=LarryLegend=
Starter
If I remember correctly he is on a one year deal and will be a unrestricted agent. How much are you willing to pay to resigb him? 3year 5mil?
Jon Brockman
- Thread starter =LarryLegend=
- Start date
Fear the Putin
Starter
Give him a long term contract. I dont think he's a money hungry guy, but simply wants to be on a team to contribute.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
That's right -- had forgotten about that. Being cheap with him this offseason might end up costing us a bit. But only a bit -- off of one single season playing off the bench for us and wiht a low skill level he's not going to have a big enough rep to score much of a free agent deal. We should be able to bring him back wihtout too much problem.
As for yrs + $$ figure? For yrs I would be perfectly happy to see us go semi-longterm. Assuming, as I do, that Brockman is a mid to deep bench player, an occasional tempo changer, good spirit and toughness guy in practice etc., there is eally no reason not to be able to look at him rihgt now, see the things he brings, and say we would like that from somewhere deep on our bench for a long time. If we're talking 10th-11th man on a good team, that's a non-vital position. You can afford to plug in a guy who brings certina things you like and just know that there will never be a problem with team balance etc. because of it. You are always going to want toughness and rebounding. So lock him up. The only question is $$. If we are tlaking bencher, it has to be kept as low as possible. No MLE, or half MLE or any of that sort of thing going on. Couple mil a year absolute tops. The 3yrs $5mil suggested above would work for me.
whozit
Starter
His reported contract is one year, but if I'm reading question #36-37 from Larry Coon's FAQ on the CBA correctly then the unrestricted part isn't so cut and dry. Since he is a player with less than three years experience, the Kings can simply give a qualifying offer to make him a restricted player.
I wouldn't necessarily call it "being cheap with him" but it possibly be him and/or his agent being confident of his ability and them taking high risk/high reward approach to his contract. If he had signed the usual two year, second year team option contract the Kings would've had all the leverage options and be then able to keep him for cheap. Because of the one year contract he now has the ability to earn a higher paying and longer lasting contract sooner than possibly having to wait until the summer of '11 to get it. Right now he appears to be sitting in a good spot. As far as your numbers of salary and years, I agree.
'89 Kings Fan
Bench
You are correct, based on #36 since he has been in the league three years or less all we have to do is submit a qualifying offer. And because of #37 The Gilbert Arenas Provision, we can match any offer. I assume with the bad economy and the large Free Agent class, it will not be too hard to lock up Brockman.
DoDiGaG0
Bench
doesn't have the footwork/foot speed/mobility of Hayes
NoBonus
Starter
But Hayes don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Brockman is known to do that.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
But Hayes don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Brockman is known to do that.
Is that a foul?
Arby's Roast Beef
Starter
Brockman is awesome and is a vital component to our team, and it's nice to see elements of his college game--especially his rebounding--surface in the NBA. That's probably his calling card here--he can rebound, and he really really holds the rebounds of his opponents down despite being 6'7". He's a nitty-gritty fundamentals paint battler, and his presence is infectious on our team--we've pretty much always played better when he was on the court. Definitely a keeper, because his work ethic is top two, if not the top, on our team.
As for the contract, let's not get too carried away here--he still has his warts, and perceived limited upside due to those warts. His style of play lends itself to fouling on defense, and he's a poor shotblocker to boot, and those types of players, in my view, tend to stagnate defensively early on. He's already having trouble holding opposing PFs and Cs down this early season, obviously given his height and lack of mobility. And pretty much he'll be neglected on offense, he has absolutely no range and he'll rarely touch the ball on that end. So while I'd expect a Chuck Hayes trajectory with him if he keeps this up--upside is with rebounding, infectious intensity, etc--it will be Chuck Hayes without the defense. That's probably a $2mil some player at his peak, but I'd be hard-pressed to go any more than that. Let me just put it this way, though: I never thought I'd see the day Reggie Evans got the mid-level exception. So while anything can happen, I wouldn't bet on it.
As for the contract, let's not get too carried away here--he still has his warts, and perceived limited upside due to those warts. His style of play lends itself to fouling on defense, and he's a poor shotblocker to boot, and those types of players, in my view, tend to stagnate defensively early on. He's already having trouble holding opposing PFs and Cs down this early season, obviously given his height and lack of mobility. And pretty much he'll be neglected on offense, he has absolutely no range and he'll rarely touch the ball on that end. So while I'd expect a Chuck Hayes trajectory with him if he keeps this up--upside is with rebounding, infectious intensity, etc--it will be Chuck Hayes without the defense. That's probably a $2mil some player at his peak, but I'd be hard-pressed to go any more than that. Let me just put it this way, though: I never thought I'd see the day Reggie Evans got the mid-level exception. So while anything can happen, I wouldn't bet on it.
Last edited:
But Hayes don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Brockman is known to do that.
I propose a new strategy: Let the Brockman win.
=LarryLegend=
Starter
If only you could put Brockness and Hawes together.....that would be a hybrid beast!
sidney
Starter
I agree. More like 3 years/4.5M should do it.
As a side note, I don't know if this site is correct or not, but it lists a team option at 932k for next year on Brockman:
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/kings.jsp
kennadog
Dog On It!
Only if the refs call it.Is that a foul?
Actually, it's in red so it's a qualifying offer, not a team option.
I pretty much agree with your salary assessment. If I were the front office, I'd want to take a long hard look at future plans before committing 3 years to Brockman, though. Not saying I wouldn't do it, but I'd want to look at all the numbers/scenarios. It's kind of a long commitment to a guy who right now looks like a bench player used more as a situation guy than a rotation guy.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
At those numbers though, not really a problem. With a vet min of $1mil, you are basically going to be paying SOMEBODY that money to fill out the roster. So might as well be Brockman, who brings you intangibles far beyond what the normal 12th man scrub sitting over on the bench does.
It's not so much the salary as the length. As it stands right now (and obviously that can/will change) we have 9 players who are long-term guys who will be making more money than Brockman (Evans, Udrih, Martin, Garcia, Casspi, Greene, Nocioni, Thompson, Hawes). At the very least we want to get a long-term defensive big man, and we expect to have another 8-14 range draft pick...
My point is, it might not be useful to make a long-term commitment to the lowest-paid guy on the roster. Because imagine we come up with a good trade that requires us to take on extra contracts that would push us over the 15-player limit. Gotta cut somebody to make the trade happen, and if we don't have any guys who are "cut-material" except Brock, and he's under contract for another two years...you probably still have to cut him and eat those years. Even a guy like Nocioni who has low value to us isn't going to the front of the cut line because of his contract.
That's the essence of my hangup, rather than putting out that kind of money for an energy bench guy. The money's fine. And again, I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, just that I'd want to be sure it was the right move and we were going to be able to maintain the necessary roster flexibility with a bunch of uncuttable guys in front of him.
Similar threads
- Sacramento Kings On SI
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Personnel moves
