Your thoughts on the Kings rebuild...

[est.1999]

It does not matter one bit if a player could be a good defender if he had tried, the only thing that matters is whether he is a good defender. Hickson is a poor defender, effort or no, any way you slice it or spin it.

Salmons is another story, he could be a good defender if he's motivated and guarding someone his own size. But he only tries up to a point - you will not see him take a charge or sacrifice his body in any way. You will see him pull up in help defense to let a driver pass him to the basket because he doesn't want to be in foul trouble. You will not see Salmons put in the kind of effort that Casspi did. You will not see Salmons make any hustle play, he is basically a limited defender - he will check his man but he won't do anything more than that. In the end, it's a draw. It's not bizarre if you had pay attention to how Salmons played while he was here.

Lol, I like how you put an absolute on Hickson's ability as a defender, but with Salmons you nit pick and slice it up to fit your argument. Patethic.

 

[Superman]

Oh, not with this confusing rebounding numbers with actual defense again. I quote an NBA insider (forgot who, but doesn't matter, its' the point that's important) said of Zach Randolph, "He will get the ball when it's missed but he will not have anything to do that ball being missed in the first place."

Hickson was a poor rebounder at the start of the season, and only felt the need to rebound after extended benching followed by non-stop hash reminder by Scott. And many felt that the only reason he got double digits was because Varejao was injured. You think PW would get on Hickson's butt like Scott did? And there's no way Hickson is a 10 reb a game guy playing next to Cousins and JT.

I'm not arguing that defense = rebounding, although they are closely related to each other. I'm simply saying that I don't think characterizing a player who puts up good rebounding numbers as lazy and lacking fire is appropriate. I don't think anyone grabs 11 rebounds a game for three months without putting in some work, regardless of how bad his team is.

On our team, with our coaches, I can't say how he'll perform defensively, or as a rebounder. His minutes and his spot in the rotation will have an impact for sure.

Sometimes players who are not very good defensively get labeled as lazy lacking hustle, but in Hickson's case, I think that's missing the mark. I wouldn't call him lazy because he's a good rebounder, is all I'm saying. As for his defense, there have been a lot of third year players who struggle defensively because they aren't experienced, and over time become good defenders. I don't know what to make of Hickson's defense, but I don't think he's a lost cause, and I wouldn't call him lazy.

 

[Dime Dropper]

This thread is painful to read. I honestly don't understand how some people form their opinions. Hickson is 22 years old, the same age as our recent #10 draft pick. I'm sure people expect Jimmer to improve his defense, there's no reason JJ can't do the same. Labelling him a terrible defender when a guy has the tools to be a solid one, as well as being 22 years old, is just plain stupid. There's nothing more that needs to be said on the matter.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

There's a group think here that combined, doesn't really make sense:

On one hand Hickson is awesome, maybe the next Al Jefferson-ish awesome.
On the other hand: no other team but us wants to sign this awesome player.

You may be throwing around accusations of "group think" a bit cavalierly. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. And, as far as I go (since you did respond to me) I never compared Hickson with Jefferson, nor did I say nobody else would want to sign him.

Here is my take: if Hickson is really that awesome, plenty of team will line up to give him his pay day. We'll be in a bidding war, we will probably lose him.

On the other hand, if Hickson disappoints, the Kings can keep him for cheap but likely will let him go. Which would make this a bad trade.

If he is a restricted free agent, the "bidding war" over Hickson would be significantly different. Most notably, it is an "open" bidding war. We don't have to guess what other teams are willing to pay, we don't have to rely on an agent saying he'll sign another contract that might not actually exist, we simply look at the offer sheet he signed and decide whether or not to match it. Yes, there is a risk of losing a player in restricted free agency but at least it's under our control.

Of course, there is also a third way between your two extremes: Hickson has a decent year, shows growth but at the ripe age of 23 is not a superstar, and then comes up for free agency. The Kings have a decent amount of money to spend because they budgeted for a potential Hickson contract (as well as Thompson, don't forget) during the first year of the CBA. Teams see Hickson as a solid, but non-superstar player, and are reluctant to tie up salary cap room in an offer sheet that they feel the Kings, with ample cap room, are likely to match. The market does not go crazy. The Kings re-sign Hickson at something resembling market value for a 23-year-old non-superstar post player.

It's not bidding-war-we-necessarily-lose or bust with Hickson. Most likely it's in the middle, and I think that the middle positions here are superior to having Casspi around rotting on the bench.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Oh its pretty bizarre alright when you seek to compare one of the better man defenders in the league to a guy who got lit up so bad he got replaced by Donte Greene. Salmons is an excellent on ball defender, which is precisely what we need. Everything else about Salmons, except his ability to hit the corner three, maybe we don't need so much. But he's an absolutely huge defensive upgrade from Omri, who if anything has regressed and might have been the very worst defender on a very poor defensive team last year.

And Hickson is 22/23. Tad early to be writing him off. In particular when he blew up and turned into a double double machine the second half of the year. All your roleplayers should defend, with the possible exception of a limited three point specialist. But when a guy averages 16.8pts and 10.8rebs after the All Star break at age 22, he may be considerably more than a roleplayer. He's also considerably more than a guy who struggled to an 8.6pt 4.3reb on .412 shooting season at the same age (Omri is actually a few months older). And he's a long way up there compared against guys picked #15 in the draft (the number seemingly settled on for the pick we traded to get him) -- in the last 10 years here are the #15 picks: Larry Sanders, Austin Daye, Robin Lopez, Rodney Stuckey, Cedric Simmons, Antoine Wright, Al Jefferson, Reece Gaines, Boston Nachbar, Steven Hunter, Jason Collier. Al Jefferson's numbers as a 22 year old BTW? 16.0pts 11.0rebs

I hate when you use logic dude. Burns me up.

 

[Kingsguy881]

On a side note....Doug Christie came into the league known as a scorer who played little to no defense and in fact it wasn't until he came to Sac in, what, his 5th year after being drafted by the Knicks and traded to Toronto that he became known for his defense? Something to that effect.

 

[Glenn]

I don't think that's a good comparison at all. Completely different players, if you ask me. He could wind up being on the same level as Al Jefferson, which would be great, but they're not really comparable players.

That's fine. Just bored out of my mnd at the endless quibbling.

 

[Hallama]

On a side note....Doug Christie came into the league known as a scorer who played little to no defense and in fact it wasn't until he came to Sac in, what, his 5th year after being drafted by the Knicks and traded to Toronto? Something to that effect.

I remember Christie saying he began to learn/focus on defense when he was at Pepperdine. Forgot who his mentor was, but that is where he became a defender in his mind.

 

[Kingsguy881]

I remember Christie saying he began to learn/focus on defense when he was at Pepperdine. Forgot who his mentor was, but that is where he became a defender in his mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Christie_(basketball)

My bad, he was drafted by the Sonics and traded to the fakers (don't know how I pushed that out of my memory). Says his scoring picked up but wasn't known for defense until in Sac. Now he had 4 years with the Raps, so if he was thinking defense since Pepperdine (92 and pre), shouldn't it have shown up before Sacto?

 

[cuad]

I liked the year when they drafted Tyreke. The last off season I felt they made some dumb decisions that slowed the team down. I was not happy about trading away Jon Brockman. Not resigning Udoka was a mistake. Antoine Wright, Luther Head and Pooh were Petrie's yearly terrible free agent signings.

And Ryan Thompson should have been on our training camp roster, but he went to Utah and got cut.

Hawes for Dalembert was excellent.

This year Petrie seems to know what he's doing. All he's got left to do is to resign Dalembert and Thornton.

 

[tevans13]

Well, then you basically put a cap and ceiling on the talent and potential of every 22 yr old athlete then. Could be= potential. You say it does not matter one bit. You also must think the human brain therefor is finished developing at 22, doesn't learn from experience past age 22, and a persons brain and perception of events is the same at 22, 27, 32, and beyond.

By stating Hickson is a poor defender, effort or no, and also stating it doesn't matter if he could be a good defender, you leave zero room for development, which is a major aspect of sports. If 22 yr olds don't change, please explain to me how all those 22 and 23 yr old NBA rookies in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, somehow, someway became better players at age 27 then when they entered the league at 22/23? I'm confused, because I've witnessed 22 yr olds improve defensively, by both small and large amounts, yet you say it doesn't matter.

The whole idea of a draft in sports is to draft talented players with upside and potential. Still confused, because you say none of that matters. If you're correct, then any sport with a draft system, or a sport with teams which aquire 22 yr olds hoping for future improvement, have it all wrong, and Bebop is correct. If you're correct, science has it wrong, and that the brain infact is done developing at age 22. If you're correct, and future potential/improvement means nothing at 22, all those old and grey 24 yr olds working towards advanced degrees are completely waisting their time and money. Don't they realize future potential means nothing after age 22? Guess they should spend more time reading lifes lessons from Bebop.

game over

 

[The Hammer]

Back to the original topic...

Give me Kirilenko.

Give me.... eh... Earl Watson or something.

Resign Dally.

Then we are not rebuilding anymore. And we are in full on charge to the playoffs.

Only thing remaining after that would be to tighten ship and figure out how we are going to pay the people we need to make our run... our top 7/9 guys.

Which could be...

Evans
Cousins
Thornton
Fredette
Kikrilenko
Dally
Hickson
Salmons (? -- traded at some point if he doesn't learn his role?)
Thompson
Donte (for the life of me, I still think he's a good project, and if he doesn't pan out... nobody's going to pay him, and we might even keep him around as a 9-10th man for cheap... seems to be a good cheerleader... willing be to used however.)

That still leaves a couple sleepers in Whiteside, and Honeycutt...and even Thomas... you always like to have a few guys you think might blow up or at least turn into solid players sitting at the end of your bench.

If the team can put it together... and we get a good coach or Westphal figures it out with this squad... that one HELL of a team and one HELL of a rebuild, and if they do, you really could not have dreamed iof or asked for a better assembly of talent.

 

[rainmaker]

Back to the original topic...

Give me Kirilenko.

Give me.... eh... Earl Watson or something.

Resign Dally.

Then we are not rebuilding anymore. And we are in full on charge to the playoffs.

Only thing remaining after that would be to tighten ship and figure out how we are going to pay the people we need to make our run... our top 7/9 guys.

Which could be...

Evans
Cousins
Thornton
Fredette
Kikrilenko
Dally
Hickson
Salmons (? -- traded at some point if he doesn't learn his role?)
Thompson
Donte (for the life of me, I still think he's a good project, and if he doesn't pan out... nobody's going to pay him, and we might even keep him around as a 9-10th man for cheap... seems to be a good cheerleader... willing be to used however.)

That still leaves a couple sleepers in Whiteside, and Honeycutt...and even Thomas... you always like to have a few guys you think might blow up or at least turn into solid players sitting at the end of your bench.

If the team can put it together... and we get a good coach or Westphal figures it out with this squad... that one HELL of a team and one HELL of a rebuild, and if they do, you really could not have dreamed iof or asked for a better assembly of talent.

Guess we're on the same wavelength. Aside from resigning Daly(I consider Thornton a given), the two guys I really want to pick up for this team are AK and Watson. That should not only be a playoff team, but a team which can grow together, and advance further and further in the coming years.

I love that entire roster, aside from Johny. His acquisition just makes me nervous, and the idea of bringing him off the bench makes me even more nervous. I just highly doubt we'll look back and think we got our moneys worth, but who knows, it's speculation at this point.

 

[KingsCitizen]

IMO, we are still due for another trade. And I hope we can ship Cisco and get back a legit star SF like Granger or Gay. Then we resign Dalembert and Thornton. Put Salmons at SG and Thornton as the bench sparkplug.

PG - Evans/Fredette/Thomas
SG - Salmons/Thornton
SF - Gay/Greene/Honeycutt
PF - Cousin/Hickson
C - Dalembert/Thompson/Whiteside

 

[Kingsguy881]

Why does everybody want Kirilenko? Dude is made of papier mache. I understand that he is a very versatile player but you know when it comes down to it he will be freaking injured. He hasn't played an 82 game season in his entire career save for his first season and his stats are totally on the decline. Dude has 2-3 good years left, and by good I mean barely 10 ppg, 1 block, 1 steal, 3 dimes and lucky to grab 4-5 rebounds.

Don't believe me? Peep game:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3347/career;_ylt=AhFd9kEtS6je.ZNbvC06TgJlPKB4

People are seemingly way overvaluing AK's worth.

 

[Tetsujin]

IMO, we are still due for another trade. And I hope we can ship Cisco and get back a legit star SF like Granger or Gay. Then we resign Dalembert and Thornton. Put Salmons at SG and Thornton as the bench sparkplug.

PG - Evans/Fredette/Thomas
SG - Salmons/Thornton
SF - Gay/Greene/Honeycutt
PF - Cousin/Hickson
C - Dalembert/Thompson/Whiteside

People are already complaining about there only being one ball. That line-up would only serve to make them scream it from the rooftops.

 

[kennadog]

game over

So you think a person is fully formed at what? 20?

Recent studies show that neural insulation isn't complete until the mid-20s.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

This means the frontal lobe isn't efficiently connected until the mid-20's. This is the area that makes judgements, like "Is this a good idea?" It is also the part that allows insight into how a person's behavior effects others, instead of being as selfish and self-centered as a good many teens and young adults are.

So yes, its silly to judge a teen to early 20's person as if they are a completely formed personality. Neither are young men necessarily grown into their full height until as late as 21 for some.

 

[beb0p]

Lol, I like how you put an absolute on Hickson's ability as a defender, but with Salmons you nit pick and slice it up to fit your argument. Patethic.

This is getting tiring, having to type the same clarification over and over. I never put an absolute on Hickson and I've said I'd love it if he proves me wrong. I thought we are discussing our opinion on the rebuild, it's on me, I should have realized that only popular opinion is allowed.

 

[beb0p]

So you think a person is fully formed at what? 20?

If I'm not mistaken, tevan13 is agreeing with rainmaker; not the other way around.

 

[beb0p]

I'm not arguing that defense = rebounding, although they are closely related to each other. I'm simply saying that I don't think characterizing a player who puts up good rebounding numbers as lazy and lacking fire is appropriate. I don't think anyone grabs 11 rebounds a game for three months without putting in some work, regardless of how bad his team is.

On our team, with our coaches, I can't say how he'll perform defensively, or as a rebounder. His minutes and his spot in the rotation will have an impact for sure.

Sometimes players who are not very good defensively get labeled as lazy lacking hustle, but in Hickson's case, I think that's missing the mark. I wouldn't call him lazy because he's a good rebounder, is all I'm saying. As for his defense, there have been a lot of third year players who struggle defensively because they aren't experienced, and over time become good defenders. I don't know what to make of Hickson's defense, but I don't think he's a lost cause, and I wouldn't call him lazy.

That's a very reasonable position to take, I understand where you're coming from; I'd like to be as optimistic as you are and I hope you're right but I just don't get excited over Hickson.

 

[beb0p]

You may be throwing around accusations of "group think" a bit cavalierly. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. And, as far as I go (since you did respond to me) I never compared Hickson with Jefferson, nor did I say nobody else would want to sign him.

There absolutely is a group think mentality on this forum, I don't want to go off topic but most times I know what 95% of the posters are going to say on any given thread even before I read it. There is minimal dissenting opinion on this board. That's a fact and a lot of the fans who I know stopped coming here. The homogeneousness simply has gotten boring. Furthermore, there tends to be much hostility and nastiness direct at the dissenting voice. Just read thru some of the posts on this thread. Capt, I think you're one of the few respectable posters left on this forum, I hope there's more like you but with differing opinion on the popular belief. Fortunately, there are more and more alternative to this forum, unlike a few years ago.

For the record I was against drafting Rubio, against firing Theus (because I knew Natt sucks), against handing out PT to Hawes before he earned it, against doing the same to JT, against the popular belief that Petrie only likes soft shooters, against the signing of Beno. So you can imagine the blunt of the insults I took over the years; not from you of course, but from the rest of board who could not tolerate differences of opinion. And I have to say, it'd be much easier to keep quiet and just let it be, but as a diehard Kings fan, I feel like I should contribute to the discussion, even though I could feel another wrath of nastiness coming my way again.

Back to the topic at hand. Knowing that not-All-Star but solid big man like Drew Gooden and Paul Millsap got paid $6-8 millions per, what is the going rate for Hickson? Based on his performance last season and let's assume for a minute the old CBA remains in place, Hickson can probably fetch $7-8 millions per from somebody, in the Charlie Villanueva range. That's the going rate for him now, and if he doesn't improve he will still probably commands similar range of salary, anyone thinking of signing him for the MLE (assuming there is still one) is dreaming. Would you re-sign Hickson for $7-8 millions per? Let's do the math, three years from now Tyreke, Cousins, JT, and Thorton are all up for or already had their extension. That's already about $35 millions committed to four players, and that's assuming Dalembert doesn't re-sign. If you add Hickson's $7-8 millions that's $43 millions to five players. It's doable but not very flexible and it certainly does not leave enough room to go after a big name FA in the near future.

On top of that, whether you believe Hickson can improve his defense, he is not and never will be a shot-blocking seven-footer that Cousins need next to him. So why would the Kings re-sign a guy that isn't really a great fit next to Cousins? Personally I wouldn't re-sign Hickson unless he put up Al Jefferson-like performance, but the catch is that if he does, he will cost too much.

 

[KingsCitizen]

People are already complaining about there only being one ball. That line-up would only serve to make them scream it from the rooftops.

Well Miami were a bunch of ballhogs but they went to the Finals. Thornton was a ballhog but surprisingly his play brought a lot of good things to look forward next season. IMO, Salmons is actually a bigger version of Thornton, that's why I think he'll do just fine next to Evans(as long as he is a starter, maybe). Gay is another volume shooter but so was Lebron. If Miami maybe had Dalembert, it might be a different finals. I'm not comparing our young kids to Miami. I just think that no matter how many volume shooters you got on a team, as long as everyone wants to win and get to the finals, players will adjust.

 

[Glenn]

I am hoping that the new CBA gives more benefit to a team trying to retain its own players than outside teams trying to take them. I'm probably a bit old fashioned but I kinda like the idea of a guy playing an entire career in one town. The problem for the Kings will be that they have a lot of young talent and I mean high grade talent. This SHOULD be a good thing but the idea that the Kings might not retain them all seems very possible. I think this team could be great. Great teams cost a lot of money. In November of last year I wrote a long note stating that I didn't think the Kings could or would be able to retain all their talent because of lack of money. That idea still stands.

I am not saying anything new but perhaps just have rearranged the words in a group-think kind of way.

It will take a shift in the financial structure of the league for the Kings to continue with all the young guys and for us all to be able to watch them mature into what might be one of the best teams in the league. Let's hope a new CBA is favorable to the Kings and hope that revenue sharing is given more than lip service.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

There absolutely is a group think mentality on this forum, I don't want to go off topic but most times I know what 95% of the posters are going to say on any given thread even before I read it. There is minimal dissenting opinion on this board.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Certainly there are times when disagreements run away from being debates and turn into nastiness, but I think in general that the level of discussion is pretty good around here. I've seen plenty of dissent on things I didn't expect much on (the current debate being one of them), so I think that the dissent level is fine. Sometimes there is widespread agreement, but if everybody agrees that ice cream is a better dessert than brussels sprouts, that's not necessarily group think, right?

Back to the topic at hand. Knowing that not-All-Star but solid big man like Drew Gooden and Paul Millsap got paid $6-8 millions per, what is the going rate for Hickson? Based on his performance last season and let's assume for a minute the old CBA remains in place, Hickson can probably fetch $7-8 millions per from somebody, in the Charlie Villanueva range. That's the going rate for him now, and if he doesn't improve he will still probably commands similar range of salary, anyone thinking of signing him for the MLE (assuming there is still one) is dreaming. Would you re-sign Hickson for $7-8 millions per? Let's do the math, three years from now Tyreke, Cousins, JT, and Thorton are all up for or already had their extension. That's already about $35 millions committed to four players, and that's assuming Dalembert doesn't re-sign. If you add Hickson's $7-8 millions that's $43 millions to five players. It's doable but not very flexible and it certainly does not leave enough room to go after a big name FA in the near future.

You're explicitly assuming here that the old CBA remains in force. I think that of all assumptions, that's one that is actually safest to throw out. The new CBA should be significantly more favorable to the owners than the latest one, and we have to at least attempt to factor that in. Furthermore, I'm not certain that the Drew Gooden and Charlie Villanueva contracts should really be used comparisons for what Hickson might get a year down the road. Pretty much every NBA observer who commented on either of those contracts immediately pegged them as overspending. So to say that Gooden and Villanueva got $6-8M and that Hickson will necessarily be in or above that range doesn't ring true to me. Gooden and Villanueva got overpaid under a system that had little punishment for overpaying. But we're going to be moving into a new system, where not only do we expect to have much more sever punishments for overspending on contracts, but we also expect to see average salaries drop. Those two factors alone should argue that estimates of Hickson's future contract should be revised downwards. On top of that, there are going to be big salaries out there (the Kobes, the LeBrons, the Carmelos, etc.) that are going to be sucking up even more cap space (relatively) than they do now, and that can only hurt the bottom line of the players signing contracts under the new CBA until everything reaches equilibrium again. That should make Hickson more affordable - it's going to hurt other teams even more than it hurts us to sign players to big contracts because of the dead weight they'll be carrying.

I just think it's way too early to assume Hickson is an impossibility for the future, is all. Maybe he will be, maybe he won't be, but I think he's a better gamble than Casspi.

 

[Bricklayer]

Why does everybody want Kirilenko? Dude is made of papier mache. I understand that he is a very versatile player but you know when it comes down to it he will be freaking injured. He hasn't played an 82 game season in his entire career save for his first season and his stats are totally on the decline. Dude has 2-3 good years left, and by good I mean barely 10 ppg, 1 block, 1 steal, 3 dimes and lucky to grab 4-5 rebounds.

Don't believe me? Peep game:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3347/career;_ylt=AhFd9kEtS6je.ZNbvC06TgJlPKB4

People are seemingly way overvaluing AK's worth.

As I've displayed before, his stats have been rock steady for a very long time actually. I think people must be looking all the way back to pre-2005 or something for falloff arguments:

Kirilenko stats:

07-08 30.8min 11.0pts (.506 .379 .770) 4.7reb 4.0ast 1.2stl 1.5blk 1.9TO
08-09 27.3min 11.6pts (.449 .274 .785) 4.8reb 2.7ast 1.2stl 1.1blk 1.8TO
09-10 29.0min 11.9pts (.506 .292 .744) 4.5reb 2.6ast 1.4stl 1.2blk 1.4TO
10-11 31.2min 11.7pts (.467 .367 .770) 5.1reb 3.0ast 1.3stl 1.2blk 1.8TO

oh, and career?:

career 30.8min 12.4pts (.470 .312 .763) 5.6reb 2.8ast 1.4stl 2.0blk 1.4TO


We should all be so inconsistent. Years ago his role changed on Utah. He was moved from PF to SF, which accounts for much of the falloff in blocks, and his exceptional passing ability was put on the shelf once Deron joined the team and started dominating the ball. But in all the years since he has been absolute rock steady in his production. Injury prone, yes. But if anything that makes him a much beter fit for a team that could be as deep as ours than a team whihc needs him there every night. But there has been no falloff in effectiveness when he is out there. Just obviously not worth that monster deal he has been working under. But we wouldn't be signing him at $16mil per.

 

[tevans13]

So you think a person is fully formed at what? 20?



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

This means the frontal lobe isn't efficiently connected until the mid-20's. This is the area that makes judgements, like "Is this a good idea?" It is also the part that allows insight into how a person's behavior effects others, instead of being as selfish and self-centered as a good many teens and young adults are.

So yes, its silly to judge a teen to early 20's person as if they are a completely formed personality. Neither are young men necessarily grown into their full height until as late as 21 for some.

Lol no, I was agreeing with rainmaker.

 

['89 Kings Fan]

If the team can put it together... and we get a good coach or Westphal figures it out with this squad... that one HELL of a team and one HELL of a rebuild, and if they do, you really could not have dreamed iof or asked for a better assembly of talent.

Or we could go in the opposite direction, current salaries:

8,500,000 - John Salmons
5,800,000 - Francisco Garcia
4,151,640 - Tyreke Evans
3,627,720 - Demarcus Cousins
3,001,284 - Jason Thompson
3,000,000 - Jimmer (Estimate)
2,354,536 - JJ Hickson
1,679,913 - Donte Green
788,872 - Hassan Whiteside
32,903,965 Total

Current minimum team salary is defined as 75% of the salary cap. With a 58 Million salary cap that make the minimum 43.5 Million, which we were below before we traded for the guy with the neck injury (Marquis Daniels). With the Maloof's now owning only 2% of the Palms with an option to buy 20% they are going to want to horde as much cash as possible to buy back that 18%. I can't imagine they are going to be spending it on player's salaries, so I am going to assume they are going to spend the minimum amount possible. If the minimum team salary percentage stays the same there a few scenarios under the new CBA.

A. Salary Cap of $40 Million (What the owners originally asked for.) Minimum Salary $30
Under this scenario we sign 3 veteran minimum contracts and waive our 2nd round picks and camp invites like we always do.

Joe Smith (Washed-up Jump Shooting Big Man)
Sasha Vujacic (Guard I would least like to sign, so obviously he's in)
Von Wafer (Random Wing, who will complain about minutes)

B. Salary Cap of $48 Million - Minimum Salary $36 Million
This is the point where we would actually have to start spending more than the minimum to fill out the roster.

C. Salary Cap of $58 Million (Current) - Minimum Salary $43.5 Million
If nothing changes we would have to at least $8.5 to bring in a player or two. This is the most optimistic and least likely scenario.


In the past I always came up with off season plans of what I would like to see happen, and I never came close. So this time I am trying reverse psychology to see if I get a better result. If we do have a season, then size of the salary cap will determine our roster.

 

[Hallama]

I am hoping that the new CBA gives more benefit to a team trying to retain its own players than outside teams trying to take them. I'm probably a bit old fashioned but I kinda like the idea of a guy playing an entire career in one town. The problem for the Kings will be that they have a lot of young talent and I mean high grade talent. This SHOULD be a good thing but the idea that the Kings might not retain them all seems very possible. I think this team could be great. Great teams cost a lot of money. In November of last year I wrote a long note stating that I didn't think the Kings could or would be able to retain all their talent because of lack of money. That idea still stands.

I am not saying anything new but perhaps just have rearranged the words in a group-think kind of way.

It will take a shift in the financial structure of the league for the Kings to continue with all the young guys and for us all to be able to watch them mature into what might be one of the best teams in the league. Let's hope a new CBA is favorable to the Kings and hope that revenue sharing is given more than lip service.

I think a good rule in the new CBA would be compensation picks (and $) for teams that lose players via FA. Similar to the way MLB does it. This would really help small market teams recoup talent quickly.

 

[bajaden]

There absolutely is a group think mentality on this forum, I don't want to go off topic but most times I know what 95% of the posters are going to say on any given thread even before I read it. There is minimal dissenting opinion on this board. That's a fact and a lot of the fans who I know stopped coming here. The homogeneousness simply has gotten boring. Furthermore, there tends to be much hostility and nastiness direct at the dissenting voice. Just read thru some of the posts on this thread. Capt, I think you're one of the few respectable posters left on this forum, I hope there's more like you but with differing opinion on the popular belief. Fortunately, there are more and more alternative to this forum, unlike a few years ago.

For the record I was against drafting Rubio, against firing Theus (because I knew Natt sucks), against handing out PT to Hawes before he earned it, against doing the same to JT, against the popular belief that Petrie only likes soft shooters, against the signing of Beno. So you can imagine the blunt of the insults I took over the years; not from you of course, but from the rest of board who could not tolerate differences of opinion. And I have to say, it'd be much easier to keep quiet and just let it be, but as a diehard Kings fan, I feel like I should contribute to the discussion, even though I could feel another wrath of nastiness coming my way again.

Back to the topic at hand. Knowing that not-All-Star but solid big man like Drew Gooden and Paul Millsap got paid $6-8 millions per, what is the going rate for Hickson? Based on his performance last season and let's assume for a minute the old CBA remains in place, Hickson can probably fetch $7-8 millions per from somebody, in the Charlie Villanueva range. That's the going rate for him now, and if he doesn't improve he will still probably commands similar range of salary, anyone thinking of signing him for the MLE (assuming there is still one) is dreaming. Would you re-sign Hickson for $7-8 millions per? Let's do the math, three years from now Tyreke, Cousins, JT, and Thorton are all up for or already had their extension. That's already about $35 millions committed to four players, and that's assuming Dalembert doesn't re-sign. If you add Hickson's $7-8 millions that's $43 millions to five players. It's doable but not very flexible and it certainly does not leave enough room to go after a big name FA in the near future.

On top of that, whether you believe Hickson can improve his defense, he is not and never will be a shot-blocking seven-footer that Cousins need next to him. So why would the Kings re-sign a guy that isn't really a great fit next to Cousins? Personally I wouldn't re-sign Hickson unless he put up Al Jefferson-like performance, but the catch is that if he does, he will cost too much.

I have always respected your opinion, and have probably agreed with it as many times as I've disagreed with it. I don't keep score! And while at times there appears to be a herd mentality, I like to give every person the benefit of the doubt, because I think the worse thing you can accuse anyone of, is not having a mind of his own. There are times that you, I, or someone, is going to push a hot button, and as a result, have a majority of the board in opposition. An uncomfortable position to be in, and not one that I like. And while I like to believe that I'm always right, I will at times rethink my position, if the majority opposition is overwhelming. Not just to be in agreement, but to reassure myself that I'm not just digging my heels in to prove that I'm right.

So questioning myself doesn't mean I'll change my opinion, but it does mean that I'll take the time to reconsider the opinion of the opposition. Bricky and I don't agree on everything, but I respect him for standing up for what he does believe in, and I've never heard him blame the opposing point of view as having a herd mentality. Nor should you. Sometimes were just going to come down on the side thats unpopular. And thats OK! You may not get many converts, but you've given them a point of view thats different from their own, and something to think about.

I can't begin to tell you how many times I've bumped heads with someone, and later, when I've had time to reflect upon what they had to say, realized that they had some good points. And perhaps they've done the same.

 

[Kingster]

In general, our current group has a high ceiling. Maybe very high. Tyreke and Cousins are obvious in this regard. Hickson probably has a high ceiling as well. The key with this entire team is whether they can come close to touching that ceiling next year. But that depends on a lot of factors: work ethic, chemistry, discipline, selflessness. To me, those intangibles are open questions on this team. Maybe the young guys become mature selfless workaholic professionals. Or maybe they don't, at least not in the foreseeable future. I do not think the addition of Salmons helps with the intangibles, as he is a me-first player. He's not the role model I would want for a young team.

Leaving aside the intangibles, I still think ball handling is a fundamental weakness on this team. Some seem sure that the young players we have will become much better in the assist/turnover area. We'll see. Personally, I'm not as optimistic on that happening next year unless we get a guard that is in fact an excellent ball handler.