John Salmons

[jimbodan]

The only problem that I have with Salmons is the same one that I had when he was signed: namely that he's still not appreciably better, for where they are at their respective stages of development, than a player that we already had under contract in Garcia, and I therefore object to the fact that we basically paid $25M to put Garcia in a time machine; never said that he was a bad player.

That's pretty much my problem too, plus the fact that had there not been a perfect storm of injuries he would be coming off the bench as well. Paying that much money for a 6th man on a team that is going nowhere is not a smart basketball move.

 

[dude12]

I understand that people have differing opinions on the various topics here on the forum....but I'm amazed when management gets capped for making a quality signing like Salmons. If you want to label him a 6th man then thats ok. He's about that level of player, a guy you can count on to give you quality minutes. He's raised his value since coming over to Sacramento. Since when did that become a bad thing? I suppose we could have kept a tandem of Francisco and Caner-Medley....but no thanks. If management decides to trade Artest, then by having Garcia and Salmons in the fold allows us to potentially just gets picks back or a player at another position.

I guess the argument against having Salmons has to include Udrih. It's the same principle then. To say its not goes against the argument being made against signing Salmons. I guess others may say that the Salmons signing was for more money than he should have gotten.......pleeeeeeaaaaaassssse. His contract is very movable if the Kings chose to move the guy.

Also the argument that we are stunting the growth of the young players.....no franchise that I know of, would sit down their veterans for extended periods of time this early in the year. Some of the vets have taken a seat such as KT so that Hawes can get his few minutes. If the season ends up going like last year where the wheels fall off, then without a doubt, you will see the younger players getting extended minutes. It happened last year.

There is a difference between giving extended minutes to players at the end of a lost season such as last year and having young players getting reduced minutes but more important minutes during the course of the year. One thing you can bank on right now is that the players are going after every win that they can and fighting for a playoff spot. Putting our younger players in a more condensed but important playing stint or role is much more effective than just turning the ball over to them and letting them flounder. We saw what happened with Douby at the beginning of the year when he was one of the main PG's. Wasn't very pretty. That could ruin a kid. Surround young players with veterans who they can mix in with and can get better in increments in a supporting role.

Regarding my earlier comment about the Hawks and their long rebuild or whatever it is that they are doing.... I do believe that they have been hurt by not enough veteran presence on the team. Do they have talent? Yes, coming out of their ears. IMO, they had too many young players playing to big of roles too early in their careers. Now it looks like they could be on the right track but....... they could have used a guy like Bibby on that team. They went the route of just living in the lottery, planned or not, and its been a long time since they have been any good now. Even now when people are taking notice of them, they record is barely better than ours.

A long and possibly rambling post but the point is, signing quality talent is a good thing.

 

[Cal-Kings]

...we had SAR, Williamson, Miller, Thomas, Williams, Maurice frickin' Taylor, and "the beast himself" Potapenko. ..

OMG!!!

What a horrible flash-back I just had.

 

[Cal-Kings]

I understand the two basic arguments.

1) Signing Salmons was a good thing because he's a relatively good player.

2) Signing Salmons was a bad thing because even though he's a relatively good player (something most people seem to agree on), he's taking time and perhaps money (longer term) away from younger players who might possibly have more upside.

I can see both sides. My only comment is, I'm still not feeling our younger players, namely Garcia and Douby. Yeah, maybe with a lot more time they'd improve. Who knows.

Meanwhile, I see a lot of trade bait, but the stream isn't stocked with many big fish.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I understand that people have differing opinions on the various topics here on the forum....but I'm amazed when management gets capped for making a quality signing like Salmons. If you want to label him a 6th man then thats ok. He's about that level of player, a guy you can count on to give you quality minutes. He's raised his value since coming over to Sacramento. Since when did that become a bad thing? I suppose we could have kept a tandem of Francisco and Caner-Medley....but no thanks. If management decides to trade Artest, then by having Garcia and Salmons in the fold allows us to potentially just gets picks back or a player at another position.

I said even back when Salmons was signed that acquiring him for the purpose of being able to trade Artest was basically the only thing that would justify the signing in my opinion.

 

[=LarryLegend=]

I think cisco and douby bring alot of defensive help. maybe doubys shots arent falling but he does a good job on other teams point guards. I hope Jones might get like 10mins or so, and Jwill might see some time soon, I hope maybe tonight against KG.

 

[Superman]

It wasn't anywhere near that simple. Bonzi's agent was being a total and complete jerk and made a bunch of statements in the press about how many teams were after Bonzi, how he didn't have to play for less than what he deserved, etc.

I don't know how you think we could have gotten Bonzi for less when his agent wouldn't even return phone calls. Sorry, Supes, but you're off-base on this one.

And, all things considered, I think Bonzi would have been a major disruption under the Eric Musselman regime.

Eric Musselman was a major disruption under the Eric Musselman regime.

And didn't Bonzi fire his agent right before he signed with the Rockets, because he really wanted to sign with the Kings? I don't think that I'm as far off base as you think I am.

There were some dynamics that stood in the way of us resigning Bonzi, but it was doable, and that's evident when you consider the fact that he signed for way less than what we offered him, way less than what we signed Salmons for.

 

[Glenn]

Eric Musselman was a major disruption under the Eric Musselman regime.

And didn't Bonzi fire his agent right before he signed with the Rockets, because he really wanted to sign with the Kings? I don't think that I'm as far off base as you think I am.

There were some dynamics that stood in the way of us resigning Bonzi, but it was doable, and that's evident when you consider the fact that he signed for way less than what we offered him, way less than what we signed Salmons for.

Will you consider my request and tell me what Petrie should do going forward?

 

[dude12]

Will you consider my request and tell me what Petrie should do going forward?

I actually second that request about Superman.....I mean I get where some of the other posters are coming from and their strong opinions...but your all over the place. Wanting to go against the Salmons signing but wanting the Bonzi signing would fall into the same category, wouldn't it?

 

[Superman]

I have read you shoot down darn near every idea that people have. For some reason, people feel compelled to convince you that they are right. Why don't we switch things around a bit?

Instead of taking the role of spoiler, why don't you spell out what the next move Petrie should take. One move big or little. Tell us what it should be and how he should accomplish it.

If it is to acquire a player, tell us who it is and how we get him. If it is to get rid of someone, tell us who and how it will be accomplished.

What idea am I shooting down? I simply disagree that the Salmons signing was a good signing, regardless of whether he puts up 22 points in a win. I'm not saying that it's the one deal that has ruined our franchise for good; I'm just saying that, like the SAR deal and the Moore deal, I don't understand what the objective was for a team that is struggling to win 35 games to spend their entire MLE on a middling player that duplicates what you already have at the position.

I don't know what type of ideas you're looking for from me. I mean, I can throw a bunch of trade suggestions at the wall and see what sticks, but what good does that do? I don't see what's so wrong with giving an open-minded critique of moves that the team has literally already made, moves that we can examine in the here and now.

 

[Superman]

That's pretty much my problem too, plus the fact that had there not been a perfect storm of injuries he would be coming off the bench as well. Paying that much money for a 6th man on a team that is going nowhere is not a smart basketball move.

That's all I'm saying...

 

[bajaden]

First of all, I guess I need to apologize for getting Salmon's age wrong. Someone else mentioned that he was 25 when we signed him, and, I, being intellectly lazy, didn't bother to look it up for myself. So, lets get it right. He was 26 yr's old when we signed him. Unless we want to quible over months too.
I'm starting to believe that this discussion isn't really about Salmon's. But about Petrie. There seems to be a group of people who don't like him and want to find fault with everything he does. They even want to rewrite history, such as in the Bonzi case. I have always tried to keep an open mind. Its not easy. I can be as stubborn as the next person. I hate to admit when KT has a good game. I was among those who screamed bloody murder when Petrie signed Webber. I booed when he announced that the Kings had chosen Peja with their draft pick. I wondered why in the hell we were giving so much money to an aging center ( Valde ) who had nothing left to his game. And then he went and drafted this erratic, volatile pt guard. None of it made sense until they started winning.
I don't think that Petrie is God. He's not infallable. Has he made some mistakes? Yes. But by and large he's made more good moves than bad one's. None of us are privey to what goes on in the meetings with the Maloff's. We don't know how much impact they have on any one decision. Maybe none. What I do know, is Petrie took a team that had been mismanaged, and was floundering, and slowly rebuilt it into a contender.. He had a plan then, so I'm going to assume that he has one now.

As far as Salmon's goes. He's a very good basketball player. He's not Jordan and he's not Magic. But he's the kind of player that every team wants on their roster. He's only 2 yr's older than Garcia. That also add's up to 2yr's of experience, so maybe in two yr's Garcia will be as accomplished as Salmon. Maybe not. Maybe in a month, we'll be watching Lee play power forward for us and Garcia will be starting at the SF spot. Life is full of maybe's and if's. On a selfish note, I'm not exactly the youngest guy in the world anymore. I have sort of given up on the idea that I'm going to live forever. So, with that in mind, I'm a little more interested in the here and now than I'am in the future. I may not be around for the future. Don't forget to enjoy the here and now, because the future is promised to no one.

 

[Glenn]

That's all I'm saying...

Here's my request again:

"I have read you shoot down darn near every idea that people have. For some reason, people feel compelled to convince you that they are right. Why don't we switch things around a bit?

Instead of taking the role of spoiler, why don't you spell out what the next move Petrie should take. One move big or little. Tell us what it should be and how he should accomplish it.

If it is to acquire a player, tell us who it is and how we get him. If it is to get rid of someone, tell us who and how it will be accomplished."

Here is some data to help you:

• http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/sacramento.htm
• http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

 

[Superman]

I actually second that request about Superman.....I mean I get where some of the other posters are coming from and their strong opinions...but your all over the place. Wanting to go against the Salmons signing but wanting the Bonzi signing would fall into the same category, wouldn't it?

What do you want me to say? I'm not saying that Petrie should be fired because of the John Salmons signing. I just don't think it was the best move for a team that should have been stripping down to get ready for a rebuild. I'm not a "trade idea" type of person. Sorry.

And regarding the Bonzi opinions, my point was not that we should have signed Bonzi instead of Salmons. I believe I made that clear. My point was simply that ... here:

...

If we're contending and we need depth, then that's fine. But John Salmons, God bless his soul and his 22 points last night, doesn't make us significantly better. And he's not going to get significantly better; he pretty much is what he is, and there's nothing wrong with what he is, but a supposedly "rebuilding" team doesn't sign a player like John Salmons to a multi-year contract when you already have a similar player on the team.

What's wrong with that? It has nothing to do with Bonzi or even Salmons, for that matter. It's about the state of this team, and the fact that the three signings I mentioned (Salmons, Moore and SAR) don't help us become a contending team. If anything, they further depress the our salary cap situation and stunt the development of the kids/keep us from figuring out what the kids are capable of.

I think that part of the problem is that the front office is afraid of the "R" word, and I don't blame them. But you can't just keep adding middling players on multi-year contracts that don't improve the team. If you feel like that's an unfair or unfounded criticism, then forgive me. But it's the truth, and that's all I'm trying to get across.

 

[Superman]

Here's my request again:

"I have read you shoot down darn near every idea that people have. For some reason, people feel compelled to convince you that they are right. Why don't we switch things around a bit?

Instead of taking the role of spoiler, why don't you spell out what the next move Petrie should take. One move big or little. Tell us what it should be and how he should accomplish it.

If it is to acquire a player, tell us who it is and how we get him. If it is to get rid of someone, tell us who and how it will be accomplished."

Here is some data to help you:

• http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/sacramento.htm
• http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

See reply #103.

 

[Glenn]

See reply #103.

#103 is my post.

I think you lose credibility when all you do is complain about past decisions yet when asked what you would do, have no response.

Building a team is not easy but being a Monday morning quarterback is easy. Unfortunately making the decisions that a GM has to make is not as simple as I think you want it to be. It involves a thorough knowledge of basketball and ability to judge talent, the cap rules, salary contracts of other team's players including how much and when they expire, etc. Then with all that information, you have to find a team that will cooperate if it is a trade you have in mind. Or, if you are signing a free agent, you have to find one that agrees to the contract that you offer.

You haven't come close to saying what you would do in the future. You are merely taking pot shots at what has been done having the immense advantage in knowing how the deal turned out.

 

[VF21]

Eric Musselman was a major disruption under the Eric Musselman regime.

And didn't Bonzi fire his agent right before he signed with the Rockets, because he really wanted to sign with the Kings? I don't think that I'm as far off base as you think I am.

There were some dynamics that stood in the way of us resigning Bonzi, but it was doable, and that's evident when you consider the fact that he signed for way less than what we offered him, way less than what we signed Salmons for.

Bonzi fired his agent ONLY after it became obvious to everyone on the freaking planet that Phillips was an idiot. The ship had already sailed on Wells returning to the Kings.

What he eventually accepted from Houston is pretty indicative of just how badly his stock had plummeted. There WEREN'T teams lining up to sign him.
And there were reasons for that, too. Wells and his agent both drastically over-estimated his value on the open market and his reputation didn't help any.

Had Bonzi REALLY wanted to sign with the Kings he could easily have done so. He didn't because it became all about the money. And once Petrie had given his last best offer, he wasn't going to continue to wait around. This is Bonzi Wells we're talking about, not Lebron James.

 

[BawLa]

What's wrong with that? It has nothing to do with Bonzi or even Salmons, for that matter. It's about the state of this team, and the fact that the three signings I mentioned (Salmons, Moore and SAR) don't help us become a contending team. If anything, they further depress the our salary cap situation and stunt the development of the kids/keep us from figuring out what the kids are capable of.

I think that part of the problem is that the front office is afraid of the "R" word, and I don't blame them. But you can't just keep adding middling players on multi-year contracts that don't improve the team. If you feel like that's an unfair or unfounded criticism, then forgive me. But it's the truth, and that's all I'm trying to get across.

Is there a single MLE that has ever helped any team become a contending team? I don't think so and I would love to be proved wrong. Irregardless, it is still important to sign MLE guys. You can't just have superstars at every position including the bench. It isn't realistic. You need the glue, you need those "middling" guys. And I don't really like the term middling when used for Salmons. I think I have made a fair argument supporting my belief that Salmons does not belong in that category. Yet you continue to put him in a middling group. I just don't agree with that and I haven't heard much of an argument that supports it.

SAR wasn't the worst signing at the time either. We were starting to come down from our championship run and signed SAR at the MLE to help for that push. SAR was a guy that had previously averaged 20/9 for most of his career. We took a risk on him, a calculated risk, and it wasn't the worst idea. Teams of all sports do this. There are hundreds of SARs throughout the world of sports.

Now back to Salmons. If we were truly rebuilding, then I think Salmons would have still been a good signing. He was on the right side of 30 years old when we signed him, and apparantly he had untapped value. Bonzi was 30 or about to be 30 and signing him to an extension would have been a worse signing in retrospect.

Speaking of retrospect, this whole hindsight thing really speaks volumes about how we look at players. In between the 04/05 season and the 05/06 season, we lost Mobley, BJax, Songalia, House, Evans and Barnes and we signed Bonzi, SAR, Hart and Price. It was completely a re-tool offseason and I was actually excited to see what SAR and Bonzi would add to the team. And when we started fizzling, we went out and made that crazy move to get Artest, and vaulted ourselves right back into the playoffs. Should we have started rebuilding that offseason? Yes. But we didn't. We wanted to keep contending. And we have been paying for it ever since.

But that still does not make the Salmons signing a bad one.

If we want to rebuild, we should be more concerned about the bigger contracts like Bibby, Miller, and KT before we start worrying about Salmons.

 

[venom_7]

I agree with Slim, I always thought Cisco could develop into a poor mans AK47.

 

[Superman]

#103 is my post.

#104 then.

I think you lose credibility when all you do is complain about past decisions yet when asked what you would do, have no response.

Building a team is not easy but being a Monday morning quarterback is easy. Unfortunately making the decisions that a GM has to make is not as simple as I think you want it to be. It involves a thorough knowledge of basketball and ability to judge talent, the cap rules, salary contracts of other team's players including how much and when they expire, etc. Then with all that information, you have to find a team that will cooperate if it is a trade you have in mind. Or, if you are signing a free agent, you have to find one that agrees to the contract that you offer.

You haven't come close to saying what you would do in the future. You are merely taking pot shots at what has been done having the immense advantage in knowing how the deal turned out.

I'm not taking any pot shots. I'm not complaining about anything. Everyone on this board is a Monday morning quarterback.

I'm simply saying what many others are saying, in contrast to what the original poster said: I disagree that, just because Salmons has the ability to put up 22 points in a win, that it was a good signing. I don't see why I have to qualify that statement with a summary of what I would do in order to get the Kings back contending for a title.

And, I disagree with your assertion that I "shoot down darn near every idea that people have" with regards to making the team better. I think you think that I want Petrie gone, and I am not a "Fire Petrie" advocate. If you take the time to browse through some of the other threads that I've commented on (most recently, the thread about the Shareef signing, in which Petrie was criticized for exposing Wallace in the expansion draft, and you and I agreed), you would recognize that. Just because I disagree with this pattern of MLE signings over the past three years doesn't mean that I think I should be the GM instead of Petrie.

Again, I don't understand why, because I am critical of the timing and length of the Salmons signing, I am required to submit my plan for rebuilding the team in order for my criticism to be credible. The point is that I disagree with the Salmons deal being a good signing, especially when the basis for that opinion is that he put up 22 points in a win.

 

[bajaden]

And regarding the Bonzi opinions, my point was not that we should have signed Bonzi instead of Salmons. I believe I made that clear. My point was simply that ... here:

You see, here's the part I don't understand. It's been explained on the fourm that we offered Bonzi more money than Salmons. Although at the time the two signings wern't connected. Bonzi turned down a very good deal, that if he had it to do over, I'm sure he would take the offer now. If your Petrie, and a player has just turned down your offer, why would you think to yourself, Gee, if I just wait for a while, I can get him for practically nothing. Bonzi had just come off a very good season and his absence was going to create a hole. I think Petrie felt and oblgilation to do something about it. One of the problems that Petrie had, was that it took so much time for the negotiations to come to their end, that a lot of the available free agents were already signed. From this point on, you can argue that he should have, or should not have signed Salmon, but Bonzi doesn't enter in to that equation.

One other thing. Some people have stated that Salmon's doesn't make the team any better. I think that any player who average's 15 pts a game and does it while shooting almost 50%, and plays defense as well as Salmon's does, certainly makes the team better. I doubt we would have won the Buck's game without him, and if thats true, then he made the team better. He seldom shoots out of games, or makes crazy turnovers at important times in the game. And countless times, I have seen him get the team a basket when things seemed to be going down the toilet and no one could find the hoop.

 

[Superman]

Bonzi fired his agent ONLY after it became obvious to everyone on the freaking planet that Phillips was an idiot. The ship had already sailed on Wells returning to the Kings.

What he eventually accepted from Houston is pretty indicative of just how badly his stock had plummeted. There WEREN'T teams lining up to sign him.
And there were reasons for that, too. Wells and his agent both drastically over-estimated his value on the open market and his reputation didn't help any.

Had Bonzi REALLY wanted to sign with the Kings he could easily have done so. He didn't because it became all about the money. And once Petrie had given his last best offer, he wasn't going to continue to wait around. This is Bonzi Wells we're talking about, not Lebron James.

I agree with this post. I am not saying that Bonzi should still be here, that he would make the team better, that I'd rather have him than Salmons, anything like that. My original point was that, for what we gave Salmons, we could have had Bonzi, and that's based on what Bonzi wound up getting.

 

[Kingzrool]

My original point was that, for what we gave Salmons, we could have had Bonzi, and that's based on what Bonzi wound up getting.

Not only is that a clear case of hindsite is 20/20, it is not necessarily true. I do not think for a minute that Bonzi would have ever accepted that offer from the Kings. This is really not even worth discussing IMO.

 

[Superman]

Not only is that a clear case of hindsite is 20/20, it is not necessarily true. I do not think for a minute that Bonzi would have ever accepted that offer from the Kings. This is really not even worth discussing IMO.

I agree that it's not worth discussing. It was just a random thought that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic.

 

[bloom]

I am so happy that we didn't sign Bonzi. People are talking about going young and here's an aging vet. Plus, he was asking for way too much money and if I were Petrie, I wouldn't have offered him that much (no matter if he was a good dude and played unstoppable during the playoffs).

As much as I've been down on Salmons this year, I think he was a good signing. Maybe he could have been picked up for a cheaper amount but it was still good. He's good for retooling but he needs to come in and play with the team. He pounds the ball too much (with lack of passing), but if he got over that, then he can be a good bench guy. Apparently he can also finish at the bucket, which some players on this team have a hard time doing.

What's wrong with that? It has nothing to do with Bonzi or even Salmons, for that matter. It's about the state of this team, and the fact that the three signings I mentioned (Salmons, Moore and SAR) don't help us become a contending team. If anything, they further depress the our salary cap situation and stunt the development of the kids/keep us from figuring out what the kids are capable of.

I think that part of the problem is that the front office is afraid of the "R" word, and I don't blame them. But you can't just keep adding middling players on multi-year contracts that don't improve the team. If you feel like that's an unfair or unfounded criticism, then forgive me. But it's the truth, and that's all I'm trying to get across.

I agree with you.

I know a lot of people want to rebuild, I'm glad we're not doing that (we should let the young guys grow with the vets and let the two blend). But I do think a huge mistake is that we are signing players that aren't that great/oldish. Like you said SAR and Mikki (and getting KT). That's a big problem. They hinder getting better players (when they're available). Maybe Mikki needs some better presence around him or maybe he'll play better with more time, but he isn't changing anything. And SAR should retire unless the Magic are still "interested"...I'm happy that I'm not Geoff or Wayne Cooper. These guys have a hard time finding the right players and then making the trades happen. Most people think that there isn't a plan, and with the last few players that we've signed, I can see why people are saying that. But I think they're working on something.

 

[Semi]

My original point was that, for what we gave Salmons, we could have had Bonzi, and that's based on what Bonzi wound up getting.

GP: Hey Bonzi, we want you in a Kings uni. How about for 5 years, $36mil.
Bonzi: Hrm, I dunno. Let me think about it.
GP: What is there to think about?
Bonzi: I just want to ponder about how awesome I am.
GP: Well how about if I sweeten the pot a lil bit. 5 years, $25.5mil.
Bonzi: WHERE DO I SIGN?!?!



The reason Bonzi signed a cheap contract is because he realized that was all he was ever going to get once his agent screwed up the Kings deal. The Kings were not going to wait forever on Bonzi and once we signed Salmons there was absolutely no one left going to give him anything even remotely close to what the Kings offered to him or what they offered to Salmons.

 

[Kingzrool]

As much as I've been down on Salmons this year, I think he was a good signing. Maybe he could have been picked up for a cheaper amount but it was still good.

Nope. Two other teams were in the mix and IIRC one had already offered more than the offer he accepted from the Kings.

 

[Glenn]

But I do think a huge mistake is that we are signing players that aren't that great/oldish. Like you said SAR and Mikki (and getting KT). That's a big problem. They hinder getting better players (when they're available).

That's really not true in the case of all the contraacts. The only time we will have enough money to get better players is either in the summer of 2009 if we just let Bibby go or in 2010.

Moore's contract is structured so we can buy him out when Bibby's contract is up if we wish. Or it will expire at the same time as SAR, KT, and Brad. We will not be in any position to get a significantly skilled free agent before then.

The sad thing is that there aren't many free agents going to be available when the 4 contracts expire. Dwyane Wade and Chandler are two but that's about it.

 

[dude12]

I agree with Slim, I always thought Cisco could develop into a poor mans AK47.

It's a stretch but I understand the poor man's reference. Watch AK47 and I'm not sure there is another guy in the league like him. His defense and shot-blocking skills are incredible. I suppose the closest is Josh Smith. Can Cisco become that good or close to it? I'd like to see him actually work on his body and strength.

 

[uolj]

That's really not true in the case of all the contraacts. The only time we will have enough money to get better players is either in the summer of 2009 if we just let Bibby go or in 2010.

Moore's contract is structured so we can buy him out when Bibby's contract is up if we wish. Or it will expire at the same time as SAR, KT, and Brad. We will not be in any position to get a significantly skilled free agent before then.

The sad thing is that there aren't many free agents going to be available when the 4 contracts expire. Dwyane Wade and Chandler are two but that's about it.

Don't forget that trades can be made that will free up money faster.

If you have three big contracts that don't expire until 2010, then maybe you can trade one or two of them and clear up cap room earlier. However, if you keep signing middling guys to long contracts, then all of a sudden you have 5 or 6 contracts and it becomes much more difficult to get the cap room earlier.

The problem from your angle might be that in order to make those trades, you have to receive less talent in return (because you are forcing a worse contract on the other team). Less talent in return means that the team might not perform as well in the short term.

I think many of us would be ok with that, though, because it puts the team in better position to make major improvements sooner.