Kevin Martin re-signs (latest update)
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
Different standard for the team, the coaches, GP, etc. since the whole reason sports boards exist is to either praise or criticize any and all of the people involved publicly with the team. Geoff Petrie, as a public figure and the GM of the Kings, has drawn both his share of high praise and strong criticism.While I don't personally agree with the comment, it's not over the top.
Just a reminder for the newer member of the forums - if you have a problem with a post or poster, PLEASE use the "refer a post" option (it's the exclamation point in the red triangle) or send a PM to one or more of the moderating staff. We don't discuss board moderation on the board.
Thanks.
Just a reminder for the newer member of the forums - if you have a problem with a post or poster, PLEASE use the "refer a post" option (it's the exclamation point in the red triangle) or send a PM to one or more of the moderating staff. We don't discuss board moderation on the board.
Thanks.
Look at it this way: Imagine a player who shoots 85% from the line and 50% from the field inside the three point line. If that player takes a 2-pt. shot, and is not fouled, they will score an average of 1 point per shot. If that player takes a 2-pt. shot, and is fouled, they will score an average of 1.7 points per shot (on free throws), even before considering that sometimes they'll actually make the shot anyway. So that's an average of at least 0.7 more points per shot attempt if they get fouled. If that player draws 5 shooting fouls over the course of a game, that's 3-4 points more scored than an identical player who took the same number of shots but didn't draw any fouls. And 3-4 points can mean the difference between a win and a loss. Not to mention that those five fouls can get the defense in foul trouble.
Clearly, players that draw fouls help their team. If you're arguing that when a player is fouled on a shot, it should count as a shot attempt if it doesn't go in for the purposes of the points-per-shot stat, that's fine, and it's probably a better indicator of what points-per-shot is trying to measure. But the new version of points-per-shot would still favor the guys who get fouled a lot and hit FTs at a high percentage. I don't see how this is false inflation of stats.
The $43 million figure is from Sam Amick's Bee article. Did you not see that, or are you questioning Amick? Just curious.
You're thinking of Tyler Hansborough.
One player who seems to get overlooked because of a perceived lack of athleticism is Kevin Love. But there's something to be said about good fundamentals (oh, say, Tim Duncan?) and Love should pan out to be a very good back-to-the-basket PF in the NBA who can also step outside and hit a jumper, at least to the college three range. Rebounds. Passes well, especially the outlet.
He may not be a top-three pick and I certainly wouldn't pass on Rose for him, but he might be a safer bet than some of the more athletic projects and tweeners in the draft (Ibaka, Beasley, Arthur).
Let's be honest here. Right now there are about 29 starting power forwards and 30 starting centers in the league that can only dream about being Duncan, the lone obvious exception being Duncan.
My point is that Duncan has become an all-time great on the basis of freak fundamentals, not freak athleticism. And despite his advanced development, I don't think anybody currently sees Kevin Love as the next coming of Duncan - he's about two inches shorter, for one. Duncan is just the example that fundamentals plus attainable athleticism can bring a big man's NBA ceiling up real high, so long as the fundamentals are really good.
Love does have really good fundamentals, and enough gym, enough treadmill, and enough desire will keep him at a level of acceptable athleticism to play in the NBA. Some other guys may be leaps and bounds ahead of him athletically, but he's post moves and box outs ahead of them fundamentally. Maybe they get it, maybe they don't. Love already has it.
It's hard to predict the draft this far out, but I could see Love falling into the 10-15 range (assuming he declares) because of more athletic, less polished guys being taken ahead of him. But the list of guys who will actually be better is probably shorter...(Rose, Mayo, Beasley as a SF, Batum?)
By all accounts, yes. (I haven't had the chance to see Hawes yet.) But Love will play the 4 in the NBA and is expected to be a legitimate rebounder while there have been questions raised about Hawes on that front. We're a mess at the 4 - Hawes doesn't seem to be a good reason to take Love out of consideration, just because both can play with their back to the basket.
Fair enough on the Brand comparison. To be clear on my thinking - I don't think Love has much chance of becoming a franchise player, and there are probably several big guys in the draft who'll have a better shot at that. But Love may have the best shot of any of them at becoming a top-15 PF. With Love you're probably compromising and getting a somewhat lower ceiling in exchange for a significantly higher floor. Analogous to what we saw in Shane Battier (ceiling/floorwise, not that I think Love will move down to an SF/SG swingman).
I think I'll wait until after he's worked with Ben Howland for a year before declaring Love unable to play defense.
Clearly, players that draw fouls help their team. If you're arguing that when a player is fouled on a shot, it should count as a shot attempt if it doesn't go in for the purposes of the points-per-shot stat, that's fine, and it's probably a better indicator of what points-per-shot is trying to measure. But the new version of points-per-shot would still favor the guys who get fouled a lot and hit FTs at a high percentage. I don't see how this is false inflation of stats.
The $43 million figure is from Sam Amick's Bee article. Did you not see that, or are you questioning Amick? Just curious.
You're thinking of Tyler Hansborough.
One player who seems to get overlooked because of a perceived lack of athleticism is Kevin Love. But there's something to be said about good fundamentals (oh, say, Tim Duncan?) and Love should pan out to be a very good back-to-the-basket PF in the NBA who can also step outside and hit a jumper, at least to the college three range. Rebounds. Passes well, especially the outlet.
He may not be a top-three pick and I certainly wouldn't pass on Rose for him, but he might be a safer bet than some of the more athletic projects and tweeners in the draft (Ibaka, Beasley, Arthur).
Let's be honest here. Right now there are about 29 starting power forwards and 30 starting centers in the league that can only dream about being Duncan, the lone obvious exception being Duncan.
My point is that Duncan has become an all-time great on the basis of freak fundamentals, not freak athleticism. And despite his advanced development, I don't think anybody currently sees Kevin Love as the next coming of Duncan - he's about two inches shorter, for one. Duncan is just the example that fundamentals plus attainable athleticism can bring a big man's NBA ceiling up real high, so long as the fundamentals are really good.
Love does have really good fundamentals, and enough gym, enough treadmill, and enough desire will keep him at a level of acceptable athleticism to play in the NBA. Some other guys may be leaps and bounds ahead of him athletically, but he's post moves and box outs ahead of them fundamentally. Maybe they get it, maybe they don't. Love already has it.
It's hard to predict the draft this far out, but I could see Love falling into the 10-15 range (assuming he declares) because of more athletic, less polished guys being taken ahead of him. But the list of guys who will actually be better is probably shorter...(Rose, Mayo, Beasley as a SF, Batum?)
By all accounts, yes. (I haven't had the chance to see Hawes yet.) But Love will play the 4 in the NBA and is expected to be a legitimate rebounder while there have been questions raised about Hawes on that front. We're a mess at the 4 - Hawes doesn't seem to be a good reason to take Love out of consideration, just because both can play with their back to the basket.
Fair enough on the Brand comparison. To be clear on my thinking - I don't think Love has much chance of becoming a franchise player, and there are probably several big guys in the draft who'll have a better shot at that. But Love may have the best shot of any of them at becoming a top-15 PF. With Love you're probably compromising and getting a somewhat lower ceiling in exchange for a significantly higher floor. Analogous to what we saw in Shane Battier (ceiling/floorwise, not that I think Love will move down to an SF/SG swingman).
I think I'll wait until after he's worked with Ben Howland for a year before declaring Love unable to play defense.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with this somewhat, although I also think the difference is that this offseason was an incredibly bad market for free agents because so few teams had cap space, whereas there are quite a few teams stockpiling cap space for the good free agent class in the next offseason. While on paper undoubtedly Wallace would probably merit the bigger deal and I think Orlando was idiotic to go after Rashard rather than him, he didn't have the same market.
Of course, the difference also is that Wallace was an unrestricted free agent and the Kings could have matched any deal for Martin next season. It's somewhat hard to believe that another team would spring for more than $55 million for Kevin next season, but as Rashard Lewis goes to show, teams get really stupid when it comes to free agency. And if Kevin has another step up next season it wouldn't be inconceivable for a team to throw something close to the max for a 25 year old 25 ppg (hypothetically) scorer.
So overall I think it's reasonable. More than $55 mil and I would have squawked, but I think it's a decent price.
Of course, the difference also is that Wallace was an unrestricted free agent and the Kings could have matched any deal for Martin next season. It's somewhat hard to believe that another team would spring for more than $55 million for Kevin next season, but as Rashard Lewis goes to show, teams get really stupid when it comes to free agency. And if Kevin has another step up next season it wouldn't be inconceivable for a team to throw something close to the max for a 25 year old 25 ppg (hypothetically) scorer.
So overall I think it's reasonable. More than $55 mil and I would have squawked, but I think it's a decent price.
I don't think it is right to base a future salary on the fact that someone else is overpaid. As far as RIP goes he is an integral part of a championship team that has proved himslef. Look I am not bashing Martin, I like him a lot and want to keep him. But I was one of the people that thought the Bibby contract was a good one and look where we are now.
Hardly "bashing" on my part, just pure criticsiim and sarcasam. For the past couple of years I have consistantly criticized GP for NOT acting like a GM who was rebuilding a team. This off season I have consistantly complaind that he is NOT acting like a GM rebuilding a team, in fact the only moves for that could even remotely be considered rebuilding moves ARE the Martin extension and some of the nongaurenteed contracts to undrafted FA's. Unless you count the draft but It's hard to give a GM too much credit for useing his top 10 draft. On the other had trading up to nab a top 5 prospect... now that would be worth props.
So given the fact that Petrie has done almost nothing to rebuild the team I am only surprised when Petrie actually DOES make a rebuild move.
So given the fact that Petrie has done almost nothing to rebuild the team I am only surprised when Petrie actually DOES make a rebuild move.
ALL professional athletes are overpaid and the salaries are going to continue to go higher. That's a result of the CBA and what team owners are willing to pay for competitive players.
Our owners are willing to pay for Martin's services for the next 5 years and the amount they're willing to pay isn't that far out of line with what other players are receiving.
Martin has improved every single year, and there's certainly reason to believe he'll continue to do so. That's worth locking in now.
Our owners are willing to pay for Martin's services for the next 5 years and the amount they're willing to pay isn't that far out of line with what other players are receiving.
Martin has improved every single year, and there's certainly reason to believe he'll continue to do so. That's worth locking in now.
That's irrelevant. It's not about how much he's making in comparison to the average person walking down the street. The standard was set years ago for professional athletes; they make exponentially more than almost everyone else in the world, and have for several decades now.
The point is that we are giving Martin more than we necessarily had to, in my opinion. When you compare his contract with Gerald Wallace's and Chauncey Billups, I think it's fair to say that we overpaid for Kevin Martin. I think we paid for what it's possible he might become in the future, and if he fulfills his potential (which I'm not sure everyone agrees on exactly what that potential is, by the way) then it's probably a fair contract. If he keeps improving, adds some more elements and dimensions to his game, and stays healthy, then we'll be okay.
But I can't understand how we couldn't get him for less than $55 million, when a proven vet like Chauncey got $60 million as an unrestricted free agent, and Wallace, who I think is a more dynamic player, only got $47 million. I guess it's not that much more, but I still think we gave up more than we had to for a guy like Kevin.
The point is that we are giving Martin more than we necessarily had to, in my opinion. When you compare his contract with Gerald Wallace's and Chauncey Billups, I think it's fair to say that we overpaid for Kevin Martin. I think we paid for what it's possible he might become in the future, and if he fulfills his potential (which I'm not sure everyone agrees on exactly what that potential is, by the way) then it's probably a fair contract. If he keeps improving, adds some more elements and dimensions to his game, and stays healthy, then we'll be okay.
But I can't understand how we couldn't get him for less than $55 million, when a proven vet like Chauncey got $60 million as an unrestricted free agent, and Wallace, who I think is a more dynamic player, only got $47 million. I guess it's not that much more, but I still think we gave up more than we had to for a guy like Kevin.
I suppose that it may also have to do with what you think Martin's level to be; you and I and others agree that it's a little surprising that Martin was signed for more money than what Gerald Wallace signed for, but those that have been loyal to Martin since he was signed here may be more inclined to consider Martin to be the more talented of the two, and worth more.
I may not even actually be in the right ballpark, but I wanted to throw out the possibility that some people may not think it unusual to give Martin more money than Wallace because they think that Martin is better... As for myself, I personally don't see it.
I may not even actually be in the right ballpark, but I wanted to throw out the possibility that some people may not think it unusual to give Martin more money than Wallace because they think that Martin is better... As for myself, I personally don't see it.
Agreed. And I can understand the difference in opinion from one poster to another.
However, none of us on this board offered the contract. The front office of the Kings made this decision, and it's their opinion of Kevin that really matters. And maybe you and I are wrong and he is/will be a better player than Gerald Wallace. I hope like hell that turns out to be the case. But, like you, I don't see it, and I am surprised that Kevin got $55 million for five years.
If he turns out to be a stud, then, realistically, that's a steal. If he can make the All-Star game as a guard in the West (going against Kobe, McGrady, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and all the other top tier guards in this conference), then we're getting our money's worth, no doubt about it. But as of right now, he's just a scorer, with a track record that only really has one year of relevant experience on it to justify a big contract like this. I can't help but wonder if he's going to turn out to be worth it.
As of right now, it's my opinion that we overpaid for him, but I think we'll know one way or the other in a couple of seasons.
However, none of us on this board offered the contract. The front office of the Kings made this decision, and it's their opinion of Kevin that really matters. And maybe you and I are wrong and he is/will be a better player than Gerald Wallace. I hope like hell that turns out to be the case. But, like you, I don't see it, and I am surprised that Kevin got $55 million for five years.
If he turns out to be a stud, then, realistically, that's a steal. If he can make the All-Star game as a guard in the West (going against Kobe, McGrady, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and all the other top tier guards in this conference), then we're getting our money's worth, no doubt about it. But as of right now, he's just a scorer, with a track record that only really has one year of relevant experience on it to justify a big contract like this. I can't help but wonder if he's going to turn out to be worth it.
As of right now, it's my opinion that we overpaid for him, but I think we'll know one way or the other in a couple of seasons.
It's the difference between teams not having any cap space (this year) and what the landscape will look like next year. Petrie wasn't bidding against the teams in this free agency, he was bidding against what will happen next year.
This year only Orlando (Rashard) and Memphis (Darko) had any meaningful cap room that they used on another team's free agent. Every other free agent, including Chauncey and Wallace, has basically been at the mercy of his current team. That's why guys like Anderson Verejao still haven't even come to terms.
Next year is going to be different. Atlanta, Charlotte, Golden State, the Clippers (assuming Brand opts out), Memphis, Phildelphia... heck, even San Antonio. The list goes on and on. There are quite a few teams who are going to have cap room, and thus are going to be bidding against each other. And a 25 year old 20 ppg scorer (at least) would be one of the top free agents.
I really don't think you can look at this year's free agents and do a straight comparison. We'll see what happens next offseason.
This year only Orlando (Rashard) and Memphis (Darko) had any meaningful cap room that they used on another team's free agent. Every other free agent, including Chauncey and Wallace, has basically been at the mercy of his current team. That's why guys like Anderson Verejao still haven't even come to terms.
Next year is going to be different. Atlanta, Charlotte, Golden State, the Clippers (assuming Brand opts out), Memphis, Phildelphia... heck, even San Antonio. The list goes on and on. There are quite a few teams who are going to have cap room, and thus are going to be bidding against each other. And a 25 year old 20 ppg scorer (at least) would be one of the top free agents.
I really don't think you can look at this year's free agents and do a straight comparison. We'll see what happens next offseason.
The front office has also had more faith in Martin than numerous folks here, and their faith has pretty much proven to be justified.
As you said, we didn't sign the contract. They did. And I personally am glad to see they're willing to give fair market value to a young player with the potential that Martin has.
This isn't about Gerald Wallace, BTW. He doesn't play for the Sacramento Kings. What he was offered and accepted is what he was offered and accepted. It doesn't have to necessarily relate straight across to what happened between Martin and the Kings. It's how important they thought Martin was to sign now that matters. Let's revisit him when he has as much NBA experience as Wallace and see how they compare then. That might be a bit more accurate a comparison, although I would still question the validity.
As you said, we didn't sign the contract. They did. And I personally am glad to see they're willing to give fair market value to a young player with the potential that Martin has.
This isn't about Gerald Wallace, BTW. He doesn't play for the Sacramento Kings. What he was offered and accepted is what he was offered and accepted. It doesn't have to necessarily relate straight across to what happened between Martin and the Kings. It's how important they thought Martin was to sign now that matters. Let's revisit him when he has as much NBA experience as Wallace and see how they compare then. That might be a bit more accurate a comparison, although I would still question the validity.
Last edited:
I think people are misunderstaning where I am coming from. I could care less if Martin make 13 brazillion dollars a year, as long as it is not as large a part of the salary cap as it is. Unless we had other good pieces and we were resigning and going over the cap. He is not a franchise player, never will be, and this contract is not helping us in getting any cap relief in the near future.
Of course none of the moves we have done will.
Of course none of the moves we have done will.
I like the idea of locking in now. And I think Martin's salary is in the range of reasonable, though it's in the upper tier. What I wonder is: When was the last time that Petrie underpaid a player? Is it generally understood that Petrie generally overpays? Bonzi was the extreme example of "overpayment" where we lucked out. Even Lionel Simmons, way back when, was overpaid. Bibby - overpaid. Maybe it's selective memory, but I can't think of us ever underpaying anyone, relative to the league of course. If general overpayment is the rule for Petrie, then wouldn't every agent know it, and exploit it? I wonder if one day when Petrie is negotiating on retaining an existing player it might be wise for him to come in at the low end of the salary range and stick with it, come hell or high water. Whatever the outcome, at least the league won't take him for an easy mark, and then future negotiations might become easier. And then maybe we won't end up again with so many players that are overpaid. Just a thought.
Last edited:
That's a good point, but Martin would have been a restricted free agent next season, no? Worse case scenario is we match another team's offer. That's not desirable, because another team can drive his price up even higher, but we also would have had the right to sign him to a six year deal, which no other team would have been able to offer.
And besides that, I don't think the contracts that Billups and Wallace signed were undervalued at all, based on what we have seen in seasons past. And we could have at least used those contracts to hold his in check, somewhat. But we (reportedly) went from offering $43 million to giving $55 million. I mean, how much more could he have been asking for? I highly doubt that both sides met in the middle.
I just don't think Martin's value in a free agent market is five years, $55 million. Not at this point. I understand that a lot can happen in a year, but I don't see him improving drastically enough this season to be too concerned with his value skyrocketing in one season. We knew what he was when we drafted him, and that's pretty much what he's shown us so far. He can score, he shoot free throws, and from there, it's pretty difficult explaining what else he can do that warrants this type of contract.
And besides that, I don't think the contracts that Billups and Wallace signed were undervalued at all, based on what we have seen in seasons past. And we could have at least used those contracts to hold his in check, somewhat. But we (reportedly) went from offering $43 million to giving $55 million. I mean, how much more could he have been asking for? I highly doubt that both sides met in the middle.
I just don't think Martin's value in a free agent market is five years, $55 million. Not at this point. I understand that a lot can happen in a year, but I don't see him improving drastically enough this season to be too concerned with his value skyrocketing in one season. We knew what he was when we drafted him, and that's pretty much what he's shown us so far. He can score, he shoot free throws, and from there, it's pretty difficult explaining what else he can do that warrants this type of contract.
A
thats crazy how he's making more than wallace... martin better start rebounding and playing defense.... be top 10 in scoring, something...
we have 3/5 of our cap tied up in 3 players.... as long as we somehow draft a good pg this doesnt seem too bad... unless garcia goes for 20ppg this season and we're forced to pay him the same amount....
but what do i know? im not signing the checks so whatever...
we have 3/5 of our cap tied up in 3 players.... as long as we somehow draft a good pg this doesnt seem too bad... unless garcia goes for 20ppg this season and we're forced to pay him the same amount....
but what do i know? im not signing the checks so whatever...
Well, not necessarily. I had always hoped that Martin could turn into a pretty good scorer for us, and that is pretty much what I always heard the front office express, even when Rick was still here. If they now expect him to turn into a franchise cornerstone type of player, then that will have to be where our expectations differ.
Secondly, I disagree that they gave him fair market value. I think they gave him more than they had to, which is not the best course of action when you have a team with no real sense of direction. When we were trying to win a championship, it was okay to give Bibby $80 million, Miller $70 million, etc. But we are not at that level anymore. Our spending should be a lot more judicious.
No, it's not about Wallace, or anyone else, but the value for a player is always set by what's going on elsewhere in the League. It's always been that way, in every major sport. Same way with housing, etc. That's why the contracts other players are signing is relevant to how much Martin is offered. And five years, $55 million doesn't fit in with what's going on in the market for a player of Kevin's caliber, in my opinion.
And part of my argument is that he doesn't have as much NBA experience as Gerald Wallace does. I suppose that may work both ways, as we already know pretty well exactly what kind of player Wallace is, while there's still a bit of intrigue over what Kevin may turn into down the road, but they are still comparable. You can't set a value for something without comparing to something else. And when you compare Gerald Wallace to Kevin Martin, I don't see Martin coming out ahead.
However, as I said earlier, if Martin continues to improve (though I highly doubt he'll improve anywhere near as significantly as he did this past season) and stays healthy, then the contract won't be a problem. I just think the Kings overbid, especially for a player that they have the ultimate rights to. It's not like another team could have come in and stolen him away from us; he would have been a restricted free agent next year.
Secondly, I disagree that they gave him fair market value. I think they gave him more than they had to, which is not the best course of action when you have a team with no real sense of direction. When we were trying to win a championship, it was okay to give Bibby $80 million, Miller $70 million, etc. But we are not at that level anymore. Our spending should be a lot more judicious.
No, it's not about Wallace, or anyone else, but the value for a player is always set by what's going on elsewhere in the League. It's always been that way, in every major sport. Same way with housing, etc. That's why the contracts other players are signing is relevant to how much Martin is offered. And five years, $55 million doesn't fit in with what's going on in the market for a player of Kevin's caliber, in my opinion.
And part of my argument is that he doesn't have as much NBA experience as Gerald Wallace does. I suppose that may work both ways, as we already know pretty well exactly what kind of player Wallace is, while there's still a bit of intrigue over what Kevin may turn into down the road, but they are still comparable. You can't set a value for something without comparing to something else. And when you compare Gerald Wallace to Kevin Martin, I don't see Martin coming out ahead.
However, as I said earlier, if Martin continues to improve (though I highly doubt he'll improve anywhere near as significantly as he did this past season) and stays healthy, then the contract won't be a problem. I just think the Kings overbid, especially for a player that they have the ultimate rights to. It's not like another team could have come in and stolen him away from us; he would have been a restricted free agent next year.
I agree this signing is partially motivated by next year's free agency. But I disagree that any of the teams you named would sign Martin. Memphis is not far enough under to make a $55 million offer. San Antonio has around $10 millions but the cap and their shortage of players prohibits them from blowing it all on one player. Atlanta, Charlotte, and Golden State don't need another SG. Philly will not have enough money after they extend offer to the new AI.
The thing is, none of the teams that need a SG has enough cap space; and none of the teams that has enough cap space needs a SG.
When I look around, I don't see any team who will give KMart a $55 million deal. Of the teams that need a SG, I think only Toronto has the means to create cap space by trading away contracts. And even so, their max offer is likely similar to what we offered.
So I feel like we just gave Martin the same deal that we would have given next year in a worst case scenario.
Don't get me wrong, Martin is important to this franchise. But no less important than Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Iguodala, and Okafor to their respective franchises; none of whom signed an extension yet, and I think for good reasons.
The thing is, none of the teams that need a SG has enough cap space; and none of the teams that has enough cap space needs a SG.
When I look around, I don't see any team who will give KMart a $55 million deal. Of the teams that need a SG, I think only Toronto has the means to create cap space by trading away contracts. And even so, their max offer is likely similar to what we offered.
So I feel like we just gave Martin the same deal that we would have given next year in a worst case scenario.
Don't get me wrong, Martin is important to this franchise. But no less important than Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Iguodala, and Okafor to their respective franchises; none of whom signed an extension yet, and I think for good reasons.
Philly would definitely have enough money to sign Martin after they extend Iguodala -- even if Iggy gets Martin dollars they're still $10 million under. And they have a big hole at SG assuming Iggy at the SF. Not to mention Utah (who I didn't mention) who has a major hole at SG and is slated to be about $10 milliono under, Toronto, Chicago if they don't sign all of their guys... and then you never know when someone is going to pull an Orlando.
So while I do wonder if teams would have balked at making a big offer to Kevin knowing the Kings would match (and obviously we'll never know), there are enough teams out there to suggest that someone might have tried to overpay to force the Maloofs' hands since we're really close to luxury tax range.
So while I do wonder if teams would have balked at making a big offer to Kevin knowing the Kings would match (and obviously we'll never know), there are enough teams out there to suggest that someone might have tried to overpay to force the Maloofs' hands since we're really close to luxury tax range.
If you're going by hoopshype.com's salary table, note that their calculation for the total salary is wrong.
Utah does not have $10 millions under, they're about $5 millions under (ignore hoopshype.com's calculation, just add up the contracts yourself and you'll see). Philly is about $8 millions under if Iggy gets a $10M/yr contract. In theory, they can sign Martin and then go over the cap to sign Iggy, but since they have two young SGs and a deep hole at the 4, I doubt they'll do it. Even if they do it, they won't give KMart more cash than they do to Iggy, which means likely not any more than $55 millions.
I can actually see why Orlando offered the world to Lewis. But there isnt another Orlando next year (team w/ huge cap space and a need at 2/3). So I still don't see any team giving KMart that much money... other than us.
We're going to be way above the luxury tax next year. Which means GP MUST trade away salary by next summer or else...
Utah does not have $10 millions under, they're about $5 millions under (ignore hoopshype.com's calculation, just add up the contracts yourself and you'll see). Philly is about $8 millions under if Iggy gets a $10M/yr contract. In theory, they can sign Martin and then go over the cap to sign Iggy, but since they have two young SGs and a deep hole at the 4, I doubt they'll do it. Even if they do it, they won't give KMart more cash than they do to Iggy, which means likely not any more than $55 millions.
I can actually see why Orlando offered the world to Lewis. But there isnt another Orlando next year (team w/ huge cap space and a need at 2/3). So I still don't see any team giving KMart that much money... other than us.
We're going to be way above the luxury tax next year. Which means GP MUST trade away salary by next summer or else...
The luxury tax doesn't kick in as soon as you go over the cap. There's always been a buffer of at least a few million.
According to this (ESPN.com), the cap for last season was $53.135, and the luxury tax was $65.42 million. The tax went up over three million from $61.7 million the previous season. So, assuming it goes up three or four million next season, and it's between $68-70 million, we won't be in luxury tax land. Even if it doesn't, we would only be taxed a million or so.
According to this (ESPN.com), the cap for last season was $53.135, and the luxury tax was $65.42 million. The tax went up over three million from $61.7 million the previous season. So, assuming it goes up three or four million next season, and it's between $68-70 million, we won't be in luxury tax land. Even if it doesn't, we would only be taxed a million or so.