Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
That seems belied a bit by the whole Bonzi resolution unless his agent really was asking for $12mil or whatnot.
Bonzi's Agent Say Sign-And-Trade Options Will Be Discussed
- Thread starter RaY Z
- Start date
That seems belied a bit by the whole Bonzi resolution unless his agent really was asking for $12mil or whatnot.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=549794 - what Nuggs fans think about Bonzi still out there.
I don't really understand all this "screw Bonzi and his agent" sentiment here. This is business. Sometimes when you get into tough negotiations, there is a winner and a loser, sometimes two losers, and sometimes, when BOTH sides can give enough and meet in the middle, there are two winners.
In the Bonzi case, if we get nothing back for him, I'd say there are two losers.
Lots of folks are pointing at Bonzi's agent and saying he's at fault, but we really don't know who is driving the Bonzi camp train...Bonzi or his agent. Bonzi's agent may have pleaded with him to take Geoff's initial offer, or maybe he told him not to, or perhaps they both agreed to forego the offer. We just don't know, regardless of what Bonzi's agent has said to the press.
As fans, we really should want a S&T to go down now, so that our team can improve on the front line, but ONLY a deal that accomplishes this. Petrie has already mouthed the dreaded words of wanting to stay out of lux tax land, so the prospect for a S&T seems very remote. However, if a good deal arose to get a big-man piece that the Kings needed, I wholeheartedly believe that Petrie would be down on it.
This is about making our team better, not revenge or retribution. It's business.
In the Bonzi case, if we get nothing back for him, I'd say there are two losers.
Lots of folks are pointing at Bonzi's agent and saying he's at fault, but we really don't know who is driving the Bonzi camp train...Bonzi or his agent. Bonzi's agent may have pleaded with him to take Geoff's initial offer, or maybe he told him not to, or perhaps they both agreed to forego the offer. We just don't know, regardless of what Bonzi's agent has said to the press.
As fans, we really should want a S&T to go down now, so that our team can improve on the front line, but ONLY a deal that accomplishes this. Petrie has already mouthed the dreaded words of wanting to stay out of lux tax land, so the prospect for a S&T seems very remote. However, if a good deal arose to get a big-man piece that the Kings needed, I wholeheartedly believe that Petrie would be down on it.
This is about making our team better, not revenge or retribution. It's business.
Kings trade:
Bonzi Wells
Jason Hart
future 2nd rounder
Kings receive:
Brendan Haywood
Created trade exception from ATL
Washington trades:
Brendan Haywood
Michael Ruffin
Jarvis Hayes
2nd rounder
Washington receives:
Bonzi Wells
Jason Hart
Atlanta trades:
TPE
Atlanta receives:
Michael Ruffin
Jarvis Hayes
2 rounders from Sac and Wash.
Bonzi Wells
Jason Hart
future 2nd rounder
Kings receive:
Brendan Haywood
Created trade exception from ATL
Washington trades:
Brendan Haywood
Michael Ruffin
Jarvis Hayes
2nd rounder
Washington receives:
Bonzi Wells
Jason Hart
Atlanta trades:
TPE
Atlanta receives:
Michael Ruffin
Jarvis Hayes
2 rounders from Sac and Wash.
hammystyle
Starter
1) I can definitely say, "Screw Bonzi and his agent." I'll say it all I want. Their greed and miscaclulation of Bonzi's market value has hurt the Kings.
2) What I don't understand is how people actually fault the Maloofs for not wanting to pay a luxury tax. Six teams paid it last year, and there will be less this year. You talk about it being a business, well paying dollar for dollar for dollar over the tax is really bad business.
3) There won't be any S&T. The mythical bring back a defensive big S&T for Bonzi was never out there, or else it would have happened already.
BawLa
Starter
I think people are faulting them for not wanting to pay for it because they said they would pay the tax if they found the right deal. And what's the big deal about paying a little tax when you are filthy rich. We need a little more Marc Cuban mentality from the Maloofs.
nbrans
All-Star
^I posted this info in the other S&T Bonzi thread:
Thanks to http://www.ezekielbearsports.com/bbs/pages/ezeygm2/salaries.htm, here are the teams that have meaningful trade exceptions (i.e. over $3,000,000):
Boston - 4,381,459
Houston - 3,313,000
Indiana - 7,500,000 (already earmarked for Harrington)
Philadelphia - 4,650,000, 3,801,653
Phoenix - 3,700,000
Of those, I think only Philadelphia and specifically Dalembert is within the realm of possibility. Boston and Houston don't have anybody we'd want at Bonzi's salary level, and I don't think Phoenix would want Bonzi.
Also, once Harrington is traded, Atlanta will have Indiana's trade exception, but I doubt they'd want Bonzi. So there you go.
PS: Actually, Atlanta might have some use for KT since they don't even have a power forward at this point other than Shelden Williams. So a three way deal that sends KT to Atlanta for Indiana's trade exception (or if Atlanta were to absorb his salary since they're under the cap, which would create an exception) could still create a somewhat plausible Bonzi S&T scenario.
Thanks to http://www.ezekielbearsports.com/bbs/pages/ezeygm2/salaries.htm, here are the teams that have meaningful trade exceptions (i.e. over $3,000,000):
Boston - 4,381,459
Houston - 3,313,000
Indiana - 7,500,000 (already earmarked for Harrington)
Philadelphia - 4,650,000, 3,801,653
Phoenix - 3,700,000
Of those, I think only Philadelphia and specifically Dalembert is within the realm of possibility. Boston and Houston don't have anybody we'd want at Bonzi's salary level, and I don't think Phoenix would want Bonzi.
Also, once Harrington is traded, Atlanta will have Indiana's trade exception, but I doubt they'd want Bonzi. So there you go.
PS: Actually, Atlanta might have some use for KT since they don't even have a power forward at this point other than Shelden Williams. So a three way deal that sends KT to Atlanta for Indiana's trade exception (or if Atlanta were to absorb his salary since they're under the cap, which would create an exception) could still create a somewhat plausible Bonzi S&T scenario.
Last edited by a moderator:
One could also definitely say, "Screw the Maloofs and Petrie" and say it all they want (to no avail BTW). Their greed and miscalculation of a contract deal that would work has hurt the Kings.
Why didn't they just pony up a few mil more and get us back our MVP from last year?
BOTH sides were greedy, because they could not find a middle ground. As fans, we can all take whatever positions we want here about who is to blame, including our own predisposed viewpoints of a fair dollar amount and contract length for Bonzi, but when a negotiation fails, both sides are at fault. Both.
For me, I would have paid Bonzi more but limited the contract length. That would not have played well in Bonzi-land, since he was looking for a deal that could take him through retirement. So I may not have been able to do the deal either, if I were GM.
It's a tough business, especially trying to negotiate a long-term deal with an "older" NBA player.
moradi420
Bench
why, he's been saying since the middle of last season that he was going to "CHASE the dollar" come offseason. The dollar did stop right here, but i guess he kept on running
Agreed. No one has any information that says Bonzi is being manipulated by his agent. I'm sure that Bonzi (and every other NBA player) makes the ultimate decision on contracts. That being said, I understand Bonzi's decision to look for more money elsewhere. If he gets it, good for him. If he doesn't, then he made a bad decision.
Not many of us are so loyal to our employer that we would refuse to take a new job with substantially higher pay. So why do we expect it of basketball players?
Elise10
Starter
Maybe his agent said to "chase the dollar" but Bonzi has said on more than one occasion that "he didn't want to move anymore" and that he "wanted to stay a King" and if he wasn't back it was because the "Kings felt differently"
moradi420
Bench
exactly. they felt differently about giving bonzi his MONEY, thats all he really wanted. He said ya i don't want to move i want to saty in sacto.. if the money's right, but more than all that he made it clear that he was going to CHASE the dollar in the free agency market, and we didnt offer him what he wanted. He's got a similar attitude to Latrell Sprewell. Also bonzi's ahgent didnt say it, i heard boni say it from his own mouth, "i am going to chase the dollar during free agency"
Exactly.
Both sides wanted the deal to work, or there never would have been any negotiations, much less an offer. Both sides miscalculated as to what the contract should look like and the dollar amounts and duration. They both felt strongly enough to stand their respective grounds and accept the consequences.
The Kings got worse.
Bonzi will likely not get a better payday elsewhere.
Two losers.
JJ22L
Starter
JJ22L
Starter
Agreed- all beit i think i blame bonzi and his agent 60% and the franchise 40%...
Im not too sure if bonzi/his agent thought about what they were doing in this situation. This new article about the agent wanting a S&T is hilarious. I want it to happen as a fan obviously, because i want a big, but if i were Petrie i would laugh in their face. That means bonzi isnt going to get the money he wanted, which means he loses more then we do. Our money can be spent on someone else, we have a great up and rising SG, and bonzi, well, hes probably going to be screwed taking the MLE somewhere, which to be honest is no skin off my back. If Bonzi came back he came back, if he didn't he didn't. The NBA trading/FA market is too fast paced to worry about whats in the past. Bonzi is gone, hopefully for a S&T but i doubt it, so the franchise needs to look past him, and i think thats what petrie plans on doing. He wanted more money than what the market says he is worth, he just has to learn that the hard way.
Last edited:
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
I am guessing you play poker one hand at a time.
ezekielbear
Bench
Bonzi opened his mouth and praised the city and fans and said it's the Kings fault if he's not here this coming offseason.
So, that's where he's getting the blame.
Don't open your mouth, say things like that...then leave because you aren't getting paid.
The Kings offer was fair. Market value? Maybe not. But, teams that pay market value to 30 some year old, questionable habit SG's usually...suck.
I think he can live "okay" on nearly 40 million bucks... *rolls eyes*
Either Bonzi is dumb...or just greedy. There isn't a way around it. He wants his money, or, he lets his agent run him around...which would be dumb.
All I know is he's lost out on about 15-20 million more he could have had.
It's not the Kings fault. They have a business to run.
Bonzi is welcome to not take their offer, his choice. But, if you say "blame the Kings if I'm not here next season"..., when it's his fault....then he's going to get blasted.
So, that's where he's getting the blame.
Don't open your mouth, say things like that...then leave because you aren't getting paid.
The Kings offer was fair. Market value? Maybe not. But, teams that pay market value to 30 some year old, questionable habit SG's usually...suck.
I think he can live "okay" on nearly 40 million bucks... *rolls eyes*
Either Bonzi is dumb...or just greedy. There isn't a way around it. He wants his money, or, he lets his agent run him around...which would be dumb.
All I know is he's lost out on about 15-20 million more he could have had.
It's not the Kings fault. They have a business to run.
Bonzi is welcome to not take their offer, his choice. But, if you say "blame the Kings if I'm not here next season"..., when it's his fault....then he's going to get blasted.
I think the Maloofs would pay the tax if the right deal was there for a big man that would make the Kings legitimate contenders again. Going into this offseason I thought we would still be at least one more season away when we can move those expiring deals or make a run at a player in free agency. There's no reason to get locked into something now if its not going to take us to the next level.
Secondly it is clear that Bonzi and his agent completely had no clue on their market value and couldn't come to a reasonable contract agreement. Nobody is going to pay him whatever he wants and they tried to force the Kings' hands. This may have caused us to skip some other opportunities (I'm not entirely convinced this is true) because we thought we were negotiating in good faith. So as much as I appreciate what Bonzi did last season, screw him and his agent.
Secondly it is clear that Bonzi and his agent completely had no clue on their market value and couldn't come to a reasonable contract agreement. Nobody is going to pay him whatever he wants and they tried to force the Kings' hands. This may have caused us to skip some other opportunities (I'm not entirely convinced this is true) because we thought we were negotiating in good faith. So as much as I appreciate what Bonzi did last season, screw him and his agent.
The way Bonzi and his agent handled things is crazy from what I make of it. I know Bonzi wanted more $ as did his agent, but if the market wasn't going to pay that then you take the best offer which was supposedly the team he said he would like to retire with and the team he currently is with. Being greedy will cost Bonzi in the long run, a S&T is not likely and is a very desperate move to try to push for. All I can say is that I would have liked to see Bonzi back with the Kings, but he got greedy and thus is on the outside looking in, go get up Kevin, show us what you can do!
Let me try to breakdown the Bonzi contract deal into some financial perspective that perhaps most have not examined. It's interesting.
The rumored deal was $36 million over 5 years. The CBA allows 10.5% raises max, 6 years duration max for teams holding a player's Bird rights. If this indeed was the offer, and assuming the norm which is max raises on new contracts, here's what Geoff's 5-year deal looked like to Bonzi from year to year (rounded):
Year 1 = $5.8 M
Year 2 = $6.4 M
Year 3 = $7.1 M
Year 4 = $7.8 M
Year 5 = $8.6 M
Total = $35.7 M
(I was too lazy to back into the exact starting salary that comes to $36 M total, but this will serve for this post)
There are some rumors that Bonzi was looking for $40 million, perhaps more, we don't know, but if we look at the year to year salaries for a $40 million contract over 5 years and max raises, here's what we get:
Year 1 = $6.5 M
Year 2 = $7.2 M
Year 3 = $7.9 M
Year 4 = $8.8 M
Year 5 = $9.7 M
Total = $40.1 M
If this indeed was the difference, the impact on the team salary to compare to the lux tax limit was affected by only $700K in Year 1. That's it.
One more quick breakdown. Comparing these figures to the full MLE, allowable max raises only 8.0%, we get the following 5-year contract:
Year 1 = $5.215 M
Year 2 = $5.632 M
Year 3 = $6.083 M
Year 4 = $6.569 M
Year 5 = $7.095 M
Total = $30.6 M
So Geoff appears to have offered Bonzi only $600K more than the MLE as the starting point for his new contract offer.
Does that seem fair to ya'll, given what Bonzi did for us last year? True, the numbers get scarier with each passing year (and I would have tried to give Bonzi a bigger payday but shorter contract), but what do you think?
If you knew that the negotiations difference was $4 million total for the contract when they all walked away (and now seeing the impact on team salary), would you feel that Bonzi was greedy, the Maloofs were greedy, or both?
The rumored deal was $36 million over 5 years. The CBA allows 10.5% raises max, 6 years duration max for teams holding a player's Bird rights. If this indeed was the offer, and assuming the norm which is max raises on new contracts, here's what Geoff's 5-year deal looked like to Bonzi from year to year (rounded):
Year 1 = $5.8 M
Year 2 = $6.4 M
Year 3 = $7.1 M
Year 4 = $7.8 M
Year 5 = $8.6 M
Total = $35.7 M
(I was too lazy to back into the exact starting salary that comes to $36 M total, but this will serve for this post)
There are some rumors that Bonzi was looking for $40 million, perhaps more, we don't know, but if we look at the year to year salaries for a $40 million contract over 5 years and max raises, here's what we get:
Year 1 = $6.5 M
Year 2 = $7.2 M
Year 3 = $7.9 M
Year 4 = $8.8 M
Year 5 = $9.7 M
Total = $40.1 M
If this indeed was the difference, the impact on the team salary to compare to the lux tax limit was affected by only $700K in Year 1. That's it.
One more quick breakdown. Comparing these figures to the full MLE, allowable max raises only 8.0%, we get the following 5-year contract:
Year 1 = $5.215 M
Year 2 = $5.632 M
Year 3 = $6.083 M
Year 4 = $6.569 M
Year 5 = $7.095 M
Total = $30.6 M
So Geoff appears to have offered Bonzi only $600K more than the MLE as the starting point for his new contract offer.
Does that seem fair to ya'll, given what Bonzi did for us last year? True, the numbers get scarier with each passing year (and I would have tried to give Bonzi a bigger payday but shorter contract), but what do you think?
If you knew that the negotiations difference was $4 million total for the contract when they all walked away (and now seeing the impact on team salary), would you feel that Bonzi was greedy, the Maloofs were greedy, or both?
I'm not sure I believe any rumor about salary figures. Supposedly the Kings made at least 2 counter offers to Bonzi's counter and the first offer was known to be above the MLE so I doubt this rumored offer was the best and final. Either way, whatever the Kings offered was fair because nobody offered better. End of story, if he wants to join Latrell Sprewell outside looking in so be it. The problem is he plays the most abundant position of NBA talent so teams worried about age or declining performance can afford to shop around. Sorry you aren't 6 inches taller guy.
thatguy
Bench
I appreciate your point (and your math) but contracts are not mandated to have any percentage increase. For all we know, assuming the 5yr/$36M is accurate, the contract could have stipulated that Bonzi was to be paid $7.2M each year for five years. So, at least in theory, the first year salary could have been about $2M more than a MLE. Again, I really don't know what the negotiations entailed, but this is just another way to look at what you have there.
Also, in my opinion, the total contract value difference between the two sides was likely far more than $4M.
whozit
Starter
Since we don't know or at least I don't know what terms were offered, let's go over some that were put out there.
Brick himself(if I remember that right, he did change his position to $40million) well before the July 1st date made the assertion that the starting point should be his last years ending salary. That would put it at:
Year 1 = $ 8.0 million
Year 2 = $ 8.8 million
Year 3 = $ 9.6 million
Year 4 = $10.4 million
Year 5 = $11.2 million
Total = $48 million Which is considerably more.
There was also the figure put out there that he wanted $10 million to start with:
Year 1 = $10 million
Year 2 = $11 million
Year 3 = $12 million
Year 4 = $13 million
Year 5 = $14 million
Total = $60 million. Now we are in the neighborhood of Peja's. Considering what Peja got, I could see them asking for this much.
The whole point is that we don't know where each side was coming from monetarily. Petrie did indicate that he felt they wouldn't or couldn't get close. Would you pay $48 million, with him making over $11 in his final year? Or even worse $60 million?
Don't know, life goes on. Hopefully, something good will come out of it.
And that was indeed going to be my "punch line".
Folks are directing blame in one direction or another, even though we have no facts in hand on how close or how far apart the two sides were. All we have are premonitions, gut feelings, and rumors to go on.
Very, very true... although such fixed term NBA contracts have been rare historically. But it could have been...
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Dare I revisit the Foster/Jasikevicus scenario?
I would take this deal now--in the face of Bonzi walking for nothing. Sure with Harrington in the mix, it's highly unlikely, but consider this: Foster would replace Bonzi's boardwork at least, and if Jasikevicus walks to Europe, we're suddenly out of his contract. So then we wouldn't be taking on too much salary, and if we could sumhow dump Corliss, Hart and/or Pot we could avoid the tax.
I would take this deal now--in the face of Bonzi walking for nothing. Sure with Harrington in the mix, it's highly unlikely, but consider this: Foster would replace Bonzi's boardwork at least, and if Jasikevicus walks to Europe, we're suddenly out of his contract. So then we wouldn't be taking on too much salary, and if we could sumhow dump Corliss, Hart and/or Pot we could avoid the tax.
