Petrie can see the job ahead

SactoGreg · Jun 9, 2005

Kingsgurl said:

How can it NOT be the year?

Realistically, what choices will GP have?

There are far too many open holes in the Kings roster to stand pat. Heck, it would be MORE difficult for Petrie to assemble a team by not inflating the payroll (or at least keeping it around the same as this past season - $57 million+-). I just don't see how he can do it.

But perhaps that's why he is GM and I'm not!

The trick for Petrie is going to be keeping as much of the newer salaries the team will assume from counting against the cap. Thus, exemptions are "King". That's really all he has to work with when you get down to the brass tax of it all.

Chances are, we are not going to see any of the fruit from Petrie's upcoming off-season efforts for years to come...

whozit · Jun 9, 2005

Trouble is that is short term planning. They trimmed to a point that they've bleed off the talent. I think 1Kingzfan's assesment of "not right" is right on. That short term thinking now has long term consequences.

whozit · Jun 9, 2005

Problem is, they don't have years. I think it is imperative that the team steady the ship now. Not regain contender status again immediately but at least be competitive on a nightly basis.

Sadly, easier said than done.

KP · Jun 9, 2005

whozit said:

Sorry I haven't been on. I said we aren't deep, you pretty much agreed. If we still had Webb their wouldn't be a gaping hole to fill at the 4, but I think the point we(Kingsgurl and Me) were both trying to make was that we weren't against the trades in principle just the pieces/contracts that we got for what we traded. I also include the Doug/Cat trade and signing of Tag too, I have problems with almost every move that was made last year. Not that those players are gone exactly, but what we got in return/instead to work with. IMO we are in a even worse spot than we would have been had we waited until this offseason to move anybody. People say we would have had no chance to get past the Spurs anyway but those same people were the ones saying we would tear up Seattle

. My point is that you don't just make moves to make them, like many in here seem to suggest all the time. You have to have a plan, and the success of your moves should be based on your teams ability to win in the aftermath. So far we have sucked... Next year I think it will get worse.. Rebuttal?

whozit · Jun 9, 2005

OK, then you have:

Bibby, Jackson
Christie, Martin
Peja
Webber
Miller, Ostertag (you can remove Ostertag since you didn't want him)

You have a mid-level and your draft pick. You have no trade exemptions. What are you going to do? The team is still full of holes. Trade Webber at that point? Let's say just for the fun of it, you do. Are the pieces going to fit where you need them because the pieces acquired are going to be hard to move due to trade restrictions. What you get is what you got. Christie for 8 million(?), good luck in moving that. Come this summer (i.e. now) the team is in a lot of hurt. Any move is basically going to require major piece(s) and when you do that it creates new holes. The bleeding off of talent would just have continued and this team needs an influx of new talent. All you will have to surround your players is the refuge of the league.

My point was, despite the unpleasant ending and the daunting challenge facing the team now, it is nothing compared to what the team would have been facing.

I agree with this, I quess we just have a different outlook to what this team was going to face this summer. To me, the team was heading to facing a crisis this summer. It made moves to avoid them. Will they be succesful? Don't know.

Based on last year, your right. Next year, my optimistic hopes is that the team is competitive. Not a contender, just competitive.

AleksandarN · Jun 9, 2005

whozit said:

OK, then you have:

Bibby, Jackson
Christie, Martin
Peja
Webber
Miller, Ostertag (you can remove Ostertag since you didn't want him)

You have a mid-level and your draft pick. You have no trade exemptions. What are you going to do? The team is still full of holes. Trade Webber at that point? Let's say just for the fun of it, you do. Are the pieces going to fit where you need them because the pieces acquired are going to be hard to move due to trade restrictions. What you get is what you got. Christie for 8 million(?), good luck in moving that. Come this summer (i.e. now) the team is in a lot of hurt. Any move is basically going to require major piece(s) and when you do that it creates new holes. The bleeding off of talent would just have continued and this team needs an influx of new talent. All you will have to surround your players is the refuge of the league.

My point was, despite the unpleasant ending and the daunting challenge facing the team now, it is nothing compared to what the team would have been facing.

I agree with this, I quess we just have a different outlook to what this team was going to face this summer. To me, the team was heading to facing a crisis this summer. It made moves to avoid them. Will they be succesful? Don't know.

Based on last year, your right. Next year, my optimistic hopes is that the team is competitive. Not a contender, just competitive.

We have trade exemptions this summer equaling around 5 million.

KP · Jun 9, 2005

whozit said:

I totally agree with you and I think you could also be right(I hope you are). I don't really think we disagree we just have different opinions where this team will be next year, while still knowing it could go either way depending on what moves Petrie makes. I just disagree with people that said after the trade we were better, and kept saying it up until the playoffs, and then after we got run by Seattle still keep saying it. It's not really you, but other people I was responding to in the 1st place.

--Also If you guys think the Maloofs are going to be spending money well over the cap just because they have exemptions you haven't been watching the past few years. We still have some rotten contracts holding us down.

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

AleksandarN,

The statement that we wouldn't have any trade exemptions was in the scenerio that the Kings had not made any of the trades last year. The exemptions were created by those two trades, without them you have none.

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

That is one of the reasons, I think they may willingly let Cat walk. I can then see the team using the trade exemptions and mid-level in lieu of his salary. I have a hard time imagining them doing a trade and sign with him and then using their exemptions on top of it.

SactoGreg · Jun 10, 2005

whozit said:

whozit,

That's not necessarily true.

The Kings have the MLE to use this season, regardless of any of the trades that happened this past year. That amount will probably be close to $5 million.

And when/if Mobley walks, he walks out the door with one of those "trade" expemtions you are referring to. Same with Darius if he doesn't sign with the Kings and decides to walk...

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

SactoGreg said:

I am wrong sometimes, but not this time. In the posts above, I specifically specified TRADE exemptions. Darius and Cat's status has nothing to do with the availablity of the exemptions. What the team does do with those two might however impact their willingness to use the exemptions created by the Christie and Webber trades.

The team has one exemption (according to RealGM) around 900K from the Christie trade. The team has three totally over 4 million from the Webber trade. Combined these exemptions total over 5 million.

Songalia is a free agent (assuming he opts out like reported) that the team has early bird rights on. They can resign him up to the mid-level amount if both parties are willing. Up to that amount, if he is resigned, has no impact on the availability of other exemptions.

Cat is a free agent (assuming he opts out like reported) that the team has bird rights on. They can resign him and do whatever with if both parties agree. Again, like Songalia, what the team does with him has no impact on the availability of other exemptions.

However, what the team does with either or both of these players may impact their willingness to utilize other exemptions that are available.

Kingsgurl · Jun 10, 2005

So, basically, if we combine them, it's like having two MLE's. And to think I was worried. Oh wait...the only problem is, trade exceptions can't be used to sign Free Agents, so we are talking trades.
I'm confused as to how we ended up with trade exceptions in that deal anyway. Does anyone know?

You only get the exception in non-simultaneous trades (trading away a SINGLE player). The 'cheat' on this rule is to do the deal as seperate trades occuring at the same time, but the salaries would have to match for each one. Matt's salary didn't match anyones, not even close, so how is this possible?

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

Kingsgurl said:

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand how it happens. It may have something to do with the actual amount the contract is worth over its life. There are examples in Coons FAQ addressing this and how you get multiple trade exemptions from one trade. Good luck.

And yes, it is like having the equavilence of two MLE except you have to use them with a trade. Being able to combine them does give the team flexibility. The question is, will the team use them or let them expire like recent history has shown?

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

Those exemptions can/could be used with one of the "meddling" contracts the Kings have and get back a player that a team is going to lose otherwise.

It would allow the other team to get "something" and cut salary. But will the Kings use them?

Kingsgurl · Jun 10, 2005

Right, I checked out the examples. I can't figure out how it fits this scenario because, basically, it would have to be that we did the Barnes deal as a DIFFERENT move (that happened to happen on the same day) Matt's salary, by itself, was no where NEAR matching any of those guys, thus it couldn't have been done that way.

Let's say they DID decide to combine the exceptions in a trade (let's say Mobley S&T) Are the Maloofs looking to take on another 10 million dollar a year contract? Certainly, using the trade exceptions they COULD, but will they?

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

My guess is, if they do a S & T with Mobley I don't see them using much if any of the trade exemptions. I think it is almost an either - or proposition.

Since a S & T with him needs his approval, I think he will walk with the Kings uncompensated. I think the options are much better if they look at some of the other "meddling" contracts to use with the trade exemptions. Some of those individual players may have value if the other team is going to lose their player anyways. From the Kings perspective, the hit on payroll wouldn't be as great. In fact, if they used the exemptions and lets say resigned Songalia to an increase it would be a near wash.

I don't see them opening the checkbook for any really true substantial amount.

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

As far as the computing to get the trade exemptions, I'm confused also. However, if you look at other teams that have trade exemptions on RealGM you will find LA also has similiar exemptions from the Oneal trade. It works somehow and I'll let it go at that.

Kingsgurl · Jun 10, 2005

Didn't LA trade O'Neal by himself? It would qualify then.

whozit · Jun 10, 2005

http://http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#68

However, it is sometimes possible to reorganize trades so that players technically are not aggregated, and therefore teams do gain a trade exception. A good example of this occurred in 2004 when Houston traded Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley and Kelvin Cato to Orlando for Tracy McGrady, Juwan Howard, Tyronn Lue and Reece Gaines. As a single trade, this would not have netted a trade exception since multiple players were moving each way. However, Houston was able to reorganize the trade into three separate, simultaneous trades. In one trade, they acquired McGrady and Gaines for Mobley and Cato. In another trade, they acquired Howard and Lue with an existing trade exception from their earlier Glen Rice trade. That left them trading Francis essentially by himself for nothing, which generated a trade exception in the amount of Francis' base year value. From Orlando's perspective, it was a single three-for-four trade.

Didn't the Kings have some trade exemptions from before, maybe that is the trick. I think this is an example of having a top-notch GM.

SactoGreg · Jun 10, 2005

whozit said:

Got it.

I lumped the MLE into your discussion regarding exemptions, well, because it is an exemption. An exemption not influenced by any trades or existing agreements...

Kingsgurl · Jun 10, 2005

It just occured to me that I completely forgot about Michael Bradley! HE could have been combined with Matt for one of those players, maybe Skinner? as a separate deal. Running that type scenario would net you ONE trade exception only though, so I am still confused.

whozit · Jun 11, 2005

I don't understand it either.

Not understanding it and those exceptions being available is lot better than the alternative. It is always possible that RealGM could be wrong about their existance.

That would simply be yuck.

Petrie can see the job ahead

G-League

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

G-League

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

G-League

Starter

Starter