Do we need to break up our big 3?

Big Cuz 15

Big Cuz 15

All-Star
#1
#1
It's hard to type this post as I know these 3 (John Salmons, Travis Outlaw and Francisco Garcia )have contributed valuable minutes to this team. Their leadership and skills would be sorely missed if we did made a trade. Our team is comprised of 6 small forwards. Salmons, Outlaw, Garcia, Honeycutt, Greene and Williams. All of them could be starters on championship teams. As they say.. you can never have enough small forwards on a team. We are in great shape at the small forward position if a few of them go down with injuries. We could possibly sacrifice one of them in a trade. Which one would make the most sense in moving?
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#4
#4
Thanks for the comic relief. I saw the thread title and was ready to blast a response. Now I find I must give careful consideration to a very serious topic. My concern isn't so much the SFs as they have carried us this far. I am just hoping we draft a couple more guards. Then if they were on a teeter tottter with the SFs, they would balance at least close to equal.
 
DesertFox

DesertFox

Starter
#7
#7
Funny thing is none of those 6 are terrible players, just all equally mediocre. Young and flawed but with potential (TW/Honeycutt/Greene) or overpaid but still useful (Cisco/Salmons/Outlaw). I could see all 6 playing some role on a winning team. Unfortunately for this team you can't split SF into 6 role players.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#10
#10
Big Cuz 15 said:
It's hard to type this post as I know these 3 (John Salmons, Travis Outlaw and Francisco Garcia )have contributed valuable minutes to this team. Their leadership and skills would be sorely missed if we did made a trade. Our team is comprised of 6 small forwards. Salmons, Outlaw, Garcia, Honeycutt, Greene and Williams. All of them could be starters on championship teams. As they say.. you can never have enough small forwards on a team. We are in great shape at the small forward position if a few of them go down with injuries. We could possibly sacrifice one of them in a trade. Which one would make the most sense in moving?
Click to expand...
You need to put a smilely face at the end of your post. Just to be safe!
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#11
#11
KingsCitizen said:
IMO Greene is gone and we'll probably see a buyout with Garcia by mid-season.
Click to expand...
It would make more sense to use the amnesty clause on Garcia than buy him out. If you buy him out, the money still counts against the cap. If you amnesty him, you free up capspace. Either way, you have to pay him.
 
M

mac

All-Star
#12
#12
bajaden said:
It would make more sense to use the amnesty clause on Garcia than buy him out. If you buy him out, the money still counts against the cap. If you amnesty him, you free up capspace. Either way, you have to pay him.
Click to expand...
Could we buy out Garcia and amnesty Salmons? BTW, What then is the point of buying out a player as opposed to waiving him, if it still counts against your cap?
 
P

pshn80

Starter
#15
#15
Of the three I'd say trade Thornton. Garcia is god-father to one of my grand kids, Salmons is renting from a cousin of mine, and Outlaw is driving tractor for a friend of mine in Sutter County.
 
funkykingston

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
#16
#16
Why would the Kings amnesty or buy out Garcia? His deal is guaranteed for next season with team option for the next season. In essence he's an ending contract and a good locker room/decent role player. That's handy trade bait to have.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#17
#17
mac said:
Could we buy out Garcia and amnesty Salmons? BTW, What then is the point of buying out a player as opposed to waiving him, if it still counts against your cap?
Click to expand...
Gilles answered the last question. The answer to the first is, Yes! The problem is that its doubtful the Maloofs would use the amnesty clause on Salmons. And here's the reason why. Salmons has three years left on his contract with each year being a little less than the preceeding one. 1st year, $8,083,000.00. 2nd year, $7,583,000.00. And 3rd year, $7,000,000.00.

His third year is non-guaranteed, so the Maloofs are only committed to paying him a total of $15,666,000.00. The problem is, that under the new CBA, if you amnesty a player, all non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed. So the Maloofs would be taking on an additional 7 mil that they would never have to pay if they just let the contract play out.

I think they would have to swallow hard to eat the first two years, much less, take on another 7 mil they don't have to. Just not going to happen. I can see them using it on Cisco, but not Salmons. And to be honest, I really can't blame them for not want to just throw away 7 million dollars.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#18
#18
bajaden said:
Gilles answered the last question. The answer to the first is, Yes! The problem is that its doubtful the Maloofs would use the amnesty clause on Salmons. And here's the reason why. Salmons has three years left on his contract with each year being a little less than the preceeding one. 1st year, $8,083,000.00. 2nd year, $7,583,000.00. And 3rd year, $7,000,000.00.

His third year is non-guaranteed, so the Maloofs are only committed to paying him a total of $15,666,000.00. The problem is, that under the new CBA, if you amnesty a player, all non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed. So the Maloofs would be taking on an additional 7 mil that they would never have to pay if they just let the contract play out.

I think they would have to swallow hard to eat the first two years, much less, take on another 7 mil they don't have to. Just not going to happen. I can see them using it on Cisco, but not Salmons. And to be honest, I really can't blame them for not want to just throw away 7 million dollars.
Click to expand...
I started reading the new CBA but that's not light reading. Good info you shared there, mi amigo.

One thing I have learned from the new CBA is it goes a long ways towards equalizing things. Not that anything can ever be equal but at least some teams have a chance to drag themselves off the perpetual low placement. Is there a place to discuss the CBA? Anybody interested? For the forum's sake, I think it would be a good idea if a few of us knew a lot about the CBA. It's complicated and it affects personnel decisions.

Now that I started this, the amazing finding is that after the introduction of the luxury tax, the rich teams did far better than before the luxury tax. Some teams simply have so much money that the luxury tax is of no consequence. What it did was punish moderately large market teams that couldn't afford the luxury tax. Interesting. It did the opposite of its intent.
 
bluntsnbball

bluntsnbball

G-League
#19
#19
Garcia adds little on the court, but i think it's important for the team to retain him, for the time being. He is the only real veteran presence on the team. He takes players under his wing and is that sort of Brian Scalabrine locker room guy that i think kind of glues the rest of the guys together.

The thing is, if we were a playoff team, i'd probably say drop him. But what is the point of shedding salary right now?
 
hrdboild

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#20
#20
bajaden said:
Gilles answered the last question. The answer to the first is, Yes! The problem is that its doubtful the Maloofs would use the amnesty clause on Salmons. And here's the reason why. Salmons has three years left on his contract with each year being a little less than the preceeding one. 1st year, $8,083,000.00. 2nd year, $7,583,000.00. And 3rd year, $7,000,000.00.

His third year is non-guaranteed, so the Maloofs are only committed to paying him a total of $15,666,000.00. The problem is, that under the new CBA, if you amnesty a player, all non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed. So the Maloofs would be taking on an additional 7 mil that they would never have to pay if they just let the contract play out.

I think they would have to swallow hard to eat the first two years, much less, take on another 7 mil they don't have to. Just not going to happen. I can see them using it on Cisco, but not Salmons. And to be honest, I really can't blame them for not want to just throw away 7 million dollars.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why the Maloofs are bad owners. Because they look at everything like it's a 1 to 1 deal. Amnestying Salmons is going to cost an additional $7 million if no one picks him up. Considering we picked up Outlaw for $3 million per, it seems likely someone will bite on Salmons (no pun intended) and some of that contract will get waived. But even assuming that no one does, that's $7 million out of your pocket, but how much of that are you going to get back if that move leads to picking up a better player to take his place, a run at the playoffs, and all the additional revenue they'd be making with a winning team and split playoff profits?

I think they stand to gain substantially more than $7 million just in immediate returns if the team improves enough to sell out more games during the season and extend the season into the playoffs (which are guaranteed sellouts in Sacramento). And that's just in year 1. Hanging on to Salmons for 2 more years means less opportunities to improve the team over that span. For better or worse there's a buzz about the team right now. A lot of people are paying attention because they're in the news every other day. Fans are hungry for some positive momentum and there are opportunities to improve the team if money is invested carefully. If you let that momentum fizzle out, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Maybe someone can whip up a dazzling powerpoint to make the point to them, but failing that I think you're probably right about where their head is at. If they can't understand the value in investing $3 million in pre-development funds toward a new arena, they're not going to invest $20 million in player salary to build a winning team. And maybe they have a point.That's a lot of money to spend on players if you don't know what the h*** you're doing.These guys are terrible businessmen who won't spend a dime of their own money on any arena deal unless they think the payoff is set in stone guaranteed, but will instead leverage everything they own when they think they hold a winning hand. They went all in on Webber, all in on Bibby, all in on the Palms and they failed every time. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered Cousins a max extension as soon as he becomes eligible for one, and yet they continue to pinch pennies when it comes to finding the support players who really make a franchise consistently succesful.
 
TyFreak Evans

TyFreak Evans

Bench
#21
#21
Big Cuz 15 said:
It's hard to type this post as I know these 3 (John Salmons, Travis Outlaw and Francisco Garcia )have contributed valuable minutes to this team. Their leadership and skills would be sorely missed if we did made a trade. Our team is comprised of 6 small forwards. Salmons, Outlaw, Garcia, Honeycutt, Greene and Williams. All of them could be starters on championship teams. As they say.. you can never have enough small forwards on a team. We are in great shape at the small forward position if a few of them go down with injuries. We could possibly sacrifice one of them in a trade. Which one would make the most sense in moving?
Click to expand...
Yes we need to break up our "Big 3". I say immediately...

LMFAO...at a time in my life when I do need some comical relief, this has been a pleasant surprise. :):):):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.