Worst contracts in the league, Jarl Thompandry

[blind prophet]

If just one of Landry or Thompson were moved to another team the salary wouldn't look so grim. One of them will be moved, DWill's contract will run out, and we'll only have one of these "worst contracts in the league" (no hyperbole there of course) left by no later than next summer.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Ok, give me a time estimate, when can you eat cake?

If they are still on the roster after the trade deadline?

Wanna wait till after next season when they are both still on the roster?

[Big_Cat]

Good management is being able to see value in something the rest of the league doesn't. They took a gamble, but implying it was only luck is just being hater. It also didn't indicate a single thing about Carl Landry, and so what if it did. Are you saying they should've been able to foresee the Gay trade and not sign Carl?

It doesn't matter what the team does, you're just going to be negative nancy either way. It's your MO. Reminds me of another poster who got banned.

A gamble implies luck is involved. If there wasn't any luck involved in the Rudy Gay trade, then there are plenty of other franchises would have acquired him before us.

You said yourself

They probably imagined Carl as a starter, and his salary doesn't change from year to year as the cap goes up.

If they viewed Landry as a starter and were so quick and eager to bring in Rudy Gay (which was the right move), it clearly shows management recognized that the Landry signing was a mistake (something you still won't admit).



And I do not criticize management for every move they make. Letting Tyreke go was the right move. Trading for Rudy Gay wasn't a bad move, but wasn't necessarily a great move either.

My entire point is, every successful franchise needs to have a clear understanding of the team goals, team direction, and roster construction/fit. Currently we don't have any of that.

[ICMTM]

I don't think you can look at any one move in a vacuum. For instance what did we get for letting Evans walk/S&T? Nothing. We traded that piece to get Rudy Gay

We could have traded anything for Gay. He was to be had for free so as long as contracts weren't long term:

Patterson -QO
Vasquez - QO
Salmons - TO
Hayes - 1 yr < $6m left.

We could be sitting on Evans, Gay, and Cousins with Thomas coming off the bench. Instead we're sitting here looking at Gay walking, Evans gone, and if we need to pay a 5'9" guy big money. I don't think letting Evans walk did much of anything for us other than allow us to lose talent. Vasquez is terrible.

The best deal we made was trading Marcus Thornton.
The worst deal we mad was trading for Derrick Williams. Unless the Kings have a development program to get something out of this guy we just are paying more money for inadequate role players.

With regards to Landry/Thompson I didn't and still don't understand the Landry signing. I think I'd like him as a part of a second unit though, and if he is healthy he'd be a good player off the bench. I've given up on Jason Thompson.

[Big_Cat]

The best deal we made was trading Marcus Thornton.
The worst deal we mad was trading for Derrick Williams. Unless the Kings have a development program to get something out of this guy we just are paying more money for inadequate role players.

With regards to Landry/Thompson I didn't and still don't understand the Landry signing. I think I'd like him as a part of a second unit though, and if he is healthy he'd be a good player off the bench. I've given up on Jason Thompson.

Forgot the Thornton trade, but that was the best move of the FO thus far.


But I agree with your assessment of Landry. I'm not saying Landry itself was necessarily the worst move ever, but the absence of subsequent moves (thus far) has made it a terrible signing. Teams can be successful with having a supersub, but having too many supersubs just limits the talent of your starters. If Landry was meant to be a starter, then probably two of Isaiah/McLemore/Gay needs to be moved/not a starter. If Landry was meant to be a bench player, then Jason Thompson simply cannot be on the team (you cannot have a realistic contending team with $13 million going to your backup PF and C, not enough money to go around). And if Landry is meant to be a supersub, then we most likely wouldn't be able to afford a Isaiah Thomas as a supersub. And while Thompson and Landry have their strengths, you cannot honestly want either player over a Reggie Evans. A player making almost 25% as Jarl Thompandry, which means you can improve your roster by a $4-5 million elsewhere.

[blind prophet]

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Here you can see out to the 16-17 season. You may notice the Kings have the 6th highest payroll extended out to then.

[Big_Cat]

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Here you can see out to the 16-17 season. You may notice the Kings have the 6th highest payroll extended out to then.

2014-2015 Committed Salary Thus Far
1. $91.22 - New York Knicks
2. $89.96 - Brooklyn Nets
3. $73.62 - LA Clippers
4. $71.98 - Houston Rockets
5. $69.45 - Miami Heat
6. $67.98 - OKC
7. $66.55 - Sacramento Kings


We are 7th in committed salary. (Not including Isaiah Thomas and our 2014 draft pick). Yeah, we're in amazing shape.



In comparison to the bottom 10 lottery teams
1. $32.04 - Cleveland Cavaliers
2. $42.96 - Milwaukee Bucks
3. $26.89 - Philadelphia Sixers
4. $35.59 - Orlando Magic
5. $16.28 - Utah Jazz
6. $46.56 - Boston Celtics
7. $35.34 - LA Lakers
8. $66.55 - Sacramento Kings
9. $39.23 - Detroit Pistons**
10. $48.59 - New Orleans Pelicans



In comparison to teams +/- 6 games of .500
(48-34) $41.38 - Toronto Rapters
(48-34) $63.40 - Chicago Bulls
(48-34) $36.24 - Phoenix Suns
(44-38) $45.68 - Washington Wizards
(44-38) $89.96 - Brooklyn Nets
(43-39) $44.11 - Charlotte Hornets
(40-42) $66.47 - Minnesotta Timberwolves
(38-44) $47.96 - Atlanta Hawks
(37-45) $91.22 - New York Knicks
(36-46) $64.73 - Denver Nuggets

[blind prophet]

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Here you can see out to the 16-17 season. You may notice the Kings have the 6th highest payroll extended out to then.

2014-2015 Committed Salary Thus Far
1. $91.22 - New York Knicks
2. $89.96 - Brooklyn Nets
3. $73.62 - LA Clippers
4. $71.98 - Houston Rockets
5. $69.45 - Miami Heat
6. $67.98 - OKC
7. $66.55 - Sacramento Kings


We are 7th in committed salary. (Not including Isaiah Thomas and our 2014 draft pick). Yeah, we're in amazing shape.



In comparison to the bottom 10 lottery teams
1. $32.04 - Cleveland Cavaliers
2. $42.96 - Milwaukee Bucks
3. $26.89 - Philadelphia Sixers
4. $35.59 - Orlando Magic
5. $16.28 - Utah Jazz
6. $46.56 - Boston Celtics
7. $35.34 - LA Lakers
8. $66.55 - Sacramento Kings
9. $39.23 - Detroit Pistons**
10. $48.59 - New Orleans Pelicans

Some people still won't see it, they thought we could just trade Thornton easily, just like that, same with Kenny Thomas, same with JT last year.

Some people need to eat some cake if we have both JT and Landry on the roster after the trade deadline.

[OhioKingsFan]

Mmmmm, I love cake. I don't think either one is likely to be moved by Feb 2015 (next season's trade deadline), but I do think JT will be moved next off-season when he is basically an expiring contract. That is what I think, I don't think anybody is in a position to gloat whether this happens or not. Hopefully when the next trade happens we will all feel like winners.

The point that I truly want to make is that I think it is foolish to give up a top 10 pick in order to get out from under any of our current contracts.

JT + Landry = Bad
Kings - #8 = Worse

The pick should only be used to acquire talent... that's my only point.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go find some cake.

[Big_Cat]

Mmmmm, I love cake. I don't think either one is likely to be moved by Feb 2015 (next season's trade deadline), but I do think JT will be moved next off-season when he is basically an expiring contract. That is what I think, I don't think anybody is in a position to gloat whether this happens or not. Hopefully when the next trade happens we will all feel like winners.

The point that I truly want to make is that I think it is foolish to give up a top 10 pick in order to get out from under any of our current contracts.

JT + Landry = Bad
Kings - #8 = Worse

The pick should only be used to acquire talent... that's my only point.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go find some cake.

The reality is, between picks 7-14, there is likely only 1 allstar, 1 career starters, 2 bench players, and 4 guys who won't make it to their second contract. That's just the approximate pattern we've seen throughout the past 10-15 years. How confident are you in the scouting staff to make the right pick? How confident are you in making sure we draft a Damion Lillard or Paul George instead of a Jimmer Fredette or Thomas Robinson?

Jarl Thompandry is an immediate anchor and limitation to our organization's success. We simply cannot afford both of them, and also afford a TRUE starting PF. So even in your plans we are throwing away next season and hopefully finding someone next summer. Additionally, we do not know how deep the wallets of the new owners are. Most posters on this board all feel that Sacramento does not need to worry about the luxury tax as we won't be repeat offenders...but how can we be sure management feels the same way? There are a LARGE number of teams (OKC and CHI are two amazing examples) who has owners who cannot afford or will not pay the luxury tax. So...until we see ownership actually be willing to go into the lux tax...we can't be sure that we can afford Isaiah and Rudy Gay. Meaning we will have almost the same roster as last season but even worse.


Most people need to realize the significance of bad contracts and how much they ultimately cost the team/owners. Because it isn't your money, you probably don't think any of it...but to the owners...it's a big deal. (Just look at OKC, they could have had Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Ibaka as their core for a decade, but ownership wouldn't even pay the luxury tax a single year and immediately moved Harden). Paying the luxury tax for a winner? I'm sure many front offices could approve that (not all), but paying the luxury tax for a lotto team? That's just absurd.

[Big_Cat]

We are also committed the second most in the league for our forwards (for one starter and a bunch of bench players).

1. $64.37 - New York Knicks
2. $43.87 - Sacramento Kings
3. $38.83 - Portland Trailblazers
4. $36.69 - OKC
5. $35.01 - Indiana Pacers
6. $33.83 - Boston Celtics
7. $32.98 - Toronto Raptors
8. $32.91 - Chicago Bulls


We are also committed to the 3rd least amount of $ to our guards
25. $13.44 - Charlotte Hornets
26. $12.07 - Philadelphia Sixers
27. $11.03 - Indiana Pacers
28. $9.69 - Sacramento Kings
29. $9.43 - Phoenix Suns
30. $8.92 - Utah Jazz


*All for 2014-2015

[bleeds_purple]

The reality is, between picks 7-14, there is likely only 1 allstar, 1 career starters, 2 bench players, and 4 guys who won't make it to their second contract. That's just the approximate pattern we've seen throughout the past 10-15 years. How confident are you in the scouting staff to make the right pick? How confident are you in making sure we draft a Damion Lillard or Paul George instead of a Jimmer Fredette or Thomas Robinson?

This is a defeatist attitude. If the organization lacks confidence in its ability to draft correctly it should invest money in its scouting department. There's are reasons why teams like San Antonio nail virtually every single pick; one of those is that they know how to pick them.

While I agree that Thompson/Landry are contributing to the failures of the franchise their contracts aren't nearly as bad as the potential $20+ million a year we are poised to shell out to Thomas and Gay. All we need to do with Thompson/Landry is move one of them or if that's not possible I think they could make a half decent albeit grossly overpaid bench 4/5 unit.

Trading the pick in a salary dump, especially in this draft, is throwing away one of our best chances to add talent. It only helps line the owners pocket and ensures long term failure. Suppose those contracts were magically removed from the cap, what would we end up doing with the space? Resign Gay and Thomas and then?

We aren't Los Angeles, New York, or Miami we simply aren't capable of attracting high level talent and putting cap space to real use. In that light, our best bet is to build through the draft and through the Mark Cuban buy-low style. But the only way that works is investing heavily in management, coaching, scouting, etc.

[Big_Cat]

This is a defeatist attitude. If the organization lacks confidence in its ability to draft correctly it should invest money in its scouting department. There's are reasons why teams like San Antonio nail virtually every single pick; one of those is that they know how to pick them.

It's not a defeatist attitude at all, it's simply acknowledging reality. This is exactly why some posters do not believe in rebuilding solely through the draft, because especially mid to late lotto picks generally do not pan out. Players generally drafted around the region are prospects that have some highly significant flaws in their game and areas they need significant improvements in order to make it in the league.


Yes you could be the Spurs and nail every single pick, but you could also be like the 29 other teams in the league and not be able recreate what SAS has done. It's easy to point to the best franchise in the NBA and say "they can do it, why can't we." But it doesn't work that way. If we were SAS, Reke would be an excellent shooter by now, DeMarcus would be playing amazing defense. We wouldn't have Rudy Gay on the roster. We wouldn't have all the horrible contracts we do. We wouldn't have made pretty much any of the moves we have made the past decade.



The point is, if we have an opportunity to improve the team by using the draft pick in a trade or in a trade involving a mass salary clearing, we should strongly consider it. Otherwise, odds are we will be drafting a player who will likely be a career bench player. It's not being negative, it's looking at history in an isolated situation and recognizing the tremendous odds we are facing.

[bleeds_purple]

Yes you could be the Spurs and nail every single pick, but you could also be like the 29 other teams in the league and not be able recreate what SAS has done. It's easy to point to the best franchise in the NBA and say "they can do it, why can't we." But it doesn't work that way. If we were SAS, Reke would be an excellent shooter by now, DeMarcus would be playing amazing defense. We wouldn't have Rudy Gay on the roster. We wouldn't have all the horrible contracts we do. We wouldn't have made pretty much any of the moves we have made the past decade.

The point is, if we have an opportunity to improve the team by using the draft pick in a trade or in a trade involving a mass salary clearing, we should strongly consider it. Otherwise, odds are we will be drafting a player who will likely be a career bench player. It's not being negative, it's looking at history in an isolated situation and recognizing the tremendous odds we are facing.

Its a continuum on one extreme we have the Spurs and sadly on the other extreme probably lies the Kings. If as you say our problem is our inability to make draft picks then we should be investing in the management until we are capable of making good picks. We don't need to become the Spurs overnight but we need to start moving in that direction - it starts from the top down.

My main point was also - and my apologizes if I didn't make it clear - let's assume we make a salary dump, what's the next move? Who do we sign? What trade do we make? Or does it just save the owner money?

Obviously in a perfect world we dump Landry and Thompson as well as a few others. However, if the choice is between keeping them and the pick (which lets say has a 5% chance to be an all-star, 25% chance to be a starter, 50% chance to be a bench player, and 20% chance to be out of the league in four years) or dump Landry Thompson and the pick and probably wind up with nothing other than a resigned Thomas and Gay for that saved cap space I think I'd chose the former. Then again, as you say its not my money.

Ultimately I'd rather keep the pick, live with the bad signings we have, and learn from those mistakes by not repeating them with Thomas and Gay. That's not to say we should avoid resigning them at all costs, just that we need to be rationale about their value and how we envision a roster of player salaries looking on a contender built around Cousins.

How pathetic is it that two teams couldn't wait to dump Gay and now we're literally campaigning for him to stay. This is why I say we need to change the culture and our perception, from the top down, to have any meaningful success in this league.

[ICMTM]

In regards to all the salary cap talk being under the cap is not an "actual" benefit. Straight up free agency doesn't really exist. Usually when a team decides to go after a free agent some kind of sign and trade happens more times than not. If we don't have anyone to trade we'd need to convince a couple people to come in free agency not just one. We'll have to package a Jason Thompson or Carl Landry out to bring something in.

Yes you could be the Spurs and nail every single pick, but you could also be like the 29 other teams in the league and not be able recreate what SAS has done. It's easy to point to the best franchise in the NBA and say "they can do it, why can't we." But it doesn't work that way. If we were SAS, Reke would be an excellent shooter by now, DeMarcus would be playing amazing defense. We wouldn't have Rudy Gay on the roster. We wouldn't have all the horrible contracts we do. We wouldn't have made pretty much any of the moves we have made the past decade.

Well that is part of the problem. We're bringing in talent, and we're not getting the best out of it. We also don't have a dynamic coach that can reinvent himself on the go. This Spurs team isn't the same blueprint of the 1999, 2004 teams. We're all happy with the front office now, but can Malone be that guy??? I'm not so sure.

[blind prophet]

In regards to all the salary cap talk being under the cap is not an "actual" benefit. Straight up free agency doesn't really exist. Usually when a team decides to go after a free agent some kind of sign and trade happens more times than not. If we don't have anyone to trade we'd need to convince a couple people to come in free agency not just one. We'll have to package a Jason Thompson or Carl Landry out to bring something in.

Yes you could be the Spurs and nail every single pick, but you could also be like the 29 other teams in the league and not be able recreate what SAS has done. It's easy to point to the best franchise in the NBA and say "they can do it, why can't we." But it doesn't work that way. If we were SAS, Reke would be an excellent shooter by now, DeMarcus would be playing amazing defense. We wouldn't have Rudy Gay on the roster. We wouldn't have all the horrible contracts we do. We wouldn't have made pretty much any of the moves we have made the past decade.

Well that is part of the problem. We're bringing in talent, and we're not getting the best out of it. We also don't have a dynamic coach that can reinvent himself on the go. This Spurs team isn't the same blueprint of the 1999, 2004 teams. We're all happy with the front office now, but can Malone be that guy??? I'm not so sure.

From where I believe Malone is most likely coming from I'd be a little agitated if there was not some more stability here, and if Pete does his job, there will be more change.

I knew we were in a mess for 2 years at least when Vivek took over.

Next season is most likely hosed, so we need to set ourselves up after this one IMO. Cutting loses, developing youth, saving money, acquiring talent is what we should be thinking about.

[SacKingZZZ]

Nah, they have to be building something real by this year. They need to become a playoff caliber team this year in order to do anything substantial in free agency the year after and probably even to keep Gay moving forward. If they get some of the right role players and Malone puts in the right kind of system, then I think they'll be the surprise team next year.

You want to know the secret to the Spurs success? They'll always be at the very least a good team because they basically have their GM and coach in one so odds are the players there will know how to play in the system they have in place. D'alesandro needs to give his coach the right kind of players for him to make his system work. They need to figure the best way to use Gay and Cousins, figure a system out together than bring in the right guys around them. They could even go the Thunder route and play a largely iso based system and then just stack tough nosed defensive guys around them. Easier said than done.

I still think a system based around Gay and Cousins has to involve off the ball movement, and proper floor spreading, which in turn gives them options to become play makers for their teammates. The two man game isn't going to win them any rings, good thing the main building blocks don't need the pick and roll to succeed either. Most importantly, no more teams with nothing but players looking to create, you need FINISHERS not shot creators. Spot shooters, guys who will get open and hit the shot when they get it. It's the role players that make your system work and vice versa.

[blind prophet]

Nah, they have to be building something real by this year. They need to become a playoff caliber team this year in order to do anything substantial in free agency the year after and probably even to keep Gay moving forward. If they get some of the right role players and Malone puts in the right kind of system, then I think they'll be the surprise team next year.

You want to know the secret to the Spurs success? They'll always be at the very least a good team because they basically have their GM and coach in one so odds are the players there will know how to play in the system they have in place. D'alesandro needs to give his coach the right kind of players for him to make his system work. They need to figure the best way to use Gay and Cousins, figure a system out together than bring in the right guys around them. They could even go the Thunder route and play a largely iso based system and then just stack tough nosed defensive guys around them. Easier said than done.

I still think a system based around Gay and Cousins has to involve off the ball movement, and proper floor spreading, which in turn gives them options to become play makers for their teammates. The two man game isn't going to win them any rings, good thing the main building blocks don't need the pick and roll to succeed either. Most importantly, no more teams with nothing but players looking to create, you need FINISHERS not shot creators. Spot shooters, guys who will get open and hit the shot when they get it. It's the role players that make your system work and vice versa.

Ok I agree Cuz and Rudy are are two keepers.

From there I use the 8 and do whatever I can to cut long term salary like Landry especially, and hopefully JT.

If we want to build around a Rudy/Cuz show, we've got to surround them with what they need, so now is the time to hose your loses, and set yourself up to build.

I think we can use the 8 + Landry and seek something fitting.

A good target free agent would be Thabo Sefolosha to cover some perimeter woes on defense, use some of that Dirty Laundry salary moved with the 8 to get him in here.

That gets us solid at the 2,3,5 long term.

From there we have to make the right call at point guard, make a mistake in salary there we are in big trouble.

The rest of our trash expires too. Ray may be decent enough this season if we want to hose it, and we'll find out if we use him on the cheap for awhile, could prove to be a decent starter or quality bench asset.

Mclemore we either develop behind Thabo, or look to move him too.

As much as I like Cuz, he is no Tim Duncan, and the Spurs never had our outrageous trash to deal with either.

[ICMTM]

But the new brass brought in Landry....

[SacKingZZZ]

And that's kind of the major point here. There is no way they go out and sign someone to that kind of deal without thinking he's a part of the big picture moving forward. Early results to me weren't that great though. Might have been the fact that he was working Carl back in but if they use him in some of the same ways they did last year when he did play then I'm a little worried. I will say his numbers compared to minutes played weren't that bad though. But then you have to realize that it was mostly done in garbage time so...

IF they use Landry as a legit 6th man and let him go to work when Cuz and Gay are off the floor he can stay IMO. JT is the problem fit with Landry now in the picture. He only works if he's the "guy" next to Cuz and the whole world knows he's not, even Cousins knows this and he remarked about it before last season. As a 10-15 backup at C he can do some interesting stuff but he's just a waste of cap space at that point and he certainly doesn't help this team defensively at C.

I think they must still have an idea of how to use Landry, so that means JT is the one to go. I just hope they never envisioned Landry as a full time starter. He and Cuz didn't really work together either. All they need to do is watch a little tape from a while back of the team they work for now and they'll see it plain as day. I mean, they weren't terrible but as a full time combo? Not a chance.

[bleeds_purple]

With talks heating up between Golden State and Minnesota over Love how do you guys feel about inserting ourselves into the trade and acquiring either Lee or Martin?

We could off-load Thompson/Landry/Terry/Outlaw and take back Lee (who GS would want to dump after acquiring Love) and/or acquire Martin (who MN would want to dump after acquiring Klay Thompson). While both of those guys have long term deals it wouldn't be HORRIBLE because the only way we pull the trigger is by off-loading equally bad contracts. Doing the math we'd basically be in no worse of a cap situation if we dealt Jarl Thompandry for Lee, or one of them for Martin. I feel like having Martin could do wonders for McLemore in his development and his contract is not that bad while Lee is a starting caliber player and among other things, an excellent passer (which I think has been SORELY lacking at the PF spot next to Cousins).

The most glaring issue...defense defense defense.

So what do you guys think, should we try to take one (or both) of these guys in the Love trade if it goes down?