Dealing Landry...

[Kingstime]

I'll tell ya this much when it comes to dealing Landry I'd be real careful for what you wish for Kings fans. As someone said earlier in the thread Carl is a guy that lives on Championship teams, he's a guy that is pretty much a cog in a winning foundation. Sometimes people get too hung up on size, skillset and placing money value on a guy. We don't have anything proven on this team yet except our 20 yr old rookie of the year phenom. I think alot of us our getting ahead ourselves here(myself included) when it comes to wanting to see what we have. Also consider the fact that the bar has been set fairly high for junk PF's this summer, but Landry is WORLDS better than these guys that have gotten paid. He's tough as nails and consistent as hell and the way he plays it doesn't look like he'll have that terrible of a decline as he ages. If Cousins develops like we all think he will, then we can have random 7ft Joe Schmoe coming off the bench to spell him Dalembert won't be needed. If it ever came down to Dalembert vs Landry as to who gets re-signed I would definitely go for Landry.

But however if Landry was to be dealt I really hope we get a better package than the Phoenix one somebody suggested.Dudley is a 3, not a 2 and as for Clark? If you can't shine with MVSteve you can't shine with anyone, he has to breakout this year or well he's a bust plain and simple. I think Landry would command more than that from other teams, he's got a ton more value around the league than I think we are giving him after our big draft.

In the end I want all of our guys to succeed and if our bigs all pan out than that is fine with me. I would really hate for GP to jump the gun on dealing Landry and god forbid we are left with nada in our hand.

 

[bajaden]

Since you are one of the advocates of saving our money for future re-signing of our young players, I will appreciate if you can answer my question on my previous post.

And please explain how re-signing Dalembert on my example will jeopardize re-signing our young players. And if you can, please put your best "guesstimates" of how much money you'll be needing for each re-signing of our young players on actual years. Also, please bear in mind that players like Beno and Garcia will be expiring contracts we can let go in a few more years.

I will appreciate it if you can put the breakdown each year starting NOW ( 2010-2011 ), then next year ( 2011-2012 ), and so on.

Thank you.

Let me take a shot at this as best I can. Without getting into whether we should or should not resign or extend the contracts of Landry or Dalembert. First off, I think you should do your own homework and not ask others to do it for you. But that aside, if I understand the CBA properly, Landry can't be extended since his current contract is for 4 years or less. Therefore he will become a freeagent next July 1st. Unfortunately the old CBA expires on the same date. That means there's nothing we can do in the way of resigning him until a new CBA is in place, whenever that will be.

That brings us to Dalembert. From what I read he can be extended. But I could be wrong about that and I'm sure the Capt or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong. But lets assume that he can be extended or renegotiated. Dalembert is currently making 12 mil a year. A renegotiated contract cannot for a reduced salary. This clause is in there to make sure that teams that are over the cap can't renegotiate a contract to get under the cap. So If I'm understanding the rules properly, we would have to pay Dalembert more than his current 12 million dollar salary for the length of the renegotiated salary. So if we desire to resign him for a reduced salary, then we have to wait for his current salary to expire, which once again happens on july 1st of next year, along with the current CBA.

Now I might add that we don't know for sure just how well Dalembert will fit on this team. Hopefully he'll be a perfect fit and we'll want to resign him. But for now, we don't know that for sure. So it would be foolhardy to commit big money to him without knowing. The beauty of trading for him is that we get a one year dress rehearsal with no commitment beyond that. Why give that away, when it costs you nothing to wait and see.

Much has been posted already about the new CBA and what the owners are asking for. But essentially they want a hard cap. That means you can't go over the cap for any reason. No Larry Bird rule. No mid-level exception. No by-annual exception. They also want max years of a contract reduced to 4 years with only the first two years being guaranteed. They also want to put lower limit on how much a max salary can be. This line of thinking extends all the way down to draft picks, whose rookie contracts will also be reduced with less years guaranteed.

If the owners get all or some of this in the new CBA, it would be flat our stupid to pay out big money to a player now, when you might get the same player for a third less under the new CBA. Granted, we don't know for sure what the new CBA will contain. And thats the main point. Its foolhardy to go into any negotiation with a player now without knowing the future rules.

 

[Superman]

Since you are one of the advocates of saving our money for future re-signing of our young players, I will appreciate if you can answer my question on my previous post.

And please explain how re-signing Dalembert on my example will jeopardize re-signing our young players. And if you can, please put your best "guesstimates" of how much money you'll be needing for each re-signing of our young players on actual years. Also, please bear in mind that players like Beno and Garcia will be expiring contracts we can let go in a few more years.

I will appreciate it if you can put the breakdown each year starting NOW ( 2010-2011 ), then next year ( 2011-2012 ), and so on.

Thank you.

My comment about saving money for younger players is totally unrelated to the salary cap and 100% about the real world cost to ownership. A lot of people just shrug off these $30 and $40 million commitments that owners make every summer, like it's nothing. That's a lot of money, billionaire or not. And with the arena situation and the fact that the Maloofs are losing money hand over fist in Vegas (and have been for three years now), it's only normal to wonder how much real money they are willing to spend on middling talent.

 

[Superman]

Yeah you could be right. I was going to say that if we didn't trade them at the trade deadline, we would retain the bird rights to Dalmembert and Landry would at least be a restricted free agent. But if the new CBA places a hard cap, there probably won't be anything such as a restricted free agent or bird rights, making whether we trade them or not immaterial. I'm not even sure we can sign them to an extension at this point. I've always been a little foggy on the extension part and when you can do it.

Even if there is a hard cap in the next CBA, that doesn't do away with RFAs, and it doesn't necessarily have to do away with Bird rights. The NFL has a hard cap, and they use restricted free agency in a much more equitable way than the NBA does, with draft pick compensation for signing away a player that has been offered a contract at a certain value.

Bird rights might be a little tricky, but writing in a hard cap is a pretty intense change to the NBA's labor deal, so including Bird rights in some fashion can be done. And in fact, I think it should be done.

As for extending either, I don't see why we couldn't. Landry's extension would be pretty much the same as Kevin Martin's extension was, and he'd be BYC for the next season until the extension kicks in. Would be for a maximum of five years. Dalembert's would be trickier, but I don't think there's any provision in the rules that would prohibit it. It's just a matter of practicality, because he's probably going to take a pay cut, and will likely want to test the market and get as much as he possibly can.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

That brings us to Dalembert. From what I read he can be extended. But I could be wrong about that and I'm sure the Capt or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong. But lets assume that he can be extended or renegotiated. Dalembert is currently making 12 mil a year. A renegotiated contract cannot for a reduced salary. This clause is in there to make sure that teams that are over the cap can't renegotiate a contract to get under the cap. So If I'm understanding the rules properly, we would have to pay Dalembert more than his current 12 million dollar salary for the length of the renegotiated salary. So if we desire to resign him for a reduced salary, then we have to wait for his current salary to expire, which once again happens on july 1st of next year, along with the current CBA.

Dalembert's contract was a six-year contract, so he is eligible to be resigned. But I don't think that there's any renegotiation necessarily involved. My understanding is that an extension can be signed for any amount up to a player's maximum salary. It does not have to be a raise. Therefore we should be able, in principle, to extend Dalembert for four years and $6M per year today (if both parties agreed) without renegotiating or any other pitfalls.

But like you said, it's probably prudent to at least see how he fits on the team before we think about an extension. At any rate, it may be more prudent to wait until the CBA shakes out anyway.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

As for extending either, I don't see why we couldn't. Landry's extension would be pretty much the same as Kevin Martin's extension was...

Actually, Landry's contract is ineligible for extension under the rules of the current CBA. Free agent contracts must be four years or longer to be eligible for extension, Landry's was three years.

 

[Superman]

Actually, Landry's contract is ineligible for extension under the rules of the current CBA. Free agent contracts must be four years or longer to be eligible for extension, Landry's was three years.

Ah, that's right. He was a 2nd rounder. I was thinking that this was his rookie deal expiring, not a free agent deal. So yeah, no extension for Landry.

 

[NME]

Actually, Landry's contract is ineligible for extension under the rules of the current CBA. Free agent contracts must be four years or longer to be eligible for extension, Landry's was three years.

Same issue we're going to have with Whiteside (unless superseded by new rules) if he really develops. All the more reason for the original thought behind the thread.

 

[LPKingsFan]

And in a perfect world, the big man rotation of Whiteside, Cousins, and JT is perfect. That is kind of the 'pie in the sky' approach that all of these guys will develop into the players you want them too, but the potential is there.

And lets say Whiteside doesnt pan out .. big possibilty there. Do you really want a rotation of Cousins, JT, and Landry? None of those players are defenders, and never will be known for that aspect of thier game .. I just dont think it would work.

Right there with you... that's why I think if it comes down to one or other, you resign Dalembert (if you can do it at a reasonable rate).

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Same issue we're going to have with Whiteside (unless superseded by new rules) if he really develops.

I don't think Whiteside's contract will be non-extendable. He has reportedly signed a four-year contract (with a team option and/or unguaranteed money somewhere along the way), but if the fourth year is picked up, then it should be legal to extend it. The issue with Whiteside is that since he does not technically have a rookie scale contract (though it is structured in a similar, but I do not believe identical way) he will not be eligible for restricted free agency at the end of the contract. If the contract were for only three years, he would have been eligible for restricted free agency.

Seems like there were two conflicting possible futures with Whiteside's contract. If we gave him three years, we could make him a restricted free agent, but not extend him. If we gave him four years we could extend him, but not make him a restricted free agent. I'm not sure if it would be against the rules, but we might have had the ability to make the third year unguaranteed and the fourth year a team option, if the third year ended up being guaranteed. That would allow us to assess the situation after the third year, and either decline the option to make him a restricted free agent, or accept the option and work on an extension.

Of course, this is a lot of talk about the future of a player who hasn't set foot on an NBA court and wasn't even a first round pick!

 

[NME]

I don't think Whiteside's contract will be non-extendable. He has reportedly signed a four-year contract (with a team option and/or unguaranteed money somewhere along the way), but if the fourth year is picked up, then it should be legal to extend it.

But his salary will only be $1 million that year, so it's useless to use as base for an extension, which is all they could do if they want to extend him before his contact expires. He doesn't get the provision in rookie-scale contacts that allows a team to offer an extension up to the max for that player's years in the league.

 

[bajaden]

Dalembert's contract was a six-year contract, so he is eligible to be resigned. But I don't think that there's any renegotiation necessarily involved. My understanding is that an extension can be signed for any amount up to a player's maximum salary. It does not have to be a raise. Therefore we should be able, in principle, to extend Dalembert for four years and $6M per year today (if both parties agreed) without renegotiating or any other pitfalls.

But like you said, it's probably prudent to at least see how he fits on the team before we think about an extension. At any rate, it may be more prudent to wait until the CBA shakes out anyway.

The extension part was where I thought it was a little murky. It goes into detail on renegotiation, but I didn't think the extension part was as clear. So I wasn't sure whether the same rules applied to extension as they did renegotiation. Thats what I have you for...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

But his salary will only be $1 million that year, so it's useless to use as base for an extension, which is all they could do if they want to extend him before his contact expires. He doesn't get the provision in rookie-scale contacts that allows a team to offer an extension up to the max for that player's years in the league.

Good catch.

So the option of an extension is basically worthless. There may be a glimmer of hope that a team option after the third year could be declined, allowing us to make him an RFA, but outside of that, it looks like he'll be an unrestricted free agent come the summer of 2014. No biggie. I mean, our back-to-back championships in 2013-2014 should be enough to convince him to come back!

 

[NME]

There may be a glimmer of hope that a team option after the third year could be declined, allowing us to make him an RFA

That's similar to what the Boozer maneuver was supposed to be until he screwed them over, but maybe we can pull it off with better results.

 

[Superman]

That's similar to what the Boozer maneuver was supposed to be until he screwed them over, but maybe we can pull it off with better results.

I can't imagine that any team/owner will ever put themselves in that position again. I sure wouldn't want to see us do that.

 

[NME]

I can't imagine that any team/owner will ever put themselves in that position again. I sure wouldn't want to see us do that.

In this case he would be restricted though, so we couldn't be in literally the same position as the Cavs. Boozer was at the end of a two year deal, so they could only give him the Early Bird exception, so they let him go unrestricted in order to give him more which allowed him to backstab them.

In Whiteside's case he'd actually be going from unrestricted after four years to restricted after three years, which could be good for both sides since he'd get paid more earlier and the team would have less risk. It seems like there might be some rule against not picking up an option for this purpose though.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Same issue we're going to have with Whiteside (unless superseded by new rules) if he really develops. All the more reason for the original thought behind the thread.

whiteside has a 4 yr deal. 2 years guaranteed, 2 yrs team options following.

 

[NME]

whiteside has a 4 yr deal. 2 years guaranteed, 2 yrs team options following.

I know, read the other posts. He will be an unrestricted free agent after four years, and we can't extend him early. That's when we run into an issue if he really develops.

 

[Prince_XY]

My comment about saving money for younger players is totally unrelated to the salary cap and 100% about the real world cost to ownership. A lot of people just shrug off these $30 and $40 million commitments that owners make every summer, like it's nothing. That's a lot of money, billionaire or not. And with the arena situation and the fact that the Maloofs are losing money hand over fist in Vegas (and have been for three years now), it's only normal to wonder how much real money they are willing to spend on middling talent.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

With my quote of you below, you are now basically saying that you are just using re-signing of our young players for not re-signing the " deserving Landry " ( as you say " Not that he doesn't deserve it " ) as an EXCUSE to save lots of money for the owners.
So, you would rather ridiculously save tons of money even if you know a player is needed by the team to win and that player is deserving to be paid the amount he will command in the market and will not hamper the team's financial flexibility?

Honestly, if this will always be the mentality of the Maloofs, I'd rather have the Maloof's just sell the franchise now. Maybe it would be for the better for the team and the fans.

And I think that prices him out of our spending range, especially as a 6th man. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but I don't think it makes sense for a team like ours, with big extensions coming up for our young guys.

I hope the Maloofs and Petrie do not share this same mentality. This mentality can be used by a lot of BIG names for not wanting to play for the Kings. Ridiculously being stingy for the sake of saving money for the owners??? If I were Evans and Cousins I will highly consider playing for another team NOW before my next contract signing.

 

[Showtime]

..let me preface this by saying. I really do like Landry's game. He's a great efficiency player and has a distinct and useful skill-set that EVERY team needs badly(LOW-POST SCORING threat).

With that said. I think Landry is our most valuable trade chip. He's a UFA at season's end and only earns 3 million dollars. With the addition of Cousins, Daly, and Whiteside and the progression of Thompson I think Landry is expendable to fill more pressing needs, namely SHOOTERS.

But what shooters can currently be had by a 3 million contract? Not many. And I don't think that acquiring one (which is probably all they can do: shoot), is worth trading a player like Landry who the team might consider a long-term forward addition.

Realistically, Sammy D would be a player who could come up around the deadline to ship off to teams looking for real cap relief, and he's more likely to not be re-signed by the kings since they are working on their long term solution to the center position.

More than anything I think we need shooters.

Honestly, I'm quite puzzled by this attitude among Kings fans. Why? Because the team already has solid 3 PT shooters which fans have apparently totally ignored. For those that have forgotten: Garcia missed most of last season due to injury. He's probably the best threat from deep the team has on the wing. Beno last season shot almost 38% from deep. Donte's 3 point shot looked a LOT more consistent in SL, and last season we saw him develop in that area as well. He can certainly light it up from deep when he gets going.

So, the Kings have shooting. Guys have improved, and some are just back on the active roster. I don't think the team is so deficient in that area that they need to take a loss in a deal just to add some proficiency in that area. And not to mention, it's not like the team is in an immediate position to even make the playoffs, so doing a deal like this is futile IMO.

It would be better all around for the team to forgo immediate improvements and have the big picture in mind. There's no need to do a deal like this now, considering the team would be lucky to sniff .500 next season.

 

[Prince_XY]

It's simple - right now we have a front court consisting of DMC, Whiteside, Landry, JT, and Dalembert. At the end of the season, the FO will have a much better idea of what the front court of the FUTURE should look like. Best case scenario is DMC having a year like Tyreke had last year and becoming a superstar in the making, Whiteside developing and becoming a legit NBA player who is also an elite shotblocker, and JT growing into his potential as well. If that happens, then I assume the team will want these three to be the core of the front court, and in that case it will make no sense to resign Landry and Dalembert to expensive, long term contracts, and they will probably let them go and sign cheaper, bench-level backup bigs. If, for example, DMC and JT live up to their potential but Whiteside seems like more of a longterm project, then they will probably resign one of Landry or Dalembert. And if all the young guys turn out to be complete busts, there will probably be an effort to resign both of them. In any case, there is no reason to come to clear-cut conclusions before we have seen DMC, Whiteside, or Dalembert even play one minute of basketball in Kings uniform (excluding summer league, of course).

Let me be clear that I don't want to extend or re-sign either Landry or Dalembert NOW. Of course, I would like to see first how the current roster would perform with them on the team. What I cannot understand is why people are prematurely assuming re-signing one of Dalembert or Landry ( especially Dalembert ) will be detrimental for the team's financial flexibility ( with regards to re-signing our younger players )

 

[Chupacabra]

^ Im with you on the whole "we need shooters" issue. lol We flat out dont need any shooters. Omri/Greene/Garcia/Beno, you dont want to leave any of those guys wide open if youre the other team. For that matter Cousins/Thompson/Landry can all shoot the ball well from inside the three point line. Theres actually alot of shooting on this team.

 

[Telemachus]

Let me be clear that I don't want to extend or re-sign either Landry or Dalembert NOW. Of course, I would like to see first how the current roster would perform with them on the team. What I cannot understand is why people are prematurely assuming re-signing one of Dalembert or Landry ( especially Dalembert ) will be detrimental for the team's financial flexibility ( with regards to re-signing our younger players )

Let me see if I can put this clearly for you. Let's suppose that after next season the Kings resign both Dalembert and Landry to contracts similar to the going rate of this off season. Now let's assume that the owners get their way and establish a hard cap. The signing of these players would likely bring us close to that cap. Now when Tyreke, JT, Donte, Casspi, and Cousins come up for their new contracts the Kings would be very limited in how much they could spend because the hard cap. They would very likely lose most of them when they became FAs. Unless you think players like Tyreke and Cousins will be willing to sign contracts well below thier market value.

 

[Prince_XY]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD. While Daly and Landry are quality players, they may or may not be what this team needs going forward. By arbitrarily re-signing such players you risk losing the flexibility you've acquired to add the opportunisitic perfect fit for your franchise. That last piece we would need to be considered as an elite contender. If you feel like Landry or Daly are worth the price they seek on the open market, by all means. But I have a hard time justifying Landry at 7-10 a year range. And even a harder time justifying Dalembert on a long term contract approaching upwards of 10 million a year.

I'd rather be more opportunisitic and really watch a few of these teams look to unload salary when the new CBA comes into effect and basically puts these teams in a wrench. We'd be dealing from a position of leverage and be able to pick and choose the pieces we want going forward. That's why I think getting tradable assets like Dudley, Clark and a very unprotected pick for Landry helps going forward. They're cheap, they're young and they're promising pieces. Those are what's for sale when you're buying an upgrade. Let's stock up and put ourselves into an opportunistic situation.

Well, the problem is I think we can and I also think we should, that is of course because I think Dalembert ( and to a lesser extent Landry ) will proved they are necessary pieces in developing this team as serious contenders. It just doesn't seem reasonable for me when people are quick to say we have to let go of a proven defensive anchor Dalembert because we need to ridiculously save money for future flexibility in re-signing our younger players. And this is why I would like for people to really compute the salaries every year and put their "guesstimates" to know if indeed it is true that financial flexibility will be hampered.

 

[Prince_XY]

Let me see if I can put this clearly for you. Let's suppose that after next season the Kings resign both Dalembert and Landry to contracts similar to the going rate of this off season. Now let's assume that the owners get their way and establish a hard cap. The signing of these players would likely bring us close to that cap. Now when Tyreke, JT, Donte, Casspi, and Cousins come up for their new contracts the Kings would be very limited in how much they could spend because the hard cap. They would very likely lose most of them when they became FAs. Unless you think players like Tyreke and Cousins will be willing to sign contracts well below thier market value.

Thank you for your help. But again, correct me if I am wrong. If the owners get their way and establish that hard cap, I think it is safe to assume it will justly apply to all teams. What will affect us will also affect the other teams.

Right?

The fact that we now have one of the lowest budgeted team and therefore best financial flexibility in the NBA ( at 43M salary for this season and at 41M on 2011 if we sign Dalembert less than 2 M a year of his current 12M/year salary ) still puts us as one of the top teams with the financial advantage with regards to re-signing players and acquiring players from FA. And I believe that is no matter how this CBA turns out because the new CBA will equally apply to ALL teams. So in reality the new CBA shouldn't be that much problem for us than it is a problem for the other teams. We don't need to be overly stingy.

Right?

BTW, I am only for the eventual re-signing of Dalembert and not Landry. This is because I believe we will be needing a defensive anchor in Dalembert while we wait for either Cousins or Whiteside to assume the role. Also because re-signing Dalembert won't increase the annual total salary ( and most probably will decrease more ) while Landry's re-signing will surely add more.

 

[Warhawk]

Thank you for your help. But again, correct me if I am wrong. If the owners get their way and establish that hard cap, I think it is safe to assume it will justly apply to all teams. What will affect us will also affect the other teams.

Right?

The fact that we now have one of the lowest budgeted team and therefore best financial flexibility in the NBA ( at 43M salary for this season and at 41M on 2011 if we sign Dalembert less than 2 M a year of his current 12M/year salary ) still puts us as one of the top teams with the financial advantage with regards to re-signing players and acquiring players from FA. And I believe that is no matter how this CBA turns out because the new CBA will equally apply to ALL teams. So in reality the new CBA shouldn't be that much problem for us than it is a problem for the other teams. We don't need to be overly stingy.

Right?

BTW, I am only for the eventual re-signing of Dalembert and not Landry. This is because I believe we will be needing a defensive anchor in Dalembert while we wait for either Cousins or Whiteside to assume the role. Also because re-signing Dalembert won't increase the annual total salary ( and most probably will decrease more ) while Landry's re-signing will surely add more.

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!

 

[Big Cuz 15]

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!

there are alot of possibilities. none of the players have played together yet. i didn't think kevin was going to be traded last season. i thought he and reke would be a killer backcourt tandem. we know that isn't the case now after playing together.

 

[upinsmoke]

I want Landry on my team everyday!

Landry could be the reason we get threw some playoffs series one day.

 

[=LarryLegend=]

I want Landry on my team everyday!

Landry could be the reason we get threw some playoffs series one day.

Landry is a keeper in my book. beast + heart = Savage.

 

[Chupacabra]

If Landry was either A. and above average defender or B. an above average rebounder, id be all for resigning him no matter what. Sadly, he is neither. I wouldnt be willing to pay him what hes worth once his contract is up. The dude has the heart of a lion. Its one of those REALLY tough decisions.