RealGM

What moves can realisitcally be made for us to get under the cap for the 09 offseason? Does moving Miller and Thomas for expirings with a resigned Garcia @ around MLE give us enough room for a max FA?

sackings916 wrote:What moves can realisitcally be made for us to get under the cap for the 09 offseason? Does moving Miller and Thomas for expirings with a resigned Garcia @ around MLE give us enough room for a max FA?

That's basically what it would take. If we were to do that and waive Mikki, I believe we'd be around $45ish million, which would give us probably around $14million in capspace. However if we don't pick up Shelden or Quincy's options next year, we would have over $20mil in cap space by my estimation.

There are a couple of issues here though. First, this is all assuming that we get SAR's contract covered and off the cap. Secondly, it's assuming we can move Brad for the right kind of deal like that--which won't be easy because the other team in the deal will have to both have plenty of expirings and a want to spend them on Brad (which opens a whole other, more complicated can of worms). 3rdly (and probably most importantly), finding someone that will give expirings for Kenny's contract will be impossible without us giving up another asset in return. 4th, if we don't move Kenny, then we'll almost have to decline Shelden and Quincy's options if we want real cap space--which is something that we may not want to do (we'll see this year, I think).

Other than that, our only options if we want cap space will be moving Salmons (a whole other issue to talk about) or not-resigning Cisco.

But assuming all of that some how gets figured out, then you have to look at the 09 FA class, to see if there will be any interesting options.

Here are the best possibilities I can find and I have categorized them:

Vets who are good but probably not really relevant to us:
Kidd
Iverson
R. Wallace
Rip Hamilton (ET)
Artest
Odom
Marion
Okur (ET)
Ben Gordon
Hedo (ET)
A. Miller

Young guys who are nice, but probably not big difference-makers for us:
Marvin Williams
Leon Powe
Felton
Bass
Kleiza (R)
Maxiell (R)
Landry (if he gets the QO this year)
Ariza
H. Warrick
Villanueva
McCants (R)
Lee (R)
Webster (R)
Frye (R)
Millsap

It's important to note that maybe one of these guys may become relevant--particularly guys like Landry IMO. But as of now, none of them are worth a whole lot to us.

Relevant targets:
Boozer (PO)
Granger
Bynum

These are the 3 relevant ones IMO, and of course, all are long shots (as are most FAs). Bynum would be the most relevant but is also probably the least likely. The only scenario I could see where we might have a shot is if his injuries hamper him this year and we decide to take a shot the Lakers aren't willing to take.
We may not have a huge need at SF, but if Granger is available, he still may be worth pursuing. He is probably better than any of our SFs will be, he's still pretty young, and he'd possibly be a nice fit next to Kevin. But we'll see how committed Indy is to keeping him and how much we'd have to pay him.
Boozer is one of the few real shots we may have. Utah has stated that it doesn't want to go over the tax next year, and so if the right chips fall into place, and we would be willing to pay up for Boozer, this could be a possibility. It's just a matter of whether or not we'd want him for the required price.

mitchweber wrote:

sackings916 wrote:What moves can realisitcally be made for us to get under the cap for the 09 offseason? Does moving Miller and Thomas for expirings with a resigned Garcia @ around MLE give us enough room for a max FA?

That's basically what it would take. If we were to do that and waive Mikki, I believe we'd be around $45ish million, which would give us probably around $14million in capspace. However if we don't pick up Shelden or Quincy's options next year, we would have over $20mil in cap space by my estimation.

There are a couple of issues here though. First, this is all assuming that we get SAR's contract covered and off the cap. Secondly, it's assuming we can move Brad for the right kind of deal like that--which won't be easy because the other team in the deal will have to both have plenty of expirings and a want to spend them on Brad (which opens a whole other, more complicated can of worms). 3rdly (and probably most importantly), finding someone that will give expirings for Kenny's contract will be impossible without us giving up another asset in return. 4th, if we don't move Kenny, then we'll almost have to decline Shelden and Quincy's options if we want real cap space--which is something that we may not want to do (we'll see this year, I think).

Other than that, our only options if we want cap space will be moving Salmons (a whole other issue to talk about) or not-resigning Cisco.

But assuming all of that some how gets figured out, then you have to look at the 09 FA class, to see if there will be any interesting options.

Here are the best possibilities I can find and I have categorized them:

Vets who are good but probably not really relevant to us:
Kidd
Iverson
R. Wallace
Rip Hamilton (ET)
Artest
Odom
Marion
Okur (ET)
Ben Gordon
Hedo (ET)
A. Miller

Young guys who are nice, but probably not big difference-makers for us:
Marvin Williams
Leon Powe
Felton
Bass
Kleiza (R)
Maxiell (R)
Landry (if he gets the QO this year)
Ariza
H. Warrick
Villanueva
McCants (R)
Lee (R)
Webster (R)
Frye (R)
Millsap

It's important to note that maybe one of these guys may become relevant--particularly guys like Landry IMO. But as of now, none of them are worth a whole lot to us.

Relevant targets:
Boozer (PO)
Granger
Bynum

These are the 3 relevant ones IMO, and of course, all are long shots (as are most FAs). Bynum would be the most relevant but is also probably the least likely. The only scenario I could see where we might have a shot is if his injuries hamper him this year and we decide to take a shot the Lakers aren't willing to take.
We may not have a huge need at SF, but if Granger is available, he still may be worth pursuing. He is probably better than any of our SFs will be, he's still pretty young, and he'd possibly be a nice fit next to Kevin. But we'll see how committed Indy is to keeping him and how much we'd have to pay him.
Boozer is one of the few real shots we may have. Utah has stated that it doesn't want to go over the tax next year, and so if the right chips fall into place, and we would be willing to pay up for Boozer, this could be a possibility. It's just a matter of whether or not we'd want him for the required price.

great breakdown mitch, I never thought anyone would take him seriously, because the class of 09 UFA is so weak.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/stor ... ents-09-10

I could see us being able to net a guy like Boozer or Odom without having to get rid of Kenny. If Reef is covered, Miller is moved for expirings, Mikki is waived, and Shelden doesn't have his option picked up it may be possible, even still, sign and trades become a possibility for sure.

If we are under the cap, we are able to absorb that number in trades correct? So if we are under the cap for 09 we are not just limited to the FAs but then would have a lot more flexibility in trades

I can't see the Kings taking up Shelden's option, four million is just too much for him. I think it's more likely that he gets offered a smaller contract if he performs appropriately.

I still just don't see much relevance for us in 2009

I'd love Granger, but Indiana isn't letting that guy go.

Boozer? We won't be contenders now or later on with the lacking interior defense we'll have. You need above-average interior defense to contend in the NBA.

Bynum? Doubtful at best.

Interesting. Supposedly, Hedo will opt out in 2009. I will not be surprised that Petrie will have interest to bring Hedo back in Sacramento. If we did, he will start over Salmons/Garcia.

Ballings7 wrote:
Boozer? We won't be contenders now or later on with the lacking interior defense we'll have. You need above-average interior defense to contend in the NBA.

Not if we keep everything as it is. But Boozer is the kind of player that's probably worth adjusting things for. I like Spencer and Jason, but if you can get a proven talent like Boozer, well you might want to do it.

No need to adjust really. Boozer is a perfect fit system wise. He knows motion offense, and in our system he could possibly even average 4-5 apg. Defense is what it is. Depends on how Jason and Shelden look of course. If either one looks to be legit in the coming year then maybe we won't need to do anything too drastic.

It's a very important year for Shelden especially. There is a chance he doesn't get his option picked up, that is a lot of money. Hopefully he gets the chance to show what he can do next year.

I know we will probably cut Moore and probably not pick up Douby because we have a lot of shooters right now. I think that the team this year will be based on Shelden and Miller. Last time I checked the formula for Kings winning:
Good passing big guys + Lots of scorers + Good defense in the paint = Lots of wins
This team is loaded with shooters, and has good passing big men, and if Shelden comes though with 2 blocks a game this is a very solid team (don't give up on Sheldon in his first 2 years at Duke he was ok, but his last 2 avgd 20/10/4blocks a game leading his team to the final 4 his senior year, and this is his 3rd year). This team finished .500 with no d last year. Miller had as many blocks as Artest and Moore together. If Shelden and Miller don't come together they can be unloaded for the big guys. If Thompson shows he is clutch along with everything else he has to offer, he would replace Miller easily.
They will still have 10-15mil they will cut Thomas + SAR, they will probably spend it on a difference maker.
Hedo definitely an option, he's got stones. Boozer is possible, but I doubt Utah will let their Stockton/Malone 2 get away. Martell Webster maybe. Gooden, this is a pretty soft team already. Kleiza has some killer instinct in him he is one I would love to have with a softer team. Villanueva I would take, he is still pretty soft but is only 25. But Shelden has better all around potential than any of these guys. I would only add some killer instinct.

mitch wrote:Not if we keep everything as it is. But Boozer is the kind of player that's probably worth adjusting things for. I like Spencer and Jason, but if you can get a proven talent like Boozer, well you might want to do it.

I agree he is worth adjusting for, but would we? I don't think that's a realistic expecation, which goes back to the meaning of my original post.

I wouldn't see this org. going away from Hawes at center there (in the case of paired w/ Boozer), in change, to have a relatively strong center on defense (more defensive-oriented, or less likely, two-way). Which is what you absolutely need to have next to Boozer. Which of course, is part of why the Jazz haven't done better in the playoffs, foul way too much (aside from the Sloan factor), and are not a consistently effective defensive squad.

Honestly, I really couldn't see Petrie/Theus going that route in the case of Boozer's big man partner, rather sticking with the offensively-biased tandem (Boozer/Hawes), and whatever we'll get is what we'll get on defense (fair, somewhat above-average, not around what you need as a contending team). Hell, maybe not even in the case of a special center on defense (not two-way), from the draft or FA later on, because of the dynamic offense that would be there from Hawes/Boozer. And, I just don't think you can go like that, in going for it all.

SKZZZ wrote:Defense is what it is.

Which would be the problem with Hawes/Boozer - we wouldn't be able to do much, consistently in the playoffs over the years with Hawes/Boozer defending the basket. Rebounding-wise, there'd be enough, but of course, you need to play good enough initial defense before you can get the rebound. To sum it up, out of all the playoff teams each time we'd get in, we'd be near the bottom in terms of interior defense.

We'd be a good team, but not quite a team built for the playoffs (to go far, with regularity) because of the defense not being around where it would need to be.

With SAR gone...If we make no moves except renounce Shelden/Douby/Moore then our team salary goes to 47 million. If you then can dump Miller and Kenny's deals then it suddenly drops another 20 million down to 27 million. You add Garcia and 2 first round salaries and that puts you around 35 million.

The estimated cap space should be around 58 milion giving the Kings anwhere from 5-23 million dollars in cap space.

Smills91 wrote:With SAR gone...If we make no moves except renounce Shelden/Douby/Moore then our team salary goes to 47 million. If you then can dump Miller and Kenny's deals then it suddenly drops another 20 million down to 27 million. You add Garcia and 2 first round salaries and that puts you around 35 million.

The estimated cap space should be around 58 milion giving the Kings anwhere from 5-23 million dollars in cap space.

Not sure where you're getting that. Right now, our salary for next year is at like $67.6mil according to shamsports. If we lose SAR's salary, that brings us down to 61. Lose Shelden's, and we're a little under 57. Lose Quincy's and we're at like 54.5. Lose the half of Mikki's that we can lose (since it's half guaranteed from what I understand) and we're at like 51.4 mil--so about 5million higher than what you said. We can still clear a lot of space, but not that much. After that, the most we could really realistically clear without re-signing Cisco is Brad's contract--so that would bring us down to 39million. If we add Cisco and the draft picks, it's going to be around 47. So we'd have to clear off somebody else's salary to really clear necessary cap. We can talk about Kenny but then we have to talk about what valuable piece we're going to attach to him to dump him. Otherwise, it's going to be nearly impossible. Moving Brad for the right deal will be hard enough.