Working on your offensive game sure but when i say lazy, it has to do with developing on the weak parts of his game. Can anyone legitimately say his defense has gotten better the 3 years he has been in this league? Additionally many nba trainers have mentioned that for many young players who are injury prone, it is often do to improper attention to their work outs, treatments, and nutrition. His body hasn't significantly changed since he has been in the league either. Has his offensive game improved? Slightly, yes, but the stuff that keeps him off the court (defense and health) are as bad as they day he entered, that is why i call him lazy. All that could be forgiven by kings fans (God knows we have rode and died with far worse work ethic than Marvin), but its his terrible attitude towards the team and its fans that has drawn the ire of most fans. Given his constant injuries the fans could be disappointed (especially when Luka was passed over when many people here thought he'd be the best in the draft), but most fans of the kings are highly supportive of players who are good teammates and have good attitudes. This guys family goes and begs for trades left right and center. Fox's dad criticized the drafting of mitchell and did we notice his mature and measured response. This is the same off season when bagley likes the "get marvin outta sac" tweet and removes all things kings from his profile and backs his decisions as "i can do whatever i want, its my account" defense. That and his total lack of introspection, not his play or injuries (which are partly in and out of his control) are the reasons Kings fans here dislike Marvin.
Holmes re-signs
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
My ire is directed at a handful of twitter yahoos that thought they could make a name for themselves by calling out the deal falling apart in a LOLKANGZ moment by pretending to be cap experts. You have to dig 4-5 tweets in where they admit they're just spitballing, but at that point the main tweet has been retweeted a thousand times and you've got Kings fans on reddit and maybe elsewhere in a panic.
I think for this reason Buddy, at least, has to be moved before the season. It's clear that this team's vision of its future backcourt is Fox, Haliburton, and Mitchell. Buddy just isn't a part of the future anymore and any additional games he plays as a King will either get in the way of the development of the future backcourt, if he is starting, or dampen his trade value, if he is getting benched in favor of the other three.
Bagley I can see starting at the 4 to start the season with Barnes at the 3. Essentially running out last year's starting lineup with Mitchell as the 6th man and Haliburton starting in place of Buddy. That allows us to see if he can stay healthy and play well enough to stay on the floor and increase his trade value or, preferably, become good enough for us to want to resign. Of course, his apparent desire not to be in Sacramento complicates things, so I would be thrilled if Monte could package him with Buddy before the season. That would also allow Barnes to slide to the 4 and hopefully whatever we get in exchange for Buddy/Bagley to start at the 3.
All in all, I think it would be a really bad thing if the season starts and we haven't dealt at least Buddy and try to run back last year's starting lineup.
Bagley I can see starting at the 4 to start the season with Barnes at the 3. Essentially running out last year's starting lineup with Mitchell as the 6th man and Haliburton starting in place of Buddy. That allows us to see if he can stay healthy and play well enough to stay on the floor and increase his trade value or, preferably, become good enough for us to want to resign. Of course, his apparent desire not to be in Sacramento complicates things, so I would be thrilled if Monte could package him with Buddy before the season. That would also allow Barnes to slide to the 4 and hopefully whatever we get in exchange for Buddy/Bagley to start at the 3.
All in all, I think it would be a really bad thing if the season starts and we haven't dealt at least Buddy and try to run back last year's starting lineup.
Last edited:
I agree with everything you say but think it's not inevitable that running back the same starting 5 would be "a really bad thing."
I believe strongly in the possibility and importance of culture change, and think Monte's done a very good job of creating the conditions for a defense-first culture change in Sacramento. If so, then even the same starting lineup wouldn't look the same. Fox and Buddy, in particular, could and will be better defensively. And now, as compared to Opening Day 2020, Walton has some very promising alternatives in Haliburton, Mitchell, and Davis if they're not - as well as a defense-first coach in Christie to underline the point and help maintain the emphasis. (Whether Walton has the stones to do what needs doing remains to be seen.)
All that said, for sure a Buddy/Bags/pick trade for a strong starter opposite HB would be best all around. None of the FA names bandied around excites me in the least.
I believe strongly in the possibility and importance of culture change, and think Monte's done a very good job of creating the conditions for a defense-first culture change in Sacramento. If so, then even the same starting lineup wouldn't look the same. Fox and Buddy, in particular, could and will be better defensively. And now, as compared to Opening Day 2020, Walton has some very promising alternatives in Haliburton, Mitchell, and Davis if they're not - as well as a defense-first coach in Christie to underline the point and help maintain the emphasis. (Whether Walton has the stones to do what needs doing remains to be seen.)
All that said, for sure a Buddy/Bags/pick trade for a strong starter opposite HB would be best all around. None of the FA names bandied around excites me in the least.
I dont think the deal was ever in trouble. Not even when they wen and got TT and Len. The explanation given by James Ham on the Brenden Nunes was excellent. He states that all of the exception can kick in AFTER cap space has been utilized. That was one of the driving forces to trade for TT AND that just like DW, TTs contract should be easy to move if necessary because he still rebounds well and is a reasonable defender on an expiring contract. But when the trade was envisioned, a couple of issues occurred. 1. They drafted mitchell, leaving a glut of guards. 2. They had only 1 real NBA proven big man (bagley) under contract and to protect themselves in the event holmes didnt sign, they trades for TT. And 3.They wanted to bring various pieces back (Holmes, harkless, TD) etc. By bringing TT with a 1M higher salary than DW and then quickly signing Mitchell, they reached the cap to be able to use their exceptions. In order to bring back harkless on they would need to give him a slight raise by using an exception (can remember which) they were able to give him a 700K raise fo bring him back on a 2 yr $9M deal. Then they were also able to used the BI-annual exception to bring in Len (who is the guy they will throw against larger bigs like Jokic). And they can use the MLE whenever they need or sit on it and with their expiring contracts next year, could open up nearly $28M with the new higher cap next year. Not bad money management.
This explanation from Ham simply makes no sense on any level.
First and foremost, we were already operating above the cap.
For Fox, Hield, Barnes, Bagley, Wright (pre-TT), Haliburton, Woodard and Ramsey (our guaranteed contracts) we were on the hook for $98.36M.
Let's assume (to be generous to our cap number) that although we haven't heard, that we had already waived Guy, Damian Jones, and Justin James. That leaves Metu, with an unguaranteed contract of $1.76M, who was clearly also in our cap. That makes $100.12M.
In addition, we had the cap hold for Davion Mitchell, at $4.88M. Up to a very clean $105M even.
But that's not all. Since we have re-signed Holmes (cap hold = $6.51M), Harkless (ch = $4.35M), and Davis (ch = $1.9M), we clearly didn't renounce their cap holds, so that's another $12.76M, for a minimum cap total of $117.76M. The cap is $109.14M. We were well over the cap.
Now, we may have been even farther over the cap, because there are other cap holds that we didn't necessarily free ourselves of, including the unguaranteed money of Jones and James, and holds for Guy, Whiteside, and surprisingly, a stale cap hold for Corey Brewer. And we had $5.6M worth of trade exceptions on top of that.
So let there be no doubt in anybody's mind - we were already operating over the cap.
Second, it's clear that we didn't use cap space to sign any of the players. Outside of the fact that we didn't have cap space, we know that Harkless was signed with a Non-Bird Exception, that Len was signed with the Bi-Annual Exception, that Holmes and Davis were signed with the Early Bird exception, and Mitchell was signed with a rookie exception. If we had cap space (reminder: we didn't), then at the very least, we would have signed Len, who was not our player, with that cap space and not used the BAE on him. Since we didn't have cap space, we had to use the BAE.
Third, the Early Bird exception is not dependent on having no cap space. For instance, if a team had $5M in cap space and wanted to sign one of its Early Bird FAs to a contract starting at $10M with the Early Bird exception, they do not have to spend up to the cap before the Early Bird is available. They can simply use the Early Bird right there and then. Now, it does make sense to spend any available cap space before signing players to contracts that are larger than their cap holds (in our case, Holmes and Davis), which is why teams often do transactions in very specific orders, but again, I repeat myself ad infinitum, we did not spend any cap space, and we did not have any cap space available to spend.
Ham's explanation, as presented above, is nonsense and rubbish. If that's what he actually said, he does not know what he is talking about. Period.
First and foremost, we were already operating above the cap.
For Fox, Hield, Barnes, Bagley, Wright (pre-TT), Haliburton, Woodard and Ramsey (our guaranteed contracts) we were on the hook for $98.36M.
Let's assume (to be generous to our cap number) that although we haven't heard, that we had already waived Guy, Damian Jones, and Justin James. That leaves Metu, with an unguaranteed contract of $1.76M, who was clearly also in our cap. That makes $100.12M.
In addition, we had the cap hold for Davion Mitchell, at $4.88M. Up to a very clean $105M even.
But that's not all. Since we have re-signed Holmes (cap hold = $6.51M), Harkless (ch = $4.35M), and Davis (ch = $1.9M), we clearly didn't renounce their cap holds, so that's another $12.76M, for a minimum cap total of $117.76M. The cap is $109.14M. We were well over the cap.
Now, we may have been even farther over the cap, because there are other cap holds that we didn't necessarily free ourselves of, including the unguaranteed money of Jones and James, and holds for Guy, Whiteside, and surprisingly, a stale cap hold for Corey Brewer. And we had $5.6M worth of trade exceptions on top of that.
So let there be no doubt in anybody's mind - we were already operating over the cap.
Second, it's clear that we didn't use cap space to sign any of the players. Outside of the fact that we didn't have cap space, we know that Harkless was signed with a Non-Bird Exception, that Len was signed with the Bi-Annual Exception, that Holmes and Davis were signed with the Early Bird exception, and Mitchell was signed with a rookie exception. If we had cap space (reminder: we didn't), then at the very least, we would have signed Len, who was not our player, with that cap space and not used the BAE on him. Since we didn't have cap space, we had to use the BAE.
Third, the Early Bird exception is not dependent on having no cap space. For instance, if a team had $5M in cap space and wanted to sign one of its Early Bird FAs to a contract starting at $10M with the Early Bird exception, they do not have to spend up to the cap before the Early Bird is available. They can simply use the Early Bird right there and then. Now, it does make sense to spend any available cap space before signing players to contracts that are larger than their cap holds (in our case, Holmes and Davis), which is why teams often do transactions in very specific orders, but again, I repeat myself ad infinitum, we did not spend any cap space, and we did not have any cap space available to spend.
Ham's explanation, as presented above, is nonsense and rubbish. If that's what he actually said, he does not know what he is talking about. Period.
Ham has always struck me as a how did you even get here? kind of guy. He replaced a player of near identical contract value, there's no magic if this then that taking place here even if there was we would need TT's contract in place following his logic. What a dope. Hot air to sound smart but you have to be dumb to even buy it.
Keith Smith @KeithSmithNBA
Richaun Holmes' new deal with the Sacramento Kings was for the maximum he could get using Early Bird rights: 21-22: $10,385,500 22-23: $11,215,260 23-24: $12,046,020 24-25: $12,876,780 Final season is a player option. Deal also includes a 15% trade bonus. @spotrac
Richaun Holmes' new deal with the Sacramento Kings was for the maximum he could get using Early Bird rights: 21-22: $10,385,500 22-23: $11,215,260 23-24: $12,046,020 24-25: $12,876,780 Final season is a player option. Deal also includes a 15% trade bonus. @spotrac
What an insanely valuable deal, jesus. Holmes was easily the best value contract in the NBA the last 2 seasons and likely remains so moving forward.
I like that we gave him a few kick-backs for signing under value. Trade bonus and a player option. So we can be fairly certain he's here the next 3 years.
I like that we gave him a few kick-backs for signing under value. Trade bonus and a player option. So we can be fairly certain he's here the next 3 years.
Arguably the best contract signed in free agency. Value for money and still a very good contract for the Kings and while Richaun would have preferred more, he still doubles his pay cheque from last season.
Was not happy that it was a 2 year deal instead of 3 when Vlade signed him up but in hindsight, that probably was a great thing as it put a limit on what we could offer. No doubt we would have offered more if we could.
Was not happy that it was a 2 year deal instead of 3 when Vlade signed him up but in hindsight, that probably was a great thing as it put a limit on what we could offer. No doubt we would have offered more if we could.
Never did I say Holmes was the problem. I simply stated that Mitchell's work ethic might be a step above Holmes and the rest and they are in awe of his work ethic which will only continue to rub off on players that may not put in as much work. When you look at it though, the Kings have a fair share of guys who spend lots of time in the gym whether it's putting up shots or gym work such as Fox, Hali, Barnes, Holmes and Buddy