IT = Rumor of 3/24 offer from Pistons

Status
Not open for further replies.
MassachusettsKingsFan

MassachusettsKingsFan

All-Star
#721
#721
VF21 said:
There's the rub, however. There aren't any rumors floating around about IT getting ANY offers. Yes, it could be in part because of the uncertainty of the top FAs, but it could also be that nobody wants to match the supposed 4/$23 million offer out there by the Kings.
Click to expand...
If that offer is real, and no team is willing to jump on that contract in a sign and trade scenario than I would be shocked.

I can't see why multiple contenders wouldn't take Isaiah Thomas as a bench guard for 5.5 million per year. That sounds outrageous to me.

And if that was the case, I'd take him back. It would be uncomfortable, but you just have to do it. Give it till the trade deadline and if the IT / Collison thing is too toxic I'm sure you can unload Thomas around the deadline when teams are panicking for playoff pieces. A point guard gets injured, etc. That contract will be moveable. That contract is still an asset.
 
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#722
#722
One thing to note, beyond the question of whether the team/ownership group is willing to pay the luxury tax, but since they apparently are using the non-taxpayer MLE to sign Collison, they CANNOT go above the "luxury tax apron," which I believe is $4 million above the tax line, or $81 million. It's effectively a "hard" cap.

I posted a while ago that the perfect scenario for me is that both Gay and IT return for one year so the team can see whether the ".500 ball with the 'big three'" really is sustainable. I never did think that would happen with IT at least, but maybe his agent thinks that he'll see a better market next year as an unrestricted free agent if things don't pick up now. But I imagine things will pick up once the big free agent dominos fall.
 
P

Prince_XY

Starter
#725
#725
jcwkings said:
Evans, Terry, Outlaw, Williams and Gay all come off the books next season. Its no guarantee Gay stays either, and if he does its probably at $12-$14 million. Giving IT $6 million is hardly a move that will ruin our cap flexibility. If we are trying to win this season and show Gay(and Cousins) that we are trying to make the playoffs, having IT as your sixth man looks promising and adds to talent depth.

The worst case scenario is that we roll with the unproven players, we suck again, Gay bolts next summer, and we are left with Cousins questioning his future in Sacramento. Kevin Love in Minni all over again. Cousins is loyal, but as we have seen stars have a 6-7 year grace period with small markets these days. This season is HUGE for our future.
Click to expand...
No.

If you want to add more wins next season, you get rid of IT completely and add a more or less decent shot blocker. Otherwise, we might as well not signed Collison because you won't even notice any difference in style of play and wins with IT still around.

What would be your back court for 20-25 minutes with IT as your 6th man?

IT and Stauskas?
IT and McLemore?
IT and Collison?
IT and McCallum?

So, we're playing no back court defense or small-ball Nellie and without ball movement almost half of the game for another 4 years?

So, that's your way of reaching the playoffs?
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#726
#726
Big Cuz 15 said:
is philly below the minimum salary floor again this year?
Click to expand...
They are, and they're wiling to take on salary, but only for candy, and their hopes have to run a lot higher than anything we can dump on them. Remember our firsts are still encumbered, we're capped out, our kids are also 3/4 of our backcourt. We have almost nothing of candy value to offer.
 
Big Cuz 15

Big Cuz 15

All-Star
#727
#727
yeah. they're in a good position of power. other teams know they are below the salary floor and can take on contracts. surprised magoofs didn't think of doing the same strategy.
 
Spike

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#728
#728
Big Cuz 15 said:
yeah. they're in a good position of power. other teams know they are below the salary floor and can take on contracts. surprised magoofs didn't think of doing the same strategy.
Click to expand...
Because that would imply that the Maloofs were looking to make a winning team. It's ripping the bandaid off, sure, but a decent strategy.
 
Big Cuz 15

Big Cuz 15

All-Star
#729
#729
that strategy would accomplish the same thing... losing for multiple years, keeping salary down, acquiring assets..

i recall the NBA stepping up telling the goof bros they had to spend $$ and not rely on some kick back for being under the cap that year MT got his contract.
 
S

Sam0ah

Bench
#730
#730
The more media I watch on the Kings summer camp. I get the feeling the Kings front office really don't want to bring IT back in less it was really cheap. I actually wonder if they really want him back at all. They don't treat him as if he is a priority. For Pete, in my opinion one of the reasons He wanted Rudy Gay to opt in besides being a good player was that if he opted in it gave him a way out of having to bring IT back. He could say, "oh look were out of money, or we only want to spend this much... even though we really value Thomas".... wink wink hrmm It feels the same as the whole Evans situation last year to me. The players they want for the kings future they give extensions like Cousins.... They get it done... I am sure Thomas would of been interested in an extension, but you never heard about it being offered to him. I believe the Collision signing really shows what I believe is their true intentions.
 
Last edited:
ParniValjak

ParniValjak

All-Star
#731
#731
Bricklayer said:
I think you are ignoring the effect that Collison's contract had on our cap situation. We signed him first, to $5.3mil a season, and by so doing it grew us all the way to $71.9mil payroll + roughly $2.5mil for Stauskas, so $74.4mil, and the luxury tax threshold is $77mil. And the two guys are too small to even play together. That's not a move you make if you are planning on bringing IT back at any sort of reasonable contract. We might opportunistically take him back for near free, but we ran ourselves out of money before IT was resolved, and as a restricted free agent, we could have waited and been guaranteed his return if that was the plan.

This is our payroll situation:
Gay $19,317,326
Cousins $13,701,250
Landry $6,750,000
Williams $6,679,866
Thompson $6,037,500
Terry $5,450,000
Collison $5,300,000 (est)
McLemore $3,026,280
Outlaw $3,000,000
Stauskas $2,500,000 (est)
Evans $1,768,654
Acy $915,243
McCallum $816,482
---------------------------------
$75,262,601
est lux tax limit = $77mil (Larry Coon here: http://cbafaq.com/blog/?p=304 )

Which as they say, is kind of that. We have to twist ourselves into incredible knots to even get him back on some ultra cheap $3-$4mil deal which could not possibly have been our plan, let alone his. Getting him back for anything like market price, well his hoped for price, is nigh impossible. Both things would have been monumentally more possible before the Collison signing. Once we did that it was clear where our priorities were, and maybe even why. If IT is worth what he thinks he is worth to somebody, we could not afford him even if we wanted to bring back the same team (which PDA says he does not), and we'd be pinned trying to change things up.
Click to expand...
I think there is more to it though! We obviously made IT an offer and he has not accepted it yet and is looking at his options which he is entitled to do.

I am sure that we have a figure which we are willing to pay and would be happy to have him back at that salary in a different role. The problem with waiting for IT to make a move before you make your next move is that the players you would want could already sign on with someone else. So what would happen if we waited until IT oresented us with an offer sheet that we could not match but all the other PG free agents we were interested in are gone?

I think the front office played it smart here and I am far from their fanso far. They made an offer to IT which he is considering along with other options. In the mean time, we absolutely needed depth at PG. Last year we had none and for a long time there IT played significant minutes and Ray barely got a look. We needed to add some depth there so we went for a player that can start or be a back up and if we keep IT, we added some much needed depth at the position,

If IT leaves, then we have some insurance there with Collison. I suspect that the front office thinks that they can play together. With the Clippers, DC played significant minutes with Paul and he guarded the SG. I think he even got some praise from Doc for doing so! Again, not ideal but remember we did approach Livingston before we signed Collison.

I think they also found out that there is no trade market for Terry and they are better off using the strech provision on his contract which allows us to keep IT at our price and still remain under the tax.

It might be far fetched but the Kings might have signed Collison to bring down the market for IT. Think about it, tams kne that they needed to go above a certain number to scare us off matching but by signing Collison the number is brought down significantly so teams are less inclined to overpay if they like him and migt offer him something more reasonable which we might decide to match by streching Terry and creating room
 
M

mac

All-Star
#732
#732
Čarolija said:
I think there is more to it though! We obviously made IT an offer and he has not accepted it yet and is looking at his options which he is entitled to do.

I am sure that we have a figure which we are willing to pay and would be happy to have him back at that salary in a different role. The problem with waiting for IT to make a move before you make your next move is that the players you would want could already sign on with someone else. So what would happen if we waited until IT oresented us with an offer sheet that we could not match but all the other PG free agents we were interested in are gone?

I think the front office played it smart here and I am far from their fanso far. They made an offer to IT which he is considering along with other options. In the mean time, we absolutely needed depth at PG. Last year we had none and for a long time there IT played significant minutes and Ray barely got a look. We needed to add some depth there so we went for a player that can start or be a back up and if we keep IT, we added some much needed depth at the position,

If IT leaves, then we have some insurance there with Collison. I suspect that the front office thinks that they can play together. With the Clippers, DC played significant minutes with Paul and he guarded the SG. I think he even got some praise from Doc for doing so! Again, not ideal but remember we did approach Livingston before we signed Collison.

I think they also found out that there is no trade market for Terry and they are better off using the strech provision on his contract which allows us to keep IT at our price and still remain under the tax.

It might be far fetched but the Kings might have signed Collison to bring down the market for IT. Think about it, tams kne that they needed to go above a certain number to scare us off matching but by signing Collison the number is brought down significantly so teams are less inclined to overpay if they like him and migt offer him something more reasonable which we might decide to match by streching Terry and creating room
Click to expand...
I know you were just postulating, but I must say again, anyone who thinks that IT is comparable to Chris Paul (and hence DC can play with IT) is either blind or stupid. Chris Paul is a completely different player from IT on both ends.
 
ParniValjak

ParniValjak

All-Star
#733
#733
mac said:
I know you were just postulating, but I must say again, anyone who thinks that IT is comparable to Chris Paul (and hence DC can play with IT) is either blind or stupid. Chris Paul is a completely different player from IT on both ends.
Click to expand...
I never compared him to Chris Paul nor would I ever! I simply said that Collison played a lot with Chris Paul and was guarding SGs in those cases abd done a good job defensively which might lead our hierarchy to believe that Collison and IT can play together! In no way was I comparing IT to CP3. They could not be any more different if they tried!
 
M

mac

All-Star
#734
#734
Čarolija said:
I never compared him to Chris Paul nor would I ever! I simply said that Collison played a lot with Chris Paul and was guarding SGs in those cases abd done a good job defensively which might lead our hierarchy to believe that Collison and IT can play together! In no way was I comparing IT to CP3. They could not be any more different if they tried!
Click to expand...
Here's what I mean. FO sees that DC worked with CP3 and thus think that DC could work with IT. Isn't that comparing or equating IT to CP3? DC can play alongside CP3 because Paul distributes and orchestrates the offense so so well, while containing his man. DC playing with IT would be disastrous defensively and offensively Collison would barely touch the ball. Hence for them to believe it could work would mean they believe IT plays like Chris Paul
 
Padrino

Padrino

All-Star
#735
#735
Sam0ah said:
The more media I watch on the Kings summer camp. I get the feeling the Kings front office really don't want to bring IT back in less it was really cheap. I actually wonder if they really want him back at all. They don't treat him as if he is a priority. For Pete, in my opinion one of the reasons He wanted Rudy Gay to opt in besides being a good player was that if he opted in it gave him a way out of having to bring IT back. He could say, "oh look were out of money, or we only want to spend this much... even though we really value Thomas".... wink wink hrmm It feels the same as the whole Evans situation last year to me. The players they want for the kings future they give extensions like Cousins.... They get it done... I am sure Thomas would of been interested in an extension, but you never heard about it being offered to him. I believe the Collision signing really shows what I believe is their true intentions.
Click to expand...
it's been pretty clear from the get-go that the new regime wants to construct their team. that is, they don't appear interested in holdovers from the previous regime; they've either already shed or are attempting to shed every single maloof-era kings player outside of demarcus cousins. granted, much of the roster they were dealt was worth f***-all to begin with, but tyreke evans and isaiah thomas are certainly talented young players, and someone like jason thompson has utility despite the front office's apparent desire to move him...

i can appreciate the push to eliminate a losing culture by getting rid of players for whom losing has become a way of life, however, evans and thomas represented the kings' most sizable player assets beyond DMC, and it's unfortunate that the front office hasn't been able to parlay that talent into something approaching equal value via standard trade, because sign-and-trade is a terribly limited option to pursue (which is, again, why i was so insistent on trading IT before the deadline last season)...
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#736
#736
Čarolija said:
It might be far fetched but the Kings might have signed Collison to bring down the market for IT. Think about it, tams kne that they needed to go above a certain number to scare us off matching but by signing Collison the number is brought down significantly so teams are less inclined to overpay if they like him and migt offer him something more reasonable which we might decide to match by streching Terry and creating room
Click to expand...
By signing Collison I can see that the Kings would contribute to lowering IT's market value because they don't have the disposable $ to match. Fewer bidders, less $, less IT market value. But the Kings have also lowered their ability to resign him - because they don't have the disposable $ to match. The net effect is that IT is the financial loser and whatever non-Kings team gets him would be the winner. This doesn't seem to do Thomas any favors. I would expect he's not going to do any favors in return.
 
Last edited:
whozit

whozit

Starter
#737
#737
Kingster said:
By signing Collison I can see that the Kings would contribute to lowering IT's market value because the don't have the disposable $ to match. Fewer bidders, less $, less IT market value. But the Kings have also lowered their ability to resign him - because they don't have the disposable $ to match. The net effect is that IT is the financial loser and whatever non-Kings team gets him would be the winner. This doesn't seem to do Thomas any favors. I would expect he's not going to do any favors in return.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have expected him to do so in the first place. I'm really curious on how this will play out.
 
P

Prog

Bench
#738
#738
VF21 said:
Isn't where your team stands at the END of the season that determines whether or not you're over the tax limit?
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. If that's indeed the case, sign IT even if it means going over the tax, then decide what to do with him at a later stage. Better sign & stash than lose him for nothing.
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#740
#740
Prog said:
I was thinking the same thing. If that's indeed the case, sign IT even if it means going over the tax, then decide what to do with him at a later stage. Better sign & stash than lose him for nothing.
Click to expand...
That's what I've thought for a while now. Sign him for market value, deal him later, if they want to deal him. But the signals that are coming out the FO is that they aren't going to resign him because they don't want to go over the cap.
 
jcwkings

jcwkings

All-Star
#742
#742
Prog said:
Even if they sign him they have plenty of time to get under the tax. Quote:

"The amount of tax a team pays depends on the season, the team salary as of the team's last regular season game"

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q21

Sounds pretty safe to me.
Click to expand...
That confirms it, it would be dumb not to match a reasonable offer. When was the last time this team started and ended without a single change to player personnel during the season?
 
whozit

whozit

Starter
#743
#743
jcwkings said:
That confirms it, it would be dumb not to match a reasonable offer. When was the last time this team started and ended without a single change to player personnel during the season?
Click to expand...
Their using the mid-level for non-taxpaying teams. If I understand it correctly, they can't go any further than 4 million over the luxury tax. They really don't have much wiggle room and if they hit the "apron" they'll have even less.
 
Rockmeister

Rockmeister

All-Star
#744
#744
I have been listening to Grant's show lately and he said it is a good chance that the Kings will not sign IT. Not that what he says is etched in stone, however, just throwing it out there.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#747
#747
JLoss22 said:
Makes me think, he ends up in LA.... They don't have much to offer in a S&T, they aren't going to give us their only good asset in Randle.
Click to expand...
Yep, L.A. and Miami were always kind of worst case scenarios. Thing is, we are so close to the tax limit anyway that we could barely accept an asset back anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.