, we have to go after them early (because the amnesty window closes relatively early) and then if we can strike a deal that requires more cap space than we have, we amnesty Salmons simultaneous with the signing. What we should not at all do is amnesty Salmons and then hope we can find a way to use the cap space. That's a bad move any day of the week.
I completely agree. You have to have a plan of action if your going to amnesty Salmons, and maybe they do. They are confronted with resigning Tyreke, and that will probably eat up some of our space, and the following year they have to deal with Cuz, unless they extend him prior to that. You only amnesty Salmons if you have a big target your going after.
Last time I checked, the Kings weren't overloaded with talent. Salmons is still a servicable role player; why dump someone you can use when you have no replacement?
Also, if Salmons is an ender save him to trade at the deadline! Deadline deals are the very best friend of a small market team.
Also, if Salmons is an ender save him to trade at the deadline! Deadline deals are the very best friend of a small market team.
Last edited:
I don't think that the ship has completely sailed. I can easily come up with a rational reason to amnesty Salmons. Let's say we quickly re-sign Tyreke at $11M, while not giving QOs to either Johnson (obviously) or Douglas, and renounce Aldrich's cap hold. That leaves us with about $5M in cap space counting our 1st rounder - not a lot of space, but there's a built-in option for an extra $7.5M... Imagine that we are able to come to an agreement with (for sake of argument) Josh Smith at $12.5M. We amnesty Salmons and all of a sudden we have that $12.5M in cap space. Following that we can turn around and try to use our room exception to sign Douglas. Josh Smith and a new coach would probably go a long way towards improving this team. Obviously there are other ways to create cap space (trading Thornton, for one), but a Salmons amnesty should be in our back pocket and available for use, if it makes sense.
Yea, not sure why Salmons amnesty is a "nail in the coffin shut". Assuming we resign Reke, we're pretty much done as to what we can do in FA with needing to sign the rookie as well. Amnesty Salmons and you have that freedom to go pursue a 2nd-3rd tier FA who can actually help the team like a Tony Allen, Korver, Splitter, Aminu. Salmons sucks and has very little value when he's on the court. I would much rather invest his contract into someone who can actually help the team.
This is all of course assuming our management is willing to shell out major amounts of money year 1, even with regards to Reke. They might take a year and evaluate what direction they want to take the team
This is all of course assuming our management is willing to shell out major amounts of money year 1, even with regards to Reke. They might take a year and evaluate what direction they want to take the team
Remember amnesty does NOT mean we don't pay him, so the ownership would be on the hook for a BIG hunk of that 10 million ON TOP of the payroll that is counted against the cap. We are also talking about wanting a new high dollar coach (Smart still has a year left on his contract) and GM so in the end all those costs not counted against cap add up to tens of millions of dollars... so they better be worth it.
If you folks think the long term needs of team will best be met with a 9--12 mill guy we lock up for another 2-5 years then you are right, but IF we do that then the following season we will have 10 mill LESS to sign FA's and will almost be forced to look at vet min guys. AND we need to lock up DMC THIS season with an extension or we will have to match the FA market for him, Now if you are honestly looking at Spliter or Toney Allen then you might be on to something, but I don't see either of those guys leaving the winning teams they are on, there is a reason most FA's sign back up with the same team. In my mind Salmons in the the real world is most likely to be used either as a late trade where we steal some young proven talent for his contract. Or we simply live with him for a year and use the cap space our selves next year along with the salaries of P-Pat and Aldrich with should allow us to pay DMC AND go after a top FA. at 15+ million. Either way the organization does not have to take any hit for his contract.
If you folks think the long term needs of team will best be met with a 9--12 mill guy we lock up for another 2-5 years then you are right, but IF we do that then the following season we will have 10 mill LESS to sign FA's and will almost be forced to look at vet min guys. AND we need to lock up DMC THIS season with an extension or we will have to match the FA market for him, Now if you are honestly looking at Spliter or Toney Allen then you might be on to something, but I don't see either of those guys leaving the winning teams they are on, there is a reason most FA's sign back up with the same team. In my mind Salmons in the the real world is most likely to be used either as a late trade where we steal some young proven talent for his contract. Or we simply live with him for a year and use the cap space our selves next year along with the salaries of P-Pat and Aldrich with should allow us to pay DMC AND go after a top FA. at 15+ million. Either way the organization does not have to take any hit for his contract.
Amnestying Salmons would free up space on the roster and cap space to acquire a SF who will contribute toward making the team better. We shouldn't be putting up with Salmons any more, we're supposed to be building a winning team. He only has 1 million guaranteed in 2014/2015 anyway so amnestying him potentially saves money. All that has to happen is one of the other 29 teams in the league thinks he can help their team and absorbs part of his salary. We picked up Travis Outlaw for crying out loud. Stranger things have happened. We'd be paying more for whoever takes his place on the roster, true, but isn't the point of building a team paying for players that help you win? Think of it as an up-front investment with long-term payoff.
So would an Amnesty of Thorton, and that salary WOULD get picked up by another team, AND he is a redundant talent. Trust me I am NO fan of Salmons and would love to have seen him traded or amnestied LAST year, but unless the team has ALREADY signed a FA at 9-12 mill AND have a reasonable replacement at the SF then Salmons is of MORE value as a late trade or part of a HUGE cap space move for 2014-2015 season.
Last edited:
Yeah but Thornton is actually a tradeable asset. Salmons is not. He's dead weight. How can you not be sick of waiting for contracts to come off the books at this point? We've been playing that broken record for going on 10 years now. He's standing in the way of our ability to improve the team. That's reason enough isn't it? If we do manage to trade Thornton and amnesty Salmons that's a significant chunk of salary cap space left over even after Tyreke's new contract.
Thornton cannot be amnestied because his deal was signed under the new CBA.
As far as Salmons goes, you only amnesty him to create salary cap space to sign a high-dollar free agent you already have a verbal agreement with. We don't have to worry about luxury tax, we can't save any money by amnestying him (because certainly nobody will bid beyond the $6.5M minimum bid, if that), you only do it to create cap space for a free agent ready to sign on the dotted line.
As far as Salmons goes, you only amnesty him to create salary cap space to sign a high-dollar free agent you already have a verbal agreement with. We don't have to worry about luxury tax, we can't save any money by amnestying him (because certainly nobody will bid beyond the $6.5M minimum bid, if that), you only do it to create cap space for a free agent ready to sign on the dotted line.
I am beginning to see a lot of misunderstanding as to the amnesty and as to the the salary cap vs luxury tax which are at two different levels unless something has changed. Can someone clarify these two entities?
My understanding is that going over the salary cap, not a crime, BTW, does not trigger the luxury tax. It is the manipulation of the salary cap that requires a clever GM if not one individual in the FO assigned to keeping track of such. Luxury tax is meant to punish the ultra-rich teams who sneer at paying a little extra in luxury tax by paying huge amounts in salary. There are new teeth for perpetual offenders which is about time.
I don't mean to side track this thread but there seems to be some confusion which is making this thread go astray.
My understanding is that going over the salary cap, not a crime, BTW, does not trigger the luxury tax. It is the manipulation of the salary cap that requires a clever GM if not one individual in the FO assigned to keeping track of such. Luxury tax is meant to punish the ultra-rich teams who sneer at paying a little extra in luxury tax by paying huge amounts in salary. There are new teeth for perpetual offenders which is about time.
I don't mean to side track this thread but there seems to be some confusion which is making this thread go astray.
Thanks Capt. so good info there I did not have. But my position is not changed on Salmons. Anmesting him made great sense LAST season, but at this point he is like a savings bond months away from maturing, this is just not the BEST time to cash it in. Wait just a little longer to get the MOST value out his contract.
On a tangent, who knows we may get a coach who wants to run the offense point forward so we can load the guard position with two shooters and NOT stall the offense.
On a tangent, who knows we may get a coach who wants to run the offense point forward so we can load the guard position with two shooters and NOT stall the offense.
At the moment no one knows where the salary cap, and then the luxury tax cap will be set. Last season the salary cap was at just over 58 mil, and its likely to go up to around 60 mil since it hasn't gone up in two years. I don't remember for sure where the luxury tax threshold was set, but it was around 70 million. The reason amnesty is attractive to teams that can afford it, is that although you still have to pay all, or part of the departing players salary, it doesn't count against the salary cap, thereby increasing your capspace.
I'm not certain what misunderstanding you're talking about - I don't believe there has been any talk in this thread about Luxury Tax outside of myself. I'm pretty sure I've got everything clear, though I may have been abbreviating things a bit too much. Let's see how much clarity I can get into the smallest possible space:
When a team amnesties a contract, they are still on the hook for paying out the contract to the player (though their obligation is reduced if another team picks up the player and pays a portion of the contract). However, the contract no longer counts towards Team Salary. Team Salary is used for both Salary Cap and Luxury Tax calculations. So the reduction in Team Salary that results from an amnesty can free up cap space, get a team out of the luxury tax, or reduce a team's luxury tax payments even if the team remains in the luxury tax. Because the luxury tax rate is, at minimum, 1.5 times the salary of the player (on top of the player's salary), amnesties to reduce luxury tax obligations always make sense as long as you don't mind not having the player around anymore. Amnesties to free up cap space, on the other hand, are only useful if that cap space is going to be used.
When a team amnesties a contract, they are still on the hook for paying out the contract to the player (though their obligation is reduced if another team picks up the player and pays a portion of the contract). However, the contract no longer counts towards Team Salary. Team Salary is used for both Salary Cap and Luxury Tax calculations. So the reduction in Team Salary that results from an amnesty can free up cap space, get a team out of the luxury tax, or reduce a team's luxury tax payments even if the team remains in the luxury tax. Because the luxury tax rate is, at minimum, 1.5 times the salary of the player (on top of the player's salary), amnesties to reduce luxury tax obligations always make sense as long as you don't mind not having the player around anymore. Amnesties to free up cap space, on the other hand, are only useful if that cap space is going to be used.
He is just plain abetter player. Better by far on defense, better ball handler, passer, team player. Not as good a scorer but he makes up for that by being helpful as a teammate. Remember, he has not been allowed to play his natural position in this go round with the Kings.
To those of you who think we already have a better backup SG, be my guest, do it your way. May you be happy with the "confident- to-do-it-all-myself" attitude. I don't think he (MT) is very flexible.
To those of you who think we already have a better backup SG, be my guest, do it your way. May you be happy with the "confident- to-do-it-all-myself" attitude. I don't think he (MT) is very flexible.
Largely where I am on this.
Unless Reke is moved to the PG, there just is no way to make the MT thing work. Not for him, not for our $$ worth. And despite last year's misery, he may be one of the most moveable pieces we have to patch other holes. Meanwhile Salmons is a mediocre nothing, but his particular nothing both in size and game has just enough of Reke in him to be viable as a backup SG. A little driving, a little ballhandling, a little defense. he's a vet, you could buy time with him at that spot for a year and be doing fine. And never be tempted to take minutes from Reke or hopefully at this late stage in his career worry about John getting pissy about it.
P.S. however not in any way shape or form do I think JS is better than MT. Not even close. With all the teams in need of a SG now, MT is going to go somewhere and be somebody's starter and 18ppg scorer. But that's our advantage with him. There will be a market if we decided to move him.
Unless Reke is moved to the PG, there just is no way to make the MT thing work. Not for him, not for our $$ worth. And despite last year's misery, he may be one of the most moveable pieces we have to patch other holes. Meanwhile Salmons is a mediocre nothing, but his particular nothing both in size and game has just enough of Reke in him to be viable as a backup SG. A little driving, a little ballhandling, a little defense. he's a vet, you could buy time with him at that spot for a year and be doing fine. And never be tempted to take minutes from Reke or hopefully at this late stage in his career worry about John getting pissy about it.
P.S. however not in any way shape or form do I think JS is better than MT. Not even close. With all the teams in need of a SG now, MT is going to go somewhere and be somebody's starter and 18ppg scorer. But that's our advantage with him. There will be a market if we decided to move him.
For me to explain what both caps mean would take quite a bit of time. Its a complicated subject with a lot of variables. But basicly, the salary cap limits what a team can spend, and how they can spend it. For instance, if the salary cap is lets say 60 million, and a team is right at the cap or just 4 or 5 million under it, there's really no way they can exceed the luxury tax threshold, unless one of their existing players, lets say Cousins, is ending. If thats the case, the team holding that contract(the Kings), can then exceed the salary cap by offering a max contract to keep their own player, which then might take them over the luxury tax threshold. On the other hand, if the Kings again are right at the cap, or just below it, they can't go out and offer a max contract to a freeagent, lets say Howard, and exceed the salary cap, and therefore not exceed the luxury tax threshold.
This is also true with trades because salaries have to match within a certain percentage of each other. Its possible to take back a little more salary than you send out, but the percentage is small, and it might put you just over the salary cap, but it wouldn't put you over the luxury tax threshold. Whats truely damming about the luxury tax in the new CBA is that the longer your over it, it goes up each year percentage wise. The first year is 1.5 dollars for every dollar over the threshold, but the second year I believe its 2 dollars and so on. So the Lakers for instance, who would have been looking at about a 40 million tax under the old CBA may be looking at around 60 mil this coming season and as much as 80 million the next season. It just keeps compounding until you find a way to get out from under it. I don't care how rich your are, you can't just keep giving away 60 to 80 million every year. I may be off on my figures and I'm sure the Capt will correct me if so.
This is also true with trades because salaries have to match within a certain percentage of each other. Its possible to take back a little more salary than you send out, but the percentage is small, and it might put you just over the salary cap, but it wouldn't put you over the luxury tax threshold. Whats truely damming about the luxury tax in the new CBA is that the longer your over it, it goes up each year percentage wise. The first year is 1.5 dollars for every dollar over the threshold, but the second year I believe its 2 dollars and so on. So the Lakers for instance, who would have been looking at about a 40 million tax under the old CBA may be looking at around 60 mil this coming season and as much as 80 million the next season. It just keeps compounding until you find a way to get out from under it. I don't care how rich your are, you can't just keep giving away 60 to 80 million every year. I may be off on my figures and I'm sure the Capt will correct me if so.
Actually, the I'm-So-Rich-I-Can-Give-Away-X-Every-Year Value currently stands at $81.27M. $81.28M is unsustainable.
Note: For anybody actually giving away this kind of money, I'm totally willing to come into the game receiving $50M, $51M per year tops. I would NEVER want to go beyond, you know, 2/3 of your limit.
Call me?
Note: For anybody actually giving away this kind of money, I'm totally willing to come into the game receiving $50M, $51M per year tops. I would NEVER want to go beyond, you know, 2/3 of your limit.
Call me?