Jake injury update
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Agreed. I think LaRavia stays so long as Perry offers him a fair deal. His inability to stay healthy for a whole season should help us retain him.
I think re-signing Doug Christie as coach would also help, because he will know he has a role on the team. If it's a new coach, he may not want to gamble the new coach will give him good PT and he may opt for more money elsewhere.
I think re-signing Doug Christie as coach would also help, because he will know he has a role on the team. If it's a new coach, he may not want to gamble the new coach will give him good PT and he may opt for more money elsewhere.
The entire problem with the "fair deal" thing is that we are severely restricted by rule as to how much we can offer him, and no other team (Grizzlies aside) has that restriction. Since the Grizzlies declined his 4th-year rookie option, we can offer no more than the value of that option, which was somewhere around $5M. I think it's dumb that we get penalized for the Grizzlies' decision, but that's the way the rule goes. Basically if any team out there thinks a role player like Jake is worth say $7M, he's going to walk.
But if he stays one year we have Bird rights.
So if a team offers him 7 million for 2 years, they're in the same spot we were with Monk. If he agrees to a 1+1 (the option solely as injury protection) he can get paid in a year and the team is most likely happy to do it. He also has a good chance at cracking the starting lineup if not being one of the primary bench options vs. just a bargain guy.
and all of that ignores that apparently he likes it here?
So if a team offers him 7 million for 2 years, they're in the same spot we were with Monk. If he agrees to a 1+1 (the option solely as injury protection) he can get paid in a year and the team is most likely happy to do it. He also has a good chance at cracking the starting lineup if not being one of the primary bench options vs. just a bargain guy.
and all of that ignores that apparently he likes it here?
Technically we would have Bird rights now if not for the superseding restriction. But your point is valid, if Jake wants to play the long game, bet on himself, he could take a 1+1 which would be the fastest possible path to exercisable Bird rights for him. At the same time it's a risk, and a "big enough" contract would certainly pry him away. Maybe that's not $7M, but for sure if somebody throws out 3/$40M total he's not sticking around at $5M for a year to see if he can turn that into $18M/year from us to even that out. And he was basically a 3 WS guy this year, so that translates to about 9% of the salary cap on the free agent market and that comes up to...just a touch under $14M per year for next year's salary cap. I mean, a contract like that is not really even a stretch given what fair market value looks like these days.
I do hope he likes it here, but "I love it here" in season exit interviews is the equivalent of "best shape of my life" five months from now.
I do hope he likes it here, but "I love it here" in season exit interviews is the equivalent of "best shape of my life" five months from now.
I'll be honest but I would have to think there are a lot more attractive options than Jake for teams that can only fit one guy into their cap space.
If someone wants to give him a three year contract over $10m per that's it's own thing, but I think the fears of getting outbidded by a miniscule amount just because "oh look, we can poach this guy for pennies on the dollar" aren't as real.
We talked ourselves into how screwed we were with Giles and WCS and nobody wanted to pay them, DiVincenzo didn't like our tender offer in RFA and so we let him go and he signed a minimum deal.
If we lose him we lose him and that sucks, but at least we put ourselves in the position to even be in the conversation.
The rule is dumb and only Memphis should be stuck not being able to pay him though. I'm sure they'll change it just in time to benefit another team.
If someone wants to give him a three year contract over $10m per that's it's own thing, but I think the fears of getting outbidded by a miniscule amount just because "oh look, we can poach this guy for pennies on the dollar" aren't as real.
We talked ourselves into how screwed we were with Giles and WCS and nobody wanted to pay them, DiVincenzo didn't like our tender offer in RFA and so we let him go and he signed a minimum deal.
If we lose him we lose him and that sucks, but at least we put ourselves in the position to even be in the conversation.
The rule is dumb and only Memphis should be stuck not being able to pay him though. I'm sure they'll change it just in time to benefit another team.
The sad thing is the development wouldn't even take that long either. Devin is the Kings youngest player and he's already 23. This summer should be the one where he comes in next year ready to start ascending to what he's going to become. The Kings youth is old enough to where they might not be that crappy of a product if Vivek is worried about that.
They need to offer a 3 year deal with 10m plus for it to be worth his while imho vs. one year here and then a full payday. Because a two year deal with more money limits his options on the next contract. I think everyone under 30 is thinking one contract ahead when they sign a deal with the goal of one final big payday right around 30.
For sure. The thing with Jake is he might just be desperately trying to hang on. When a team doesn't even pick up a rookie option that has to be a bit of a chilling experience. That's dangling over the ledge of having to learn to start speaking a foreign language kind of thing for a pro ball player, haha. If he has a particular fan out there in the form of another team, his agent probably already knows that so this is probably all moot from the Kings perspective anyway. My personal expectation is he'll be back for the reasons you state.