Free Agency

[KingsFanGER]

Look, I don't think you and I are in disagreement about Maker or Monroe. I think your projecting Maker to be a little bit better than he is, but that's fine, no two people see things the same way. I don't like comparing him to Willie because they're two entirely different players. Maker doesn't have the lateral quickness of Willie, nor is experienced enough on the defensive end of the floor. He was lost out there a lot, but that's to be expected for a raw player on the floor with a group of players he's never played with before. Maker's outside shot is not good. It doesn't go the right distance, nor is it on line. he may have led the league in air balls. Where he excelled was hustling for rebounds, putbacks and with weakside help on defense. He had serious trouble trying to post up, or to defend the post up due to lack of strength.

Garnett may be a good comparison down the road, but not now. Garnett may have been thin, but he was also deceptively strong. Look, I don't want to be too critical of Maker. I like him and think he'll be a good player in the future, but I wouldn't expect too much out of him this coming season. I can't emphasize enough that summer league isn't the NBA. I listened to an assistant coach talking about summer league, and how you shouldn't make too much out of those that play well, and those that don't. He said a player may come to summer league to work on only his weaknesses. If he hooks with his right hand, he may hook only with his left in summer league, and as a result, might not look good.

I think some people are making too much of Willie's summer league performance. He was trying new things on the floor with people he's never played with before. The Kings played the first few games without a PG again. There was no spacing on the floor, and Willie was probably trying a little too hard. As one assistant said, put Willie on the floor with Cousins, and it's an entirely different result. Compared to regular season games, summer league has the look of chickens running around with their heads cut off. Every player out there without a contract is trying to catch the eye of a GM. As a result there's a lot of selfish basketball played at times.

I try to not to overreact to Willies performance in SL, but it was indeed a bit headscratching, not because he tried new things, but because the things he normally excels in, namely defense, shotblocking, putbacks, rim runs, weren't there.
I think a lot of the poor play of Willie and Papa is related to the guards (how many passes were thrown to a 7'1 center on knee height?? It was disgusting), but on the other hand Willie is in his second year now and should be further along in his development.
Maker looked intriguing to me and his shot seemed decent enough, when left open. I think he will be a guy teams need to guard inside and outside. In time he will get a bit stronger, but seriously how much strength is needed in this league?

 

[KingMilz]

Tony Wrotten deserves a look as a defensive PG/SG with good handles. The injury concerns are big but.

 

[ParniValjak]

Ummm... Curry was a restricted free agent.

In this case, the Kings did not have to rescind the restricted tag. There are a lot of players stuck in limbo right now and their teams have not rescinded their restricted tag, like Moe Harkless. Curry had a choice, he could have signed any contract and the Kings would have retained the right to match, as long as they had the cap space.

Once the Kings rescinded the restricted tag, it was bye-bye Curry.

Unless Vlade and Joeger really didn't want Curry back, I thought it was a bad move to allow a cost controlled (2 years/ $6 mil with Dallas) 2nd or 3rd point guard, with upside leave for nothing.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to allow Curry to walk.

I am well aware that he was restricted and what that means. I also know that we didn't have to rescind the offer. We did it out of respect if you like. Curry would have looked at the moves we made, sat down and talked to the coaches and front office about the prospects of playing time and might have not liked what he heard.

He obviously thought that he was better off in Dallas otherwise there wouldn't have been a request to rescind the offer. The offer was not big and no doubt we would have matched but if the player feels he is better off somewhere else, it is his right.

Again, we didn't have to rescind the offer but we did because it was the right thing to do. It maintains relationships with agents and players. Curry is a guy that has struggled to get playing time in his NBA career to date so the last thing he wanted to do was be stuck at the end of the bench. I assume he wanted more playing time hence why he chose Dallas.

 

[funkykingston]

I am well aware that he was restricted and what that means. I also know that we didn't have to rescind the offer. We did it out of respect if you like. Curry would have looked at the moves we made, sat down and talked to the coaches and front office about the prospects of playing time and might have not liked what he heard.

He obviously thought that he was better off in Dallas otherwise there wouldn't have been a request to rescind the offer. The offer was not big and no doubt we would have matched but if the player feels he is better off somewhere else, it is his right.

Again, we didn't have to rescind the offer but we did because it was the right thing to do. It maintains relationships with agents and players. Curry is a guy that has struggled to get playing time in his NBA career to date so the last thing he wanted to do was be stuck at the end of the bench. I assume he wanted more playing time hence why he chose Dallas.

I'm guessing it was about more than playing time. In Dallas he'll be battling Deron Williams, Devin Harris and JJ Barea at PG and Wes Matthews & Justin Anderson at SG.

With the Kings, Collison is the only real PG on the roster and he'll likely miss games. At SG there's Afflalo, McLemore and Richardson who is a rookie. And Ben is on the trade block.

On paper his opportunities for PT would be better on the Kings.

I'm guessing that either Curry just wanted out of Sacramento or Joerger didn't feel he was a good fit for what he wants to do. Or a bit of both.

 

[ockingsfan]

I am well aware that he was restricted and what that means. I also know that we didn't have to rescind the offer. We did it out of respect if you like. Curry would have looked at the moves we made, sat down and talked to the coaches and front office about the prospects of playing time and might have not liked what he heard.

He obviously thought that he was better off in Dallas otherwise there wouldn't have been a request to rescind the offer. The offer was not big and no doubt we would have matched but if the player feels he is better off somewhere else, it is his right.

Again, we didn't have to rescind the offer but we did because it was the right thing to do. It maintains relationships with agents and players. Curry is a guy that has struggled to get playing time in his NBA career to date so the last thing he wanted to do was be stuck at the end of the bench. I assume he wanted more playing time hence why he chose Dallas.

Curry would of had more playing time in Sacramento, considering we only have one point guard (Collison) on the roster.

The notion of doing what's BEST for the PLAYER or what the player's agent wants and "doing the right thing" does not sit well with me, considering that we can not afford to keep on letting talent walk for nothing.

There are many Restricted Free Agents that would love to have their Restricted status rescinded, so they can pursue a lucrative contract with another team. But 9 times out of 10, the teams won't rescind, unless it is BEST for the TEAM, not necessarily the player.

The whole Free Agency system was developed and agreed to by the Players Unions and the Owners in the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Kings have every right to try and keep a player if they so wish.

My contention is that, IF Vlade and Joeger did not see a role for Curry and was about to sign or trade for another point guard, then fine, rescind the Restricted tag.

BUT, if you just rescind to be a "Nice Guy", that is just foolish and you are doing the franchise and the fans a disservice.

We will probably never know, but it would make me feel a lot better if the Kings picked up a genuine Point Guard at some point this summer.

 

[Jkbiker]

http://nypost.com/2016/07/22/chasson-randle-could-be-natural-fit-as-knicks-third-point-guard/

Maybe this Chasson Randle guy?

Looks like knicks can only offer the Min Sal of $575k?

Maybe we are one of the two other teams? Part of our 2.9 mil Room exception?
Maybe more minutes than 3rd option?

 

[peacelate]

The Curry situation boggles my mind. The Kings wanting to do Curry a favor by rescinding his qualifying offer is fine, but why not get something for him instead go just letting him go? How about doing some sort of sign and trade for a draft pick along with the traded player exception they would get back.

 

[Bricklayer]

The Curry situation boggles my mind. The Kings wanting to do Curry a favor by rescinding his qualifying offer is fine, but why not get something for him instead go just letting him go? How about doing some sort of sign and trade for a draft pick along with the traded player exception they would get back.

Really aren't going to get a draft pick for Curry. You can tell by the contract he eventually signed he is still just a point of curiosity for teams, not an asset they were heavily competing for. That was why it was disappointing we did not just bring him back. But I sincerely doubt that was 100% a favor to him or his agent. Maybe not even 50%. I think a decision was made that he did not fit what we wanted to do. Now as he played competitive defense and could shoot that raises a ? for me, but I think Joerger's team vision is driving a lot of stuff, and on paper a stubby combo guard without length looks soft and out of place. Now I would have hoped Vlade would have known better, but perhaps he agreed that Curry was a guy who would thrive in a pace system, but not in a grind it out system.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The Curry situation boggles my mind. The Kings wanting to do Curry a favor by rescinding his qualifying offer is fine, but why not get something for him instead go just letting him go? How about doing some sort of sign and trade for a draft pick along with the traded player exception they would get back.

So I'm not 100% sure on this situation, but after thinking about it for a while, I'm guessing that it went about like this:

When we agreed to the last of our four free agent contracts (Temple/Barnes were both on July 3), this ate up all of our cap space. In order to make these signings we would eventually be required to rescind Curry's QO. No way around it. However, since we were in the moratorium, and since we didn't make our signings official until a couple of days after the moratorium anyway, we did not have to rescind the QO YET. We could have held Curry hostage, as it were, for the remainder of the moratorium and a few days after that, even though our FA agreements gave us no ability to match. Curry's agent had certainly talked to Vlade about this and both must have understood how things were. Curry's agent then would likely have pointed out to Vlade that it's more difficult to shop Curry around with an RFA tag, even if it's widely known the Kings can't match, and so he likely asked Vlade to "jump the gun" and rescind the QO before the last possible second (which is typically the way cap stuff is done - wait until the last possible second to rescind anything, just in case).

I don't know that was how it happened, but it seems likely, and certainly Curry's cap hold stood in the way of our four FA contracts (we spent up to the cap). We had already freed Curry and taken off his chains, we just had the courtesy to take off his shackles so he didn't have to go to a locksmith to get them removed.

 

[The_Jamal]

Tony Wrotten deserves a look as a defensive PG/SG with good handles. The injury concerns are big but.

Yea,I liked the potential in Memphis, but you have to reign him back in after his time in Philly when they let him be their Russell Westbrook. But def talented enough to be on an NBA roster and be a rotational player

 

[ParniValjak]

Curry would of had more playing time in Sacramento, considering we only have one point guard (Collison) on the roster.

The notion of doing what's BEST for the PLAYER or what the player's agent wants and "doing the right thing" does not sit well with me, considering that we can not afford to keep on letting talent walk for nothing.

There are many Restricted Free Agents that would love to have their Restricted status rescinded, so they can pursue a lucrative contract with another team. But 9 times out of 10, the teams won't rescind, unless it is BEST for the TEAM, not necessarily the player.

The whole Free Agency system was developed and agreed to by the Players Unions and the Owners in the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Kings have every right to try and keep a player if they so wish.

My contention is that, IF Vlade and Joeger did not see a role for Curry and was about to sign or trade for another point guard, then fine, rescind the Restricted tag.

BUT, if you just rescind to be a "Nice Guy", that is just foolish and you are doing the franchise and the fans a disservice.

We will probably never know, but it would make me feel a lot better if the Kings picked up a genuine Point Guard at some point this summer.

Bottom line is if you force players to be where they don't want to be, its not going to end well.

People are overvaluing Curry big time here. He is a end of the bench type of player. He has struggled to stick in the league. He did well to sign the contract he did. Losing Curry is hardly a loss of big talent. You are acting like we rescinded an offer to Cousins.

Even if he stuck around , he would be stuck behind Collison and Temple for minutes at PG and Afflalo at SG. In fact we would be better of investing some playing time on Richardson at SG than it would be to invest it in Curry.

 

[peacelate]

Really aren't going to get a draft pick for Curry. You can tell by the contract he eventually signed he is still just a point of curiosity for teams, not an asset they were heavily competing for. That was why it was disappointing we did not just bring him back. But I sincerely doubt that was 100% a favor to him or his agent. Maybe not even 50%. I think a decision was made that he did not fit what we wanted to do. Now as he played competitive defense and could shoot that raises a ? for me, but I think Joerger's team vision is driving a lot of stuff, and on paper a stubby combo guard without length looks soft and out of place. Now I would have hoped Vlade would have known better, but perhaps he agreed that Curry was a guy who would thrive in a pace system, but not in a grind it out system.

It doesn't need to be a high draft pick. It could have been a 2nd round pick that is vested only if it falls in the 55-60 range. The big thing is the Kings could have acquired a TPE.

 

[Telemachus]

It doesn't need to be a high draft pick. It could have been a 2nd round pick that is vested only if it falls in the 55-60 range. The big thing is the Kings could have acquired a TPE.

The problem is that you are assuming that Curry is worth a 2nd round pick. I like Curry and wanted the Kings to keep him, but he is unproven at this point. The idea that he could've been traded for a future pick is a bit far fetched.

 

[peacelate]

The problem is that you are assuming that Curry is worth a 2nd round pick. I like Curry and wanted the Kings to keep him, but he is unproven at this point. The idea that he could've been traded for a future pick is a bit far fetched.

Teams don't value 2nd round picks. They get traded all the time for teams trying to get under the luxury tax. Even if it's a high 2nd round pick, you can put protections around it so that it vests only if it's in the 55-60 range. Kings could have gotten a TPE with the 2nd round pick. Not much, but it's better than just letting players walk even if you think they are scrubs.

Ray McCallum got traded for a 2nd round pick.

 

[Telemachus]

Teams don't value 2nd round picks. They get traded all the time for teams trying to get under the luxury tax. Even if it's a high 2nd round pick, you can put protections around it so that it vests only if it's in the 55-60 range. Kings could have gotten a TPE with the 2nd round pick. Not much, but it's better than just letting players walk even if you think they are scrubs.

Ray McCallum got traded for a 2nd round pick.

While I like Curry more than Ray, Ray had proven much more than Curry has (when he was traded). However, if the Spurs could go back, I bet they would not do that trade anymore.

 

[peacelate]

While I like Curry more than Ray, Ray had proven much more than Curry has (when he was traded). However, if the Spurs could go back, I bet they would not do that trade anymore.

What exactly did Ray prove before he was traded? It could not have been much considering he was traded for the 2nd to last pick of the draft.

 

[ockingsfan]

Bottom line is if you force players to be where they don't want to be, its not going to end well.

Come on now, I think you are being overly dramatic here.

Teams have been keeping Restricted Free Agents for the last decade under the premise of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I am sure there were hundreds of free agents that wanted a bigger deal elsewhere, but wound up staying with the team that had their Restricted rights, and everything worked out fine for both parties.

You are still paying them millions of dollars, you are not holding them in a hostage situation here.

I'm not saying that they rescinded an offer to a talent like Cousins, BUT Curry is still a better point guard prospect than any other player we have playing behind Collison right now. And I think he would be better than any Free Agent Point Guard pick up at this point.

Curry was our most reliable 3 point shooter (.450% of 3's) last year and he always hustled and still has some upside. I'm sure coach Joeger could have found a role for him.

 

[Telemachus]

What exactly did Ray prove before he was traded? It could not have been much considering he was traded for the 2nd to last pick of the draft.

Let me put it this way. Ray McCallum played in 113 games (over 2 years) with the Kings, 40 of which he started. How well he played is open to interpretation, but that is enough playing time to make a judgment on his potential. I would also point out that he was 23 at the time of the trade.

Seth Curry played in 44 games with the Kings, of which he started 9. That is a much smaller sample size to judge his potential. Add in that he is 25, and many might question how much more he can improve. That makes him a risk that most teams would think twice about before giving up future assets. Especially when there are plenty of young talented players in the d-league (or undrafted) that can be signed cheap every year.

 

[ockingsfan]

Really aren't going to get a draft pick for Curry. You can tell by the contract he eventually signed he is still just a point of curiosity for teams, not an asset they were heavily competing for. That was why it was disappointing we did not just bring him back. But I sincerely doubt that was 100% a favor to him or his agent. Maybe not even 50%. I think a decision was made that he did not fit what we wanted to do. Now as he played competitive defense and could shoot that raises a ? for me, but I think Joerger's team vision is driving a lot of stuff, and on paper a stubby combo guard without length looks soft and out of place. Now I would have hoped Vlade would have known better, but perhaps he agreed that Curry was a guy who would thrive in a pace system, but not in a grind it out system.

Now, if Vlade and Joeger decided that Curry did not fit in their plans, for some reason, I can live with them letting Curry walk.

But, letting him walk to do the "right thing", even though you thought he could help the team next year, that would not make sense to me.

My point is, when you have a willing role player that can shot .450% on 3's and always hustles on defense, I think you keep him and find a role for him.

 

[peacelate]

Let me put it this way. Ray McCallum played in 113 games (over 2 years) with the Kings, 40 of which he started. How well he played is open to interpretation, but that is enough playing time to make a judgment on his potential. I would also point out that he was 23 at the time of the trade.

Seth Curry played in 44 games with the Kings, of which he started 9. That is a much smaller sample size to judge his potential. Add in that he is 25, and many might question how much more he can improve. That makes him a risk that most teams would think twice about before giving up future assets. Especially when there are plenty of young talented players in the d-league (or undrafted) that can be signed cheap every year.

I guess we are just going to have to disagree on the value of a 2nd round pick that falls in the 55-60 range. I disagree with your argument regarding how teams value Curry cpmparing him to DLEAGUE considering he signed 2 year guaranteed deal for the full room exception with the Mavs.

 

[White_Chocolate]

Bottom line is if you force players to be where they don't want to be, its not going to end well.

People are overvaluing Curry big time here. He is a end of the bench type of player. He has struggled to stick in the league. He did well to sign the contract he did. Losing Curry is hardly a loss of big talent. You are acting like we rescinded an offer to Cousins.

Even if he stuck around , he would be stuck behind Collison and Temple for minutes at PG and Afflalo at SG. In fact we would be better of investing some playing time on Richardson at SG than it would be to invest it in Curry.

Agreed 100% Curry was not on an NBA roster prior to the Kings. That was for a reason. He might turn out to be an OK rotational player somewhere, but I am really not stressing his loss. There are plenty of solid 3rd string PGs still available if thats the route we want to go. I personally think trading for a more legitimate PG is a better option, but we will just have to wait and see what the brass decides.

 

[ParniValjak]

Come on now, I think you are being overly dramatic here.

Teams have been keeping Restricted Free Agents for the last decade under the premise of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I am sure there were hundreds of free agents that wanted a bigger deal elsewhere, but wound up staying with the team that had their Restricted rights, and everything worked out fine for both parties.

You are still paying them millions of dollars, you are not holding them in a hostage situation here.

I'm not saying that they rescinded an offer to a talent like Cousins, BUT Curry is still a better point guard prospect than any other player we have playing behind Collison right now. And I think he would be better than any Free Agent Point Guard pick up at this point.

Curry was our most reliable 3 point shooter (.450% of 3's) last year and he always hustled and still has some upside. I'm sure coach Joeger could have found a role for him.

This is a classic case of overvaluing a player based on their performance in April. Look I like Curry and would have been very happy to keep him especially since his deal is not breaking the bank but the fact is that for whatever reasons he didn't want to be here and we didn't want him here.

If coach Joerger wanted him, we would have kept him. It is that simple.

There is a clear pattern with all of our FA signings and draftees as well. We got veterans in that bring length, scrappiness, defense and spot up shooting. Quite clearly we believed that Temple is better for us than Curry in the role that coach Joerger wants us to play.

Curry put up some great numbers in an offensive system designed to inflate offensive stats for players like him but can he do the same thing in a system that we will run with the new coach? That is part of the thinking that the team would have had.

Like I said, I would have kept him but quite clearly the new coach and the front office did not believe he fit our needs.

So much discussion over a 3rd string PG.

 

[Noble]

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

 

[bajaden]

Let me put it this way. Ray McCallum played in 113 games (over 2 years) with the Kings, 40 of which he started. How well he played is open to interpretation, but that is enough playing time to make a judgment on his potential. I would also point out that he was 23 at the time of the trade.

Seth Curry played in 44 games with the Kings, of which he started 9. That is a much smaller sample size to judge his potential. Add in that he is 25, and many might question how much more he can improve. That makes him a risk that most teams would think twice about before giving up future assets. Especially when there are plenty of young talented players in the d-league (or undrafted) that can be signed cheap every year.

I would like to add, that any team that did their homework would know that the Kings had capped themselves out, and would have to give up Curry's rights in order to make all their signings official. So knowing that, why in the world would you give up something for a player that's going to be an unrestricted freeagent in a few days. The Kings had no leverage to force a trade by another team that might want to sign Curry.

 

[bajaden]

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

What happened to Skal and Richardson? Plus, I doubt that Koufos and Ben will be here when the season starts. There's also Isaiah Cousins and Papagiannis to account for.

 

[Bricklayer]

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

With this coach there's every chance that group would hitch up its shorts and dig n on defense at least.

But I don't think we're done/ At least 3, and possibly even 4 vulnerable old guard guys that we haven't purged yet. I wish we would angle for jsut a little continuity, but getting everybody aligned and on the same page under this coach is more important still. Get this coach his guys, and THEN settle in and let it all simmer together.

 

[ockingsfan]

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

My concern is not defense, but offense. When DMC sits, who will be able to get a bucket?

That is why, the way the team is currently positioned, I don't see how we can trade Rudy Gay, simply not enough reliable scoring past DMC and collison, if we trade gay.

 

[Glenn]

What happened to Skal and Richardson? Plus, I doubt that Koufos and Ben will be here when the season starts. There's also Isaiah Cousins and Papagiannis to account for.

I suspect Koufos and Ben will be used in a trade for someone that will help a lot. I think by the end of the year or perhaps by mid season Skal and Malachai will be contributors. We can only hope about Big Papa. I was not surprised when we let Rondo go because of the expense but was very surprised when Curry was allowed to go. I am hoping the trade will be for a pg.

 

[Noble]

I honestly think all of our rookies should play in Reno until the trade deadline. I wouldn't rush a trade just for the sake of getting a 2nd string PG. I'm so on the fence with Bmac that I'm willing to give him 1 more chance to see improvement under Joerger, Afflalo mitigates the need to rely on his scoring so if he can come in and gives us 8-10 consistently I would take it.

 

[DesertFox]

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

Not any worse than before, but lacking in ballhandling and balance.

There has to be a trade waiting to happen with Gay for a pg. Barnes and Tolliver weren't signed to warm the bench, and Casspi is still one of our top 8, maybe top 5 players.