RealGM

I've heard rumors, but then i have heard they have not talked to him about it at all.

Do you see the benefit in cutting him and signing a cheap SF? Or are the Kings better off keeping him?

I think the Kings keep him. He is clearly better than Outlaw and he can be traded at the deadline as an expiring. He can also be the point forward off the bench and play SG if Thornton is traded.

Probably not now because they don't seem to have anybody they are targeting.

SacKingZZZ wrote:Probably not now because they don't seem to have anybody they are targeting.

I think this is right. They'd only amnesty him to clear room to sign someone expensive. Otherwise the cost-benefit doesn't work. That someone was supposed to be Ellis, but since that's no longer an option, I think the only way we don't see Salmons in a Kings jersey next year is if we trade him. I'm sure a couple of months in, a handful of teams will want his expiring contract once they realize their season is better spent tanking and saving for a 2014 free agent.

I won't go as far as saying Salmons is better than Outlaw. Once a upon a time he was. But Salmons was awful last year. He shot 39% and played bad defense. He fooled some fans with a few 20 point games here and there after the all-star break, but his FG% actually dropped after the all-star break. Our two backup SF's are equally bad, and if we care about competently filling our SF position, we better cross our fingers that Mbah a Moute stays healthy.

I think it depends on a couple things:

First, be clear that the Kings can't amnesty him at any time. If I remember right this has to be done before the season starts (or earlier). So they can't, for instance, have a trade lined up at the deadline to take on salary and then amnesty him.

Second, it really depends on how that last year works. We know it's a buyout for $1mil--and that effectively makes him an expiring contract--but what we don't know is whether or not the option for 2014-2015 becomes guaranteed (at the full rate) if he's amnestied. If it isn't fully guaranteed then all you lose is a year of Salmons, but if it DOES become guaranteed then you're losing that year of Salmons AND throwing away $6mil just so you can have cap space (that you may not do a thing with anyways).

Third, where does Salmons fall on the pecking order and how important is winning this year. I'm of the opinion that we should strive to lose this year so jettisoning any talent (even one as bad as Salmons) has some benefits.


I think if that last year won't become guaranteed upon amnesty then they should DEFINITELY amnesty him asap.

It has to be done before the 17th.

But yeah I'm not sure how the last year would work with amnesty-ing.

I don't think they'll do it unless a trade comes up in the next few days that requiring us to have cap space. And I don't think we'll do it to intentionally get worse either.

I actually think Salmons could have a relatively good year next year. His biggest problem is that he was a terrible fit with Reke.

He'd be an asset in the middle of the season that we can flip for something.

No need to amnesty.

boogie-reke wrote:He'd be an asset in the middle of the season that we can flip for something.

No need to amnesty.

Agreed, teams trade for expirings all the time. Alot of good free agents next year, could be a good piece to pair with someone else and make a good trade later in the season.

boogie-reke wrote:He'd be an asset in the middle of the season that we can flip for something.

No need to amnesty.

Im with you on this. The amnesty would have made sense to clear cap if the Kings were trying to make a big splash signing in FA. At this point, he means more to us on the roster than amnestied.