IT = Rumor of 3/24 offer from Pistons

[LA King Fan II]

If Melo stays back east, I'd be willing to bet the Lakers offer Isaiah just enough over Collison that he'll take it. That same amount he would never have taken from the Kings. We will find out soon enough.

 

[Bricklayer]

According to cowbellkingdom, Luxury tax will be set around 76 million. Stretching out one of the 6 million dollar PFs will leave room for IT at 8 million/season .

http://cowbellkingdom.com/nba-announces-2014-15-salary-cap-rises-to-all-time-high/

No, that is even slightly lower than my calculations, leaving us within $1mil of the tax limit as we sit here today. Even with a stretch we can't even come close to $8mil per. Indeed unless we were willing to turn Landry into a SEVEN YEAR cap hit, stretching Terry or even JT (another 6 yr hit) would make it tough now to even reach $5mil.

 

[Sam0ah]

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.

That is my gut feeling too. We still could match.... Although seems less likely if he goes to LA.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Not going to happen. Our cap situation makes me sad, especially compared to all the other lottery teams.

Makes the mandry and mbah moute dealings that much meaningful. We could be sitting in the drivers seat taking on contracts and assets since teams are looking to make room for bron, melo.

 

[Entity]

Why are we talking to Julian stone?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

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.

Sum 2nd rd picks better than nothing. We scored 2 in the reke trade

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Why are we talking to Julian stone?

We signed the guy with an anxiety disorder. Gerbil signed a bunch of 10 day contracts last season. We know hes not afraid to try stuff.

 

[funkykingston]

Makes the mandry and mbah moute dealings that much meaningful. We could be sitting in the drivers seat taking on contracts and assets since teams are looking to make room for bron, melo.

And again I'm jealous of the position Hinkie has the Sixers in. They are in the position of possibly taking on bad contracts for a year or two (Lin for instance) and getting handsomely rewarded for the trouble. If Embiid and Noel can stay healthy and reach their potential? Look out.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

No, that is even slightly lower than my calculations, leaving us within $1mil of the tax limit as we sit here today. Even with a stretch we can't even come close to $8mil per. Indeed unless we were willing to turn Landry into a SEVEN YEAR cap hit, stretching Terry or even JT (another 6 yr hit) would make it tough now to even reach $5mil.

I think the idea that we would stretch either JT or Landry to be very unlikely. Terry, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate (saves $3.9M), and Outlaw isn't a terrible candidate (problem being the savings is only $2M). Note that we could in principle cut Acy's unguaranteed money, but since we'd have to replace him to meet the roster minimum, and he's making the minimum, that would be a lateral move.

But you're doing your calculations in terms of us not crossing the Tax line. I don't think that's the issue here. In fact, I doubt that the current ownership in its push to establish its relevance in the NBA marketplace will balk at paying the tax (even if it does cut us out of one of our last two possible years of revenue sharing).

The number we need to worry about is the apron. The apron is $4M above the tax line, and since we have used the MLE we are hardcapped and not allowed to cross the apron. Since the tax level is $76.829M, the hard cap we have is $80.829M. That's the number we simply can't breach.

Right now, with our current roster we're at about $76.3M. That all depends on the actual price of DC's contract, whether we gave Stauskas the full 120%, and exactly how much of a raise Cousins' contract is going to get (the reported value is the max value from last year, but the actual contract will be the max value from this year which will be about $1M higher). That's for 13 players.

We have about $4M to play with right now. If we stretch both Terry and Outlaw, we gain $5.9M to play with...but we lose about $900K of that because we would have to sign a player at min to get up to the roster minimum of 13. So we can "easily" create about $9M worth of space ($5M before we hit the cap). If we stretch Terry only, that's a hint under $8M to bring in IT (or the fruits of a sign-and-trade). Keep in mind that we'd want to leave a little bit of a buffer. Because if we got any injuries, we couldn't go over the apron, even with minimum players, to replace anyone who got hurt. We could be walking a real tight rope here.

 

[rainmaker]

Makes the mandry and mbah moute dealings that much meaningful. We could be sitting in the drivers seat taking on contracts and assets since teams are looking to make room for bron, melo.

The biggest mark against PDA and our FO was their either inability or unwillingness to recognize the strengths/weaknesses of the guys who were on our roster when they took over and a failure to address those weaknesses.

Signing Landry, from the day it happened, told me they never took the time to consider what this roster needs, or flat out just didn't know. That Landry signing was about as dumb a signing as any Petrie made.

What's not lost on me is how many times PDA has mentioned wanting "flexibility" as a reason for various moves he's made, yet here we're sitting pretty much zero flexibility at all and a big part of that is decisions he made, not Petrie.

 

[sdballer]

The biggest mark against PDA and our FO was their either inability or unwillingness to recognize the strengths/weaknesses of the guys who were on our roster when they took over and a failure to address those weaknesses.

Signing Landry, from the day it happened, told me they never took the time to consider what this roster needs, or flat out just didn't know. That Landry signing was about as dumb a signing as any Petrie made.

What's not lost on me is how many times PDA has mentioned wanting "flexibility" as a reason for various moves he's made, yet here we're sitting pretty much zero flexibility at all and a big part of that is decisions he made, not Petrie.

Also the fact that PDA was supposed to be a salary cap wiz yet the moves we've made have been anything but. Not comforting when you are questioning your GM's cap management, talent evaluation skills and ability to understand fit/needs.

 

[Monster]

I think the idea that we would stretch either JT or Landry to be very unlikely. Terry, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate (saves $3.9M), and Outlaw isn't a terrible candidate (problem being the savings is only $2M). Note that we could in principle cut Acy's unguaranteed money, but since we'd have to replace him to meet the roster minimum, and he's making the minimum, that would be a lateral move.

But you're doing your calculations in terms of us not crossing the Tax line. I don't think that's the issue here. In fact, I doubt that the current ownership in its push to establish its relevance in the NBA marketplace will balk at paying the tax (even if it does cut us out of one of our last two possible years of revenue sharing).

The number we need to worry about is the apron. The apron is $4M above the tax line, and since we have used the MLE we are hardcapped and not allowed to cross the apron. Since the tax level is $76.829M, the hard cap we have is $80.829M. That's the number we simply can't breach.

Right now, with our current roster we're at about $76.3M. That all depends on the actual price of DC's contract, whether we gave Stauskas the full 120%, and exactly how much of a raise Cousins' contract is going to get (the reported value is the max value from last year, but the actual contract will be the max value from this year which will be about $1M higher). That's for 13 players.

We have about $4M to play with right now. If we stretch both Terry and Outlaw, we gain $5.9M to play with...but we lose about $900K of that because we would have to sign a player at min to get up to the roster minimum of 13. So we can "easily" create about $9M worth of space ($5M before we hit the cap). If we stretch Terry only, that's a hint under $8M to bring in IT (or the fruits of a sign-and-trade). Keep in mind that we'd want to leave a little bit of a buffer. Because if we got any injuries, we couldn't go over the apron, even with minimum players, to replace anyone who got hurt. We could be walking a real tight rope here.

Nba cap is confusing! Props to anyone who understands it. Wow.

 

[Glenn]

We signed the guy with an anxiety disorder. Gerbil signed a bunch of 10 day contracts last season. We know hes not afraid to try stuff.

"Trying stuff" is his MO. I think he said that he is willing to trade and trade and trade to see who fits with the team. As predicting chemistry is not an exact science, I like that approach. Certainly the mass exodus of players like the trades last year will slow up as I think a few problems were solved in that flurry of activity.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think the idea that we would stretch either JT or Landry to be very unlikely. Terry, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate (saves $3.9M), and Outlaw isn't a terrible candidate (problem being the savings is only $2M). Note that we could in principle cut Acy's unguaranteed money, but since we'd have to replace him to meet the roster minimum, and he's making the minimum, that would be a lateral move.

But you're doing your calculations in terms of us not crossing the Tax line. I don't think that's the issue here. In fact, I doubt that the current ownership in its push to establish its relevance in the NBA marketplace will balk at paying the tax (even if it does cut us out of one of our last two possible years of revenue sharing).

The number we need to worry about is the apron. The apron is $4M above the tax line, and since we have used the MLE we are hardcapped and not allowed to cross the apron. Since the tax level is $76.829M, the hard cap we have is $80.829M. That's the number we simply can't breach.

Right now, with our current roster we're at about $76.3M. That all depends on the actual price of DC's contract, whether we gave Stauskas the full 120%, and exactly how much of a raise Cousins' contract is going to get (the reported value is the max value from last year, but the actual contract will be the max value from this year which will be about $1M higher). That's for 13 players.

We have about $4M to play with right now. If we stretch both Terry and Outlaw, we gain $5.9M to play with...but we lose about $900K of that because we would have to sign a player at min to get up to the roster minimum of 13. So we can "easily" create about $9M worth of space ($5M before we hit the cap). If we stretch Terry only, that's a hint under $8M to bring in IT (or the fruits of a sign-and-trade). Keep in mind that we'd want to leave a little bit of a buffer. Because if we got any injuries, we couldn't go over the apron, even with minimum players, to replace anyone who got hurt. We could be walking a real tight rope here.

We have absolutely nothing from the front office so far as I know that indicates we're willing to pay the new enhanced tax. And indeed, I'm pretty confident that basically nobody does anymore unless they are in immediate contention and trying to stay there. Or are the New York Knicks. Certainly it would be eye opening for a team to do it to retain the core of a 28 win team + Darren Collison, while blowing their best trade assets in the process and thus making it doubtful they could improve much more.

 

[Glenn]

We have absolutely nothing from the front office so far as I know that indicates we're willing to pay the new enhanced tax. And indeed, I'm pretty confident that basically nobody does anymore unless they are in immediate contention and trying to stay there, are the New York Knicks. Certainly it would be eye opening for a team to do it to retain the core of a 28 win team + Darren Collison, while blowing their best trade assets in the process and thus making it doubtful they could improve much more.

Of course. With the Kings, the only reason I can see that they might do it is if they had a reasonable expectation that next year Gay would sign a Boogie sized contract and get us out of Luxury Tax hell after only one year. Depends on who we get that nudges us over the tax limit.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

We have absolutely nothing from the front office so far as I know that indicates we're willing to pay the new enhanced tax. And indeed, I'm pretty confident that basically nobody does anymore unless they are in immediate contention and trying to stay there. Or are the New York Knicks. Certainly it would be eye opening for a team to do it to retain the core of a 28 win team + Darren Collison, while blowing their best trade assets in the process and thus making it doubtful they could improve much more.

The tax itself would not be a huge deal for us. We're not talking Brooklyn Nets $90M tax bill stuff. Because of the apron and the fact we used our MLE we'd be constrained to fall no more than $4M above the tax line, which all falls under the 1.5x tier. Our luxury tax bill could be no higher than $6M. Throw on top of that the fact that we wouldn't get luxury tax revenue sharing. This year that's coming out at about $3-4M per team. So it looks like busting the tax line would likely cost us somewhere between $3-10M. Even at $10M, that would be on $80M worth of salary, which comes out to about a 12.5% premium. It's not brutal. All things being equal you avoid that hit, but if it makes the difference between making the playoffs or not, I doubt our FO would flinch.

 

[Hallama]

Didn't Vivek intimate at some point during pre-purchase he wouldn't take tax sharing if he owned the Kings? I know we're talking about the opposite, was just wondering if that became a stipulation of the deal he made (which would be a mistake).

 

[VF21]

Didn't Vivek intimate at some point during pre-purchase he wouldn't take tax sharing if he owned the Kings? I know we're talking about the opposite, was just wondering if that became a stipulation of the deal he made (which would be a mistake).

????? You totally lost me on that one. Are you thinking that Vivek won't spend money if it puts him into the luxury tax? Considering how much he and his partners have already committed to spending, the luxury tax would be chump change. I do not think there's any indication from Vivek or anyone else that they're even worrying about that right now.

 

[whozit]

Didn't Vivek intimate at some point during pre-purchase he wouldn't take tax sharing if he owned the Kings? I know we're talking about the opposite, was just wondering if that became a stipulation of the deal he made (which would be a mistake).

I don't think it was tax sharing but rather revenue sharing. Seattle was trying to paint Sacramento like a "taker" and Seattle as a payer into the pool. Vivek countered by saying Sacramento wouldn't take the payments. I'm not sure if the league ever clarified if they would allow Sacramento to refuse or not since it was part of the CBA.

 

[Section 101]

I don't think it was tax sharing but rather revenue sharing. Seattle was trying to paint Sacramento like a "taker" and Seattle as a payer into the pool. Vivek countered by saying Sacramento wouldn't take the payments. I'm not sure if the league ever clarified if they would allow Sacramento to refuse or not since it was part of the CBA.

It was revenue sharing for being under the luxury tax.

 

[Section 101]

I think the idea that we would stretch either JT or Landry to be very unlikely. Terry, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate (saves $3.9M), and Outlaw isn't a terrible candidate (problem being the savings is only $2M). Note that we could in principle cut Acy's unguaranteed money, but since we'd have to replace him to meet the roster minimum, and he's making the minimum, that would be a lateral move.

But you're doing your calculations in terms of us not crossing the Tax line. I don't think that's the issue here. In fact, I doubt that the current ownership in its push to establish its relevance in the NBA marketplace will balk at paying the tax (even if it does cut us out of one of our last two possible years of revenue sharing).

The number we need to worry about is the apron. The apron is $4M above the tax line, and since we have used the MLE we are hardcapped and not allowed to cross the apron. Since the tax level is $76.829M, the hard cap we have is $80.829M. That's the number we simply can't breach.

Right now, with our current roster we're at about $76.3M. That all depends on the actual price of DC's contract, whether we gave Stauskas the full 120%, and exactly how much of a raise Cousins' contract is going to get (the reported value is the max value from last year, but the actual contract will be the max value from this year which will be about $1M higher). That's for 13 players.

We have about $4M to play with right now. If we stretch both Terry and Outlaw, we gain $5.9M to play with...but we lose about $900K of that because we would have to sign a player at min to get up to the roster minimum of 13. So we can "easily" create about $9M worth of space ($5M before we hit the cap). If we stretch Terry only, that's a hint under $8M to bring in IT (or the fruits of a sign-and-trade). Keep in mind that we'd want to leave a little bit of a buffer. Because if we got any injuries, we couldn't go over the apron, even with minimum players, to replace anyone who got hurt. We could be walking a real tight rope here.

Nothing has been signed yet. The Clippers could want a sign and trade for say Terry.

 

[Entity]

Nothing has been signed yet. The Clippers could want a sign and trade for say Terry.

Or Isaiah

 

[Dime Dropper]

????? You totally lost me on that one. Are you thinking that Vivek won't spend money if it puts him into the luxury tax? Considering how much he and his partners have already committed to spending, the luxury tax would be chump change. I do not think there's any indication from Vivek or anyone else that they're even worrying about that right now.

No, he's saying the opposite. That Vivek said he wouldn't take money owed to the Kings due to revenue sharing. He said this in response to the Seattle crew who said Seattle would be contributing to the pot while Sacramento would be taking from it (hence Vivek saying he wouldn't accept it - to prove this wouldn't be the case). No idea if it's likely, I doubt the NBA would even allow us to reject it if it were due.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

And again I'm jealous of the position Hinkie has the Sixers in. They are in the position of possibly taking on bad contracts for a year or two (Lin for instance) and getting handsomely rewarded for the trouble. If Embiid and Noel can stay healthy and reach their potential? Look out.

n00bs. they should've gut the roster last season and put themselves in position where sixers are. yes, i hear the echos of we need to win *now* but with the way the roster is constructed we'll win *now* but not for a long time especially if they keep handing out stupid contracts.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Nothing has been signed yet. The Clippers could want a sign and trade for say Terry.

Now that would be nice (and it would free us to go above the apron because we would not be using our MLE) but I can't for the life of me figure why the Clippers would want to pay Terry almost $6M to be Ancient Jason Terry. That doesn't make much sense. And they wouldn't trade for him just to stretch him, because that makes zero sense. But if they were to want a S&T for Landry or JT, that would be really nice for us.

 

[LPKingsFan]

n00bs. they should've gut the roster last season and put themselves in position where sixers are. yes, i hear the echos of we need to win *now* but with the way the roster is constructed we'll win *now* but not for a long time especially if they keep handing out stupid contracts.

I continue to see this posted but have yet to see anyone address:

1) why appearing to not care about winning would not have adversely affected the arena situation politically and in the community at large

2) how tearing things down would not have required trading Cousins, or how we know Cousins would have agreed to sign an extension if it appears the team was prepared for a long re-rebuild.

3) not sure how you "gut" a roster with very few assets to begin with.

4) the one move that arguably managed to improve the asset base of the team--trading for Rudy Gay--eliminated any chance of cap space in 2014.

 

[Prince_XY]

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.

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.

Big gamble to take, especially if you’re about to blow whatever cap space or asset we have just to retain IT. If you sign IT now with the intention of trading him later during the season, it will turn out to be a much worse situation and a big distraction to what the FO is trying to accomplish.

IT's value will drop precipitously and you might end up with no other team interested on IT. He won’t be the only option for the Kings at PG and won’t be able to showcase himself the way he did last season. His worth will diminished with a very good PG in Collison and an improving sophomore McCallum playing with him. The false perception of IT as a very good PG may be gone. Then we end up getting stuck overpaying the same selfish, poor facilitator, non-defending, severely undersized PG.

Besides, it is prudent to change the culture of the team NOW and start winning instead of midway of the season when we already piled up insurmountable losses.


I think the best way to proceed is to sign and trade IT for a more or less decent shot blocking BIG now or just let him go and move on to look for other opportunities to get our shot blocking BIG.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

I continue to see this posted but have yet to see anyone address:

1) why appearing to not care about winning would not have adversely affected the arena situation politically and in the community at large

- short term gains in a few extra wins when the roster is clearly not working

2) how tearing things down would not have required trading Cousins, or how we know Cousins would have agreed to sign an extension if it appears the team was prepared for a long re-rebuild.

- as if the roster has cuz excited

3) not sure how you "gut" a roster with very few assets to begin with.

- they sure did when they let tyreke go and brought back vasquez + 2 rd picks (which was conveyed to milwaukee for moute + cap space)

4) the one move that arguably managed to improve the asset base of the team--trading for Rudy Gay--eliminated any chance of cap space in 2014.

- it wasn't the idiotic signing of landry + trade for moute? OK. that's like 12m there.

 

[jcwkings]

Melo is reported to be staying with the Knicks which means the Lakers will likely offer IT a bigger contract, which sucks because we can't even get anything from them in a sign and trade.

 

[Albatros]

At this point I'm over it. I just this sorted. So the team can move belong the drama of a fan crisis over a role player.

If he comes back expect another PG controversy as we shock the league with 24 wins.