Retaining Thomas

twslam07 said:
Once a year, teams can use a mid-level exception (MLE) to sign a player to a contract for a specified maximum amount. The amount of the MLE and its duration depend on the team's cap status. The MLE was initially set at $5 million for a duration of four years for teams that are over the cap either before or after the signing, but did not pay a luxury tax in the previous season. Teams without cap room that paid tax in the previous season have an MLE that was initially set at $3 million with a three-year duration...
Click to expand...

Good catch!

BUT (and there's always a "but") in this case, we will drop far below the salary cap during the 2015 offseason. Right now we are looking at under $32M going into the 2015 offseason, and even if Gay opts out and then re-signs at a smaller contract (say $15M/year) we'd be under $50M. If you're under the cap by more than an MLE, you don't get an MLE. So that actually won't affect us unless something drastic happens to our salary status for the 2015 offseason.
 
Thomas may be a lot less expensive than in the past. If Thompson, a legit 3rd big, isn't worth 6 million what is Thomas worth. The effects of the new CBA are beginning to be shown. The stars will be paid and every one else will get the scraps.
 
twslam07 said:
Also, just letting him go is a talent bleed. You can sign him without the intention of him being in your long term plans just so you have a valuable trading chip down the road to bring back a player we could use rather than having no trading chip at all.
Click to expand...

That depends on contract value. Nobody is eager to pick up Tyreke on his current contract despite being a good to very good 2-way player. IT at $3-5 million per year is a good contract. IT at $7-9 million per year is not.
 
twslam07 said:
I'm not sure I would call Parker a shoot first PG. His career average is under 14 shots a game for 33 minutes of play. Compare that to Thomas (our Thomas), who's averaging 17 shots a game in 34 minutes of play this season (as a starter).
Click to expand...

Parker is a scorer, but he isn't a shoot first player. A typical Spurs possession will see the ball pass through at least four player's hands and often see six or seven passes made. Parker may finish the play, but he'll often do it on a backdoor cut or a curl around Timmy at the high post.
 
To free up space beneath the tax line, you can always do the stretch provision say on Terry who is long on tooth saving ~4 million (would have to be counted towards the cap the years stretched ~2 million for 3 years). If I'm understanding that provision correctly.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Good catch!

BUT (and there's always a "but") in this case, we will drop far below the salary cap during the 2015 offseason. Right now we are looking at under $32M going into the 2015 offseason, and even if Gay opts out and then re-signs at a smaller contract (say $15M/year) we'd be under $50M. If you're under the cap by more than an MLE, you don't get an MLE. So that actually won't affect us unless something drastic happens to our salary status for the 2015 offseason.
Click to expand...

Understood, but my logic is that we would sign free agents in 2015 to fill up our cap space. Once we have no more cap space, we could then use the MLE to go over the cap and sign an additional player. I'm under the impression that is allowed, but feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Hadlowe said:
That depends on contract value. Nobody is eager to pick up Tyreke on his current contract despite being a good to very good 2-way player. IT at $3-5 million per year is a good contract. IT at $7-9 million per year is not.
Click to expand...

The quote you took was essentially out of context. I was under the assumption the other poster would let Thomas walk because we drafted a PG (even if he would come back on a reasonable contract). That was the argument I was making. There's no doubt that his contract size will dictate his value going forward (in future trades, I mean).
 
LPKingsFan said:
I honestly feel like this forum had the exact same debate over pass-first PG's when the issue was Tyreke v. Rubio a few years ago.
Click to expand...

the debate was much the same then. but at that time, the kings roster had even less talent than it has now, so the point of the argument was largely moot. there wasn't enough talent elsewhere on the roster to compensate for tyreke's weaknesses, just as there wouldn't have been enough talent elsewhere on the roster to compensate for rubio's weaknesses...

the kings would go on to draft demarcus cousins and isaiah thomas to shore up those gaps in talent, and the new regime would go on to trade tyreke evans this last offseason. that said, isaiah thomas isn't stepping into tyreke's shoes in this scenario. he remained a sixth man until greivis vasquez was traded for rudy gay, and it is gay that has filled evans' role as #2 to cousins' #1. now the kings do not have a starting PG, and it does not necessarily mean that isaiah thomas is a starting PG simply because he's operating in that role currently...

in my opinion, "pass first" has always been a useless descriptor when characterizing the role of a PG in the contemporary nba. the position has evolved considerably in the last couple of decades. that said, when you have two big time scorers at the center and SF positions, you're certainly not in need of another big time scorer at the PG position, not when the roster is largely absent of any other distributors. i'd be perfectly fine with the kings acquiring a starting-caliber PG who can score, as long as it's not his priority, as it is thomas'...
 
twslam07 said:
It depends on what you mean by "money." Do you mean starters' money? Do you mean sixth man money? Do you mean any money?

In essence, I would disagree with this. If we draft a PG, we could use Thomas as a sixth man. I don't see why drafting a PG renders Thomas useless to us.

Also, just letting him go is a talent bleed. You can sign him without the intention of him being in your long term plans just so you have a valuable trading chip down the road to bring back a player we could use rather than having no trading chip at all.
Click to expand...

Anything over 6million I say kick rocks. I'm sure the front office likes McCallum and he can be a capable back up. The question would be is IT at 6+mill a better player/ fit with DMC/Gay vs Ennis and Smart. 2 things we know about IT he won't play defense and he won't pass so he doesn't fit with our big 2, I don't care what numbers he puts up.
 
Gary said:
I am a fan of the pure PG. These shoot first guys like Allen Iverson (and many many others) just screams ball hog, no matter how many assists they get per game. Grant Napear obviously does not see that as he just goes off of stats rather than actually seeing how he's getting those stats.
Click to expand...

As an example of the bias that Grant and Jerry have. In the last game, IT drove into the paint, and into a crowd, and had the ball knocked away. Then as he was on the floor trying to get the ball back, Jerry's comment was, look at the little guy hustle. Of course he never mentioned that he was hustling because he had turned the ball over to begin with. It gets a little tiresome..
 
Toasty said:
How many score first PG's
Have won a title?
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at most of the championship teams, very few have had what I would call a score first PG, and if you eliminate Tony Parker, I have a hard time thinking of one. Actually, I'm not sure I'd call Parker a score first PG, although some probably would.
 
Hadlowe said:
Isiah Thomas. Even then, he was a phenomenal set-up man.

I'll add Jerry West to that list too.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to call West a shoot-first point guard; it's only true to the extent that you actually consider him a point guard in the first place. And he was only really a point guard in the sense that, between him and Gail Goodrich, he pretty much had to be.

I find myself disinclined to want to re-sign Thomas: I wouldn't re-sign him for more than $6M, and I wouldn't re-sign him, if he were unwilling to come off the bench, for any amount of money. I'm not particularly afraid of "bleeding talent." I know I've said this before but, contrary to the opinion of some, I don't actually think that Thomas is a special player. It's never a good business practice to let a player walk, without getting anything at all in return, but let's not pretend that letting Thomas go for nothing would be as bad as losing LeBron James for nothing. It wouldn't even be as bad as losing Gerald Wallace for nothing.

Personally, I would try to low-ball the **** out of him but, as I intimated yesterday, I'm kind of a dick like that: I would open negotiations at sixty percent of the maximum that I'd be willing to offer him (or $3.6M), and try to get him to take that. I wouldn't even let him know what the maximum I'd be willing to sign him to was; if he indicated that he wasn't willing to take less than the maximum I was willing to offer, I let him go without blinking. But, if I offer him $3.6, and he says, "I want $5," I say, "You've got a deal!" He doesn't have to know that I would have gone as high as six.
 
I don't think I'd consider IT walking to really be a "talent bleed" either. Especially if he's dead set on being a starter. I mentioned recently that I think the Kings essentially have two starters (Cousins & Gay) and two solid bench role players (JT and IT - assuming he'd be placed and accept being placed in that role) and then some guys who COULD become role players (McLemore, Acy, Gray, maybe Williams & McCallum) along with some flotsam and jetsam (Outlaw, Landry, Evans, Terry, Fredette) with the biggest missing pieces being a rim protecting big and a starting PG.

Anyway, I have a hard time imagining any team offering IT anything over the MLE and viewing him as a long term starting PG. But of course I've also said over and over that despite all the safeguards owners try to install in the CBA they still let their GMs go out each offseason and make ridiculous signings so who really knows. $11 million a year for Tyreke to be a sixth man? 5 years/$80 million for Rudy Gay when the Grizzlies seemed to be only bidding against themselves? Sheesh.

If some team comes out of the wood work with a $8 million a year or more deal for IT I think the Kings would be nuts to match. But if the best offer he gets is around the MLE then I think you retain Thomas and find somebody to start at PG who pushes IT to the bench.

Personally I see the cap issues the Kings are having as another indictment of the Landry signing. Hopefully he gets all the way healthy and puts up some good numbers down the stretch so that he can be moved in the offseason.
 
twslam07 said:
Understood, but my logic is that we would sign free agents in 2015 to fill up our cap space. Once we have no more cap space, we could then use the MLE to go over the cap and sign an additional player. I'm under the impression that is allowed, but feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
Click to expand...

No, if you drop more than an MLE + Bi-Annual Exception below the salary cap (at any time during the annual cycle) you lose those exceptions. Instead, you get the "Room MLE", which will be about $2.8M in 2015, even smaller than the Taxpayer MLE.

CBA FAQ:

A team's exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If this happens when the exceptions arise, then the team doesn't get their exceptions at all. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any unused portions of their exceptions are lost (and do not return if the team salary increases).
Click to expand...
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Good catch!

BUT (and there's always a "but") in this case, we will drop far below the salary cap during the 2015 offseason. Right now we are looking at under $32M going into the 2015 offseason, and even if Gay opts out and then re-signs at a smaller contract (say $15M/year) we'd be under $50M. If you're under the cap by more than an MLE, you don't get an MLE. So that actually won't affect us unless something drastic happens to our salary status for the 2015 offseason.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping something drastic does happen. I'm hoping we go well into the luxury tax.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to call West a shoot-first point guard; it's only true to the extent that you actually consider him a point guard in the first place. And he was only really a point guard in the sense that, between him and Gail Goodrich, he pretty much had to be.

I find myself disinclined to want to re-sign Thomas: I wouldn't re-sign him for more than $6M, and I wouldn't re-sign him, if he were unwilling to come off the bench, for any amount of money. I'm not particularly afraid of "bleeding talent." I know I've said this before but, contrary to the opinion of some, I don't actually think that Thomas is a special player. It's never a good business practice to let a player walk, without getting anything at all in return, but let's not pretend that letting Thomas go for nothing would be as bad as losing LeBron James for nothing. It wouldn't even be as bad as losing Gerald Wallace for nothing.

Personally, I would try to low-ball the **** out of him but, as I intimated yesterday, I'm kind of a dick like that: I would open negotiations at sixty percent of the maximum that I'd be willing to offer him (or $3.6M), and try to get him to take that. I wouldn't even let him know what the maximum I'd be willing to sign him to was; if he indicated that he wasn't willing to take less than the maximum I was willing to offer, I let him go without blinking. But, if I offer him $3.6, and he says, "I want $5," I say, "You've got a deal!" He doesn't have to know that I would have gone as high as six.
Click to expand...
1. Expect moderator debate to flare up again. :eek::p
2. «if I offer him $3.6, and he says, "I want $5,"», then you next offer is $4,2, which point he counters with $4.7-4.8, and now you agree, that it's a reasonable deal, if it's flat. :rolleyes:
P.S. After «if I offer him $3.6, and he says, "I want $5,"» you might even throw "Sorry, I checked my notes: it actually reads $2.6." :D
 
I might even be colder, offer $3.6 and if he doesn't like it, let the market set the price and if it's over what I'm willing to pay let him walk. And I like Thomas as a sixth man gunner.
 
whozit said:
I might even be colder, offer $3.6 and if he doesn't like it, let the market set the price and if it's over what I'm willing to pay let him walk. And I like Thomas as a sixth man gunner.
Click to expand...
Listen, you may not like his game and how it fits on this team, but to offer a guy getting 20 & 6 only 3-4 mil a year is almost disrespectful.
 
Minny gave Mike James $23.5 million in 4 years, and began to regret it half way through the first season. But they avoided being disrespectful.
 
I disagree. This is the reality in the NBA now.. There are stars, and then everyone else. Our pg isn't a star and shouldn't get paid like one.

Respect doesn't come into it. We are not catering this team to our PG. It just makes no sense to do that. The FO hasn't seemed remotely concerned about hurting the feelings of Maloof era holdovers. PDA defended Ben very strongly (which makes me real nervous), not Jimmer, not our PG, not JT. Ben. Landry to to an extent talking about getting him more minutes. And Ray.

The number of teams with the cap space and need for a PG are pretty small. Someone always comes out of the woodwork and does something crazy (see New Orleans with Tyreke). If someone wants to do that with our pg, that's the end of the road for him here.

I'm very curious to see what the market is like. We learned through this trade deadline, with our PG clearly on the market if you believe some tweets, people weren't offering anything all that enticing. It was said we were shooting for the stars. We missed. But I don't think we are done aiming by any means.

I just get this feeling, and it's based on seeing them ship out damn near every player from the maloof years, is that they don't want him. Out with the old, in with the new. I don't know how they plan on replacing him, but the vibe is strong that ALL maloof era players not named Demarcus Cousins are going to moved as soon as they can. They've all but confirmed that at this point. Jimmer is done here. They desperately tried to trade JT. They unloaded MT for uh, Reggie Evans and his cheap contract and a player who will probably never play here. There are only two other holdovers. Do the math.
 
Fear the Putin said:
Listen, you may not like his game and how it fits on this team, but to offer a guy getting 20 & 6 only 3-4 mil a year is almost disrespectful.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't want to get involved in this but I don't see it as disrespectful. IT deserves no respect except as a human being. It is an amount of money that is reasonable for a guy who does not understand the idea of team and plays inadequate defense. I think we are trying to build something here and a selfish player doesn't fit. I personally don't even see how he fits as a 6th man as I don't see why his inability to share and lack of defense is suddenly OK if he comes off the bench.

I don't want IT on this team yet I'm sure he will get what he wants somewhere else and continue his quest to be the best little man in the history of the NBA with a team who isn't interested in winning a championship.
 
Glenn said:
I honestly didn't want to get involved in this but I don't see it as disrespectful. IT deserves no respect except as a human being. It is an amount of money that is reasonable for a guy who does not understand the idea of team and plays inadequate defense. I think we are trying to build something here and a selfish player doesn't fit. I personally don't even see how he fits as a 6th man as I don't see why his inability to share and lack of defense is suddenly OK if he comes off the bench.
Click to expand...

It's a very interesting point, because a lot times, even most of the time, what happens with high scoring 6th men...is that they end up being part of your closing team. The guys in at the end of most games.

At some point you have to ask yourself, do you really want him as a closer on this team? Especially for playoff type basketball, where things tend to slow down and become more of a "half court" game.

I doubt it
 
Fear the Putin said:
Listen, you may not like his game and how it fits on this team, but to offer a guy getting 20 & 6 only 3-4 mil a year is almost disrespectful.
Click to expand...
No disrespect intended. I am saying this in the hypothetical, I don't know the numbers in the books (not talking just salary here, all expenses) I wouldn't bid against myself. I retain the rights to match. If the market demands more than what I am willing to pay for a sixth man gunner, I let him walk and if it's less I match. I suspect that number is around the MLE or a little less. A sixth man gunner (and a damn good one at that) is what I see him as, not a starter on this team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sactowndog
Kings Cap entering next year
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tetsujin
Tetsujin
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
Kings Go All In (w/ ATL, BKN, & UTA)
Replies
18
Views
2K
KainLear
KainLear
twslam07
[Drastic Edition] “THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
twslam07
twslam07
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
“THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
6K
The_Jamal
T
PorchSurfin
Ayo Dosumnu
Replies
4
Views
814
kingsboi
kingsboi
Back
Top