Kings Latest Trade Mumbo-Jumbo

[Rug King]

One thing I am pretty sure about Petrie is that if you see a rumor regarding the Kings in a trade, it is usually bogus. Petrie plays his cards VERY close to his vest. It is always possible that the other team lets on that there is trade activity with the Kings. In that case, it might be the only way we ever have any prior knowledge of a trade, and might pee Petrie off enough to scuttle the trade

I, unlike many here am not so hot on trading Martin just yet. I don't think the Kings can get value right now for him because he is playing so poorly. The problem with K-Mart is K-Mart right now is He is missing shots he normally makes. That is not a chemistry issue. It is a player issue. So to maximize Martin's worth, the Kings have to get Martin going and scoring again. That shouldn't be too hard because Martin is a good scorer who is bound to pull out of the nosedive his career is in.

I can't see the worth in taking on T-Mac and his huge salary. Sure it is a giant expiring contract, but what would we do with that big of an expiring contract? Are there still some here that believe the Kings have a shot at ANY of the top 5 free agents this summer? I think the Kings are shooting for something much lower than that. I think the Kings have the assets to acquire a Defensive Minded Center who can rebound and protect the paint. I also think that the Kings can do a deal without trading Martin to do it.

I believe that after practice, PW made a very astute observation regarding the Kings issues. He stated quite plainly that the problem with the Kings right now is interior defense. He said that the Kings are "Soft in the Middle". He is totally correct in this. The Kings have had a hole in the center of their defense all year and are the softest team in the league in the paint. This is the aspect of the team that is most desperate for the Kings to address. Hawes is still improving but it will take him a year or two to bulk up to play center in the NBA. Kings need help in the front court to be a team that is competitive. A defensive minded center who can rebound and play defense one on one against centers around the league. If the Kings had that, they would be much better defensively and would win a few more of these close games. This is NOT a playoff team. Even if they made the playoffs they would be one and done. So they need to build for the future.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

 

[DocHolliday]

One thing I am pretty sure about Petrie is that if you see a rumor regarding the Kings in a trade, it is usually bogus. Petrie plays his cards VERY close to his vest. It is always possible that the other team lets on that there is trade activity with the Kings. In that case, it might be the only way we ever have any prior knowledge of a trade, and might pee Petrie off enough to scuttle the trade

I, unlike many here am not so hot on trading Martin just yet. I don't think the Kings can get value right now for him because he is playing so poorly. The problem with K-Mart is K-Mart right now is He is missing shots he normally makes. That is not a chemistry issue. It is a player issue. So to maximize Martin's worth, the Kings have to get Martin going and scoring again. That shouldn't be too hard because Martin is a good scorer who is bound to pull out of the nosedive his career is in.

I can't see the worth in taking on T-Mac and his huge salary. Sure it is a giant expiring contract, but what would we do with that big of an expiring contract? Are there still some here that believe the Kings have a shot at ANY of the top 5 free agents this summer? I think the Kings are shooting for something much lower than that. I think the Kings have the assets to acquire a Defensive Minded Center who can rebound and protect the paint. I also think that the Kings can do a deal without trading Martin to do it.

I believe that after practice, PW made a very astute observation regarding the Kings issues. He stated quite plainly that the problem with the Kings right now is interior defense. He said that the Kings are "Soft in the Middle". He is totally correct in this. The Kings have had a hole in the center of their defense all year and are the softest team in the league in the paint. This is the aspect of the team that is most desperate for the Kings to address. Hawes is still improving but it will take him a year or two to bulk up to play center in the NBA. Kings need help in the front court to be a team that is competitive. A defensive minded center who can rebound and play defense one on one against centers around the league. If the Kings had that, they would be much better defensively and would win a few more of these close games. This is NOT a playoff team. Even if they made the playoffs they would be one and done. So they need to build for the future.

So we're supposed to wait 5 years for a player to develop into something? Come on. A player is who a player is. Players don't typically make huge leaps from year 3 to 5. They make incremental improvements if they are extremely talented, and if they put in A LOT of work in the off season.

Spencers body is what it is. He'll put on more weight, but have the same "shape" He will be built similarly to Brad Miller when all is said and done, with maybe a bit more muscle definition.

Take it from someone who has been working out for years. The shape of your body is the shape of your body, no matter bigger, or smaller. The shape remains the same. Unless you are taking some type of non over the counter PE's.

 

[Tetsujin]

So we're supposed to wait 5 years for a player to develop into something? Come on. A player is who a player is. Players don't typically make huge leaps from year 3 to 5. They make incremental improvements if they are extremely talented, and if they put in A LOT of work in the off season.

Spencers body is what it is. He'll put on more weight, but have the same "shape" He will be built similarly to Brad Miller when all is said and done, with maybe a bit more muscle definition.

Take it from someone who has been working out for years. The shape of your body is the shape of your body, no matter bigger, or smaller. The shape remains the same. Unless you are taking some type of non over the counter PE's.

If he becomes Brad Miller with a post game, that's a pretty darn good player. Or has everyone forgotten how good Brad was during the first couple of seasons he was here?

 

[Aenadin]

If he becomes Brad Miller with a post game, that's a pretty darn good player. Or has everyone forgotten how good Brad was during the first couple of seasons he was here?

brad on his best years was 15ppg almost 10rpg assists a steal and a block per game for us... and i think one of his best years was playing off the bench too

he's going to be better than miller

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Well, we did shorten our rotation. Thompson didn't play and neither did Beno. I must say that I found it odd that Beno didn't play and Sergio did, especially since Beno says that there wasn't any reason he couldn't play.

Well, I guess you could be right on Beno. I just kind of assumed he really was injured as claimed but the team could have been holding him out. Thompson of course was at a funeral. Still, whatever the supposed trade was it would seem it wasn't nearly as close to complete as Grant and Jerry implied on Wednesday.

 

[swisshh]

Good news everyone! Isiah Thomas might be joining the Clippers front office!

 

[AriesMar27]

Good news everyone! Isiah Thomas might be joining the Clippers front office!

deandre jordan.... or kaman/camby either way im good...

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Woo hoo, c'mon Geoff, call up Zeke and get us Caveman and Camby!

 

[LPKingsFan]

There are 3 PG/SG scenarios that coach is trying:

1- Evans + Martin
2- Sergio + Evans
3- Beno + Evans

#1 doesn't appear to be working, oh yeah, it worked for 1-1/2 game but not since. Evans is a driver, scorer and now with a decent 3pt shot. Seems that is same description of Martin. Therefore, who runs the team in transition or from the half-court set? Hard to say from what I've seen......

#2 works sometimes but Sergio is like a windup toy run amok and tends to dribble too much. A pestering type defender but not as strong or big as Tyreke or Beno. But his windup toy running around does have a disrupting effect, if he can be a consistent distributor.

#3 seems to work the best as Beno is the best "stop & pop" scorer on the team, drives really well, handles the ball well and can distribute well without dribbling too much. His outside shot seems better than most and he is a good 3pt shooter, something Sergio is not. Sergio off the bench has worked really good several time recently.

The PF spot is biggest weakness at this point. JT, I love the guy, but his confidence seems shot and his game is in the tank. Sean May is a big time surprise and maybe he is one part of a solution. But then maybe Donte is the other part of a PF solution who can also play the 3 when needed. Then who do we have behind Hawes? JT? not really. Armstrong?? Big ? for me. A defender only with limited range shooting.

Kings trade, if any, needs to address the front line first. Martin is the best bargaining chip the Kings have but he is not getting a front line starter from a top 15 team, again IMHO. A backup or two from a top 10 team maybe: decent backup for Hawes and a scoring/defending type of PF. Hey, I can dream can't I?

I'm still waiting for a chance to try #4--Cisco and Reke.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I'm with you on Petrie waiting too long to trade a guy. It seems like he waits for them to implode before he trades them. (I guess Richmond would be the exception). Peja, Bibby, Artest. He waited too long. Martin is imploding now. I'm still not sure whether he wants to trade Martin though. You mention that they (Reynolds, Petrie's voice) was certain about the benefits of Kevin Martin and Tyreke. Well, people usually don't change their opinions 180 degrees in a matter of a few weeks. They'll hold out to see if they were right to begin with. If I had to bet, I'd say he's not traded by the trade deadline.

I think he waited too long on Bibby and Brad for whatever reason. You could argue Webber too, but you really can't ask him to predict a player severly blowing out his knee and we would not have wanted to trade him during our peak unless we were getting another superstar big back.

However, he traded Sarunas, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Jason Williams, Doug Christie, and Bobby Jackson before they fell off. Maybe not peak value for someone like Doug or BoJex, as that would have meant trading them while we were contenders, but he did trade them before it was too late and got back assets.

I would also argue he traded Artest at his peak value. Not when Artest was playing his best basketball, but until he was entering his final season, no team wanted to trade for Artest because of his antics with Indiana and us. Remember, the Nuggest were willing to give us an expiring contract and first round pick, but refused to part with Leinas Keliza too. Petrie held out and got Donte, a 1st round pick and an expiring contract. That was peak value.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I disagree. We traded Peja for Ron Artest. That's hardly qualifies as "waited too long." Bibby was traded for his fair market value, expirings, which was his value all along even if he had been traded earlier. The Kings actually got a better deal by waiting an extra year to trade Artest.

.

Agree on Artest. But disagree on Bibby. If we had traded him a year or two earlier, we could have gotten some talent back in the deal. Whether is was Petrie's need to evaluate or the Maloofs belief that we should be competing for a playoff spot, it hurt our eventual haul.

Peja is an interesting case, because of his age and talent, there was a legitimate argument for keeping him through the rebuild. With him it was more bad luck that he started developing back problems. I do think Petrie did well getting Artest for him though, especially considering half a year later all Walsh could get for him was Al Harrington.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Did anyone happen to notice during the Spurs game that when Reynolds and Grant were talking about the Spurs and their needs, Reynolds let slip something along the lines of, the spurs are about to complete a trade for a backup point guard and a SF. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something close to that. So the question looms, how would he know that unless the Kings were somehow involved.

They certainly need a backup point right now. I don't know about the SF situation. The next question is, who do they have that we would want?

I could see something along the lines of either Beno/Udoka or Sergio/Cisco (great fit in SA if they feel he will get healthy soon enough) for some combination of Mahimmi, Splitter, 1st round pick, and Mason + Finley. They actually don't have the salaries needed to take both Beno and Cisco/Noc. If something like this happened, I assume we would secretly agree to cut both Finley and Mason who would then resign with the Spurs after the waiting period.

 

[bajaden]

I never thought I would say this, but after watching the Kings/Suns game, I decided that Amare would be a very good fit on our team. He's exactly what Tyreke needs in a big man. He's someone that runs the floor well, and is a perfect outlet for a point guard thats capable of drawing the double team. Which Tyreke can do.

In todays game I believe Tyreke had 8 assists. I counted 9 other passes that should, or could have been assists, but the shots were missed. I counted 4 others where the player put the ball on the floor from a wide open position and dribbled into traffic before putting up a shot. Just make half of those to someone like Amare, and we win the damm game. Of course the problem isn't so much making the trade. Its the resigning of Amare. So I doubt it would happen.

 

[Kingster]

I never thought I would say this, but after watching the Kings/Suns game, I decided that Amare would be a very good fit on our team. He's exactly what Tyreke needs in a big man. He's someone that runs the floor well, and is a perfect outlet for a point guard thats capable of drawing the double team. Which Tyreke can do.

In todays game I believe Tyreke had 8 assists. I counted 9 other passes that should, or could have been assists, but the shots were missed. I counted 4 others where the player put the ball on the floor from a wide open position and dribbled into traffic before putting up a shot. Just make half of those to someone like Amare, and we win the damm game. Of course the problem isn't so much making the trade. Its the resigning of Amare. So I doubt it would happen.

I'd never thought I'd say this (well, maybe a little ) that Bosh looks pretty darned good. But really, what are the chances the Kings get him? Remote. I dout it would happen.

 

[bajaden]

I'd never thought I'd say this (well, maybe a little ) that Bosh looks pretty darned good. But really, what are the chances the Kings get him? Remote. I dout it would happen.

Well we would have the same problem with him that we have with Stoudemire. Could we resign him? Also, with the players agreement expiring in 2011, and with what Stern is saying the owners are going to propose, this might be the last chance for players to have a real big payday. What I found real interesting was that the league wants the new agreement to be retroactive to all prior agreements. I wonder how that would stand up in court?

 

[ParniValjak]

I never thought I would say this, but after watching the Kings/Suns game, I decided that Amare would be a very good fit on our team. He's exactly what Tyreke needs in a big man. He's someone that runs the floor well, and is a perfect outlet for a point guard thats capable of drawing the double team. Which Tyreke can do.

In todays game I believe Tyreke had 8 assists. I counted 9 other passes that should, or could have been assists, but the shots were missed. I counted 4 others where the player put the ball on the floor from a wide open position and dribbled into traffic before putting up a shot. Just make half of those to someone like Amare, and we win the damm game. Of course the problem isn't so much making the trade. Its the resigning of Amare. So I doubt it would happen.

Some of us have been saying for a long time that Amare's offensive game is a perfect match for Tyreke. He is deadly from mid-range, especially on a pick and pop and he is a strong finisher around the basket. The problem with Amare is that you then definetly need a serious defensive presence at C next to him. Someone who is an exceptional rebounder, defender and shotblocker because Amare is neither of those.

In real terms Amare is a Kevin Martin of PFs. Either way, I would love to pair Reke with Amare and then try and fill the holes around the 2 of them. We would still need that defensive big to cover for Amare but at least we would have the inside-outside offensive duo that can play off each other. We would be much closer to contention than we are now.

Which ever way you look at it, Amare is an efficient scoring PF, a 20/9 player, perennial all-star and there are not many of those around.

Ideally, you want Bosh but if Amare opts out and you drop the max on him, we might have a chance to ge thim.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Well we would have the same problem with him that we have with Stoudemire. Could we resign him? Also, with the players agreement expiring in 2011, and with what Stern is saying the owners are going to propose, this might be the last chance for players to have a real big payday. What I found real interesting was that the league wants the new agreement to be retroactive to all prior agreements. I wonder how that would stand up in court?

I would imagine that current NBA contracts must have some sort of clause in them that makes them contingent on the games actually happening. Lockout = no season = no money to players. If they decide to make a new CBA contingent upon renegotiation of existing contracts and they really think they have the power to do that (meaning that they can survive a lockout better then the players) then I suppose they could pull it off without there being a court issue at all.

I know the owners really want to reduce the percentage of BRI that goes to players. But the way they control that percentage now is complicated and not particularly effective (mostly the escrow system), and doesn't really address the problem, which is that without a hard cap owners will spend out of control regardless of salary caps and luxury taxes when the economy is good, then get themselves bit in the rear when the economy goes bad.

I honestly think the NBA needs (or at least would be best off with) a system with the following three traits:
1) A very hard cap
2) Lots more revenue sharing
3) Salaries indexed to league income rather than absolute dollars

The nice thing about 3) is that you don't actually have to renegotiate current contracts to do it, you just virtually fit them in. It's less messy that way, obviously, because the players under existing contracts get paid what they were supposed to get paid. (Though if the owners were able to get through a big reduction in the players' share of BRI, big contracts would become very burdensome.) Anyway, a system like this seems like the best way to me to actually control spending. I just hope that whatever they do, the labor dispute doesn't destroy a whole season (or more) of basketball.

 

[bajaden]

I would imagine that current NBA contracts must have some sort of clause in them that makes them contingent on the games actually happening. Lockout = no season = no money to players. If they decide to make a new CBA contingent upon renegotiation of existing contracts and they really think they have the power to do that (meaning that they can survive a lockout better then the players) then I suppose they could pull it off without there being a court issue at all.

I know the owners really want to reduce the percentage of BRI that goes to players. But the way they control that percentage now is complicated and not particularly effective (mostly the escrow system), and doesn't really address the problem, which is that without a hard cap owners will spend out of control regardless of salary caps and luxury taxes when the economy is good, then get themselves bit in the rear when the economy goes bad.

I honestly think the NBA needs (or at least would be best off with) a system with the following three traits:
1) A very hard cap
2) Lots more revenue sharing
3) Salaries indexed to league income rather than absolute dollars

The nice thing about 3) is that you don't actually have to renegotiate current contracts to do it, you just virtually fit them in. It's less messy that way, obviously, because the players under existing contracts get paid what they were supposed to get paid. (Though if the owners were able to get through a big reduction in the players' share of BRI, big contracts would become very burdensome.) Anyway, a system like this seems like the best way to me to actually control spending. I just hope that whatever they do, the labor dispute doesn't destroy a whole season (or more) of basketball.

Excellent post.. And I certainly share that last sentence with you. The part I was curious about was the retroactive part. Even if they were to change the agreement and both parties agree to it. Isn't a contract a contract. I mean if I'm Chris Bosh for instance and I sign a 6 year 120 million dollar contract and then the league puts in place a new agreement limiting max contracts to 5 years and 60 million dollars, can they just void that contract and make Bosh abide by the new rules. If so, I seriously doubt the players would go along with it.

I know the league wants a hard cap. The only problem with a hard cap is that every team would have to be playing by the same rules. Which is fine by me. Especially if they throw in revenue sharing. The losers in this deal are the players at the low end of the scale. Teams are going to make sure they retain their best players. So the bulk of the money will go to the stars on the team. The rest of the players will have to spit up whats left. I tell you, I just don't see this happening without a lockout. Could be that the league is just giving themselves some wiggle room. Lets hope for the best.

 

[Bricklayer]

Excellent post.. And I certainly share that last sentence with you. The part I was curious about was the retroactive part. Even if they were to change the agreement and both parties agree to it. Isn't a contract a contract. I mean if I'm Chris Bosh for instance and I sign a 6 year 120 million dollar contract and then the league puts in place a new agreement limiting max contracts to 5 years and 60 million dollars, can they just void that contract and make Bosh abide by the new rules. If so, I seriously doubt the players would go along with it.

I know the league wants a hard cap. The only problem with a hard cap is that every team would have to be playing by the same rules. Which is fine by me. Especially if they throw in revenue sharing. The losers in this deal are the players at the low end of the scale. Teams are going to make sure they retain their best players. So the bulk of the money will go to the stars on the team. The rest of the players will have to spit up whats left. I tell you, I just don't see this happening without a lockout. Could be that the league is just giving themselves some wiggle room. Lets hope for the best.

This is the sort of draconian thing that can lose a league an entire season. Its really dangerously stupid (referring of course to the opening slavos, not your remarks), and could not come at a worst time for us as we are just in the process of taking off and could see everything change around us and make a delicate process even tougher, and could cost us part or even all of a key season for us. Not to mention a new arena theoretically breaking ground just about in time for there to be no NBA basketball.

 

[The Hammer]

I'd never thought I'd say this (well, maybe a little ) that Bosh looks pretty darned good. But really, what are the chances the Kings get him? Remote. I dout it would happen.

The chances of us landing a major, major free agent are not as remote as one might think. One reason (well two maybe): Tyreke Evans (and Donte, and maybe Casspi). Guys aren't dumb. Those good big men superstars know they need another star/superstar to win a title. We have possibly the best young core in the league. We have a good coach. We have good owners. If it's all max money, you want to go to a good organization and win a title. Period. That will make their careers, their retirement, etc. Big market schmig market. It's a global market now anyway. All you smallheads in Sacto just need to get out of Kansas every once in a while. I did, I grew up there. Ya'll are funny.

 

[bajaden]

The chances of us landing a major, major free agent are not as remote as one might think. One reason (well two maybe): Tyreke Evans (and Donte, and maybe Casspi). Guys aren't dumb. Those good big men superstars know they need another star/superstar to win a title. We have possibly the best young core in the league. We have a good coach. We have good owners. If it's all max money, you want to go to a good organization and win a title. Period. That will make their careers, their retirement, etc. Big market schmig market. It's a global market now anyway. All you smallheads in Sacto just need to get out of Kansas every once in a while. I did, I grew up there. Ya'll are funny.

We do our best to entertain. Wait, I'm not in Sacramento either. Been to Kansas, its flat. Same with Oklahoma where they have to build a hill to see what one looks like. Yep, I'm down here in the media hub of the world. Ensenada Mexico, where you turn on the tube and get to choose between 20 soccer games or a bullfight.

 

[Rookie]

IMO small head is better than big head with small brain.

 

[kennadog]

All you smallheads in Sacto just need to get out of Kansas every once in a while. I did, I grew up there. Ya'll are funny.

Grew up in LA area, brief stinit in the Bay Area in HS, then Sacramento. So I don't think I qualify as provincial, just realistic about the appeal of some markets compared to others.

 

[Larry David]

Trades related to lockout

NBA owners are going to roll back the clock and they are going to do it with a lockout that lasts most – if not all of – the 2011 season. With recent losses and the economy as a reason for the fans (didn't say it was a good one), they’ve got one shot to completely remake the salary structure of the league. And based upon 1999, they know they can break the union. Most players spend a lot of what they make and a ton of players had cashflow issues during the 1999 lockout. Whereas the owners shrewdly structured the new TV deal where they collect the TV money – even if there is no season(s) – and they simply have to repay it later if the year is lost to a lockout (most likely by extending the TV deal another year).



You wouldn’t think about it at first glance – but there is an odd plurality owners– that will probably prevent 16 votes for proposal that would save the start of the season. First, owners that not only want to avoid future losses – but dramatically revamp the system to ensure profits – even if it means losing a season. You know Sterling is in there, Bobcats, Ws, Grizz, Hawks, ect. Not inconceivable the Maloofs wouldn’t want to kick the tires here. Second, teams that have screwed up their cap and it’s in their best interest not to play a season. Hornets, Suns, and Pacers jump to mind. George Shin, you could: (1) play the season and lose millions; or (2) not play the season, collect the TV money to cover all of your operating costs, and come back one year later to a profitable team – which way are you leaning? Third, small market teams. You’re Utah. You would rather play the season and you can make money under the current rules – but you complete against the Lakers and other squads that can spend 20 million more than you. Don’t you have at least some interest in a hard cap and rolling back salaries? How about you Bucks?


Furthermore, even if you didn’t have 16 owners in “out for blood mode” to start … the NBA most likely isn’t getting a deal pounded out before a lockout is imposed. The players always want to make their “best pitch” at the 11th hour. There will be a lot of owners screaming about killing the golden goose and upsetting fans just before the season … but once you start missing games … well that ship has sailed. At which point, owners who were on the fence say, “Ok, we tried to do it the right way – it’s time to break the union.” See hockey. Once the lockout started, the owners never budged. They said – you’ll take this … you just don’t know it yet.


Thus, the odds favor a long lockout coming. The Kings should prepare for it. Instead, of clearing cap for 2010 … they might want to: (1) take advantage of teams desperately trying to clear cash for 2010; and (2) be ready to take advantage of the new rules in the summer of 2011 … which will probably won’t take place until late spring of 2012.
Same thing happened in hockey. The teams with cap were able to scoop up a lot of players making a fraction of their old salaries.


Even if you don’t think there will be a lockout, salaries will be rolled back. I’ll put it to you this way, would you rather: (1) buy Sacramento real estate at 2005 prices; or (2) shop for the first time at current prices and be holding the most cash?


If you sign David Lee this summer you are going to pay a ton for him. If the deal goes bad, you’re locked in to a multi-year deal with all years guaranteed. Or you wait one season, and sign him for 65% to a 4 year deal with only the first two years having any guaranteed money … and you spend the other 45% on another player.


I throw this out there – not as the best thing we could get for the expiring / likely / have run numbers for this summer’s cap – so use it as a very rough example regarding my point. First option. Because you weren’t able to find a good big man in trade, you let KT and Armstrong’s deals expire. You sign somebody like Lee for a lot of money … 9-17 months later, a year gets knocked off his contract by the CBS but he’s still grossly overpaid. Second, because the Knicks are desperate to clear cap now – you trade KT and Armstrong for Jordan Hill and Jefferies (who you have no intent on playing next season) and a strongly protected pick way down the road . When the new CBA comes along, you sign: (1) somebody much better than Lee for the 2010 Lee price; or (2) Lee quality player for 65 cents on the dollar … plus, even losing a year to the lockout … you’ve got two years of Hill’s rookie contract as a prospect/bench guy starting in 2012.


It would be hard for fans to understand, but it will most likely be in the best interest of the team. The best move could be some odd deal with Curry, AK-47, or Dampier and players/picks.


Food for thought ... and a long ramble.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I never thought I would say this, but after watching the Kings/Suns game, I decided that Amare would be a very good fit on our team. He's exactly what Tyreke needs in a big man. He's someone that runs the floor well, and is a perfect outlet for a point guard thats capable of drawing the double team. Which Tyreke can do.

In todays game I believe Tyreke had 8 assists. I counted 9 other passes that should, or could have been assists, but the shots were missed. I counted 4 others where the player put the ball on the floor from a wide open position and dribbled into traffic before putting up a shot. Just make half of those to someone like Amare, and we win the damm game. Of course the problem isn't so much making the trade. Its the resigning of Amare. So I doubt it would happen.

No thanks to Amare, he'll slip once his athleticism declines and he's a crappy rebounder and defender.

 

[bajaden]

No thanks to Amare, he'll slip once his athleticism declines and he's a crappy rebounder and defender.

I will admit that Amare is not a very good defender. But I'm a little tired of people just ignoring the fact that he averaging just under 10 rebounds a game at 9.7. His career average is at 8.9. Now I don't know if you've looked lately, but thats better than anyone on our team. And its very respectful league wise.

 

[bajaden]

NBA owners are going to roll back the clock and they are going to do it with a lockout that lasts most – if not all of – the 2011 season. With recent losses and the economy as a reason for the fans (didn't say it was a good one), they’ve got one shot to completely remake the salary structure of the league. And based upon 1999, they know they can break the union. Most players spend a lot of what they make and a ton of players had cashflow issues during the 1999 lockout. Whereas the owners shrewdly structured the new TV deal where they collect the TV money – even if there is no season(s) – and they simply have to repay it later if the year is lost to a lockout (most likely by extending the TV deal another year).



You wouldn’t think about it at first glance – but there is an odd plurality owners– that will probably prevent 16 votes for proposal that would save the start of the season. First, owners that not only want to avoid future losses – but dramatically revamp the system to ensure profits – even if it means losing a season. You know Sterling is in there, Bobcats, Ws, Grizz, Hawks, ect. Not inconceivable the Maloofs wouldn’t want to kick the tires here. Second, teams that have screwed up their cap and it’s in their best interest not to play a season. Hornets, Suns, and Pacers jump to mind. George Shin, you could: (1) play the season and lose millions; or (2) not play the season, collect the TV money to cover all of your operating costs, and come back one year later to a profitable team – which way are you leaning? Third, small market teams. You’re Utah. You would rather play the season and you can make money under the current rules – but you complete against the Lakers and other squads that can spend 20 million more than you. Don’t you have at least some interest in a hard cap and rolling back salaries? How about you Bucks?


Furthermore, even if you didn’t have 16 owners in “out for blood mode” to start … the NBA most likely isn’t getting a deal pounded out before a lockout is imposed. The players always want to make their “best pitch” at the 11th hour. There will be a lot of owners screaming about killing the golden goose and upsetting fans just before the season … but once you start missing games … well that ship has sailed. At which point, owners who were on the fence say, “Ok, we tried to do it the right way – it’s time to break the union.” See hockey. Once the lockout started, the owners never budged. They said – you’ll take this … you just don’t know it yet.


Thus, the odds favor a long lockout coming. The Kings should prepare for it. Instead, of clearing cap for 2010 … they might want to: (1) take advantage of teams desperately trying to clear cash for 2010; and (2) be ready to take advantage of the new rules in the summer of 2011 … which will probably won’t take place until late spring of 2012.
Same thing happened in hockey. The teams with cap were able to scoop up a lot of players making a fraction of their old salaries.


Even if you don’t think there will be a lockout, salaries will be rolled back. I’ll put it to you this way, would you rather: (1) buy Sacramento real estate at 2005 prices; or (2) shop for the first time at current prices and be holding the most cash?


If you sign David Lee this summer you are going to pay a ton for him. If the deal goes bad, you’re locked in to a multi-year deal with all years guaranteed. Or you wait one season, and sign him for 65% to a 4 year deal with only the first two years having any guaranteed money … and you spend the other 45% on another player.


I throw this out there – not as the best thing we could get for the expiring / likely / have run numbers for this summer’s cap – so use it as a very rough example regarding my point. First option. Because you weren’t able to find a good big man in trade, you let KT and Armstrong’s deals expire. You sign somebody like Lee for a lot of money … 9-17 months later, a year gets knocked off his contract by the CBS but he’s still grossly overpaid. Second, because the Knicks are desperate to clear cap now – you trade KT and Armstrong for Jordan Hill and Jefferies (who you have no intent on playing next season) and a strongly protected pick way down the road . When the new CBA comes along, you sign: (1) somebody much better than Lee for the 2010 Lee price; or (2) Lee quality player for 65 cents on the dollar … plus, even losing a year to the lockout … you’ve got two years of Hill’s rookie contract as a prospect/bench guy starting in 2012.


It would be hard for fans to understand, but it will most likely be in the best interest of the team. The best move could be some odd deal with Curry, AK-47, or Dampier and players/picks.


Food for thought ... and a long ramble.

Another excellent post, and you beat me to one point. I was going to suggest that it might be in the Kings best interest to try and clear cap space for the end of the 2011 season. Your absolutely right! A lot of teams will be strapped down with big salarys and no wiggle room. There will probably be a lot of players on the market and under a new agreement. Any team with cap space will be able to get more bang for their buck.

So a deal for lets say, Amare Stoudemire, and if you can convince him to pick up his option for the coming year, it would work out well for the Kings. His contract would then expire at the end of the 2011 season and we would get a year and a half of play out of him. Of course having cap space at the end of this season doesn't mean you have to use it this next off season.

If the owners are serious about everything Stern proposed for starters, then I just can't see there not being a lockout. Painful as it might be, it could end up benefiting teams like the Kings.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I will admit that Amare is not a very good defender. But I'm a little tired of people just ignoring the fact that he averaging just under 10 rebounds a game at 9.7. His career average is at 8.9. Now I don't know if you've looked lately, but thats better than anyone on our team. And its very respectful league wise.

Total Rebounds Per 40 pace adjusted

Stoudemire - 9.5
Thompson - 10.3

Total Rebounding %

Stoudemire - 13.8
Thompson - 15.2

To put his rebounding numbers in perspective for you.

 

[Kingster]

Well we would have the same problem with him that we have with Stoudemire. Could we resign him? Also, with the players agreement expiring in 2011, and with what Stern is saying the owners are going to propose, this might be the last chance for players to have a real big payday. What I found real interesting was that the league wants the new agreement to be retroactive to all prior agreements. I wonder how that would stand up in court?

If they get the same court that was involved with the Chrysler BK, no problem...

 

[Kingster]

NBA owners are going to roll back the clock and they are going to do it with a lockout that lasts most – if not all of – the 2011 season. With recent losses and the economy as a reason for the fans (didn't say it was a good one), they’ve got one shot to completely remake the salary structure of the league. And based upon 1999, they know they can break the union. Most players spend a lot of what they make and a ton of players had cashflow issues during the 1999 lockout. Whereas the owners shrewdly structured the new TV deal where they collect the TV money – even if there is no season(s) – and they simply have to repay it later if the year is lost to a lockout (most likely by extending the TV deal another year).



You wouldn’t think about it at first glance – but there is an odd plurality owners– that will probably prevent 16 votes for proposal that would save the start of the season. First, owners that not only want to avoid future losses – but dramatically revamp the system to ensure profits – even if it means losing a season. You know Sterling is in there, Bobcats, Ws, Grizz, Hawks, ect. Not inconceivable the Maloofs wouldn’t want to kick the tires here. Second, teams that have screwed up their cap and it’s in their best interest not to play a season. Hornets, Suns, and Pacers jump to mind. George Shin, you could: (1) play the season and lose millions; or (2) not play the season, collect the TV money to cover all of your operating costs, and come back one year later to a profitable team – which way are you leaning? Third, small market teams. You’re Utah. You would rather play the season and you can make money under the current rules – but you complete against the Lakers and other squads that can spend 20 million more than you. Don’t you have at least some interest in a hard cap and rolling back salaries? How about you Bucks?


Furthermore, even if you didn’t have 16 owners in “out for blood mode” to start … the NBA most likely isn’t getting a deal pounded out before a lockout is imposed. The players always want to make their “best pitch” at the 11th hour. There will be a lot of owners screaming about killing the golden goose and upsetting fans just before the season … but once you start missing games … well that ship has sailed. At which point, owners who were on the fence say, “Ok, we tried to do it the right way – it’s time to break the union.” See hockey. Once the lockout started, the owners never budged. They said – you’ll take this … you just don’t know it yet.


Thus, the odds favor a long lockout coming. The Kings should prepare for it. Instead, of clearing cap for 2010 … they might want to: (1) take advantage of teams desperately trying to clear cash for 2010; and (2) be ready to take advantage of the new rules in the summer of 2011 … which will probably won’t take place until late spring of 2012.
Same thing happened in hockey. The teams with cap were able to scoop up a lot of players making a fraction of their old salaries.


Even if you don’t think there will be a lockout, salaries will be rolled back. I’ll put it to you this way, would you rather: (1) buy Sacramento real estate at 2005 prices; or (2) shop for the first time at current prices and be holding the most cash?


If you sign David Lee this summer you are going to pay a ton for him. If the deal goes bad, you’re locked in to a multi-year deal with all years guaranteed. Or you wait one season, and sign him for 65% to a 4 year deal with only the first two years having any guaranteed money … and you spend the other 45% on another player.


I throw this out there – not as the best thing we could get for the expiring / likely / have run numbers for this summer’s cap – so use it as a very rough example regarding my point. First option. Because you weren’t able to find a good big man in trade, you let KT and Armstrong’s deals expire. You sign somebody like Lee for a lot of money … 9-17 months later, a year gets knocked off his contract by the CBS but he’s still grossly overpaid. Second, because the Knicks are desperate to clear cap now – you trade KT and Armstrong for Jordan Hill and Jefferies (who you have no intent on playing next season) and a strongly protected pick way down the road . When the new CBA comes along, you sign: (1) somebody much better than Lee for the 2010 Lee price; or (2) Lee quality player for 65 cents on the dollar … plus, even losing a year to the lockout … you’ve got two years of Hill’s rookie contract as a prospect/bench guy starting in 2012.


It would be hard for fans to understand, but it will most likely be in the best interest of the team. The best move could be some odd deal with Curry, AK-47, or Dampier and players/picks.


Food for thought ... and a long ramble.

Good post. Since Depression II hit, I've thought the NBA structure was untenable. Fixed, incredibly high costs in players salaries, and a sharply declining revenue base don't tend to produce viable businesses. The players are in for a very rude awakening. Because the players won't be happy coming to terms with the new financial reality, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if we don't see NBA basketball for an entire year. A strike, a lockout. Whatever. There is going to be some major friction. Also, with respect to the Kings, they have been playing for time ever since Depression II hit. Husbanding cash, not going after veteran high priced talent, sticking to the lower cost draftees. Even without the developments that you've articulated, they still would be inclined to not go after high priced talent in this financial climate. Another major factor that they have to consider is the specific nature of the Sacto economy, which has state government as the largest sector. That sector is going to be dramatically reduced over the next couple of years, imo, which will have a ripple effect on other sectors in the economy. Not exactly something that's going to be increasing the disposable income of people who want to go Kings games. Just another reason why the Maloofs are going to be extremely careful about spending their money anytime soon.