Letting Holmes walk.

#61
According to a league source, Holmes’ team is looking for a contract in the neighborhood of four-years and $80 million. That’s a steep price to pay, but Holmes will be coveted on the open market.

Whether he lands an offer in the $80 million range has yet to be seen. That figure seems above market value, but a player is worth what someone is willing to pay. If his agent gets that type of money for Holmes, then more power to him.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/kings/kings-keeping-richaun-holmes-nba-free-agency-complicated
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#62
According to a league source, Holmes’ team is looking for a contract in the neighborhood of four-years and $80 million. That’s a steep price to pay, but Holmes will be coveted on the open market.

Whether he lands an offer in the $80 million range has yet to be seen. That figure seems above market value, but a player is worth what someone is willing to pay. If his agent gets that type of money for Holmes, then more power to him.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/kings/kings-keeping-richaun-holmes-nba-free-agency-complicated
He's gone.
 
#63
It's disappointing that he's basically pricing himself out of anything we can offer, but good for him if someone is willing to pay that. Probably be the last big signing some GM ever makes.
 
#65
First Bleacher Report, now Ham with the $80 million figure. Will be interesting to see if someone will come up with that, but it seems unlikely to be the Kings, given the amount of cap clearing moves that would require.
 
#68
Always said we should have traded him.
What value do you get for him at $6 million or whatever he was getting when the other team is also probably going to face the same restrictions we did?

20 million per feels delusional though given another low revenue year for the league, how many teams are going to have space and certainly there are bigger names that would get that type of deal?
 

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#69
What value do you get for him at $6 million or whatever he was getting when the other team is also probably going to face the same restrictions we did?

20 million per feels delusional though given another low revenue year for the league, how many teams are going to have space and certainly there are bigger names that would get that type of deal?
You’d think a good GM would be able to figure something out. Even the slightest of asset in return is better than him walking for nothing.
 
#70
You’d think a good GM would be able to figure something out. Even the slightest of asset in return is better than him walking for nothing.
Right but almost any team that wanted him beyond this year would just bid on him in the offseason. So it comes down to what you get for a rental... what's that going to be? Another Wright or something? You know how that would go over here.
 
#71
I love how this would implicitly suggest that we had two max players (one a rookie, but common fan talk is that he will be maxed when the time comes), a #2 pick, and THREE guys commanding $20MM+, and still didn't come close to the play-in tournament if not for a bunch of randos, 10D contract guy + Hield.
 
#73
What value do you get for him at $6 million or whatever he was getting when the other team is also probably going to face the same restrictions we did?

20 million per feels delusional though given another low revenue year for the league, how many teams are going to have space and certainly there are bigger names that would get that type of deal?
for a team with a real shot at making the play-offs like Charlotte? Probably a late first. Or to have flexibility to sign him we could have traded Barnes for Nesmith ( who came on) and a first.

The issue here is the same issue as the Bogi trade. For a competent GM this situation was foreseeable and avoidable. But instead of anticipating it and acting accordingly he will lose two of the teams top assets two years running for nothing.
 
Last edited:
#74
Not overpaying doesn't work in SAC. It's the "basketball hell" tax. Yeah Buddy's contract is looking pretty bad for us right now, but realistically, do you think Buddy (although maybe we should have gone the RFA route) would have taken 10-15mil to play on the Kings? I love how many fans and media talk about how Buddy would look a lot better if he was only getting paid 10-15mil, as if 20 other, much better teams wouldn't want him at that price too.
when you are a restricted free agent the Kings have match rights. You only over pay if someone else over pays.
 
#76
Right but almost any team that wanted him beyond this year would just bid on him in the offseason. So it comes down to what you get for a rental... what's that going to be? Another Wright or something? You know how that would go over here.
keep in mind Wright tied up cap space and we now have to also decide whether to match TD. It’s possible we could lose two players this summer.
 
#77
"although maybe we should have gone the RFA route"
“not overpaying doesn’t work in Sac”.
I agree but restricted free agency is not a time when you have to overpay though someone else might. And to answer your question no Buddy would not have taken 10-15M.
 
#79
Hopefully this is a similar case of wcs overvaluing himself. We can’t and shouldn’t pay anywhere near 20 per year
I agree but if you knew Holmes wanted 20 year per (and Monte should have) and you couldn’t agree on an extension you trade him for what you can get, improve your lottery odds and move forward is a realistic manner. Instead this team continues to make short term quixotic moves in the unrealistic hope of making the playoffs. The result is instead of moving us forward Monte has moved us backward in one short year. When you define a path to nowhere, nowhere is where you end up.
 
#80
keep in mind Wright tied up cap space and we now have to also decide whether to match TD. It’s possible we could lose two players this summer.
We were going to be over the cap no matter what if we tried to retain Holmes. I view these as good moves that maintain our ability to operate with an extra 6-10m of financial flexibility. The worst thing you can do is be 2-10 million under the cap because you can't make a big time signing for under the MLE but you can't use the MLE until you are over either.
 
#81
I have to agree with you Capt. unless the FA cap space dries up before Holmes gets
a big offer (Unlikely) he is gone.

Per Ham article:
"The Kings can open up a couple of million by waiving their rights to Metu and Jones. They could then turn around and resign either or both to minimum scale contracts for their years of service in the league after retaining Holmes."

My question to Capt. is since Metu's 1.762 salary next year reduced our MLE from 9.535m down to 7.915m, if we waive Kings rights to Metu and resign later:

Does waiving Metu restore our MLE back to 9.535m or is our MLE stuck at 7.915m regardless ?

The reason I ask is:
1. Holmes most likely gone.
2. Bagley as a C is a lousy option-dooming us to Small Ball
3. Trading up (by using Buddy) to get Mobley is not a short-term solution

4. That basically leaves us with the MLE to pursue a full-size C in FA
Daniel Theis? (3pt shooter and good defender)
Kelly Olynyk? (3pt shooter Defender Meh)

5. Trade Buddy for a quality Center? See my Post in Big Trades thread?
 
Last edited:
#82
“not overpaying doesn’t work in Sac”.
I agree but restricted free agency is not a time when you have to overpay though someone else might. And to answer your question no Buddy would not have taken 10-15M.
Well yes and no. RFA you probably don't grossly overpay if you dont want to, but you might be forced to pay more than you'd like (if somebody else is willing to pay that much) just because you can't afford to lose talent for nothing since you can't expect to replace the talent easily.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#83
My question to Capt. is since Metu's 1.762 salary next year reduced our MLE from 9.535m down to 7.915m, if we waive Kings rights to Metu and resign later:

Does waiving Metu restore our MLE back to 9.535m or is our MLE stuck at 7.915m regardless ?
I've seen this idea floated a couple of times and I'm not quite sure where it came from.

Metu was signed mid-season using a portion of the '20-'21 MLE, not the '21-'22 MLE.

Metu's salary in the '21-'22 season does not affect our '21-'22 MLE. We have the full MLE available to us in '21-'22 regardless of whether we pick up Metu's non-guaranteed money.

The MLE is only used for signing the player, not for subsequent years of the contract, which are treated as already committed team salary. If it worked a different way, then signing a player to a three-year deal using the full MLE would mean that a team would not have an MLE available for the subsequent two years, and of course that's not the case.
 
#84
I've seen this idea floated a couple of times and I'm not quite sure where it came from.

Metu was signed mid-season using a portion of the '20-'21 MLE, not the '21-'22 MLE.

Metu's salary in the '21-'22 season does not affect our '21-'22 MLE. We have the full MLE available to us in '21-'22 regardless of whether we pick up Metu's non-guaranteed money.

The MLE is only used for signing the player, not for subsequent years of the contract, which are treated as already committed team salary. If it worked a different way, then signing a player to a three-year deal using the full MLE would mean that a team would not have an MLE available for the subsequent two years, and of course that's not the case.
At Spotrac It shows the 20-21 MLE reduced for Ramsey and Woodard, The 21-22 MLE shows reduced by Metu

But I bow to Capt.'s superior knowledge (Im not worthy!!!) and hope you are right!
 
#85
I agree but if you knew Holmes wanted 20 year per (and Monte should have) and you couldn’t agree on an extension you trade him for what you can get, improve your lottery odds and move forward is a realistic manner. Instead this team continues to make short term quixotic moves in the unrealistic hope of making the playoffs. The result is instead of moving us forward Monte has moved us backward in one short year. When you define a path to nowhere, nowhere is where you end up.
Agreed on some of this. If Holmes walks for nothing, it'll be a pretty big miscalculation on Monte's part of what his market value is (if he does get that 20+ mil contract). He had his hands tied with Bogi since he had no ability to trade him at the deadline beforehand, but Holmes was very much under his control.
 
#86
To lose two of your more valuable assets two years in a row for nothing is almost as bad as the Vlade trade. McNair continues to demonstrate a short term mindset with little strategic acumen.
what asset do you think we lost out on exactly?

edit: with respect to Holmes.
 
Last edited:
#88
We were going to be over the cap no matter what if we tried to retain Holmes. I view these as good moves that maintain our ability to operate with an extra 6-10m of financial flexibility. The worst thing you can do is be 2-10 million under the cap because you can't make a big time signing for under the MLE but you can't use the MLE until you are over either.
How do you figure trading Barnes would not have opened up room for Holmes?

and recognize I’m not opposed to saying I don’t want to pay him 20K but if that is the case move him at the trade deadline for assets. Even if the assets are only 2nd round picks and trade exceptions those can still be valuable.

it is the same problem we had with Bogi whose situation was also entirely predictable even after the Mil trade fell apart. It’s like McNair is driving a car looking at the road 5 ft ahead of him.