Solve for X

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sold on anybody that's likely to be available at our likely pick in the draft. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there's a team who has a polished stud small forward that they're willing to part with, and they want our pick in exchange. We say, "You want the pick, for your stud small forward? Sure... (whispers) but you've gotta take John Salmons..."

They talk amongst themselves for about ten minutes, and then come back and say, "Okay, we'll give you our stud small forward for Salmons and the pick... but you've got to throw in X."

Okay, Kings Fans, solve for "X." Who's the best player that you would part with, plus our 2013 first rounder, in order to get rid of Salmons?

Poll to follow. For practicality's sake, only players under contract through 2013-14 will be included in the poll.

EDIT - poll options listed in descending salary order.

 

[Darth Divac]

I want to keep our pick if it lands in the top 3 (Burke, Noel, Porter). Otherwise, package MT and the pick for Danny Granger & Indy's pick, or Luol Deng and Chicago's pick. I like the Chicago trade. It works both ways: Chicago gets 3pt shooting and a high lottery pick, while we get Deng and a late first round pick, which we can use to select my favorite late-round prospect, Tony Mitchell.

 

[Padrino]

i voted marcus thornton, just because the kings need to unload some of their chuckers in favor of bolstering other deficiencies, and isaiah thomas is a cheaper sixth man solution. thornton is certainly a more explosive scorer than thomas, but then again, scoring's not really the kings' biggest problem, is it?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I want to keep our pick if it lands in the top 5 (Burke, Noel, Porter). Otherwise, package MT and the pick for Danny Granger & Indy's pick, or Luol Deng and Chicago's pick.

If I can channel my inner Capt. Factorial for a minute, strictly speaking, we can't get a pick in the "Top Five." It's either going to be in the Top Three, or it's going to be 6-9. The rules of the lottery prohibit us from getting 4 or 5.

 

[Darth Divac]

Ah. Should've read up on loterry rules. Thanks. So, anyways.

 

[twslam07]

I would rather just amnesty Salmons and have the other team give us more talent for our pick. (Stud SF and decent role player/draft pick for instance). For that reason alone, I selected the bottom option. We shed his salary and get more value back. Why wouldn't everyone select this option? Too much logic I suppose...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I would rather just amnesty Salmons and have the other team give us more talent for our pick. (Stud SF and decent role player/draft pick for instance). For that reason alone, I selected the bottom option. We shed his salary and get more value back. Why wouldn't everyone select this option? Too much logic I suppose...

Because we still have to pay an amnestied player, that's why: he just doesn't count against the cap. Maybe I'm not super quick to want to spend Ranadive's money like that, I don't know about anybody else.

I mean, let's not pretend that all we need is a small forward, and that we're otherwise good enough as-is. We need some addition by subtraction: we have too many players with duplicative skill sets. We have to get rid of some of them, anyway, so why should we eat Salmons' contract, too?

 

[twslam07]

Because we still have to pay an amnestied player, that's why: he just doesn't count against the cap. Maybe I'm not super quick to want to spend Ranadive's money like that, I don't know about anybody else.

I mean, let's not pretend that all we need is a small forward, and that we're otherwise good enough as-is. We need some addition by subtraction: we have too many players with duplicative skill sets. We have to get rid of some of them, anyway, so why should we eat Salmons' contract, too?

Salmons is a perfect amnesty candidate. He has been since joining the team. We're about to get owners who are no longer broke and you're worried about them having to pay his contract? The Maloofs have influenced you more than you know. These types of moves help improve the team. That's awful nice of you to try and save our new owners 7 mil, but I think they can afford it. And if they can afford it and it will improve the situation of our team, why not amnesty hiim?

I agree that we need more than just a SF. Out of our entire roster, I only think we have two starting positions filled (SG and C). Everything else is up for grabs in my eyes. I like Thompson, but he would be best suited coming off the bench in place of a rim protector. I like Thomas, but his size, defense, and star attitude do not bode well for someone trying to play PG next to Cousins and Evans. I like Thornton, but his defense and selfishness is not something you want to see in a starting lineup. With that being said, I don't why amnestying Salmons prohibits us from cleaning up the rest of our roster. You even said we need some addition by subtraction. Well this is as close to the definition of subtraction as you can get.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Salmons is a perfect amnesty candidate. He has been since joining the team. We're about to get owners who are no longer broke and you're worried about them having to pay his contract? The Maloofs have influenced you more than you know. These types of moves help improve the team. That's awful nice of you to try and save our new owners 7 mil, but I think they can afford it. And if they can afford it and it will improve the situation of our team, why not amnesty hiim?...

I'd say that "worried" is a poor choice of words. It'd be more accurate to say that I'm not as cavalier about it as you seem to be. "Hey, Vivek, why don't you just amnesty Salmons? You can afford it!" I'll let someone else start that particular conversation.

I mean, I don't know if you've ever been broke, personally, but I have, and I can't imagine ever saying to anybody else, "Hey, why don't you just flush seven and a half million dollars down the toilet?"

 

[whozit]

I'd say that "worried" is a poor choice of words. It'd be more accurate to say that I'm not as cavalier about it as you seem to be. "Hey, Vivek, why don't you just amnesty Salmons? You can afford it!" I'll let someone else start that particular conversation.

I mean, I don't know if you've ever been broke, personally, but I have, and I can't imagine ever saying to anybody else, "Hey, why don't you just flush seven and a half million dollars down the toilet?"

I was under the impression that if you amnestied someone the non-guaranteed years become guaranteed, which makes it even worse.

 

[cuad]

I would throw in Marcus Thornton. Then I would match any offer Evans gets.

These are my untouchables from your list:

Jason Thompson
DeMarcus Cousins
Jimmer
PPat
Isaiah

 

[Nighthawk1]

MT or IT. I wouldn't skip a beat in offering either. We only need one sparkplug off the bench, and IT may be better suited to that going forward than the more expensive MT.

 

[hrdboild]

You left out:

"The Maloofs are gone, happy rainbows for everybody!!!! (even you John Salmons)"



(Sorry, back to serious business. Couldn't help myself.)

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If I can channel my inner Capt. Factorial for a minute, strictly speaking, we can't get a pick in the "Top Five." It's either going to be in the Top Three, or it's going to be 6-9. The rules of the lottery prohibit us from getting 4 or 5.

I think I'm honored. But I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I was under the impression that if you amnestied someone the non-guaranteed years become guaranteed, which makes it even worse.

No, I don't think that's quite correct. This was actually a really tough one to chase down, but I'm pretty sure I finally got it.

When a player is amnestied:
1) Any fully unguaranteed seasons on the contract go away. (Does not apply to Salmons)
2) The original team is (initially) on the hook for the entire sum of the guaranteed money in the contract. As far as Salmons goes, Kings would be on the hook for $7.583M ('13-'14) + $1M ('14-'15). Kings would not be on the hook for $6.5M unguaranteed ('14-'15).
3) The player is made available for waiver claims. Any team claiming a player with any partially guaranteed seasons must fully guarantee those seasons as a condition of the waiver claim. As such, the absolute minimum waiver bid for Salmons would be $6.5M (to fully guarantee the second season).

So if there were no bid for Salmons, we would owe him $8.583M and he would be a free agent. (If he were to then sign a contract somewhere else I think we would get reimbursed for the amount of his new contract, but I'm not certain.) If there was at least one bid, then Salmons would be under contract with the winning bidder for two years. Any amount in the winning bid over $6.5M would be reimbursed to us, going towards our $8.583M.

At any rate, if we amnesty Salmons, we cannot be responsible for any of the unguaranteed money, but we can be responsible for 100% of the guaranteed money (and we'd be lucky to get more than a minimum salary's worth of reimbursement when all is said and done.)

 

[Capt. Factorial]

And in an attempt to trifecta the thread, I'm now going to address the actual topic.

Unfortunately, I read the header to the poll and voted before reading Slim's first post, so I didn't interpret the question correctly. My interpretation was: "What is the best player you would package with Salmons to make him go away?" Because I don't believe that one year of Salmons is the worst thing in the world at this point, I'm not enamored of the idea of "burning talent" simply to get him off of the roster. And if indeed he is in the way (capwise) of us signing a desired FA, then I believe amnesty would be a good decision (because essentially it would only cost us this year's salary). So I said Chuck Hayes, figuring that I wouldn't want to give up anything more (in fact, that would be a bit of a contract dump in itself) to get rid of Salmons.

Of course, the real question turned out to be a bit different - Team X puts a stud SF on the block for Salmons + the #6 (for sake of argument) + X. What is the best player you could give up as X?

I do kind of wish that the stud SF had been named, because I think it would make it easier. As such, I'm going to give the hypothetical stud SF a name and then run with it. His name is Luol Deng.

The #6 + Salmons for Deng I would take in a heartbeat. I love the draft (as a bit of a "draftnik", I don't love this draft particularly), but I would do that. And I'm pretty confident I'd throw in more, which would probably be necessary. I think the answer is that I would throw in either Thornton or Thomas. I'm not really sure which one qualifies as the better contract. Basically, for me the only single player I would not include in that trade scenario would be Cousins (Evans would be off the board, but he'll be an RFA).

 

[Sac.Kings]

And in an attempt to trifecta the thread, I'm now going to address the actual topic.

Unfortunately, I read the header to the poll and voted before reading Slim's first post, so I didn't interpret the question correctly. My interpretation was: "What is the best player you would package with Salmons to make him go away?" Because I don't believe that one year of Salmons is the worst thing in the world at this point, I'm not enamored of the idea of "burning talent" simply to get him off of the roster. And if indeed he is in the way (capwise) of us signing a desired FA, then I believe amnesty would be a good decision (because essentially it would only cost us this year's salary). So I said Chuck Hayes, figuring that I wouldn't want to give up anything more (in fact, that would be a bit of a contract dump in itself) to get rid of Salmons.

Of course, the real question turned out to be a bit different - Team X puts a stud SF on the block for Salmons + the #6 (for sake of argument) + X. What is the best player you could give up as X?

I do kind of wish that the stud SF had been named, because I think it would make it easier. As such, I'm going to give the hypothetical stud SF a name and then run with it. His name is Luol Deng.

The #6 + Salmons for Deng I would take in a heartbeat. I love the draft (as a bit of a "draftnik", I don't love this draft particularly), but I would do that. And I'm pretty confident I'd throw in more, which would probably be necessary. I think the answer is that I would throw in either Thornton or Thomas. I'm not really sure which one qualifies as the better contract. Basically, for me the only single player I would not include in that trade scenario would be Cousins (Evans would be off the board, but he'll be an RFA).

While I like your idea of Deng, the Bulls actually have a very good small forward in Jimmy Butler, and it may not require as much we think to get Deng. In all honesty, I would rather try to pry away Butler than I would Deng at this point. At least we won't see " for cash considerations" in all of the trades we make!

 

[Chupacabra]

There's no way I'd offer Cousins. I'd be pretty hesitant to offer Patterson but I would probably pull the trigger anyway. I would literally allow the team I'm in discussions with to take their pick from the rest of the names on that list.

 

[pshn80]

I think getting rid of Salmons falls very low in my priorities for improving the team. Next question please.

 

[VF21]

No, I don't think that's quite correct. This was actually a really tough one to chase down, but I'm pretty sure I finally got it.

Did you use the CBA FAQ?

 

[KingMilz]

Everyone and anyone not named Cousins/PPat, everyone other than Cousins is basically easy to replace

 

[Gilles]

No, I don't think that's quite correct. This was actually a really tough one to chase down, but I'm pretty sure I finally got it.

When a player is amnestied:
1) Any fully unguaranteed seasons on the contract go away. (Does not apply to Salmons)
2) The original team is (initially) on the hook for the entire sum of the guaranteed money in the contract. As far as Salmons goes, Kings would be on the hook for $7.583M ('13-'14) + $1M ('14-'15). Kings would not be on the hook for $6.5M unguaranteed ('14-'15).
3) The player is made available for waiver claims. Any team claiming a player with any partially guaranteed seasons must fully guarantee those seasons as a condition of the waiver claim. As such, the absolute minimum waiver bid for Salmons would be $6.5M (to fully guarantee the second season).

So if there were no bid for Salmons, we would owe him $8.583M and he would be a free agent. (If he were to then sign a contract somewhere else I think we would get reimbursed for the amount of his new contract, but I'm not certain.) If there was at least one bid, then Salmons would be under contract with the winning bidder for two years. Any amount in the winning bid over $6.5M would be reimbursed to us, going towards our $8.583M.

At any rate, if we amnesty Salmons, we cannot be responsible for any of the unguaranteed money, but we can be responsible for 100% of the guaranteed money (and we'd be lucky to get more than a minimum salary's worth of reimbursement when all is said and done.)

Actually in this chat of Larry Coon: salary-cap-chat if you search for "Partially-guaranteed" you get to the part, where he claims

Partially-guaranteed and non-guaranteed salary throws a monkey wrench into the process. If a team waives a player, they normally don’t have to pay non-protected salary, but in the amnesty process, the player gets paid all such salary

 

[upinsmoke]

I agree getting rid of salmons is relatively low on the priority list. I believe we actually have some good players and a couple of franchise guy's already on the roster. Now if we can package one of our "chuckers" and or JT along with the pick to get a legitimate starting SF then I'm all for it. IT, MT and Jimmer all have their own qualities but it's imperative to move AT LEAST ONE and move on. My personal list of players currently on roster who I would like to keep around long term are Cuz, Evans, IT, Patterson and T. Douglas.

* for the record I think JT is a solid role player who can play both C/PF but is really not a starter on a competitive team.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Did you use the CBA FAQ?

That's exactly what I used.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Actually in this chat of Larry Coon: salary-cap-chat if you search for "Partially-guaranteed" you get to the part, where he claims

I think that quoting more fully gives a different view:

Just keep this in mind — they didn’t want teams to have to pay any more for their amnestied players than they would have had to pay had they waived the player outright through the regular waiver process. Partially-guaranteed and non-guaranteed salary throws a monkey wrench into the process. If a team waives a player, they normally don’t have to pay non-protected salary, but in the amnesty process, the player gets paid all such salary, so the waiving team would be on the hook for some of it.

They fixed this by making the amnesty bids include at least all non-guaranteed salary in seasons for which at least some salary is guaranteed. So if a player has two years left and the first year is 100% guaranteed for $9 million, and the second year has $6 million of his $10 million salary guaranteed, then the bid has to covert the remaining $4 million.

I think that's exactly how I described it. If a bid is made, the bidding team must cover the non-guaranteed salary. If nobody bids, on the other hand, then the team isn't on the hook for any more than they would be if they waived the player outright - which is the guaranteed salary.

 

[King in England]

Could the fact that Salmons is basically an expiring contract this year not make him a lot easier just to get rid of? In previous years i thought he was practically untradeble however this year i find it hard to imagine anyone would think of taking him up on his 7 million team option. I think id be looking to dump hayes or outlaw first since were stuck with them for 2 more seasons!

Anyway I was thinking of a trade along these lines the other day and the names I came up with were Shawn Marion or Jeff Green.

Dallas didnt even make the payoffs this season so i expect them to have another busy offseason. They have been linked with big name free agents like Howard and Paul. They may need capspace. They may be intersted in getting a bit younger, picking up a higher draft pick could be useful for them.

Boston are OLD. Im not sure how intersted they would be in trading one of their younger assets. We could offer up our first and see what they say. Im not even sure im 100% on this just kind of throwing ideas out there.

With regards to which guards I would prefer to use as trade bait I think i am in the minority. I would put them in the following order; Jimmer then thornton then Thomas.

I am by no means a fan of thomas and get as frustrated with him at starting point guard as the next fan but I think he would be valuable off the bench and has a good attitude. I have yet to be convinced Jimmer is an nba level player and cant really see the potential that some others clearly can.

Edit - By the way I would LOVE to have Luol Deng on this team but im not sure we get him that easily. I would throw anyone not name Demarcus or tyreke at them. Jimmy Butler also looks like a stud but at this point (after his beastly playoff performances) I think chicago would make him pretty much untouchable.

 

[Gilles]

Just keep this in mind — they didn’t want teams to have to pay any more for their amnestied players than they would have had to pay had they waived the player outright through the regular waiver process. Partially-guaranteed and non-guaranteed salary throws a monkey wrench into the process. If a team waives a player, they normally don’t have to pay non-protected salary, but in the amnesty process, the player gets paid all such salary, so the waiving team would be on the hook for some of it.

They fixed this by making the amnesty bids include at least all non-guaranteed salary in seasons for which at least some salary is guaranteed. So if a player has two years left and the first year is 100% guaranteed for $9 million, and the second year has $6 million of his $10 million salary guaranteed, then the bid has to covert the remaining $4 million.

Coon states the same in your quote as well.

 

[whozit]

No, I don't think that's quite correct. This was actually a really tough one to chase down, but I'm pretty sure I finally got it.

When a player is amnestied:
1) Any fully unguaranteed seasons on the contract go away. (Does not apply to Salmons)
2) The original team is (initially) on the hook for the entire sum of the guaranteed money in the contract. As far as Salmons goes, Kings would be on the hook for $7.583M ('13-'14) + $1M ('14-'15). Kings would not be on the hook for $6.5M unguaranteed ('14-'15).
3) The player is made available for waiver claims. Any team claiming a player with any partially guaranteed seasons must fully guarantee those seasons as a condition of the waiver claim. As such, the absolute minimum waiver bid for Salmons would be $6.5M (to fully guarantee the second season).

So if there were no bid for Salmons, we would owe him $8.583M and he would be a free agent. (If he were to then sign a contract somewhere else I think we would get reimbursed for the amount of his new contract, but I'm not certain.) If there was at least one bid, then Salmons would be under contract with the winning bidder for two years. Any amount in the winning bid over $6.5M would be reimbursed to us, going towards our $8.583M.

At any rate, if we amnesty Salmons, we cannot be responsible for any of the unguaranteed money, but we can be responsible for 100% of the guaranteed money (and we'd be lucky to get more than a minimum salary's worth of reimbursement when all is said and done.)

Good, then amnestying him may be a viable option. I'm glad my understanding was incorrect.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Coon states the same in your quote as well.

Yes, but I don't think you're reading it right, because you're cutting off Larry's thought process in the middle of his sentence. Immediately after Larry says

in the amnesty process, the player gets paid all such salary

he follows it up by saying

so the waiving team would be on the hook for some of it. They fixed this...

Note that he said "would", not "are" and he said that it was "fixed". You can see that there is a bit of a contradiction here, but I believe that the entire confusion can be cleared up if you assume that Larry simply glossed something over in his sentence. I will requote, and put in bold below the thought I believe Larry accidentally left out which makes the whole thing consistent.

Just keep this in mind — they didn’t want teams to have to pay any more for their amnestied players than they would have had to pay had they waived the player outright through the regular waiver process. Partially-guaranteed and non-guaranteed salary throws a monkey wrench into the process. If a team waives a player, they normally don’t have to pay non-protected salary, but in the amnesty process, if a player is picked up on an amnesty bid, partially guaranteed seasons become fully guaranteed and the player gets paid all such salary, so the waiving team would be on the hook for some of it if they didn't find another solution.

They fixed this by making the amnesty bids include at least all non-guaranteed salary in seasons for which at least some salary is guaranteed. So if a player has two years left and the first year is 100% guaranteed for $9 million, and the second year has $6 million of his $10 million salary guaranteed, then the bid has to covert the remaining $4 million.

 

[bajaden]

I was under the impression that if you amnestied someone the non-guaranteed years become guaranteed, which makes it even worse.

Your right about the non guaranteed years, except that there's only one non guaranteed year. Also, remember that after a player is amnestied, other teams get to bid for his services, and whatever that bid turns out to be, lets say someone bids 3 mil a year, that amount is removed from what you have pay of the remaining salary. So instead of being stuck with payint 7.5 mil, you'd be paying 4.5 mil a year for a couple of year. Could be more or it could be less. In Salmons case, someone will make a bid for his services.