Why did the Kings leave Gerald Wallace unprotected?

#1
Never made any sense to me. Many of us saw his potential. All the Kings had to do was leave Webber unprotected. No team would have picked up his salary in his injured condition. What is surprising that none of the Kings announcers even mention this scenario, now or then.
 
#2
Never made any sense to me. Many of us saw his potential. All the Kings had to do was leave Webber unprotected. No team would have picked up his salary in his injured condition. What is surprising that none of the Kings announcers even mention this scenario, now or then.
Amazingly, Anthony Peeler, who was going to be in his last year of his deal, was protected over Wallace. They wanted to re-sign him, but he ended up leaving. Wallace and Darius were both left unprotected.
 
#3
Amazingly, Anthony Peeler, who was going to be in his last year of his deal, was protected over Wallace. They wanted to re-sign him, but he ended up leaving. Wallace and Darius were both left unprotected.
You could only protect 8 players. I would have protected Wallace and left Webber unprotected.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#4
Amazingly, Anthony Peeler, who was going to be in his last year of his deal, was protected over Wallace. They wanted to re-sign him, but he ended up leaving. Wallace and Darius were both left unprotected.
Actually, Peeler was unprotected. Someone somewhere at some time on this board posted something about it. I'll try to find it as for a long time I was under the same exact impression as you.
 
#5
Actually, Peeler was unprotected. Someone somewhere at some time on this board posted something about it. I'll try to find it as for a long time I was under the same exact impression as you.
Source? I remember looking it up a few years back. I believe these were the protected players:

Bibby
Christie
Peja
Webber
Vlade
Bobby
Miller
Peeler
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#6
I've closed this thread for the simple reason it's been done to death. Peeler was neither protected nor unprotected. His contract made him ineligible for exposure to an expansion draft.

If people want to read about this in the archives, fine, but it's not fodder for the Kings Rap forum at this point.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#7
I've reopened the thread as I received the following PM that indicates there are those who still want to discuss this...

Showtime said:
OK, let's clear this up once and for all. According to the rules of the expansion draft, a team cannot protect an UNRESTRICTED free agent.

According to this report, the deadline for reporting the list of protected players for a team was June 11th, 2004.

According to this report, Peeler had an option for another season with the Kings, but he opted out of that additional year and was not a free agent until July 1st.

So let's look at this timeline:

May 2004 - Kings lose in the playoffs. Their season is over.

June 11th - the deadline for protected players to be reported.

July 1st - Peeler becomes a free agent after opting out.

July 29th - Peeler signs with Washington.


So while unrestricted free agents cannot be protected, Peeler was not a free agent until July 1st, well after the deadline to protect players. He was eligible for protection according to this timeline unless you can give me the exact protected list.
My memory of the exact details is not clear, so hopefully one of the several people who explained the whole thing before will be willing to do so again.
 
Last edited:

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#9
Source? I remember looking it up a few years back. I believe these were the protected players:

Bibby
Christie
Peja
Webber
Vlade
Bobby
Miller
Peeler

I've explained this many many times. I can do it quick and dirty now:

Expansion rules were:
a) can protect UP TO 8 players on your roster (but not free agents -- have to be under contract for next season)
b) BUT have to expose at least 1 player

so if you had 12 guys under contract, you could only protect 8. And if you had LESS than 8 guys under contract, you still had to leave 1 player unprotected. Every team always had to leave 1.

Our problem was that we screwed up on Peeler's contact, and so did not have anybody we considered expendable to offer up. But we still had to offer up 1 player regardless, so we chose Gerald.

we had these players under contract:
Bibby
Christie
Peja
Webber
Vlade
Bobby
Miller
Gerald

But rule b) said that we always had to expose 1. That was how we lost Gerald. If Peeler had also been under contract and not a free agent, we could have exposed him instead.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#10
Ah, so. I was too tired last night to do the homework, but I was wrong about Songaila being under contract. My original grievance stands, though: Petrie utterly failed to ensure that there was a tenth player under contract who could be exposed.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#11
Probably a dumb question...but at what point in all this did the GMs know there was going to be an expansion draft and the particulars thereof?
 
#12
I've explained this many many times. I can do it quick and dirty now:

Expansion rules were:
a) can protect UP TO 8 players on your roster (but not free agents -- have to be under contract for next season)
b) BUT have to expose at least 1 player

so if you had 12 guys under contract, you could only protect 8. And if you had LESS than 8 guys under contract, you still had to leave 1 player unprotected. Every team always had to leave 1.

Our problem was that we screwed up on Peeler's contact, and so did not have anybody we considered expendable to offer up. But we still had to offer up 1 player regardless, so we chose Gerald.

we had these players under contract:
Bibby
Christie
Peja
Webber
Vlade
Bobby
Miller
Gerald

But rule b) said that we always had to expose 1. That was how we lost Gerald. If Peeler had also been under contract and not a free agent, we could have exposed him instead.
While I agree with the majority of this, we conviniently seem to forget that players need to agree to the terms of the deal before they sign the contract. Players like Peeler would have been very aware of the expansion draft and as such, I very much doubt they would have agreed to sign on for 2 years without having the option on the second year.

I know if I was in Peeler's position I wouldn't have signed with anyone for 2 years because I would have liked to have some control of where I am going. And if I was to sign for 2 years I would want that second year to be a player option or no deal from my perspective.

Players like to have some control of their destiny (as we all do) and no one really wants to play for an expansion franchise if you are good enough to play for someone else.

There is no doubt we stuffed up with leaving Wallace exposed, but we can't blame it on Peeler. We could have just as easily signed a borderline scrub to 2 year, partially guaranteed deal and leave them exposed for the draft because that player would play anywhere in the NBA. While Peeler was past his best, he still had options to play for teams better than the Bobcats.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#14
While I agree with the majority of this, we conviniently seem to forget that players need to agree to the terms of the deal before they sign the contract. Players like Peeler would have been very aware of the expansion draft and as such, I very much doubt they would have agreed to sign on for 2 years without having the option on the second year.

I know if I was in Peeler's position I wouldn't have signed with anyone for 2 years because I would have liked to have some control of where I am going. And if I was to sign for 2 years I would want that second year to be a player option or no deal from my perspective.

Players like to have some control of their destiny (as we all do) and no one really wants to play for an expansion franchise if you are good enough to play for someone else.

There is no doubt we stuffed up with leaving Wallace exposed, but we can't blame it on Peeler. We could have just as easily signed a borderline scrub to 2 year, partially guaranteed deal and leave them exposed for the draft because that player would play anywhere in the NBA. While Peeler was past his best, he still had options to play for teams better than the Bobcats.
Point is, whether it was Peeler or someone else, we should have had SOMEONE signed to a two-year contract so we could expose them. It could be a guy like Hilton or just a scrub off the waiver wire just to have a warm body to offer when this hit.....
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#16
While I agree with the majority of this, we conviniently seem to forget that players need to agree to the terms of the deal before they sign the contract. Players like Peeler would have been very aware of the expansion draft and as such, I very much doubt they would have agreed to sign on for 2 years without having the option on the second year.

I know if I was in Peeler's position I wouldn't have signed with anyone for 2 years because I would have liked to have some control of where I am going. And if I was to sign for 2 years I would want that second year to be a player option or no deal from my perspective.

Players like to have some control of their destiny (as we all do) and no one really wants to play for an expansion franchise if you are good enough to play for someone else.

There is no doubt we stuffed up with leaving Wallace exposed, but we can't blame it on Peeler. We could have just as easily signed a borderline scrub to 2 year, partially guaranteed deal and leave them exposed for the draft because that player would play anywhere in the NBA. While Peeler was past his best, he still had options to play for teams better than the Bobcats.

Sure, and I've heard that before. But Peeler was not relevant. Only an idiot would lose Gerald over Anthony Peeler. You sign somebody else, you make a small midseason trade. You prepare if you know what you had. Our problem was that we didn't.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#18
And at the time I believed the Kings did the right thing. I never really enjoyed Wallace's game while he was a King. So let's move on.
I think people tend to forget that Wallace was very raw, totally without any kind of focus, and with a questionable work ethic. I think being exposed in the draft and then taken to Charlotte was a wake-up call he heard loud and clear. Otherwise, he might well have been a one-contract and out player. That's the other side of the coin a lot of Wallace advocates seem to neglect to mention.

But I agree. This is old news...
 
#19
I agree with Brick on planning ahead.

But disagree with anyone who says we should have left Webber exposed. Sure, it was likely that an expansion team would have shied away from such a big contract (I believe expansion teams have a diminished salary cap their first season or two). However, if one of them had taken Webber either for his talent, to sell tickets or to trade once he was eligible, it would have been a nightmare for us. Our window to contend would have shut instantly. We would have been a laughing stock for giving away a superstar for nothing. Fans would have been incensed. Imagine the PR nightmare of trying to explain to the average fan why you just became irrelevant, so you could protect a young player who got 0 PT and had a questionable work ethic. I liked Wallace. I wanted us to keep him. But leaving Webber or any other important rotation player on a contending team exposed in the expansion draft would have been lunacy.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#22
I agree with Brick on planning ahead.

But disagree with anyone who says we should have left Webber exposed. Sure, it was likely that an expansion team would have shied away from such a big contract (I believe expansion teams have a diminished salary cap their first season or two). However, if one of them had taken Webber either for his talent, to sell tickets or to trade once he was eligible, it would have been a nightmare for us. Our window to contend would have shut instantly. We would have been a laughing stock for giving away a superstar for nothing. Fans would have been incensed. Imagine the PR nightmare of trying to explain to the average fan why you just became irrelevant, so you could protect a young player who got 0 PT and had a questionable work ethic. I liked Wallace. I wanted us to keep him. But leaving Webber or any other important rotation player on a contending team exposed in the expansion draft would have been lunacy.
I made a post about this a long time ago and am not about to go digging it up. But here is some info:

They were limited to 66% of the salary cap and were required to take 14 players. The salary cap was $43.9 mil, meaning the Bobcats could only spend $29 mil (rounded up slightly). With Webber making $17.53 mil alone that season, that would mean the other 13 players would have to earn, at most, an average of $880,000 each.

Here are the players available for them to draft with salaries:

http://hoopshype.com/expansion_draft.htm

There are enough players with salaries lower than $880 k for them to select 13 and stay under their cap, and I know that selecting a few lower than $880 k would allow them to select a few with salaries above $880 k, but look at the names available in that price range. And although better players were available, the Bobcats limited their spending to about $22 mil (and IIRC publically stated they were "going cheap" the first couple years). If they were intent on staying below $22 mil, that would mean with Webber they could only spend $344 k per additional player, not possible according to that list.

Had the Kings put Webber out there as available and he been taken, yes it would have been a disaster to the franchise at the time. In retrospect, the draft was "post-injury" and if we knew then what we know now (and we obviously suspected it given the seriousness of the injury) about his rehab and condition of the knee, taking Webber's salary off the books at that time would have been a blessing and negated the need for "the trade". ;)
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#23
But again, this is beating a dead horse and I don't know why I took the time to do all that again......
 
#25
We left him unprotected so that Charlotte would take him. The franchise was done with Gerald after he pulled himself out of the Dallas game with a cramp. In the playoffs he played 20 minutes combined in 12 games. We played Rodney Buford over Gerald. At the time I thought it was obviously prearranged since Bickerstaff said at the time their entire strategy was based on building around Wallace.

I also don't know why people get hung up on Anthony Peeler when Christie was obviously done. If we unprotected him there is no way the Bobcats would have picked him. Remember we ended up trading 30 games later for what amounted to an expiring contract anyway.
 
#27
Amazingly, Anthony Peeler, who was going to be in his last year of his deal, was protected over Wallace. They wanted to re-sign him, but he ended up leaving. Wallace and Darius were both left unprotected.

Peeler had a player option that essentially forced the team to have to protect him with his contract status.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#28
I think people tend to forget that Wallace was very raw, totally without any kind of focus, and with a questionable work ethic. I think being exposed in the draft and then taken to Charlotte was a wake-up call he heard loud and clear. Otherwise, he might well have been a one-contract and out player. That's the other side of the coin a lot of Wallace advocates seem to neglect to mention.

But I agree. This is old news...
We clearly have different memories of Wallace's time in Sacramento.
 
#29
We clearly have different memories of Wallace's time in Sacramento.
I always liked Gerald Wallace, but I remember what 21 remembers. It was crystal clear after the Dallas game that Peja was suspended for (remember his assault on a referee that totally warranted a one-game suspension? :rolleyes:). Gerald played one hell of a game, the best of his career to that point, but he came out late in the game because of what appeared to be a minor injury, and never went back in. The grumblings from the media and people close to the team were that he and Adelman had a difference over the seriousness of his injury, and that this was another indication that he wasn't ready to be a regular contributor. I'm sure I'm missing some details, as this was six years ago now, but that was the big thing that showed how far away he was from EVER cracking Adelman's rotation. There were also reports that he didn't practice hard, that he wasn't working on his jumpshot -- which automatically hurts your stock on a team run by Rick Adelman and Geoff Petrie, and other stuff like that.

I think the best thing that ever happened to Gerald Wallace was going to the Bobcats. His game completely flourished the minute he left here, and he might not have been in the rotation for us until at least the 2006-07 season, when Adelman was gone. I wish we could have held on to him, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Not sure he would have become such a good player here. And even if he did, he's not the special kind of player that takes a team to the next level, so we'd still have been bad even with him.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#30
Still not buying that one (albiet public) isolated incident is indicative of a lack of work ethic, and I certainly can't remember any others. I'll grant you that I'm not from California, and I don't read these local reports, but I cannot recall reading or hearing anything from either of the two people I would trust on the subject (they being Wallace and Adelman) that Wallace had a bad work ethic, or was a poor practice player, or whatever else fans who defend exposing Wallace to expansion say he was accused of.

And let's not act as if coaches don't have egos as big as players have. For all this innuendo about Wallace having a bad work ethic, I think that it's equally probable that Adelman felt as though Wallace was showing him up in that Mavericks game, and decided he would show the kid who's boss. "Oh really? Well, we'll see about that!"