Letting Holmes walk.
- Thread starter upinsmoke
- Start date
We can only pay him about 10mil per. Probably ok if he'll sign for that amount. If someone wants to pay him significantly more there isn't much we can do either. But if we keep him I believe we can give him the standard raise and still use our own MLE, otherwise we may be cap limited in replacing him beyond the MLE.
upinsmoke
All-Star
I dont want to pay him 10M.
I slightly edited my post - but I think keeping him at that price gives us more roster flexibility than letting him go, if we keep our salary exceptions.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
I really wish we would have traded him. I hate letting him walk for nothing, but tying a lot of money into a role-guy who helps you win 30 games a season is silly. I’m not downplaying Holmes, I like Holmes, Holmes could be a great help on a team who’s already there. But we’re not even close.
But his contract was so cheap it made it hard to trade for equal value.
And that's the conundrum with re-signing him. I do think 10mil is ok - but there's a good chance he'll go else where for 12-14 and could become a Kenny Thomas.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
He's worth more than the MLE, but the issue for the Kings is still that Walton is going to have Bagley spacing the floor for Holmes most games. That's not your future and Holmes wouldn't take a bench role at this point I'm sure. The Kings are on a very dangerous line right now. They are close to gambling on committing to a situation that if it fails will probably take years to climb back out of.
It all comes down to the numbers, but letting an impact player who wants to be in Sacramento walk is foolish. We don't need Holmes to be anything more than he is now. We need growth from our kids, and another impact player, hopefully at the 3. And a new coach.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
I'd love for the Kings to retain Holmes. Maybe he will give the Kings a bit of a discount for giving him starters minutes and letting him blossom here. He may not be your ideal starting center, but he would be in the running for 6th man of the year if he were to come off the bench here
SLAB
Hall of Famer
I’ve said for awhile; first hustle energy big off the bench would be ideal for whoever signs him.
Iced Espresso
Starter
I'm not sure what is the correct thing to do. I do know we have some contracts that are fairly sizeable. I do not think our ownership group will pay heavy luxury tax either if needed later.
What I do know is.....
Some of us cringed about Jason Thompson, many faithful said he was worth the investment. Add in some Carl Landry.
A monster of epic proportions was born named Jarl Thompandry. Their marraige ended in a bitter divorce where pick swaps etc had to sent out in order to try to get some space to roll with our disgruntled center of the time.
Add in Koufos, Randolph, Hill......Kenny......Thornton....etc
Always remember Jarl Thompandry.
What I do know is.....
Some of us cringed about Jason Thompson, many faithful said he was worth the investment. Add in some Carl Landry.
A monster of epic proportions was born named Jarl Thompandry. Their marraige ended in a bitter divorce where pick swaps etc had to sent out in order to try to get some space to roll with our disgruntled center of the time.
Add in Koufos, Randolph, Hill......Kenny......Thornton....etc
Always remember Jarl Thompandry.
Iced Espresso
Starter
And everyone loved Chuck for the most part too?
The hustle tough as nails underdog. Classy guy.
Iced Espresso
Starter
But now let's think about Hayes, use him as a less talented player. Remember when we had Brockman? A cheap second rounder that was fun?
None of those guys are on Holmes level, but an example of bad spent loot.
None of those guys are on Holmes level, but an example of bad spent loot.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
Not to downplay Holmes, but that generally hasn’t been too hard to do outside these past few games. Lol
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
True but one thing is for sure going for Holmes, he is NOT Jason Thompson. Now, the contract would be another story but Holmes at least gives you things outside of pure production which JT and Carl were only good for. Same with JJ Hickson and all of them were terrible fits next to another pure production player in Cuz. The overall story is one of caution though. They tied valuable assets into keeping that roster together with no proven path to success. And that right there would be the story of the Sacramento Kings post the glory years.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Holmes is essentially playing the role you ideally drafted Bagley for. They've taken a rotation veteran role player and lifted him beyond a number 2 pick. Even if Holmes turns out to be a better player when all is said and done, that is why this franchise is in a constant state of utter goofball. They don't commit to the pieces they need to in order to at the very least maintain a level of trade value and then they consistently let important pieces time out on their contracts and get stuck in a position you don't want to be as a rebuilding franchise. We get to see the next up in that process in Holmes this summer which apparently, the Kings are hamstrung worse in terms of retaining him than they were PRIOR to the trade deadline. They didn't make the necessary moves to retain him, they added to the potential issues in doing so without dumping other assets to keep him.
I swear, some Kings fans are just allergic to keeping good players when we happen to fall into one. Same crap was said about IT how he was a "easily replacable" and he went on to have several all-star caliber years. Dude has easily been our 2nd most valuable player the last 2 years and some are ready to chase him off...
There's no chasing him off, we're limited in what we can pay him by the salary cap.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
I do think it's a tad odd. I could understand hesitation if he was in line for a 5 year 100 mil dollar deal but we are talking about offering him 2 million/year less than Cojo got. He has his faults but that list is short
Iced Espresso
Starter
I don't recall many people thinking the IT contract for as little as it was a good move to trade for an exception. That was Pete seeing Vazquez high previous year assist total.
serbiangoat
Starter
If he comes back for like 6-9mil per season sure otherwise I rather try another project like Holmes was and giving them a shot.
I dont get the rush for people here wanting get rid of good contributing players who are legitimate nba quality players in favor of cheap players who, for the most part, dont belong in a rotation for a legitimate playoff team. We are the only fanbase that gets excited for players like eric Moreland making the roster. We need to recognize that 99% of the projects you draft won't turn into Isaiah Thomas (who we were also happy to lets walk and he turned out the be an all star and even mvp candidate one season). We need to hold onto solid nba level contributors and flip those with minimal to no contribution. Its all well and good to have projects on the bench, but the whole bench can be msde of projects. Thats why the moves that monte made at the deadline for harkless, DW an TD were, in hindsight, quite good. Getting cheap nba level talent for players that either were no longer contributing of future players (drafts) that were unlikely to be real contributors. Sorry to say even Harry giles seems to be in the not a real contributor on a good team kinda guy but we were all broken up over his departure (even me). Thats why our bench has been trash for years (especially this year). So, no we should not let holmes walk and replace him with the broken down husk of a cheap guy about to flushbout of the league. He will be gritty and endearing and we will love him, but wont benefit towards the team winning and we will wonder why.
serbiangoat
Starter
You only hold onto decent NBA players at a reasonable price, look at how well paying 20million for average at best players like Barnes/Buddy has worked out not to mention Dedmon last season and plenty of others. Your better off trying to find another Holmes (himself a project) than overpaying him. Just like 99% of projects does not work neither does it work out in the medium/long run to overpay role players you just limit yourself for no reason.
The Kings biggest issue has been exactly what your saying not to do we give non-franchise players max deals and give role players absurd over inflated contracts.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
The Effort Police
Starter
There's something nagging me too about him. He's an undersized energy big who does basically everything through being scrappy. Is he really going to age all that gracefully? It feels like those guys always break down early.
But I'm not seeing any reliable options other than him, but the first priority in my mind is finding a second combo 3/4 in the Barnes mold. The second priority is upgrading the C position.
So to that end, I wish we had traded him and/or Bagley for Miles Bridges and called it a day. And then throw money at Nurk in 2022 provided his injury history checks out and tell Bagley to take a hike if he hadn't already been traded.
jcassio
Starter
If I’m the GM and I’ve got Fox and Hali as my cornerstones, there’s no more overpaying of role players. Having a contract like Buddy’s is a much bigger concern to me than potentially paying Holmes $10M a year. I love both players, but a successful GM needs to look at these guys without the emotion of a fan. Don’t overpay. Manage your assets.
Similar threads
