The Kings and Freeagency:

Dreadnought said:
If we got Tyson Chandler or kept Dalembert, got another SF in AK47 or Battier, and amnesty claused Salmons... I would be an extremely happy Kings fan. I like having defense oriented players.
Click to expand...

I don't see Salmons being Amnestied... the Kings just picked him up and is our best SF at the moment by quite a bit.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
There seem to be several people hoping for us to use the amnesty clause on Salmons.

But you're right, it's not going to happen, not this year. Not a 1% chance, not a 0.0001% chance, but zero chance whatsoever.

First off, we deliberately traded for him. Remember, we traded DOWN in the draft and ADDED salary to get Salmons. I know it seems incomprehensible, but we actually WANTED Salmons. Westphal likes him, and Westphal wants some defense out of his 3-man. Salmons is going to play, and he's going to play a lot.

Second, we have to remember that even with Jimmer, Honeycutt, and Isaiah we're at 11 players and $16M under the salary floor. We can assume that we'll pick up Thornton, and let's be generous and say he gets $6M. We know Petrie likes to go with 14 players to start the season, so that means we need to spend at least $10M on two players to get us up to the floor. Given that we'll have to actually convince guys to come here, that probably means dumping a ton of money ($8-14M) at Dalembert/Nene/Chandler/Gasol. If we dump Salmons' $8.5M, that means that after Thornton we still have to spend at least $18.5M. How do we do it? There are going to be other teams throwing money around, some of them more tantalizing than us. We could very well get stuck paying $10M to a guy who should be getting a vet's minimum just to make the floor.

We just aren't in position to use the amnesty this year. Maybe next year on Garcia, where we'd only be burning one year of salary. But this year we've got too much cap room to use it.
Click to expand...

This. Also, it would be waaay out of character for Petrie to shift gears that fast. It takes him a couple of years at least to change from 4th to 3rd That's not to say I wouldn't love it if he would use the amnesty on Salmons and go with a superior player. It's just that I highly doubt it.

I wonder, though, whether Petrie might use amnesty on Garcia. If he could get Battier by doing it, then that would be ok with me.
 
Kingster said:
This. Also, it would be waaay out of character for Petrie to shift gears that fast. It takes him a couple of years at least to change from 4th to 3rd That's not to say I wouldn't love it if he would use the amnesty on Salmons and go with a superior player. It's just that I highly doubt it.

I wonder, though, whether Petrie might use amnesty on Garcia. If he could get Battier by doing it, then that would be ok with me.
Click to expand...

The Kings are not going to amnesty any player at this point. No way they are paying a player who is not on the roster, unless its a min type contract. Don't forget they can save it for future years. Now in the last year of Salmons or Garcia's contract it could happen.
 
Section 101 said:
The Kings are not going to amnesty any player at this point. No way they are paying a player who is not on the roster, unless its a min type contract. Don't forget they can save it for future years. Now in the last year of Salmons or Garcia's contract it could happen.
Click to expand...

I agree the Kings will hold on to their amnesty. Garcia and Salmons are the only two that makes sense to use it on, so might as well keep it in case one gets either injured, disgruntled, or just not good any longer. Kings are already plenty under the cap, which is really the only reason to use amnesty in the first place.

Kings will be big players in the amnesty market though. All they have to do is be a high bidder on a player, and that player has no option but to play for the Kings. No FA choices for those players...forced labor FTW. ;)
 
Hallama said:
I agree the Kings will hold on to their amnesty. Garcia and Salmons are the only two that makes sense to use it on, so might as well keep it in case one gets either injured, disgruntled, or just not good any longer. Kings are already plenty under the cap, which is really the only reason to use amnesty in the first place.

Kings will be big players in the amnesty market though. All they have to do is be a high bidder on a player, and that player has no option but to play for the Kings. No FA choices for those players...forced labor FTW. ;)
Click to expand...

They are well under the salary cap minimum. They have to add salary at this point.
 
Section 101 said:
They are well under the salary cap minimum. They have to add salary at this point.
Click to expand...

Well if you've exhausted all the options you were after, and your still 10 or 11 million under the minimun, then offer a one year contract to Oden for 11 mil. You have to spend the money anyway, so why not take a one year high risk, high reward gamble. If it doesn't work out, then you let him walk, if it does, then you throw the appropiate amout of money necessary to resign him. He might even like it here!
 
bajaden said:
Well if you've exhausted all the options you were after, and your still 10 or 11 million under the minimun, then offer a one year contract to Oden for 11 mil. You have to spend the money anyway, so why not take a one year high risk, high reward gamble. If it doesn't work out, then you let him walk, if it does, then you throw the appropiate amout of money necessary to resign him. He might even like it here!
Click to expand...

I would be all in favor, assuming no other big named stars become available via amnesty or trade.
 
In my ideal world, I could see Salmons as our starting SG, and Thornton as the backup SG.Then Petrie finally signing Prince and Nene (both players he really like and and almost pulled a trade for). I don't think this is impossible and we could have a pretty decent line-up with this 14-man roster.

PG - Evans/Fredette/Thomas
SG - Salmons/Thornton
SF - Prince/Garcia/Honeycutt
PF - Cousins/Hickson/Greene
C - Nene/Thompson/Whiteside
 
In reguards to reaching the salary floor, I think our best bet would be to front load the biggest free agent we sign. I don't know how that will be treated under the new CBA, but it makes alot more sense than signing players just for the sake reaching a cap number.
 
If we thought 5 years, $30 million was reasonable for Thornton... would he accept it if it was heavily front loaded, $14-4-4-4-4? That would get us closer to meeting the floor this year and preserve flexibility both in the long and medium term.
 
Last edited:
Good sign hearing Nene is upset with Denver's management! Maybe we can now steal him! Also players can start using kings practice facility thursday and free agents can also! Get Thornton back here!! Petrie can sweet talk Nene and other players agent starting tomorrow! Do Work!!
 
LPKingsFan said:
If we thought 6 years, $30 million was reasonable for Thornton... would he accept it if it was heavily front loaded, $14-4-4-4-4? That would get us closer to meeting the floor this year and preserve flexibility both in the long and medium term.
Click to expand...

Max deal is 5 years. And no he would not accept it. Only players on their last long term contract would do that because the starting salary for the next contract is based off the last year.
 
Section 101 said:
And no he would not accept it. Only players on their last long term contract would do that because the starting salary for the next contract is based off the last year.
Click to expand...

Under the last CBA, that only applies for new contracts starting *above* the de facto maximum salary. A player's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of the salary in the final year of his last contract. But, if the player's salary in the final year of his last contract was relatively small, the maximum starting salary is defined by number of years of service in the league. I haven't seen anything to suggest that this will fundamentally change in the new CBA, though obviously that's a detail we haven't seen yet. I'll assume the rule will be similar. The maximum salary is defined as 30% of the cap - about $58M now. Given league growth but a scale-back to 50% of BRI, the cap will probably be similar at the end of Thornton's next contract, so unless he's going to be making about $16.5M in the final year of his deal, it won't matter and a frontloaded contract shouldn't be any detriment. May as well frontload it, honestly, because you can invest that money earlier.
 
=LarryLegend= said:
Good sign hearing Nene is upset with Denver's management! Maybe we can now steal him! Also players can start using kings practice facility thursday and free agents can also! Get Thornton back here!! Petrie can sweet talk Nene and other players agent starting tomorrow! Do Work!!
Click to expand...

Yup. Definitely good news. FA talks open in 9 hrs.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Under the last CBA, that only applies for new contracts starting *above* the de facto maximum salary. A player's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of the salary in the final year of his last contract. But, if the player's salary in the final year of his last contract was relatively small, the maximum starting salary is defined by number of years of service in the league. I haven't seen anything to suggest that this will fundamentally change in the new CBA, though obviously that's a detail we haven't seen yet. I'll assume the rule will be similar. The maximum salary is defined as 30% of the cap - about $58M now. Given league growth but a scale-back to 50% of BRI, the cap will probably be similar at the end of Thornton's next contract, so unless he's going to be making about $16.5M in the final year of his deal, it won't matter and a frontloaded contract shouldn't be any detriment. May as well frontload it, honestly, because you can invest that money earlier.
Click to expand...

But that is for teams with cap space. If the team is over the cap or you want to extend the current deal then he would be losing out on potential earnings because of the low final year. This is why the warriors lost Arenas in the first place. He was a second round pick and a low salary. The warriors were over the cap and were limited on what they could offer him.
 
Last edited:
Section 101 said:
But that is for teams with cap space. If the team is over the cap or you want to extend the current deal then he would be losing out on potential earnings because of the low final year. This is why the warriors lost Arenas in the first place. He was a second round pick and a low salary. The warriors were over the cap and were limited on what they could offer him.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's only for early-Bird or non-Bird exceptions, which wouldn't apply to Thornton in the scenarios we're talking about because a 3+ year contract makes you eligible for the full Bird Rights, where the final year salary doesn't play into max salary for the next contract.

(Ain't the CBA complicated? ;) )
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Yes, but that's only for early-Bird or non-Bird exceptions, which wouldn't apply to Thornton in the scenarios we're talking about because a 3+ year contract makes you eligible for the full Bird Rights, where the final year salary doesn't play into max salary for the next contract.

(Ain't the CBA complicated? ;) )
Click to expand...

Yes. But it's still a bad idea for a yound player to take a decreasing contract. There are too many variables that can change during the contract like getting traded, teams with cap space not wanting him, etc. Since it would eliminate extending the existing contract it would be limiting his options. An example, would be if he wanted to extend the current contract a year before it expired. He wouldnt be able to do so. Now say he got hurt in his last year. He just left money on the table waiting for free agency.
 
Section 101 said:
Yes. But it's still a bad idea for a yound player to take a decreasing contract. There are too many variables that can change during the contract like getting traded, teams with cap space not wanting him, etc. Since it would eliminate extending the existing contract it would be limiting his options. An example, would be if he wanted to extend the current contract a year before it expired. He wouldnt be able to do so. Now say he got hurt in his last year. He just left money on the table waiting for free agency.
Click to expand...

Well, it's probably all moot anyway, at least as far as the proposal above is concerned. What we weren't considering is that (at least under the last CBA) the maximum decrease in salary from year to year was the same as the increase, so 10.5% max. Obviously going from 10M to 4M won't work.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Well, it's probably all moot anyway, at least as far as the proposal above is concerned. What we weren't considering is that (at least under the last CBA) the maximum decrease in salary from year to year was the same as the increase, so 10.5% max. Obviously going from 10M to 4M won't work.
Click to expand...

Hey Capt - do you know how OKC worked their deal with Collison last year? They gave him 13M last year and then his contract is down to 3M for the rest of the years. I never thought that was possible but they must have figured out some way around it
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/thunder.jsp
 
sidney said:
Hey Capt - do you know how OKC worked their deal with Collison last year? They gave him 13M last year and then his contract is down to 3M for the rest of the years. I never thought that was possible but they must have figured out some way around it
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/thunder.jsp
Click to expand...

If you roll over Collison's name on the page, a contract details box pops up - a great feature on that site. In short, the last four years of his contract (those at ~$3M) are an extension, and appear to follow the rules. The 2010/2011 salary is the combination of his *prior* contract (the last year of the one in place when he signed the extension) and a big signing bonus paid up front. I'm not really up on how signing bonuses work, but I guess that if we gave out a large signing bonus with a small contract (like in Collison's case) maybe we could do that with Thornton after all. I'd have to look.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
If you roll over Collison's name on the page, a contract details box pops up - a great feature on that site. In short, the last four years of his contract (those at ~$3M) are an extension, and appear to follow the rules. The 2010/2011 salary is the combination of his *prior* contract (the last year of the one in place when he signed the extension) and a big signing bonus paid up front. I'm not really up on how signing bonuses work, but I guess that if we gave out a large signing bonus with a small contract (like in Collison's case) maybe we could do that with Thornton after all. I'd have to look.
Click to expand...


I looked at it in the Coon FAQ and I'm not any clearer on this. Signing bonuses are supposed to be spread among the guaranteed life of the contract. It's possible that none of Collison's years in the extension are guaranteed...though Sham doesn't list them as such. Outside of that, I don't quite get how OKC was able to do that.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I looked at it in the Coon FAQ and I'm not any clearer on this. Signing bonuses are supposed to be spread among the guaranteed life of the contract. It's possible that none of Collison's years in the extension are guaranteed...though Sham doesn't list them as such. Outside of that, I don't quite get how OKC was able to do that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for checking. I looked around too and found this:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...-s-goofball-contract-extension?urn=nba-288906

Looks like we could give signing bonuses up to the amount we are under the cap. Would work great for us to front load these free agents so they have lower salaries when Tyreke and Cousins get their extensions
 
How do you guys feel about Grant Hill? I'd love to have him on our roster, even at age 38(now 39) he played 30 MPG(and played 80 games) for the Suns last year. A great defender, experienced, not a ball hog and a decent outside shooter. My ideal starting five;

PG: Evans / Jimmer
SG: Salmons / Thornton
SF: Hill / Garcia / Honeycutt
PF: Cousins / Hickson / Thompson
C: Dalembert / Cousins / Thompson / Whiteside?

Well not ideal, but in a realistic point of view
 
cuad said:
It certainly hurts Dalembert's leverage.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that, apparently Chandler is looking for a huge payday. Anyone that overspends on him is going to regret it. Personally I think he's a good player, but not worth 10+ million a year. Getting older, injury concerns, etc.
 
GoodOldDouwe said:
How do you guys feel about Grant Hill? I'd love to have him on our roster, even at age 38(now 39) he played 30 MPG(and played 80 games) for the Suns last year. A great defender, experienced, not a ball hog and a decent outside shooter. My ideal starting five;

PG: Evans / Jimmer
SG: Salmons / Thornton
SF: Hill / Garcia / Honeycutt
PF: Cousins / Hickson / Thompson
C: Dalembert / Cousins / Thompson / Whiteside?

Well not ideal, but in a realistic point of view
Click to expand...

Wait...you sure you want John Salmons as your shooting guard?? And how come Marcus Thornton, who's a legit 17-20ppg, is being thrown on the bench in a lot of people's 'ideal' lineups? Last I checked he was and needs to be our starting shooting guard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Buyout Market
2 3
Replies
87
Views
5K
ShastaKingsFan
ShastaKingsFan
twslam07
Potential Free Agent/Trade/Sign Tracker, '25-'26 Season
6 7 8
Replies
222
Views
1K
Joshyjosh31
J
iowamcnabb
“The List”
2 3
Replies
67
Views
4K
midtowner
M
sactowndog
Kings Cap entering next year
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tetsujin
Tetsujin
twslam07
[Drastic Edition] “THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
twslam07
twslam07
Back
Top