Kings need a few vets
- Thread starter Hallama
- Start date
I wouldn't really call Kevin Martin a good shooter. Not Mike Miller level at least. Anyway the problem with Martin was that he was being paid too much to simply be a defensive/shooting role player. Which is really what we need ... That and that Martin didn't exactly fill the defensive part of it as well
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Well that's the thing about Miller -- he basically can do EVERYTHING, except defend quickness of course. He is about as far from Kevin Martin as you can get in that aspect -- he fills up every corner of the boxscore, and doesn't demand shots. Willing roleplayer. Last season, far from his best, in 33.4min he averaged 10.9pts -- all we need by the way, shot .501, .480 from three point land, grabbed 6.2rebs and dished out 3.9ast. We are looking for a do everything roleplaying shooter at SG, and Cisco is not bad for the role, but Mike Miller fits it too, and maybe even better. The drawback, other than age, being the defense. But not sure how huge an issue that would be on an emerging defensive team with tons of size/shotblocking, potentially sandwiched between two potent defenders in Reke and Greene (so you hide him on the weak link), and as a platoon player wiht tons of depth (Cisco, Casspi, Beno) behind him who could be brought in if he just did not matchup.
Like I say, the idea has grown on me. That rebounding for a mega guard could help us really dominate on the glass next season too. be the best rebounding guardline in the game, to go alone with all the big rebounding big guys up front.
ockingsfan
Starter
how much and how long of a contract do you think it would take to sign mike miller? 3 years at mid level exception or more?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
That would be a difficulty. Not that we couldn't afford it this year, or even next. You are probably in the right range $$wise. But it would eat into our cap room for next summer, and there is a major looming issue that is set to really screw us as a team on the rise -- if the militant owners succeed in implementing a hard type cap its going to directly impact teams' depth, and we are going to start hemmoraging guys. A Reke/Beno, Miller/Cisco, Donte/Casspi, Landry/JT, Daly/Cousins/Whiteside 10-11 man team would be virtually impossible to afford in any sort of long term sense.
No Brad Miller. He is not what you remember. He's slower, older and shoots even worse than the streaky one we last saw. His defense is now rather closer to Hawes-like. Also he is not a good locker room guy. Unless you want Cousins and Whiteside learning how to go hunting, drinking beer and playing around on quads instead of working on improving their game.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
If they change the cap, it's going to affect all the teams. Seems to me it just lowers overall salaries. If it's all relative, then why are the Kings going to be hurt disproportianately, especially because they have so many $ under the cap? Some of the competition is going to spending $ hand over fist this year on big FAs. Using them as the extreme example, the Kings would have an extraordinarily good chance of keeping our guys from going to those teams that spend big $ this year. Is the argument, then, that the Kings are soooo weak financially, that even with their large cap bankroll they still couldn't keep their players?
I haven't seen mention of Chris Duhon. I think you would be a good back court combo with REKE. He's a pass first PG with a good jumpshot who can defend. His primary weakness is getting to the rim which would compliment Reke. For the first half last year he played very well but wore down playing 39 minutes a game. With Reke he wouldn't wear down because Reke is on the ball most of the time. He's a 6 year vet so brings some experiance but only 27 so he'd have another 4 quality years or so.
Packt
Starter
The response to Brad Miller isn't surprising. 
I think you guys are looking at it too much from a talent perspective. The idea that Miller's shortcomings and bad habits would rub off on on the young guys (big and small), is without merit. Miller didn't make Hawes who he is. At this point Hawes would be lucky to get another contract after his rookie contract ends. Miller has played for over a decade and has had a nice career in the NBA.
Miller didn't hurt Joakim Noah's development. If you go by what Bulls fans have said it's been the complete opposite. He's been a great locker room guy and has definitely helped Noah and Taj Gibson. He even worked out wtih Noah last summer. At this point we'd have to overpay to sign him. He's already said he wants to stay in CHI or play with Adelman, not to mention the rumblings of interest from NY and BOS.
As a main cog here in Sac he sucked. But as a veteran role player who gets spot minutes here and there, he should still have value.
I think you guys are looking at it too much from a talent perspective. The idea that Miller's shortcomings and bad habits would rub off on on the young guys (big and small), is without merit. Miller didn't make Hawes who he is. At this point Hawes would be lucky to get another contract after his rookie contract ends. Miller has played for over a decade and has had a nice career in the NBA.
Miller didn't hurt Joakim Noah's development. If you go by what Bulls fans have said it's been the complete opposite. He's been a great locker room guy and has definitely helped Noah and Taj Gibson. He even worked out wtih Noah last summer. At this point we'd have to overpay to sign him. He's already said he wants to stay in CHI or play with Adelman, not to mention the rumblings of interest from NY and BOS.
As a main cog here in Sac he sucked. But as a veteran role player who gets spot minutes here and there, he should still have value.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
The longstanding approach to building and maintaining an NBA title contender has been a) accumulate talent; and b) exceed the cap as necessary to resign the guys you like/need. This new CBA battle threatens us in the worst possible way. We have doen a great job of positioning ourselves for the future under...under the old rules. Now just as it comes time to start accelerating into our run we are threatened both with potentially losing some or all of a critical developmental year in 11-12, and to have to start shedding our hard won accumulated depth to fit under a hard cap. That is the whole "parity" argument -- that the teams with depth and talent have to shed it to the benefit of the have nots. Of course that hasn't actually resulted in any real parity in the NFL which continues to have tis dynasties and its have nots, but that is the theory, and its certainly a major change in the rules of the game in the NBA. And as a team on the rise, a team getting set to be one of the top teams of hte next decade, the LAST thing we want is the rules of the game to be changed on us.
Nighthawk1
Starter
Morrow would be nice, but I think I would prefer JJ Redick. Both guys should be able to be had with around MLE money.. Not sure what it would take to pry him away from Orlando since he's restricted(but Orlando has their own $$ problems) but he's as good maybe a tad better then Morrow on D I would say and has better ball handling.
I think Cisco and Beno are fine for our backcourt make-up but if Cisco doesn't recover to his pre-injury form this season Redick can spread the court for us with his range.
I think Cisco and Beno are fine for our backcourt make-up but if Cisco doesn't recover to his pre-injury form this season Redick can spread the court for us with his range.
I don't think we're going to one of the teams getting the worst of it when (not if) the rules change under the new CBA. We're actually poised quite well for any transition. I will assume that we'll be signing both Whiteside and Brockman to multi-year deals for no more than $2M per year each. That would mean that, as of now, our salary commitment in the first year of the new CBA will be about $30M, possibly a bit less if Whiteside and Brockman's deals are smaller. This is clearly a manageable number to start out with, and covers nine players, all of whom are expected to be contributors: Evans, Udrih, Garcia, Greene, Casspi, Thompson, Brockman, Whiteside, Cousins. Of these nine, only two (Udrih, Garcia) can probably even be considered to be overpaid under any standard, and their deals are not killers by any means. All of the others are either on rookie-scale contracts or second-round type deals.
At the same time, we'll be faced with the question of whether to resign Dalembert and Landry - two guys who we can worry about getting overpaid. But the advantage that we have is that we won't be resigning them until the new CBA is in place, which means the new salary structure, such as it as, will apply to them. As far as we're concerned, it's the perfect time for them to come up - right when we can excuse ourselves from overpaying them.
Consider some other teams. On the other end of the spectrum, the Lakers have $80M committed that year to only 6 players. But they're the champs, and at least the returning players are likely to still be good (Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom). What about a team like Detroit, who will have about $42M committed to 6 players (not accounting for Terrico White), perhaps only two of them (Hamilton, Monroe) any good. They're in a lot worse shape than we are at this point.
What about some of the young and upcoming teams we hope to be competing with? Portland has $63M committed to 11 players, with Aldridge and Roy on big long-term deals (something we don't have). The Thunder have a much better situation, with $22M (as of now) committed to 9 players, but this year is extension year for Durant and Green, and they ought to get money commensurate with the current CBA.
Anyway, my point is that we're not poorly positioned going into the new CBA, especially since all of our core pieces will be getting their money after the new CBA goes into effect. I don't think that something like an MLE to Mike Miller, if we decide that's the way to go this offseason, will really hurt us too badly in holding on to our talent. In fact, I think if the league institutes a hard cap it will probably help us. There will be so many teams with no money out there to offer, a hard cap will likely force all of our young kids to stick with us rather than bolt for somebody else's money (because not a lot of teams will have money to spend). If Greene, Casspi, Cousins, and Whiteside pan out, we're poised to be a perennial championship threat for a long run, starting in 3 years or so.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Really on the contrary the LAST thing you want to be in a hard cap scenario is a oyung team with tons of guys coming up for new contracts in the next 2-3 years. That's where the hard cap kills you and forces you to lose guys with no option.
Since I take it as obvious that the league isn't actually going to be able to/force teams to waive guys if they are over a hard cap, I can only assume that there will be some sort of waiver for currrent contracts, and the hard cap will just apply to any new ones. Hence the best defense you could have to a hard cap is to have all of your guys signed long term. The hard cap thumps you whenever you have to resign somebody. That's its whole purpose in life -- to break up teams.
Since I take it as obvious that the league isn't actually going to be able to/force teams to waive guys if they are over a hard cap, I can only assume that there will be some sort of waiver for currrent contracts, and the hard cap will just apply to any new ones. Hence the best defense you could have to a hard cap is to have all of your guys signed long term. The hard cap thumps you whenever you have to resign somebody. That's its whole purpose in life -- to break up teams.
Sparky6string
Bench
I haven't been looking at ball handlers either, I've been looking at shooters but you make a good point. Tyreke as a PG gives us versatility in more ways than one. If we found our perfect back-court complement he'd be 6'6" with quickness of a PG, big D, ball handling skills and excellent 3pt range. What we keep focusing on is the height advantage but one of the advantages we have is that we don't have to get a 6'6" SG, we can go for a PG sized SG if he fits the bill well enough otherwise. There's plenty of those guys in the league, and using a guy like that until we find the permanent replacement would work great.
L
Lafayette
Guest
The KINGS need a shooter, someone that is consistent all the time and not OhNo Caspi, ha. It was his rookie season so we can't blame the kid. Greene hopefully will become that guy. What if the Kings got a Ray Allen cheap or a Rudy Gay. I still like the idea of Gay because he's young and fits in but I don't like the idea of another SF.
NewArena
All-Star
We need to stay far away from Rudy Gay (Rhyme not intended) and his chucking way of playing. He is NOT considered a shooter by the way.
I'm with you. I personally feel that Redick would be a very good fit. Defensively he's less than I'd like as compared to our dreams of Doug Christie 2.0, but watching him play in the playoffs I think he's a decent defender, not strong enough to guard the bigger guards but quick enough to chase the Ray Allen types, which helps since Tyreke has trouble guarding the faster PGs.
He's got decent ball-handling and playmaking abilities. Against Boston the ball was often in his hands to set up a play ... What I didn't like from him in that series was his reluctance to shoot, which sometimes led to poor passes and stuff like that, but overall I feel he's an intelligent player who can play a good role on our team.
The more and more I read about JJ Redick I like it. I admit I never cared for him much in college(Or any Duke guys for that matter) but I admit he has come around and proved he will be a valuable NBA player. He can stretch the floor and making 2's his size work a little bit harder to get theirs. But you have to ask yourself if you see JJ Redick as a legit NBA starting 2 guard? I really think if we are gonna pay the mid level for a 2 guard he atleast has to start.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I did see on TV a couple of days ago a salary cap expert talking about the upcoming FA and how it will be affected by the upcoming CBA. He thought that there would be a more stringent luxury tax in the new CBA and that it could really hammer those teams that are currently in the FA hunt because they could be looking at whopping increases in luxury taxes due to their current spending. In effect, he said that teams were rolling the dice on how much luxury tax there actually would be when they are making current FA decisions. So, in that respect, it seems to me that teams engaging in high priced FA aquisitions today could get hammered much more than after the CBA. In that respect, the rules change would impact them much more than those in FA after the CBA.
It's my personal belief that the league will continue to incentivize players staying with their existing teams, just as they currently have a monetary incentive incentive to stay with their current team in FA. We'll see...
Hallama
Starter
Didn't realize Miller had really good rebounding and assists numbers. Maybe Petrie told the Maloof's that if he drafts Cousins (instead of Monroe), then they have to let him have a Petrie player like Miller in FA.
Hallama
Starter
I think the Showtime Lakers might hold that record. Magic as a PF and Worthy as your starting SF? Byron Scott was the only "midget" out there.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they still hold that title -- were notorious for it back in the day. Hit you with wave after wave of 6'9" guys. The Spurs also had one year back there where they tried to run a "triple towers" with Admiral, Duncan, and I think it was Will Perdue.
But that said, I actually think we might be bigger than any of them. 5 guys 6'11" or taller? A 6'5" PG? SFs who clock in at 6'9" and 6'11"? We would be right up there. And that should be incredibly potent, on defense in particular. Its almost unprecedented length.
There is enormous potential here now...if it works out, and if we can just keep it together.
And like I say the idea of adding a 6'8" SG to team with Cisco as a 6'7" SG has grown on me.
Tough though minuteswise. Beno/Cisco have to be satisfied with maybe 15-20min in that scenario (at which points their contracts becoe excessive again). In fact almost the whole team other than Reke has to be satisifed with platooning. In general that only works if you are winning big enough that everybody gets enthused and buys in. Would we so soon? Don't know.The Tony Allen idea has some merit too -- bring in the athletic championship defensive roleplayer to help set a tone, and in his case not eat up so many minutes that it stresses the other guys. Problem is he can't shoot.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they still hold that title -- were notorious for it back in the day. Hit you with wave after wave of 6'9" guys. The Spurs also had one year back there where they tried to run a "triple towers" with Admiral, Duncan, and I think it was Will Perdue.
But that said, I actually think we might be bigger than any of them. 5 guys 6'11" or taller? A 6'5" PG? SFs who clock in at 6'9" and 6'11"? We would be right up there. And that should be incredibly potent, on defense in particular. Its almost unprecedented length.
There is enormous potential here now...if it works out, and if we can just keep it together.
And like I say the idea of adding a 6'8" SG to team with Cisco as a 6'7" SG has grown on me.
The Tony Allen idea has some merit too -- bring in the athletic championship defensive roleplayer to help set a tone, and in his case not eat up so many minutes that it stresses the other guys. Problem is he can't shoot.
I really want to see our giant lineup match up against the Warriors. Our pg might be as big as their power forward. Should be a fun match up
ockingsfan
Starter
And like I say the idea of adding a 6'8" SG to team with Cisco as a 6'7" SG has grown on me.
The Tony Allen idea has some merit too -- bring in the athletic championship defensive roleplayer to help set a tone, and in his case not eat up so many minutes that it stresses the other guys. Problem is he can't shoot.
Do you think there will be much competition for Mike Miller in free agency? He is not listed in many top 25 list of free agents.... hopefully petrie will recognize his value as a veteran shooting guard that can shoot 3's, rebound, and handle the ball...
i'm hoping they can get him for 3 years or less contract.... he is 30 years old now and if we have to give him a 5 yr contract, he would be 35 years old at the end....
if we can bring him in on a 3 or less year contract around the MLE, i think Mike Miller would be a great addition to this young squad
Chupacabra
Starter
The thing about this is that we dont have to give up any size advantage. It wouldnt be THAT hard to find a shooting guard with decent ball handling ability.
Jalee209
Prospect
Don't know if he would be considered a "vet" since he barely gets playing time, but I would love for us to somehow find a way to get Jarred Bayless on our squad. I know Geoff was really high on him, but the Pacers picked him op first and eventually traded him to Portland. I think he'd be the perfect combo guard for our team.
Section 101
All-Star
Who stole Gary's ID?
Since it seems he's available now, Rudy Fernandez would be a good fit.
