Mark Kreidler: Maloofs need to pay up for a piece that doesn't fit

[Bibby_Is_Clutch]

Mark Kreidler: Maloofs need to pay up for a piece that doesn't fit



By Mark Kreidler -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, July 3, 2005


Here, let me pour the elixir into some smaller cups. It isn't fatal; it just occasionally tastes cruddy.



There's no great case to be made for Cuttino Mobley staying with the Kings, especially not at his likely price. Oh, Mobley can get a shot, and he can initiate a possession. He can score. You could certainly make the argument that Rick Adelman's team is better offensively with him on the floor, especially as he learns Adelman's system. But Mobley doesn't play much defense, he doesn't naturally look to pass, doesn't necessarily make teammates better - doesn't do much on the floor, overall, that the Kings don't already get done. With Francisco García newly drafted and Kevin Martin in the fold, Mobley can't possibly be a top priority here.

And, of course, the Kings have to re-sign him.


You want to be Geoff Petrie for a day? Deal with that much first. If Petrie doesn't sign Mobley as an unrestricted free agent, he's looking at having given up Doug Christie for Mobley last season in a deal that ultimately nets the franchise nothing: No playoff bonus, no two-guard of the future, no financial relief. And no chess piece.

With a contract agreement, Mobley could wind up in a sign-and-trade deal that brings a decent frontline player or two for Adelman to toy with. Another possibility: Mobley begins the fall on the Kings' roster while Petrie sorts out potential in-season moves.

What cannot happen is for Mobley to just drift off, and that's considering everything. Look, the guy's going to be overpriced; he just opted out of a sure $6.37 million salary for the coming season. Expect him to be looking for something in, oh, let's say the four-year, $35 million range.

It's crazy, nutty money. And the Maloofs have to pay it.

This is the reality in 2005. The Kings are all done being the cute up-and-comers, and they're well past the Cinderella stage. Believe it or not, their time as Favored Contender already came and went. It gets too late awfully early in the Western Conference.

And so now Joe and Gavin Maloof look at this picture: A team in transition, with ticket prices among the highest in the league and an expectation of the product on the floor that, realistic or not, isn't being met. What to do?

Well, give Petrie some rope, to begin with.

It's so easy spending other people's cash that I wonder why I don't do it more often, but this much I'm sure of: If Mobley goes away as a free agent, the Kings get nothing. They're still over the salary cap even with his numbers off the books.

Mobley signing elsewhere doesn't give Petrie another penny to spend; the Kings' general manager is still stuck with one lonely mid-level salary exception, which this year will amount to something just north of $5 million. Petrie can spend that on restricted free agents Darius Songaila or Maurice Evans, or a combination of the two, or somebody else.

Petrie told me last week that the Maloofs' preference, made known during the annual Las Vegas organizational meeting, is to "not be a taxpaying team," meaning the owners would like to keep salary totals somewhere close to the league's cap, which was less than $44 million last season. (The Kings were more than $10 million beyond the cap going into the summer.)

In a related development, this is sports.

In sports, you spend when sometimes there's no immediately clear reason why. Spending on Mobley, with García and Martin in the wings, sounds ludicrous. But there's a worse eventuality, and that is Mobley walking away for nothing.

It was interesting to hear how Petrie explained the García draft last week. When I raised the issue of the Kings needing to improve defensively, he said, "The question becomes, where are you weakest defensively?"

Petrie also described the 6-foot-7 García as having "the length and versatility that we think you've got to have to be good," adding that he "wants to defend."

Sounds like the Kings have developed a fairly clear picture of Cuttino Mobley, and it doesn't include him in a Sacramento uniform.

There's no arguing against García with the No. 23 pick in the draft. He can bring the ball up the court a la Christie, and he should wind up spending time on the floor with Martin when the Kings need to go big in the backcourt. He played in a Kings-friendly program for Rick Pitino at Louisville, and has had enough personal hardship in his life - including the tragic slaying of his younger brother in 2003 - to suggest he can handle the "rigors" of NBA pressure.

García's addition also makes it clear that Mobley's time in Sacramento is short. It's the right call. Now the Maloofs have to make the hard one and shell out the money to sign the guy they need to move. Only in sports does that make perfect sense.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/13172192p-14015608c.html

 

[Fillmoe]

i agree we have to get something or we would have just given christie away for nothing.....

 

[*JW*]

nice find! I dont know whats going to happen but I trust Petries decisions

 

[piksi]

i agree we have to get something or we would have just given christie away for nothing.....

Considering DC's situation - it might not make any difference at this point of time

 

[Kev.in]

I don't get why Kreidler is writing this and pushing for the re-signing of Mobley. I thought it was clear, from the day the deal was done, that this was to get salary off the books quicker and that Mobley wasn't going to be re-signed unless he absolutely flourished in our system and turned us into an offensive superpower like the Suns. He made less than Christie last season and his deal is a year shorter, saving the Maloofs another $8.5 million on next year's payroll. People always talk about the luxury tax and this is the type of move that is made precisely for avoiding the tax.

If the Maloofs were concerned with letting Petrie have more pieces to wheel and deal with, why would they let Jimmy Jackson, Damon Jones and Vlade Divac leave without presenting them with any kind of respectable offer? Why did they have Petrie deal Keon Clark (and two second round picks) to the Jazz for essentially nothing (a 2nd round pick that turned out to be Ricky Minard, who was cut in training camp). There is a 2-3 year history of the Maloofs trimming payroll, it's probably going to continue until player salaries get to the mid-$50 million level in another season or two.

 

[TXSactoFan]

we were still kinda considered favorites even when we let go of some of those players... their aim was to get some releif from the cap..

n ow its obvious that we r not going anywhere.. so i guess we can hope for something here.

 

[JB_kings]

Petrie told me last week that the Maloofs' preference, made known during the annual Las Vegas organizational meeting, is to "not be a taxpaying team," meaning the owners would like to keep salary totals somewhere close to the league's cap, which was less than $44 million last season. (The Kings were more than $10 million beyond the cap going into the summer.)

Kreidler is not accurate with his statement about the salary cap and luxury tax. They are each based off of different calculations. The luxury tax is not the same number as the salary cap. For the 2002-03 season, the salary cap was 40.2 million and the luxury tax threshold was 53 million. This summer it will be based on 63% of basketball related income (BRI) minus benefits and divided by the number of teams (30).
So depending on the BRI number for 2004-05, no team may even have to pay the luxury tax.

 

[AriesMar27]

Kreidler is not accurate with his statement about the salary cap and luxury tax. They are each based off of different calculations. The luxury tax is not the same number as the salary cap. For the 2002-03 season, the salary cap was 40.2 million and the luxury tax threshold was 53 million. This summer it will be based on 63% of basketball related income (BRI) minus benefits and divided by the number of teams (30).
So depending on the BRI number for 2004-05, no team may even have to pay the luxury tax.

the mavs and knicks will....

unless we can sign and trade him along with thomas and corliss for a real big man, there is no reason to re-sign him..... and... i didnt know that we had to use th mle on evans abd darius.... oh well.....

 

[whozit]

This is one of the few articles by Kreidler that I totally disagree with. If the team is trying to be a non-taxed team, then the team needs some manuevering room under the 60million level (where the tax cut has been projected). If they resign Mobley they are headed to exceed that level without any other moves. The team also has a little of 5 million (according to realGM) in trade exemptions. Mobley walking may give Petrie the freedom to use some of those exemptions. The team needs pieces that fit, not pieces that don't.

 

[BobbyJ_for3!]

i completely disagree with kreidler, and i even tried the "not going by what you think" idea of his. not working

i plan to write in to fanfare, so look for my response on behalf of everyone else with a brain(aka kingsfans.com).

 

[VF21]

Kreidler is saying we need to re-sign Mobley primarily as trade bait, for either an immediate sign and trade or something further down the road. In that sense I think he is right on target.

Mobley signing elsewhere doesn't give Petrie another penny to spend; the Kings' general manager is still stuck with one lonely mid-level salary exception, which this year will amount to something just north of $5 million. Petrie can spend that on restricted free agents Darius Songaila or Maurice Evans, or a combination of the two, or somebody else.

That makes it pretty clear. If we simply let him walk, our coffers are bereft of anything save that measly MLE. If we resign him, we at least have HIM in the cupboard.

It was Petrie's ability to come out on the good end of trades that brought us Chris Webber, Doug Christie, Mike Bibby and Brad Miller. I'm for giving Petrie as many pieces to work with as humanly possible. If we let Mobley walk, that's one less little piece Petrie has to work his magic with.

 

[whozit]

the mavs and knicks will....

unless we can sign and trade him along with thomas and corliss for a real big man, there is no reason to re-sign him..... and... i didnt know that we had to use th mle on evans abd darius.... oh well.....

With Songalia, I don't believe the team does. In the old CBA, we could match anything upto the mid-level w/o using any other exemption other than the early-bird rights. Not sure if the new 2nd year rules gives the Kings even more leverage. With Evans, unless the team has to match something higher than the qualifing offer, I don't think it affects the mid-level. If they have to match a higher amount, it comes from the mid-level. Since the ink ain't dry yet, you can't hold me to the accuracy of this .

 

[AleksandarN]

It was interesting to hear how Petrie explained the García draft last week. When I raised the issue of the Kings needing to improve defensively, he said, "The question becomes, where are you weakest defensively?"

Hmm I wounder what that means could be a trade in future to address that position

 

[whozit]

That makes it pretty clear. If we simply let him walk, our coffers are bereft of anything save that measly MLE. If we resign him, we at least have HIM in the cupboard.

There is still the trade exemptions. In the article it was also implied that they didn't want to go over the tax limit. I don't think they will do both a sign and trade with Mobley and use those exemptions. In a sign and trade we are at the mercy of Mobley willingness. If there is a deal that will benefit the team with a S&T, go for it, otherwise I think you eliminate many other options. Signing him for a future trade that might or might not happen gives less options IMHO.

Some of the numbers given in the article are questionable. JB already has pointed out the salary cap (the number Kriedler used) and the tax cap are two different numbers. I also doubt his assertion that resigning Songalia would come out of the mid-level. The only thing with the mid-level and Sonagalia is that under the old CBA that was the number that the Kings could match up to. (don't think the new CBA changes that to the detriment of the team, might in fact allow them to match upto a greater amount)

 

[iheartBrad]

All I know is at the end of the day Petrie & Co. know a hell of a lot more about this whole situation then any of us or any of the Sac Bee writers do...I'm gonna trust that he does what is needed to be done and that he knows what he is doing...

thx for posting

 

[VF21]

There is still the trade exemptions. In the article it was also implied that they didn't want to go over the tax limit. I don't think they will do both a sign and trade with Mobley and use those exemptions. In a sign and trade we are at the mercy of Mobley willingness. If there is a deal that will benefit the team with a S&T, go for it, otherwise I think you eliminate many other options. Signing him for a future trade that might or might not happen gives less options IMHO.

Some of the numbers given in the article are questionable. JB already has pointed out the salary cap (the number Kriedler used) and the tax cap are two different numbers. I also doubt his assertion that resigning Songalia would come out of the mid-level. The only thing with the mid-level and Sonagalia is that under the old CBA that was the number that the Kings could match up to. (don't think the new CBA changes that to the detriment of the team, might in fact allow them to match upto a greater amount)

While some of the numbers given in the article are "questionable" to you, the concept of giving away something and getting nothing in return should be pretty clear.

First, I don't think we have any trade exemptions. This was discussed in depth a while back and I think the consensus was there aren't any.

To take it to basics:

The Kings are way in the red. They are going to be in the red for quite a while. They need a certain caliber player to continue to be competitive. Cuttino Mobley's salary, if gone, will not take them under the cap. It will just make them LESS in the red but it also gives Petrie one less bargaining chip. If we resign Mobley, we aren't any worse off than we are right at this point in time AND we have something to bargain with - or to perhaps package with one of those HUGE salaries at some point down the road.

As far as the new CBA goes, there's a great site that answers a LOT of questions:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

 

[Bricklayer]

The exceptions are not enough to make a major difference for us by themselves, so to that degree I do agree we have to try to regin Mobley so as not to lose him for free and continue our steady talent death spiral. But that "signing" should be a sign and trade if at possible. We're hopeless enough sizewise and defensively without Cat. Get something we can use from another team.

Kreidler is right that we could get better value by trading Mobley midseason next year after resigning him, but that stretches the rebuilding right into the next year.

 

[Londonking]

1)What deadline does Petrie have in terms of resigning Mobley before he can decide to go and play on another team?

2)If he conducts a 'sign and trade' be it just with Mobley or with Mobley and other players as part of a package would those players be consulted at all in the process?

3)Is it likely that Petrie would consult any / all of 'the core' (or at least Bibby) about any deals being lined up ? (as say Jackson might with Kobe in LA)

 

[VF21]

1) Free agents cannot be signed until July 22, but another team might come up with an offer Mobley really likes so if Petrie is serious, I'm sure he's already talking to Cat's agent.
2) Would those players be consulted? No.
3) No.

 

[striker]

The only way that the Kings should sign Mobley is if a S&T is in place that is desireable to them, not in anticipation of some favorable future deal. Signing Mobley to a long term contract without a deal in place the Kings may end up with a Mobley and his long term contract that eventually the Kings might have to give up some considerations just to unload down the road.

I've never been a fan of Mobley since his early days with Houston. All Kriedler's criticisms of Mobley's play I believe are valid, particularly that he doesn't make his teammates better, I think he actually makes them worse. And on top of all that Mobley is mentally soft, a whiner that sets a bad tone of waekness blaming everyone but himself, not taking responsiblity for his own short comings. that attitude can rub off on a team.

Trading Christie and his contract for Mobley was a good deal for the Kings. Chrisite was a very good player, past his prime and slowing quickly. He's even been mentioned as a player the Magic may excersice their one time "Alan Houston" exemption on. In all ways the Christie for Mobley and Mobley for nothing or a pre-arranged S&T if it makes sense is a good move.

 

[whozit]

While some of the numbers given in the article are "questionable" to you, the concept of giving away something and getting nothing in return should be pretty clear.

First, I don't think we have any trade exemptions. This was discussed in depth a while back and I think the consensus was there aren't any.

To take it to basics:

The Kings are way in the red. They are going to be in the red for quite a while. They need a certain caliber player to continue to be competitive. Cuttino Mobley's salary, if gone, will not take them under the cap. It will just make them LESS in the red but it also gives Petrie one less bargaining chip. If we resign Mobley, we aren't any worse off than we are right at this point in time AND we have something to bargain with - or to perhaps package with one of those HUGE salaries at some point down the road.

As far as the new CBA goes, there's a great site that answers a LOT of questions:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

http://www.realgm.com/src_team_exceptions/trade/

This link to the same site that has the Larry Coon's FAQ shows the followning trade exemptions for the Kings:

Sacramento

$720,046

23rd Feb 2006​

​

Sacramento

$1,665,500

10th Jan 2006​

​

Sacramento

$1,531,250

23rd Feb 2006​

​

Sacramento

$695,046

23rd Feb 2006​

​

Granted it is not as much as I thought ~4.5 rather than 5+, but according to realGM we do have them. With the new CBA and the less restrictive trade restrictions they are possibly not worth as much. However, being able to add 4.5 million on top of a 5-6 million dollar player does put a lot of players within the teams reach.

Bringing salary down by 6+ million may entice the Maloofs to open the wallet on other spending. I am not against doing a S&T to improve the team, if it is done immediately. I am against signing him with the intention of trading him later. This team needs stability and another mid-season trade won't give it. Every indication is that there is a Maloof imposed cap on spending and as a result I don't see the team using the MLE, trade excemptions and doing a S&T. IMHO the trade excemptions and the MLE give the most flexibility.

 

[cycl0nus]

Considering DC's situation - it might not make any difference at this point of time

i say let mobley walk. for some reason, i feel that he may be a cancer in the lockerroom. with christie, you win some you lose some. christie's done. with the new kid garcia, let him develop and see what he brings to the forefront. he's cheaper and has a great attitude.

 

[VF21]

If you don't like Mobley, that's fine. But tossing out the "I feel that he may be a cancer in the lockerroom" is a cheap shot IMHO. As far as Garcia goes, of course he's cheaper. He's a rookie. As far as attitude goes, Kenny Thomas showed more attitude problems than Cat...

I have no problem with trading Cat away to another team, but I think it should be for other than vague assertions that cannot be substantiated.

 

[Padrino]

people have had their reservations about the way Cat plays, but i agree VF, its definitely a bit prudent to call him a "cancer." i always liked that Cat made some attempt to be a leader on and off the floor. if that meant standing up for his team in the media and taking a fine, then he did it. if that meant being vocal on the court, then he did it. he made an attempt, and i, as a fan, can appreciate that. however, it is unfair, as a fan, to expect him to change his style of play in half a season. i'd say re-sign him and give him a chance to fit in with a more cohesive unit if our defensive/rebounding woes weren't so prevalent. after all, we know what mobley is capable of, for better and worse. garcia is a nearly complete unknown, as far as our system is concerned, and martin is still a relative unknown because of his general lack of on-court experience in the nba. i am of the mindset the special k will be just fine if he puts on a few pounds, but we just dont know for sure...and that kinda sucks. it real;ly sucks on the overall to have so many unknowns when, for the past 7 years, we've known who the kings were and what they were all about. again, we must simply put our faith in Geoff Petrie.

 

[Superman]

We have a lot of pieces, and Cuttino just adds to them. The reason we traded Doug for him (especially with Doug's contract coming up) was so that we would either have another player who could generate offense, or so that we could use him as trade bait. Packaged with Skinner or Songaila or Ostertag or Corliss, or any other number of options that Petrie could dream up, we could get back a couple of really serviceable players.

You don't just let a talented, multi-dimensional player like Mobley walk just because he doesn't fit into our plans. You use him as leverage and get something back for him in return, especially when you are over the cap one way or the other. Letting him walk doesn't do anything for us. A sign and trade - whether he's traded now or later - gives us another player that can score and generate offense, and another possible trade scenario.

 

[Alacron]

What short memories some people have... it wasn't that long ago we were praising Cat's clutch late-game shots, his leadership, and his hustling defensive play. Suddenly he's a cancer with an attitude problem?

I agree that he probably doesn't fit in with what the Kings are trying to do, but there are plenty of other teams that would improve with the addition of Cuttino. I think he deserves a little respect for being professional and playing hard for us despite a disappointing (from his viewpoint) trade.
~~

 

[AleksandarN]

What short memories some people have... it wasn't that long ago we were praising Cat's clutch late-game shots, his leadership, and his hustling defensive play. Suddenly he's a cancer with an attitude problem?

I agree that he probably doesn't fit in with what the Kings are trying to do, but there are plenty of other teams that would improve with the addition of Cuttino. I think he deserves a little respect for being professional and playing hard for us despite a disappointing (from his viewpoint) trade.
~~

Not all of us were praising CAt as fact I can not recall anyone praise him for hussle defence. I have not seen Cat play defense enough to justify having him on this team given his other short comings

 

[ONEZERO]

The only way that the Kings should sign Mobley is if a S&T is in place that is desireable to them, not in anticipation of some favorable future deal. Signing Mobley to a long term contract without a deal in place the Kings may end up with a Mobley and his long term contract that eventually the Kings might have to give up some considerations just to unload down the road.

I've never been a fan of Mobley since his early days with Houston. All Kriedler's criticisms of Mobley's play I believe are valid, particularly that he doesn't make his teammates better, I think he actually makes them worse. And on top of all that Mobley is mentally soft, a whiner that sets a bad tone of waekness blaming everyone but himself, not taking responsiblity for his own short comings. that attitude can rub off on a team.

Trading Christie and his contract for Mobley was a good deal for the Kings. Chrisite was a very good player, past his prime and slowing quickly. He's even been mentioned as a player the Magic may excersice their one time "Alan Houston" exemption on. In all ways the Christie for Mobley and Mobley for nothing or a pre-arranged S&T if it makes sense is a good move.

Man, u need to relax on those comments about mobley. He didn't even get used to the team and with that he never got to truly trust his teammantes and that's why he didn't "pass" and didn't help the team in ways u so desperatly wish he did. I think his performance in game 1 against seattle wasn't enough for u. Sure he sometimes doesn't show up until the second half, but when we were desperate and really needed points, he was there for us. We gotta get over this princeton offense s*** that was so great for us in the past. Its not going to work like it used to anymore and with that, u can't judge mobley until he's had an offseason and training camp to work with and if we turn into a different team then we've been used to with the princeton offense then mobley can be very great for us. But then again, we might end up having the same style of play for at least a few more years, so I think a sign and trade with mobley would be great for us, especially to denver to get nene. Mobleys a great player and a truly great person, and that's why comments about him being a "cancer" to team the locker room is completly off.

 

[4cwebb]

We have a lot of pieces, and Cuttino just adds to them. The reason we traded Doug for him (especially with Doug's contract coming up) was so that we would either have another player who could generate offense, or so that we could use him as trade bait. Packaged with Skinner or Songaila or Ostertag or Corliss, or any other number of options that Petrie could dream up, we could get back a couple of really serviceable players.

You don't just let a talented, multi-dimensional player like Mobley walk just because he doesn't fit into our plans. You use him as leverage and get something back for him in return, especially when you are over the cap one way or the other. Letting him walk doesn't do anything for us. A sign and trade - whether he's traded now or later - gives us another player that can score and generate offense, and another possible trade scenario.

I don't disagree with the take on Cat here, but one thing that worries me to some extent is that they won't be able to move Cat *prior* to the beginning of the season. And, if they don't move him, then one, if not two, of Martin and Garcia gets left at the end of the bench as the team's 11th man (sitting next to Ostertag) due to Adelman's propensity to play veterans over rookies, as well as the fact that Adelman may not be around for the rebuilding project (so even less incentive for him to suffer through the headache of breaking in these youngsters if he has Cat on the bench).

But at this point, barring some trade magic, the Kings are now a team clearly on the outside looking in on the NBA title. Door officially closed in the middle of last season. A new door can certainly be opened with the right personnel moves and development of players. I'm just not that confident that a) Cat can be moved easily if he's resigned (or even for greater value --- in all likelihood, he can probably only be moved for less value or a player whose skills are not yet as well defined) or b) any of the Evans/Martin/Garcia trio will have an opportunity to develop while Cat is around.

 

[Venom]

Like striker said, only resign him if there is a deal in place. Otherwise, let him go. Cat was jettisoned last year by 2 teams, and the Magic dumped him for "nothing". And that was under a reasonable deal that was expiring. I can't see who would want him under a bigger, long-term deal. And the Kings certainly have no need for him. Let Garcia and Martin platoon at the 2. . .I think they'll do a better job anyway. Sure, it's a "talent" loss, but one that I don't mind.

As an aside, everyone here talks about how we need to overhaul the roster, and yet they want everybody to be resigned, whether as trade bait or not. Baffling.