Dealing Landry...

[Prince_XY]

I think the problem here is that some folks throw out the "let's re-sign/extend these guys" without clearly stating they mean at the end of the year (as you did originally) and also tend not to discuss $$$. From my point of view this is the same as discussing who we will draft next year before the season starts (as some are wont to do). It really makes no sense to discuss it now! Come the trade deadline, sure, after we know the team's makeup for the rest of the year (assuming these guys are still even here!), seeing if any have serious injury or chemistry issues, etc.

I think some folks are so darn bored they just skip the season and jump right into the next offseason, and what's the fun in that? Let's see what we have first!

I think you are right that it really makes no sense discussing these things now, except for the sake of discussing it and because it is TDOS.

Actually, the problem arises when some people say we cannot sign Dalembert or Landry or we have to trade them before the trade deadline and using as BIG excuse the exaggerated lack of financial flexibility to re-sign the young ones.

My query in this thread actually started after I read the post below.

So, in this case the problem did not come from posts like mine who kind of lean to "let's resign/extend these guys", but it came from posts seemingly scaring the believers of Dalembert or Landry and advocating " let's get rid of these guys" so we can sign our young ones ( Evans, Cosuins, et al ) in the future.

Is it impossible to understand that Evans and Cousins will have to be resigned at some point? Dalembert and Landry will each command annual salaries of around 10 million per year. We cant resign EITHER of them. The core of our front court after the upcoming season will be Cousins/Thompson/Whiteside.

 

[bajaden]

I think you are right that it really makes no sense discussing these things now, except for the sake of discussing it and because it is TDOS.

Actually, the problem arises when some people say we cannot sign Dalembert or Landry or we have to trade them before the trade deadline and using as BIG excuse the exaggerated lack of financial flexibility to re-sign the young ones.

My query in this thread actually started after I read the post below.

So, in this case the problem did not come from posts like mine who kind of lean to "let's resign/extend these guys", but it came from posts seemingly scaring the believers of Dalembert or Landry and advocating " let's get rid of these guys" so we can sign our young ones ( Evans, Cosuins, et al ) in the future.

Since you still seem to be leaning toward the perception that we have as much, or more space than anyone else, and therefore have the ability to resign both Landry and Dalembert without endangering our future. Let me throw a few things at you. Now a lot of this is pure guess work since we don't know what will or will not be contained in the new CBA.

One thing that people do, is look at the salaries now, which add up to around 41.5 mil, and say that with the cap where it is now, around 56 to 58 mil, we therefore have plenty of room. Heck, we could just give Dalembert another 12 mil a year, give Landry a hefty increase and still be way under the cap. What people forget, is that the other players under contract salaries are increasing each year. So lets jump to the end of the 2012/2013 season. I believe you suggested resigning Dalembert for 2 mil less than he makes now. I'm also going to throw Landry in there at around what Millsap makes, since their similar players.

Dalembert: $10,100,000.00
Udith: $7,372,200.00
Garcia: $6,100,000.00
Evans: $5,251,825.00
Cousins: $3,880,800.00
Landry: $8,000,000.00
Thompson: $4,129,767.00
Casspi: $2,227,306.00
Greene: $3,003,685.00
Whiteside: $986,000.00

Total: $51,051,583.00

At the end of that season Udith's contract expires, and both Greene and Thompson become restricted freeagents, and up for new contracts. Thats assuming that there's still such a thing as restricted freeagents, and I'm assuming that there will be. So now some hard decisions have to be made. Do we want to retain all three players. And if so, and the hard cap is at, lets be generous and say 60 mil, that only gives you 9 million dollars to work with to give each player a nice raise on his new contract.

Now bear in mind that while your doing this and possilby reaching the cap, the very next season Evans, Whiteside, Garcia, and Casspi's contracts all come due. So where do you get the money to resign them and give them a raise in the process. And, if Evans turns out to be what everyone thinks he going to be, don't you think there just might be a team out there shedding salary between now and then to make a run at him.

Under the old rules we'd have the bird exception which would allow us to go over the cap to retain our own players. But a hard cap is a hard cap, or, its not a hard cap. If you get what I mean. Now this is all speculation without knowing the rules. Maybe the most a player like Landry will be able to make under the new CBA will only be 5 mil and Dalembert 8 mil. I don't know. But even you only pay them that, your only saving 5 mil, and I doubt thats going to help you retain all the players whose contracts will come due.

Thats why I said I thought they would only resign one of the two. And its possible that they won't resign either, just to make sure they have money for the future. Its also possible that they'll have a higher cap because of it being a hard cap.. It would also make trading Landry at 3 mil to another team for a young shooting guard thats making similar money but whose on a 3 or 4 year contract appealing. You'd be getting a young player locked into a cheap rate, and thereby retaining cap flexability.

Now I'm sure there are some flaws to my logic here, but I think you can see my point about being careful.

 

[Smills91]

I think you are right that it really makes no sense discussing these things now, except for the sake of discussing it and because it is TDOS.

Actually, the problem arises when some people say we cannot sign Dalembert or Landry or we have to trade them before the trade deadline and using as BIG excuse the exaggerated lack of financial flexibility to re-sign the young ones.

My query in this thread actually started after I read the post below.

So, in this case the problem did not come from posts like mine who kind of lean to "let's resign/extend these guys", but it came from posts seemingly scaring the believers of Dalembert or Landry and advocating " let's get rid of these guys" so we can sign our young ones ( Evans, Cosuins, et al ) in the future.

Just because you can doesn't mean you SHOULD. That's how Jerome James, Jose Calderon, Luke Walton, Brendan Haywood, Jason Richardson, Zach Randolph etc all got the RIDICULOUS overpaid contracts that they have now.

 

[Prince_XY]

Since you still seem to be leaning toward the perception that we have as much, or more space than anyone else, and therefore have the ability to resign both Landry and Dalembert without endangering our future…………………………………………………………
I believe you suggested resigning Dalembert for 2 mil less than he makes now. I'm also going to throw Landry in there at around what Millsap makes, since their similar players.

Dalembert: $10,100,000.00
Udith: $7,372,200.00
Garcia: $6,100,000.00
Evans: $5,251,825.00
Cousins: $3,880,800.00
Landry: $8,000,000.00
Thompson: $4,129,767.00
Casspi: $2,227,306.00
Greene: $3,003,685.00
Whiteside: $986,000.00

Total: $51,051,583.00

Now I'm sure there are some flaws to my logic here, but I think you can see my point about being careful.

Actually the biggest flaw in your logic is when you presumed that I originally wanted to re-sign BOTH Dalembert and Landry. Of course, that could very well mean a potentially big problem for us financially. You misunderstood a lot.

My query started when some GM-fan wrote "We cant resign EITHER of them". So, I started the query with lots of questions how signing Dalembert ( who I prefer to be re-signed if ever and NOT BOTH Dalembert and Landry ) may hamper that financial flexibility.

And again read this post which became the subject of my query:

Is it impossible to understand that Evans and Cousins will have to be resigned at some point? Dalembert and Landry will each command annual salaries of around 10 million per year. We cant resign EITHER of them. The core of our front court after the upcoming season will be Cousins/Thompson/Whiteside.

I appreciate your effort in taking time responding to my call for help. But please read your homework ( my actual query ) first before answering to avoid distortion of the important specifics in my query.

Again FYI :

Pardon me, but I really need some help here.

I honestly cannot understand why we have to be very stingy right now and not hold on a little bit longer to such proven players like Dalembert and Landry when our total salary for this year is only about 43M.

Are we really in danger of going over the salary cap if for example we give Dalembert 8-9M ( which actually will be less than what he is getting now ) for the next 3-4 years so we can start tasting a few more wins and probably start developing the winning mentality in our young players?

Are we really sure the salary cap after the new CBA will be that ridiculously restrictive to maybe about 50M?

Maybe you ( or some other posters please ) can explain to me that exact scenario and computation that a lot of the GM-fans here seems to fear if we re-sign either Dalembert or Landry.

Right now our salary total will be about 43M and I think we actually have to sign one more scrub player just to get to that league minimum salary of 43M. Dalembert share on that total is about 12M. If we resign him for 8-9M for another 3-4 years, we will still farther SAVE around 3-4M in our total salary. In other words, the salary total for next year will be farther reduced to a ridiculously low 39M.

Is 39M total salary for 2011-2012 not enough to absorb the salary increase of whoever young guys ( like Thompson and Greene ) we need to re-sign?

And what about the overpayed Beno and Garcia who's contracts we can let expire in a few years from now? Those salaries ( together with Dalembert if we only sign him for another 3 years ) will come off the books and can give us again some flexibility in the future.

Will those savings be a hindrance in re-signing Evans and Cousins ( or even Whiteside ) comes that time we need to re-sign them?

Can someone please explain the timelines for these re-signings and show how re-signing Dalembert or Landry will actually be severely detrimental financial-wise and not just say " oh, we can't sign Dalembert or Landry because we need financial flexibility in the future".

Now, try that original scenario I created ( where we only re-sign Dalembert ) and see what happens.

 

[bajaden]

Actually the biggest flaw in your logic is when you presumed that I originally wanted to re-sign BOTH Dalembert and Landry. Of course, that could very well mean a potentially big problem for us financially. You misunderstood a lot.

My query started when some GM-fan wrote "We cant resign EITHER of them". So, I started the query with lots of questions how signing Dalembert ( who I prefer to be re-signed if ever and NOT BOTH Dalembert and Landry ) may hamper that financial flexibility.

And again read this post which became the subject of my query:
I appreciate your effort in taking time responding to my call for help. But please read your homework ( my actual query ) first before answering to avoid distortion of the important specifics in my query.

Again FYI :

Don't be so blinded by wanting to find flaws in what I wrote. I didn't misunderstand anything. I know what you said, and in my entire post I mention the possiblilty of only signing one of the two. My logic wasn't about whether we sign one, both, or neither. It was about the conditions in which we would be signing them. Simply look at all the things I listed and you can see that even if we sign neither, we could still have trouble resigning all of our perceived core players in the future. But our chances improve dramaticly if we don't need to resign either of them. In a three year period you would first have Thompson, Beno, and Greene, followed by Evans and Casspi the next year and then followed by Cousins the very next year. Thats six players that possibly need to be resigned in a three year period. If you assume that just two of them are franchise players, (Evans and Cousins) and both were to get salaries comparable to what franchise players normally get, you'd be talking around 32 mil for just the two of them. Now we don't know that to be a fact since we don't know what the new CBA will allow, but if so, then your left with 28 mil to fill out the rest of the roster that would include Beno, Thompson, Casspi, Greene, and by the time we get to Cousins, three additional first round picks, plus whomever else you'd have on the team to get to 13 players.

If you were to give Dalembert a 10 mil a year contract then you reduce that amount from 28 mil to 18 mil. Its easy to get into contracts, but its a lot harder to get out of them. So being careful right now is important. All that could change once we know the rules. First rule of combat. Don't go into battle without good intelligence reports. If you do, your likely to have your butt handed to you. Thats where we are right now. We don't have the proper intelligence reports to form a plan for the future yet.

 

[Prince_XY]

At the end of that season Udith's contract expires, and both Greene and Thompson become restricted freeagents, and up for new contracts. Thats assuming that there's still such a thing as restricted freeagents, and I'm assuming that there will be. So now some hard decisions have to be made. Do we want to retain all three players. And if so, and the hard cap is at, lets be generous and say 60 mil, that only gives you 9 million dollars to work with to give each player a nice raise on his new contract.

Assuming we did what I want ( and not the example you want ), then we only re-signed Dalembert ( and not Landry ). That would mean we will have 17M ( and not 9M ) that we can use.

Let us say for example we want both Greene and Thompson re-signed. If the Petrie/Maloofs wants to save some more money, then just let Udrih's contract expire and just sign a cheaper PG to back-up Evans. This would be the most prudent move especially if Garcia turns out to be the starter SG we are looking for next to Evans. After doing that, we would have added another 6-7M worth of savings to add to the already 17M worth of financial flexibility. That would now total to 24M we can use in signing our deserving young players during that year and the following year.

 

[bajaden]

Assuming we did what I want ( and not the example you want ), then we only re-signed Dalembert ( and not Landry ). That would mean we will have 17M ( and not 9M ) that we can use.

Let us say for example we want both Greene and Thompson re-signed. If the Petrie/Maloofs wants to save some more money, then just let Udrih's contract expire and just sign a cheaper PG to back-up Evans. This would be the most prudent move especially if Garcia turns out to be the starter SG we are looking for next to Evans. After doing that, we would have added another 6-7M worth of savings to add to the already 17M worth of financial flexibility. That would now total to 24M we can use in signing our deserving young players during that year and the following year.

You keep missing my point. It has nothing to do with my prefered example. It has to do with all the other circumstances surrounding any signing. Whether its signing just Dalembert, or just Landry, or both, or neither. Quite trying to believe what you want to do will work, because what I said doesn't match your example.

Let me try this again an for the last time. Lets go your way and assume that we sign Dalembert to, lets say a 4 year contact starting at 10 mil. I have no idea how long you wanted his contract to be so I'm just throwing out whats normal. Our base salary at the end of next season would have been around 27.8 mil. After signing Dalembert it would jump to 38.8 mil. We'd also be signing our first round pick from that year for lets say around 1.3 mil. I'm guessing that we didn't make the playoffs and were picking somewhere between 10 and 14. That brings us to nice round number of 40 mil. With more than enough left to fill out the roster.

Now lets move to the 2012/2013 offseason. The next off season. With Beno coming off the books as a freeagent and the Kings extending qualifing offers to both Thompson and Greene. And adding another 1st round pick, our base salary is now up to around 46 mil. The increase coming from all the other players under contract having thier salaries increase, and that includes Dalembert. Lets assume that the cap is 60 mil. It could be more, or it could be less. Just guessing here. That would leave the Kings 14 mil left over to resign both Thompson and Greene, and, or Beno. Now its hard to say what their value will be then. Maybe both are nothing more than journeymen type players that you can resign for something in the 4 to 5 mil a year range. But even if thats so, your still going to eat up close to 10 mil of the 14 mil remaining and you still haven't resigned Beno, if you desire to do so. But lets say you decide not to resign Beno. Lets assume that the Kings drafted a point guard or a combo guard with one of their first round picks and the feel they don't need to resign him.

That would mean we would go into the next offseason with a base salary of aroung 54 or 55 mil and only two players on the roster that would be coming off the books. Those two players would be Tyreke Evans and Hassan Whiteside. Evans salary in the last year of his contract is around 5.2 mil. The qualifing offer required is just under 7 mil. If you subtract the 5.2 mil, plus the 1.2 mil that Whiteside makes from the total base salary it leaves you at around 48.7 mil thats guaranteed. Lets say that the cap is up to 62 mil to be generous. That would leave you with around 13.8 mil to sign both players. Thats probably not even enough to sign Evans if he becomes what we think he'll be, much less both Evans and Whiteside. And these figures are based on the theory that both Thompson and Greene aren't any better than blue collar players. What if one or both turn out to be more than that.

So basicly you would then go into the next offseason capped out with only one player coming off the books. DeMarcus Cousins! Plus you would have to pay another 1st round pick or simply trade it away. I suppose you could give Dalembert a three year contract instead of four year contract and have it come off the books at the same time Cousins contract is up. But if Cousins ends up being a super star, there still wouldn't be enough money to resign him.

So do we really want to gamble that everything will just work out, and risk the possibllity that we could lose either Evans or Cousins, or even both, by not being smart now. Just so we can sign Dalembert. Look, this is all speculation. It could all change once the new CBA comes out. And I'm sure once that happens we'll revisit this again. I really doubt that the Kings are going to do anything with either Landry or Dalembert as far as resigning them until there's a new CBA. It would be just plain stupid to do otherwise. Unless both are willing to resign on the cheap of course. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

 

[Prince_XY]

If you assume that just two of them are franchise players, (Evans and Cousins) and both were to get salaries comparable to what franchise players normally get, you'd be talking around 32 mil for just the two of them. Now we don't know that to be a fact since we don't know what the new CBA will allow, but if so, then your left with 28 mil to fill out the rest of the roster that would include Beno, Thompson, Casspi, Greene, and by the time we get to Cousins, three additional first round picks, plus whomever else you'd have on the team to get to 13 players.

If you were to give Dalembert a 10 mil a year contract then you reduce that amount from 28 mil to 18 mil. Its easy to get into contracts, but its a lot harder to get out of them.

Again, you are presuming we are going to re-sign Dalembert to eternity. And you are presuming we don't have expiring contracts we can let expire or trade during those years we need some flexibility. And worse, you are presuming a lot of our players as indispensable and re-signing them at a very high price is a "must do".

When that time comes that Cousins is ready to re-sign and probably playing like the franchise-type BIG that we want him to be, Dalembert ( if re-signed to a 4 year deal ) could be an attractive expiring contract we can unload in exchange for cheap role players to fill-up the roster. And before that time, we could have had unloaded one or both of Udrih's or Garcia's contract to use for re-signing that important third player ( which I think would be Greene ) behind Evans and Cousins.

BTW, how do you think most Champions of the last decade did it?

By not going over the salary cap?

And regarding that hard cap space fear factor that everyone wants using as an excuse to save money, what about Miami who's got 3 players eating almost all of their the cap space already, and the Lakers, Boston, etc.??

 

[bajaden]

Again, you are presuming we are going to re-sign Dalembert to eternity. And you are presuming we don't have expiring contracts we can let expire or trade during those years we need some flexibility. And worse, you are presuming a lot of our players as indispensable and re-signing them at a very high price is a "must do".

When that time comes that Cousins is ready to re-sign and probably playing like the franchise-type BIG that we want him to be, Dalembert ( if re-signed to a 4 year deal ) could be an attractive expiring contract we can unload in exchange for cheap role players to fill-up the roster. And before that time, we could have had unloaded one or both of Udrih's or Garcia's contract to use for re-signing that important third player ( which I think would be Greene ) behind Evans and Cousins.

BTW, how do you think most Champions of the last decade did it?

By not going over the salary cap?

And regarding that hard cap space fear factor that everyone wants using as an excuse to save money, what about Miami who's got 3 players eating almost all of their the cap space already, and the Lakers, Boston, etc.??

OK, I'm done with this nonsense. Yes! I'm damm well presuming, because number one, since I don't have the facts of the future, thats all I can damm well do. What the hell don't you understand about that. Your the one that said to resign Dalembert. But you didnt say for how long. So I PRESUMED, and did a 4 year contract. Which by the way I PRESUME wouldn't be done until the end of this coming season, which means after the new CBA. And also, by the way. If we did sign him to a four year contract at the end of this coming season, then his contract would expire the year after Cousins contract expires, and therefore wouldn't help in clearing space to resign Cousins.

Yes, I'm PRESUMING we won't have any expiring contracts other than the one's I mentioned. The reason for this is that if we have other expiring contracts then they would have to come from other signings that haven't happened yet. And since I don't have a crystal ball sitting before me, just how can I allude to an expiring contract that doesn't even exist. As for the 1 year deals that have been made, such as Wright etc. I already took them into account and didn't count them against the cap.

Then you get contentious with me and talk to me like I'm a child explaining to me that champions are built by not going over the cap. PLEASE! Explain to me what the hell you think I've been wasting my time talking to you about. About not going over the cap so you can have the money to resign the players you need to resign. My god, are you that dense? You site Miami as an example, and completely ignore the fact, that everyone on this thread has been saying what they've been saying, because the RULES ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE!!!!!!! It doesn't matter what Miami did or what the Celtics did. They did it under the old rules. Rules that didn't have a hard cap. Do you know what a hard cap means? It means you can't go over it for any reason at all.

I'm sorry I wasted my time with you, and trust me, I won't in the future.

 

[Telemachus]

Again, you are presuming we are going to re-sign Dalembert to eternity. And you are presuming we don't have expiring contracts we can let expire or trade during those years we need some flexibility. And worse, you are presuming a lot of our players as indispensable and re-signing them at a very high price is a "must do".

I'm sorry, but if you think that a 4 year contract is an eternity, then you haven't been paying attention to what players are signing for lately.

BTW, how do you think most Champions of the last decade did it?

By not going over the salary cap?

And regarding that hard cap space fear factor that everyone wants using as an excuse to save money, what about Miami who's got 3 players eating almost all of their the cap space already, and the Lakers, Boston, etc.??

Here it is obvious that you are missing the whole point of what everyone has been saying. Of course teams have gone over the cap in the past to be contenders (the Kings are an example of that). That will NO LONGER be possible if the owners get their way and establish a hard cap. That is what a hard cap is BTW, it means you can't go over it for ANY reason. This will become a problem for those teams that currently have payrolls that will exceed the new hard cap (if it happens), as they will have to find a way to get under it.

Now maybe what you are tying to say is that the Kings should go over the cap now to try and win a championship, but I don't think they are in a position to be thinking about a championship this season (no matter who they might go out and sign). The real problem is that no one knows what is going to happen until the new CBA is in place. So for those who can contend for a title this season, it makes sense to do whatever they can to try and win. But for those like the Kings who are at least a couple years away, it is much smarter to sit back and wait to find out what the new rules will be before doint something that could set them back possibly for years.

 

[Kingster]

OK, I'm done with this nonsense. Yes! I'm damm well presuming, because number one, since I don't have the facts of the future, thats all I can damm well do. What the hell don't you understand about that. Your the one that said to resign Dalembert. But you didnt say for how long. So I PRESUMED, and did a 4 year contract. Which by the way I PRESUME wouldn't be done until the end of this coming season, which means after the new CBA. And also, by the way. If we did sign him to a four year contract at the end of this coming season, then his contract would expire the year after Cousins contract expires, and therefore wouldn't help in clearing space to resign Cousins.

Yes, I'm PRESUMING we won't have any expiring contracts other than the one's I mentioned. The reason for this is that if we have other expiring contracts then they would have to come from other signings that haven't happened yet. And since I don't have a crystal ball sitting before me, just how can I allude to an expiring contract that doesn't even exist. As for the 1 year deals that have been made, such as Wright etc. I already took them into account and didn't count them against the cap.

Then you get contentious with me and talk to me like I'm a child explaining to me that champions are built by not going over the cap. PLEASE! Explain to me what the hell you think I've been wasting my time talking to you about. About not going over the cap so you can have the money to resign the players you need to resign. My god, are you that dense? You site Miami as an example, and completely ignore the fact, that everyone on this thread has been saying what they've been saying, because the RULES ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE!!!!!!! It doesn't matter what Miami did or what the Celtics did. They did it under the old rules. Rules that didn't have a hard cap. Do you know what a hard cap means? It means you can't go over it for any reason at all.

I'm sorry I wasted my time with you, and trust me, I won't in the future.

Could you explain to me what a hard cap is?

By the way, nice analysis.

 

[bajaden]

Could you explain to me what a hard cap is?

By the way, nice analysis.

Obviously you never played football.....

 

[Rookie]

I'm not sure if I can take someone seriously when they try to compare the Kings with Miami, Celtics and Lakers.

 

[NoBonus]

I'm not sure if I can take someone seriously when they try to compare the Kings with Miami, Celtics and Lakers.

Yeah! Those other teams suck!

 

[Prince_XY]

PLEASE! Explain to me what the hell you think I've been wasting my time talking to you about. About not going over the cap so you can have the money to resign the players you need to resign. My god, are you that dense? You site Miami as an example, and completely ignore the fact, that everyone on this thread has been saying what they've been saying, because the RULES ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE!!!!!!! It doesn't matter what Miami did or what the Celtics did. They did it under the old rules. Rules that didn't have a hard cap. Do you know what a hard cap means? It means you can't go over it for any reason at all.
I'm sorry I wasted my time with you, and trust me, I won't in the future.

I could have let this thread go, but I couldn't resist responding to you after reading your post from another thread.

I guess you didn't waste your time with me afterall because you learned something from me as evidenced in your own post from another thread.

Also, it is good to know that you've learned NOT TO LET THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE BE THE CAUSE OF PARALYSIS.

How do you fit current contracts into a new system that would elliminate those contracts. There has to be a grace period of some kind. I doubt you would get the owners of the teams holding those contracts to agree to destroy the very thing they worked to create. I have to believe, that if your the owner of a team, you have to be knowledgeble of what the desired outcome is. For instance, I can't believe that the ownership of the Heat would have just signed three players like LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to huge long term contracts, while knowing that the new CBA ownership is proposing would be detrimental to them.
We're all on the outside looking in. Whats gray to us is likely more black and white to them. I certainly wouldn't endorse being reckless, but I wouldn't let the uncertain future be the cause of paralysis.

 

[Prince_XY]

Here it is obvious that you are missing the whole point of what everyone has been saying. Of course teams have gone over the cap in the past to be contenders (the Kings are an example of that). That will NO LONGER be possible if the owners get their way and establish a hard cap. That is what a hard cap is BTW, it means you can't go over it for ANY reason. This will become a problem for those teams that currently have payrolls that will exceed the new hard cap (if it happens), as they will have to find a way to get under it.

Actually I did not miss the whole point of what everyone has been saying. You guys for some reason are the ones missing my point. And it seems there is a tendency in this board to miss the whole point of part-time posters or if their name does not sound like a moderator's name.

For you guys who always invoked the irrational fear of hard cap being imposed next CBA as a detriment to signing Evans and DMC in the future, I found a post by the new convert Bajaden that more or less points to what I've been trying to say about that "hard crap".

I doubt you would get the owners of the teams holding those contracts to agree to destroy the very thing they worked to create. I have to believe, that if your the owner of a team, you have to be knowledgeble of what the desired outcome is. For instance, I can't believe that the ownership of the Heat would have just signed three players like LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to huge long term contracts, while knowing that the new CBA ownership is proposing would be detrimental to them.
We're all on the outside looking in. Whats gray to us is likely more black and white to them. I certainly wouldn't endorse being reckless, but I wouldn't let the uncertain future be the cause of paralysis.

 

[Prince_XY]

I'm not sure if I can take someone seriously when they try to compare the Kings with Miami, Celtics and Lakers.

I think you should because what these people are saying are smart and they make a lot of sense.

Read this if you still cannot get it and if you are still clueless:

How do you fit current contracts into a new system that would elliminate those contracts. There has to be a grace period of some kind. I doubt you would get the owners of the teams holding those contracts to agree to destroy the very thing they worked to create. I have to believe, that if your the owner of a team, you have to be knowledgeble of what the desired outcome is. For instance, I can't believe that the ownership of the Heat would have just signed three players like LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to huge long term contracts, while knowing that the new CBA ownership is proposing would be detrimental to them.
We're all on the outside looking in. Whats gray to us is likely more black and white to them. I certainly wouldn't endorse being reckless, but I wouldn't let the uncertain future be the cause of paralysis.

Now, can you see the reason why I compared the Kings with Miami, Celtics, and Lakers when we talk about that "hard crap" or hard cap?

And if my new convert's post ( Bajaden ) still confuses you, then try reading this:

I don't think the threat of a hard cap is a good argument against acquiring talent...............

For one thing, it's far from a certainty that a literal hard cap will get inserted into the next CBA...................

For another thing, if it turns out that a hard cap does get installed, then it's going to hit everybody, not just us.

 

[Sac.1989]

I've said before and I'll say again Landry's post game, ability to explode off the bench, toughness, and apparent vet leadership are things you will find on every championship level team. We do need a plan about how we want to deal with our embarrassment of frontcourt riches, but that plan does not necessarily have to involve moving Landry. He's a lot better than a number of other undersized scoring pop bigs that have come off the bench for title rosters, Corliss Williamson, Big Baby etc.

exactly, many have said we should involve him in the trade scene for melo as bringing in the latter will take out the need for landry as they have similar games but landry provides solid production without the headache that would be melo. He brings leadership and is a positive presence. Basically whilst he doesnt obviously bring what melo does scoring wise, hes adequate enough numbers wise and i just feel alot happier let alone safer with a 1-3 scoring punch of reke, landry and cousins as opposed to reke, melo and cousins.

I dont feel like we need to be looking to move landry nor do i feel GP feels the same way. I can almost guarentee GP will look into resigning landry as our PF of the future letting Dalembert walk.

PF; Landry, JT, Whiteside potentially
C; Cousins, JT, Whiteside

Hardly looks stacked to the point of struggling to find mins for all considering landry can play some 3

 

[LPKingsFan]

exactly, many have said we should involve him in the trade scene for melo as bringing in the latter will take out the need for landry as they have similar games but landry provides solid production without the headache that would be melo. He brings leadership and is a positive presence. Basically whilst he doesnt obviously bring what melo does scoring wise, hes adequate enough numbers wise and i just feel alot happier let alone safer with a 1-3 scoring punch of reke, landry and cousins as opposed to reke, melo and cousins.

I dont feel like we need to be looking to move landry nor do i feel GP feels the same way. I can almost guarentee GP will look into resigning landry as our PF of the future letting Dalembert walk.

PF; Landry, JT, Whiteside potentially
C; Cousins, JT, Whiteside

Hardly looks stacked to the point of struggling to find mins for all considering landry can play some 3

That lineup will be struggling, though, to defend. Cousins will definitely bring the rebounds, but I'm not sure at this point he's going to be a defensive or shotblocking factor yet. JT is solid but isn't that guy either. We still need a shotblocker to patrol the paint, and until Whiteside is ready (which is likely at least a year or two) I'm keeping Dalembert. Unless you want to go back to teams scoring at will on us from inside.

 

[Rookie]

I think you should because what these people are saying are smart and they make a lot of sense.

Read this if you still cannot get it and if you are still clueless:

Now, can you see the reason why I compared the Kings with Miami, Celtics, and Lakers when we talk about that "hard crap" or hard cap?

And if my new convert's post ( Bajaden ) still confuses you, then try reading this:

Got it...fair observation.

 

[bajaden]

I think you should because what these people are saying are smart and they make a lot of sense.

Read this if you still cannot get it and if you are still clueless:

Now, can you see the reason why I compared the Kings with Miami, Celtics, and Lakers when we talk about that "hard crap" or hard cap?

And if my new convert's post ( Bajaden ) still confuses you, then try reading this:

First off, nothing I post is confusing. Simply because I'm logical and perfect...
Now seriously, I never said that we should or should not resign an existing player on the roster, or trade for an upper tier player like Anthony. What I try to do is make people aware that there are pitfuls involved in any such transaction. If the Kings think the risk is warranted, then make the deal or resign the player. Petrie is a smart man, so I have no doubt he'll think long and hard about any deal that could affect the long term future of the team.

Having said that, I doubt that everyone on this fourm thinks beyond the immediate. So its a good idea to remind people of the dangers of their suppossed actions. I said before that we live in an instant gratification society. I've learned to have patience and not just have knee jerk reactions. At the same time I don't think you can just sit on your hands and hope for the best. So there's a fine line out there and you have to know when to cross it and when to pass. And unfortunately its not an exact science.

So its my contention that the Kings are in a position where they can't afford to make a big mistake that might retard everything their trying to accomplish right now. That doesn't mean do nothing if an opportunity presents itself. Just be sure that you don't have any serious doubts about whatever deal your considering.

 

[kennadog]

So there's a fine line out there and you have to know when to cross it and when to pass. And unfortunately its not an exact science.

Are you trying to tell me that a Ouija board isn't scientific, bajaden? Shoot....

 

[bajaden]

Are you trying to tell me that a Ouija board isn't scientific, bajaden? Shoot....

I played Ouija board with my sister once and it spelled out. Damm you! last time I ever played.... I don't think the other side likes me...

 

[Kingster]

I've said before and I'll say again Landry's post game, ability to explode off the bench, toughness, and apparent vet leadership are things you will find on every championship level team. We do need a plan about how we want to deal with our embarrassment of frontcourt riches, but that plan does not necessarily have to involve moving Landry. He's a lot better than a number of other undersized scoring pop bigs that have come off the bench for title rosters, Corliss Williamson, Big Baby etc.

But let's assume that there are NBA teams that value Landry as a starter (just like the Kings when they got him). And then let's assume (like you did above) that the Kings end up valuing him as a bench player. That's the kind of arbitrage situation in which it seems inevitable that the Kings would deal him. First, because his FA $ would be that of a starter and therefore they would be paying starter FA $ for a bench player. Second, because if you have a bench player, even a very good one, and other teams are willing to give you starter value, eventually you've got to take that deal. I buy into both of those assumptions, and that's why I think, long term, Landry will get traded.

 

[Telemachus]

Actually I did not miss the whole point of what everyone has been saying. You guys for some reason are the ones missing my point. And it seems there is a tendency in this board to miss the whole point of part-time posters or if their name does not sound like a moderator's name.

For you guys who always invoked the irrational fear of hard cap being imposed next CBA as a detriment to signing Evans and DMC in the future, I found a post by the new convert Bajaden that more or less points to what I've been trying to say about that "hard crap".

First, I'll respond to what I have bolded. I can't speak for others, but I respond to what ANY poster says based on what they post. The only bias I give to regular posters is based on what they have said in the past. The more anyone posts, the better you get to know how they think. That doesn't mean that a new poster or someone who only post some of the time has any less credence to what they say.

As for your quote of of Bajaden, it doesn't apply to resigning Tyreke and Cousins. He was referring to contracts that have already been signed. It does make sense that the new CBA would find a way to give teams with current big contracts to not have to give up the players. However, when it comes to resigning Tyreke and Cousins the Kings will have to follow whatever the new CBA entails. That would mean NOT being able to go over a hard cap if one is put in place. While some leeway may be given to teams with big contract already there, I highly doubt they will let teams continue to exceed the cap for resigning players as part of what they put in place. Doing so would pretty much make the idea of a hard cap a moot point.

 

[Sac.1989]

That lineup will be struggling, though, to defend. Cousins will definitely bring the rebounds, but I'm not sure at this point he's going to be a defensive or shotblocking factor yet. JT is solid but isn't that guy either. We still need a shotblocker to patrol the paint, and until Whiteside is ready (which is likely at least a year or two) I'm keeping Dalembert. Unless you want to go back to teams scoring at will on us from inside.

cousins wont be the defensive shot blocking force we want him to be for awhile but you cant tell me he wont bang in there and alter shots more so then hawes would. It will not be a free layup service all day every day with DMC in there and Whiteside backing him