John Salmons

[Glenn]

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.

Give me a realistic example of a trade that will free up enough money to be significant. Remember that we are roughly $10 million over the cap and to be able to get a free agent you have to have enough money beneath the cap. Said another way, if you figure a great player can get $8 mil on his first year. That would be a great bargain. That would mean we need to shed $18 mil of salary.

How do we do that in concrete terms?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Give me a realistic example of a trade that will free up enough money to be significant. Remember that we are roughly $10 million over the cap and to be able to get a free agent you have to have enough money beneath the cap. Said another way, if you figure a great player can get $8 mil on his first year. That would be a great bargain. That would mean we need to shed $18 mil of salary.

How do we do that in concrete terms?

steven marbury


artest, thomas and any other junk they are willing to accept for that dude.

 

[uolj]

Give me a realistic example of a trade that will free up enough money to be significant. Remember that we are roughly $10 million over the cap and to be able to get a free agent you have to have enough money beneath the cap. Said another way, if you figure a great player can get $8 mil on his first year. That would be a great bargain. That would mean we need to shed $18 mil of salary.

How do we do that in concrete terms?

Here's some examples I found after a little digging. I'm not saying I'd do these trades if I was Petrie, or that the other teams involved would do them, but these are concrete examples of how the Kings can make trades to free up money after this season or next, rather than in 2010.

http://kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=482564&postcount=1 ($19 mil)
http://kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=493980&postcount=14 ($21 mil)
http://kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=495101&postcount=1 ($23 mil & $18 mil)

Those examples don't actually support my original point, but they don't contradict it either. My original point was that had the Kings not signed Abdur-Rahim, Salmons, and Moore, then it would be easier to free up money earlier. In all of these cases, the Kings don't just get back less talent, they get back significantly less talent.

In fact, if you're looking for $18 million off the books, then you can almost get that just by not signing those three guys to long term deals, no trades would even be necessary.

Of course, I don't want the Kings to be $8 million under the cap, I want them to be $15 or 20 million under. $8 million buys you one good player. The Kings need more than that. So what they should have done was not sign any of those players (or sign them to shorter terms if possible) and then add one or two trades to clear some more space.

 

[Glenn]

I'll look at those more closely later but as it is now, 4 of the Kings' contracts expire in two years and we will be about $20 mil under the cap at that time. This scenario, which is presently in place, does not require the cooperation of any other team.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I'll look at those more closely later but as it is now, 4 of the Kings' contracts expire in two years and we will be about $20 mil under the cap at that time. This scenario, which is presently in place, does not require the cooperation of any other team.

However, it does require to cooperation of our front office to not add MLE contracts every summer.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

I'll look at those more closely later but as it is now, 4 of the Kings' contracts expire in two years and we will be about $20 mil under the cap at that time. This scenario, which is presently in place, does not require the cooperation of any other team.

true but if we can squeeze in one of our bad contracts to pull in a steven marbury and a pick or kid. it would be worth it. bad contracts for bad contracts except we come out on top w/ a kid or pick.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

true but if we can squeeze in one of our bad contracts to pull in a steven marbury and a pick or kid. it would be worth it. bad contracts for bad contracts except we come out on top w/ a kid or pick.

FSM has made every team that he's ever been on worse... there is absolutely no proposal that would make acquiring him a good idea.

 

[NewArena]

true but if we can squeeze in one of our bad contracts to pull in a steven marbury and a pick or kid. it would be worth it. bad contracts for bad contracts except we come out on top w/ a kid or pick.

Even though steven Marbury doesnt exist, im sure he would be better then Stephon if he did.

 

[Glenn]

However, it does require to cooperation of our front office to not add MLE contracts every summer.

The MLE's aren't hurting us. Four contracts (two of which were MLE) were constructed so that they ended at the same time. Mikki's ends with SAR's. Mikki's and SAR's were designed to end with the KT's and Brad's. I don't think that is happening by luck.

 

[fnordius]

I don't see what the point in spending everything we have until 2011 might be, unless it's to let Bibby, Artest, Williams, Garcia and Udrih know that we won't be offering them anything competitive when their contracts expire. The FA market's been pathetic for several years, and shows no signs of changing, so all cap space is good for is giving raises to players you've already got. Ensuring that one has no cap space for several years seems futile at best, senselessly harmful at worst.

 

[Glenn]

I don't see what the point in spending everything we have until 2011 might be, unless it's to let Bibby, Artest, Williams, Garcia and Udrih know that we won't be offering them anything competitive when their contracts expire. The FA market's been pathetic for several years, and shows no signs of changing, so all cap space is good for is giving raises to players you've already got. Ensuring that one has no cap space for several years seems futile at best, senselessly harmful at worst.

I don't understand. In the recent years, there was no reason NOT to so some people were signed that Petrie thought could help the team. You can always resign your own players no matter how far over the cap you are. Udrih not so but in general you can. Take a look at the Knicks. While the salary cap is $53 mil, their salaries this year are $89 mil while ours is $63 mil..

 

[uolj]

The MLE's aren't hurting us. Four contracts (two of which were MLE) were constructed so that they ended at the same time. Mikki's ends with SAR's. Mikki's and SAR's were designed to end with the KT's and Brad's. I don't think that is happening by luck.

Yes, they do hurt. They make it much more difficult to get under the salary cap sooner.

Perhaps you see no need to try to get under the salary cap sooner, but I feel that the Kings would benefit greatly from expediting the process. As a fan I would benefit as well, since I am much more interested in watching a team actively building towards a strong future than one that is patching holes and trying to make a team work as well as it can with what it has.

 

[bajaden]

Yes, they do hurt. They make it much more difficult to get under the salary cap sooner.

Perhaps you see no need to try to get under the salary cap sooner, but I feel that the Kings would benefit greatly from expediting the process. As a fan I would benefit as well, since I am much more interested in watching a team actively building towards a strong future than one that is patching holes and trying to make a team work as well as it can with what it has.

How exactly would you do what you think the team should do? I mean it sounds great, and I for one would be all for it, but don't you think that if it were possible, Petrie would have done it. I think he has a plan, and that plan goes into effect after the 09 season. In the meantime, I think they would like to put as entertaining a team as possible on the floor.

As it stands now the only players who have contracts running past the 09 season are, SAR, Douby, Miller, Hawes, Salmon's, and Martin. Moore has a three yr. deal, but the Kings have the option on the third yr. Its possible that SAR will retire, or that the Kings will do a buy out. Miller is very tradable, if they think that Hawes is progressing fast enough. Next year KT will be more tradable because he will be in the last yr of his contract as will Bibby, if he's still here. Artest in all likelyhood will be gone, and if not, will also be very tradable if he continues to be a good boy.

As far as the draft goes, well, I would love to have the first pick in the draft. But remember, there are no guarantee's in the draft. The NBA is littered with top five picks that never became what they were projected to be. The NBA is also littered with players that were picked at the bottom of the draft and became all stars. Some were not even drafted. If you have a GM thats a good judge of talent, your way ahead of the others. Say what you want about Petrie, but by and large he's proved he knows talent.

As hard as it is sometimes, I recommend you remain patient. If you can't do that, then I recommend you drink more alcohol......

 

[Gary]

steven marbury


artest, thomas and any other junk they are willing to accept for that dude.

I hope that was meant to be a joke, because I just about spit my soda on my keyboard Is Steven Stephon's older brother? Just giving you a hard time.

Stephon Marbury is a joke. Only way I would take that guy is if he was in his last year of his contract, and it was at the trade deadline. I don't think I could stand more than 20-30 games from him in a Kings uni.

 

[fnordius]

As it stands now the only players who have contracts running past the 09(/10) season are, SAR, Douby, Miller, Hawes, Salmon's, and Martin. Moore has a three yr. deal, but the Kings have the option on the third yr.

The Kings have an option on half of the third year, so Moore will be around into 2010 also. In other words, the only Kings who will be gone before 2010 are Bibby, Artest, and some cheap bench guys (who are worth more than their paychecks, letting Justin or Beno walk is not something to look forward to). And there's the rub. If Beno keeps playing like he has, and Justin gets the minutes he deserves, we can't give those guys the contracts they deserve. They will be gone because of the MLE signings.

The NBA is also littered with players that were picked at the bottom of the draft and became all stars. Some were not even drafted.

Oh, phooey. Gilbert Arenas and Carlos Boozer do not make the NBA littered with second round all stars. Brad Miller and Ben Wallace do not make it littered with undrafted all stars. You can pretty much count guys like that on your fingers. Not long ago, Brick did a very persuasive job of showing that top 5 picks make a huge difference in a team's future, so I'm not going to cover that ground again.

The draft is a bit of a crapshoot, but so is everything. There's nothing about our luck with recent trades or FA signings that makes those approaches look safer. KT slouches towards retirement, SAR hobbles there on crutches. Mikki is not keeping this team interesting. This team would be far more interesting if he were gone, and if Beno and Justin had money available to re-sign them... and to sign a couple of other kids like them.

 

[bajaden]

The Kings have an option on half of the third year, so Moore will be around into 2010 also. In other words, the only Kings who will be gone before 2010 are Bibby, Artest, and some cheap bench guys (who are worth more than their paychecks, letting Justin or Beno walk is not something to look forward to). And there's the rub. If Beno keeps playing like he has, and Justin gets the minutes he deserves, we can't give those guys the contracts they deserve. They will be gone because of the MLE signings.

Oh, phooey. Gilbert Arenas and Carlos Boozer do not make the NBA littered with second round all stars. Brad Miller and Ben Wallace do not make it littered with undrafted all stars. You can pretty much count guys like that on your fingers. Not long ago, Brick did a very persuasive job of showing that top 5 picks make a huge difference in a team's future, so I'm not going to cover that ground again.

The draft is a bit of a crapshoot, but so is everything. There's nothing about our luck with recent trades or FA signings that makes those approaches look safer. KT slouches towards retirement, SAR hobbles there on crutches. Mikki is not keeping this team interesting. This team would be far more interesting if he were gone, and if Beno and Justin had money available to re-sign them... and to sign a couple of other kids like them.

I tried to nicely make a pt, but you don't want to see my pt, fine. By the way, when I said the bottom of the draft, I meant the bottom of the first round. I pointed it out, because the Kings can probably get a decent to very good player there. Top five draft picks CAN make a difference, not WILL make a difference. And if you want me to do the research, I'll be happy to give you 3o yrs of top five picks that never lived up to expectations. That doesn't mean they couldn't play in the NBA. They just weren't the saviors of their team. Would I like a top five pick. YES!!!! Thats not the discussion here. As far as Moore is concerned, Patricia's info list says the Kings have the option for the third year, and when he was signed everything I read said he was actually only signed for a half a year, with the Kings having the rights to it. You also forgot Kenny Thomas who will be gone before 2010, and possibly Garcia, who's contract is up after 09.

 

[uolj]

How exactly would you do what you think the team should do? I mean it sounds great, and I for one would be all for it, but don't you think that if it were possible, Petrie would have done it. I think he has a plan, and that plan goes into effect after the 09 season. In the meantime, I think they would like to put as entertaining a team as possible on the floor.

I posted links to trade ideas just a few posts ago. I also mentioned in the post you quoted that had the Kings simply not signed anybody with their mid-level exception over the last three years, then that would be around $15 million less salary they'd owe right now.

Putting an entertaining team on the floor is important, but not at the expense of putting off reaching contender status for a couple more years.

As hard as it is sometimes, I recommend you remain patient. If you can't do that, then I recommend you drink more alcohol......

Trust me, I am extremely patient. That doesn't mean I think Petrie being ultra-patient is the right move.


By the way, I think the option on Moore's contract is for half a year, so it doesn't help them until after the summer of his second season here. Also, note this post when discussing the draft: http://kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=499018&postcount=83. It's not about what's guaranteed, it's about getting the best opportunity you can.

 

[Glenn]

Yes, they do hurt. They make it much more difficult to get under the salary cap sooner.

Perhaps you see no need to try to get under the salary cap sooner, but I feel that the Kings would benefit greatly from expediting the process. As a fan I would benefit as well, since I am much more interested in watching a team actively building towards a strong future than one that is patching holes and trying to make a team work as well as it can with what it has.

We COULD'T get under the salary cap sooner in any amount that frees up enough money to sign anyone else of value. This is my point and until you look at the salaries we had at the time of the signings, you won't understand that. I don't know how else to put it.

1) I'll try using this year's salaries as an example. I understand that this is not totally 100% accurate to cover three years back but I'm just not going to go through the hassle. I believe this will make the point:

Bibby .......$13,500,000
Miller .........10,500,000
Artest .........7,800,000
Thomas........7,331,250

Total ..........39,131,250


Then the salaries of the kiddies (roughly). This includes Hawes, Martin, Douby, Garcia, Williams, Udrih, Green, and Watkins.

................. $8,200,00,00

That's $47,331,250 already

2) Then add any three players that didn't use up the MLE. They would most likely have to be guys that got the veteran minimum or roughly $1,000,000 apiece. (As the veteran minimum is determined by years in the NBA I cannot affix a value other than this guess.) Also I personally think it is as close to impossible to get three veterans at the veteran minimum but will play along to make my point.


This all adds up to:

................. $3,000,000


Total so far ..............$50,331,250

The salary cap is roughly $53,135,000.

In other words, if we had not signed SAR, Moore, and Salmons we would be $2,804,750 under the cap. Name a difference making FA we could have gotten for $2,804,750. That's less than the MLE.


I know, I know, people can quibble with my stats and assumptions but I am merely trying to make the point that in relation to the salary cap, the signings of SAR, Salmons, and Mikki did not prevent us from signing a major stud of a free agent. We were always blocked by the salaries of Bibby, Artest, Thomas, and Miller and that's just life in the NBA. We will be blocked until the summer of 2010 when we lose the salaries of KT, Miller, Moore, and SAR and even at that, we don't free it up penny for penny. Our own free agents, even though we aren't going to resign them, count against our cap space until they are signed by another team.

Take my word for it or read the cap rules.


If I have made any errors of significance, I'll change the figures.



Addendum: the only point that is pertinent is that we probably won't be able to resign Udrih unless he accepts the MLE or any proportion of it, of course. (Irony, eh?) But let's say we don't re-sign Udrih: I think Bibby would be an adequate replacement.

 

[uolj]

The point is that the Kings would be under the cap earlier.

As it is now, the Kings will not have any real room under the cap until 2010, right?

Given the numbers you just posted. The Kings would be nearly $25 million under the cap after next season (Bibby @ 14.5 + Artest @ 7.4 + 2.8 = 24.7). Note that that also doesn't count the fact that the cap value rises.

So assuming our math is correct, and without any trades, the Kings would be $25 million under the cap a year earlier than they will be now that they've signed the extra players. Please answer honestly, do you see any flaws in that logic?

In addition, my original entry in the conversation was to point out that without the mid-level exception contracts, the Kings could trade Bibby (for example) and perhaps one of Thomas, Miller, or Artest for contracts that expire at the end of this year. That would have given them cap room two years earlier than they will have now. Instead, it will be much harder to achieve that because an additional $12-15 million worth of salary must be cleared to get to the same point.


There are pros and cons to be argued about whether it would have been worth it to not sign the players, but I don't see how you can argue that it didn't postpone or at least make much more difficult the Kings ability to be real players in the free-agent market.

 

[Glenn]

The point is that the Kings would be under the cap earlier.

As it is now, the Kings will not have any real room under the cap until 2010, right?

Given the numbers you just posted. The Kings would be nearly $25 million under the cap after next season (Bibby @ 14.5 + Artest @ 7.4 + 2.8 = 24.7). Note that that also doesn't count the fact that the cap value rises.

So assuming our math is correct, and without any trades, the Kings would be $25 million under the cap a year earlier than they will be now that they've signed the extra players. Please answer honestly, do you see any flaws in that logic?

In addition, my original entry in the conversation was to point out that without the mid-level exception contracts, the Kings could trade Bibby (for example) and perhaps one of Thomas, Miller, or Artest for contracts that expire at the end of this year. That would have given them cap room two years earlier than they will have now. Instead, it will be much harder to achieve that because an additional $12-15 million worth of salary must be cleared to get to the same point.


There are pros and cons to be argued about whether it would have been worth it to not sign the players, but I don't see how you can argue that it didn't postpone or at least make much more difficult the Kings ability to be real players in the free-agent market.

Your figures assume that we no longer want Artest or Bibby. I am assuming nothing concerning player movement that is theoretical.

I can see we won't agree or even be close. We are arguing about a year. Your year is based on some moves that may or may not happen.

I cannot discuss this with a person who sees roughly $15 mil of contracts per year (the MLEs) on a team that is $10 mil over the salary cap, suddenly turn into $25 mil under the cap.

As to your last statement, I can wait because when time comes to try to get one or two free agents, Hawes, Garcia, and Martin will have matured and be better players. It will all fall together at the same time.




Addendum: I tried to post another note to address each point but your argument assumes so many ideas that may or may not happen, it became impossible. I am trying to deal with the facts on the table and not multiple other moves that may or may not happen.

 

[uolj]

Wait, where is the flaw in my logic? I tried to explain it all.

I didn't say removing those $15 million in contracts would make the team $25 million under the cap. I just took your numbers, and then removed Bibby and Artest after next year. With the $15 million gone, that makes $25 million, which is spendable. Without it gone, that makes $10 million, which is not spendable (according to your assertion).

I'm not trying to be argumentitive, I really think the logic is sound. There are other arguments as to whether it is a good idea or not, but I hope you at least understand that without those contracts the Kings would have room to spend money under the salary cap earlier than they now have with them.

 

[Glenn]

Wait, where is the flaw in my logic? I tried to explain it all.

I didn't say removing those $15 million in contracts would make the team $25 million under the cap. I just took your numbers, and then removed Bibby and Artest after next year. With the $15 million gone, that makes $25 million, which is spendable. Without it gone, that makes $10 million, which is not spendable (according to your assertion).

I'm not trying to be argumentitive, I really think the logic is sound. There are other arguments as to whether it is a good idea or not, but I hope you at least understand that without those contracts the Kings would have room to spend money under the salary cap earlier than they now have with them.

Your logic is sound if you make the assumptions that Bibby will be gone and we get nothing in return and that Artest will be gone and we get nothing in return.

I can't debate anything with so many assumptions. You have thrown in not only the loss of the MLEs but also the salaries of two others and I am not good at debates that rely on ideas that just as likely will not occur.

You changed the debate.

If we don't have Salmons, Moore, Bibby, and Artest, we will not have a team that belongs in the NBA. Of course, that is just my opinion of the team you want us to field.

 

[uolj]

You made the claim that the Kings will have room to sign better players in 2010 when the mid-level exception players' contracts expire at the same time as the other players. But if you assume that all the current players will then be resigned then that is not possible because all of the cap room will continue to be tied up with them.

I didn't change the debate. When discussing cap room, you have to assume all contracts will expire. If the team wants to re-sign those players, they can use available cap room to do so, but the point is to attempt to bring in better players.

If we don't have Salmons, Moore, Bibby, and Artest, we will not have a team that belongs in the NBA. Of course, that is just my opinion of the team you want us to field.

If you believe that I am a Kings fan (I am), and I told you that I wouldn't mind if all those players were no longer on the team (I'm ambivalent about it), would you think I am crazy? Or perhaps there are other possibly valid reasons for me being ok with such an arrangement. If there are other possibly valid reasons, I would hope that you are open to those possibilities, even if your preference is to not go that direction. That is my only reason to

The details of those other possibly valid reasons have been explained ad nauseum here. I'm sure that you're aware of them. I'm not sure whether many of the people here who are so vehemently against the idea of a full rebuild are really open to the idea enough to understand it.

 

[Glenn]

I didn't change the debate. When discussing cap room, you have to assume all contracts will expire. If the team wants to re-sign those players, they can use available cap room to do so, but the point is to attempt to bring in better players.

This is not true. They can be signed even if the team is over the cap.

 

[uolj]

This is not true. They can be signed even if the team is over the cap.

Of course it's true: If the team wants to re-sign those players, they can use available cap room to do so.

I wasn't in any way talking about when a team is over the cap, nor is that in any way related to the point of the statement.

 

[bajaden]

I posted links to trade ideas just a few posts ago. I also mentioned in the post you quoted that had the Kings simply not signed anybody with their mid-level exception over the last three years, then that would be around $15 million less salary they'd owe right now.

Putting an entertaining team on the floor is important, but not at the expense of putting off reaching contender status for a couple more years.


Trust me, I am extremely patient. That doesn't mean I think Petrie being ultra-patient is the right move.


By the way, I think the option on Moore's contract is for half a year, so it doesn't help them until after the summer of his second season here. Also, note this post when discussing the draft: http://kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=499018&postcount=83. It's not about what's guaranteed, it's about getting the best opportunity you can.

Look, I know you have the best interest of the team in mind. We just have to agree to disagree. You, nor I have no control over the decisions being made. I for one, learned a long time ago that if I can't bring to the table some kind of resolution to a problem, then I'm going to use a little restraint in my criticism of others who have their own opinion of resolution. Thats where I will leave you, and Petrie..