Salaries vrs. Wins (The major reason this Kings' team sucks.)

[Heuge]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/26/4218249/kings-spend-little-get-what-they.html

Kings' low payroll offers clue to current struggles

Share


By Phillip Reese
preese@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012 - 3:13 pm
Last Modified: Friday, Jan. 27, 2012 - 9:32 am

Wins don't come cheap.
For the last two years, the Sacramento Kings have had one of the lowest team payrolls in the NBA. And one of the least successful teams.
Player salaries are not a perfect predictor of NBA success. The Oklahoma City Thunder win without a huge payroll. But the teams with the most wins tend to have the most expensive players.
This chart ranks teams based on total wins during the last and current season. It also ranks them according to the size of their team payroll, with "1" representing the team with the biggest salaries and "30" representing the team with the smallest payroll.


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/26/4218249/kings-spend-little-get-what-they.html#storylink=cpy

Check out the chart, I think it is very telling.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

There's a definite correlation between money spent and quality of team. It isn't absolute though. The Pacers have built a very nice team despite having a team payroll of only 4$ million more than the Kings. You can build a quality team without going over the cap but you have to be smart about it. The Kings problem isn't that they haven't spent enough as much as it is that they've spent what they did spend poorly. They're paying Salmons, Hayes, Thornton, and Garcia a combined 27$ million this year. That's not a winning recipe.

 

[gunks]

Maloofs being cheap = paying 3rd stringers 2nd stringer money, and having them start.

GP isnt helping either. Only good move he's made in the past 6 years has been the Hawes for Dally trade (and even that one is a moot point these days).

 

[The Hammer]

Maloofs being cheap = paying 3rd stringers 2nd stringer money, and having them start.

GP isnt helping either. Only good move he's made in the past 6 years has been the Hawes for Dally trade (and even that one is a moot point these days).

So Landry for Thornton was a bad trade?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

So Landry for Thornton was a bad trade?

Not bad, but I'd say it was lateral. Martin for Landry was bad, though. Basically we could look at it as being Martin for Thornton, and I'd say that's bad too. I'm sure I'll get lynched for saying so, but yes, I'd rather have Kevin Martin than Marcus Thornton!

 

[Uncia03]

Not bad, but I'd say it was lateral. Martin for Landry was bad, though. Basically we could look at it as being Martin for Thornton, and I'd say that's bad too. I'm sure I'll get lynched for saying so, but yes, I'd rather have Kevin Martin than Marcus Thornton!

The Martin for Thorton trade via Landry was a huge win for us.

I really liked Kevin Martin and he's a great player to have as long as he's not the best player on your team, but I'll take Thornton any day when you look at what both bring to the table as well as the price of each.

Martin this year is scoring 20.1 ppg on 42.5% shooting and 33.1% 3pt shooting.
Thornton this year is scoring 16.4ppg on 39.6% shooting and 32.5% 3pt shooting.

I'd say that both players are unhappy with how they are shooting this season so far.

Martin is getting paid 12 million this season while Marcus is getting paid 7 million this season.
Thornton is 4 years younger.

Thornton is a better defender, better clutch player, and is more intense/fiesty than Martin.

And most important is the fact that Thornton has the ability to create his own shot when he needs to and is a much better ball-handler.

At this point in time, I don't think it's even close as to which player is the better one when you factor in age and salary.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

The Martin for Thorton trade via Landry was a huge win for us.

I really liked Kevin Martin and he's a great player to have as long as he's not the best player on your team, but I'll take Thornton any day when you look at what both bring to the table as well as the price of each.

Martin this year is scoring 20.1 ppg on 42.5% shooting and 33.1% 3pt shooting.
Thornton this year is scoring 16.4ppg on 39.6% shooting and 32.5% 3pt shooting.

I'd say that both players are unhappy with how they are shooting this season so far.

Martin is getting paid 12 million this season while Marcus is getting paid 7 million this season.
Thornton is 4 years younger.

Thornton is a better defender, better clutch player, and is more intense/fiesty than Martin.

And most important is the fact that Thornton has the ability to create his own shot when he needs to and is a much better ball-handler.

At this point in time, I don't think it's even close as to which player is the better one when you factor in age and salary.

I'll give you salary, but age is negligible, as Martin is actually only four years older. If Thornton gets back to how he finished last year, I'll gladly retract everything i've said but so far, he's yet to do that. We'll see.