Where the Kings would be without the Noci trade

kings4life · Post #1 » by **kings4life** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:47 am

Without the Nocioni trade, the kings would be about 10 Million dollars deeper than they are now, but that doesn't include probably not taking in the almost 3 million of Armstrong. So by my calculations we would be about 7 million dollars more expenseive, but we would 13 coming off the books in Miller after this season, and only 5.5 mil on Salmons next year.

If the trade never happened, we would have a payrole making our 2010 heavy free agent salary only 35mil. SO roughly 15-20 Mil below the Cap.... So maybe that trade wasn't so great? O wait the idea was to clear space to get a "big time free agent" last offseason. Sean May?

Here is the link to that trade thread, it is a facinating read into the ignorance of our fanbase (much the same as the fans that want to dump Martin for expiring).

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=882840

Post #2 » by **pillwenney** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:22 am

I don't think anybody was thrilled with it at the time.

I can understand it. The Maloofs were absolutely bleeding money at the time, and I think Geoff wanted some addition by subtraction. But Noc's contract is a big fat pain in the ass.

JSrose115 · Post #3 » by **JSrose115** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:02 am

damn all of these bad contracts......

a-rod · Post #4 » by **a-rod** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:18 pm

mitchweber wrote:I don't think anybody was thrilled with it at the time.

I can understand it. The Maloofs were absolutely bleeding money at the time, and I think Geoff wanted some addition by subtraction. But Noc's contract is a big fat pain in the ass.

I dont, We traded away players with movable contracts to save money. But we still stuck with long term payroll obligations and that's going to hurt the team long term plans. Case in point is the Nocioni deal.

Post #5 » by **KF10** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:23 pm

I can't understand why we rejected a standing offer of Shawn Marion for Brad Miller. At the time, I was surprised we chose Chicago's package over Miami's package.

Not to mention there were much better trades such as New Jersey's i.e. Anderson, expirings for Salmons and/or Miller.

Did Petrie liked Nocioni at the time? Was Nocioni's veteran presence, toughness needed at the time? I'm not sure.

kings4life · Post #6 » by **kings4life** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:29 pm

Some interesting comments from the trade thread (and Smills and Murray got waived?):

KIE:
I'm glad that something has happened. I want to wait until I see the final details, but I'm encouraged.... I'm encouraged that we did something...anything.... The "pain" of taking on Nocioni's contract allows the team to eliminated a total of $10M from next year's salary. IMO it's a decent bargain to take on $2.5M less in total obligations that are spread out over a longer period of time while eliminating $10M in obligations next year... Nocioni has a front-loaded contract, meaning that his salary goes down each year. He will make $500K LESS next season than this season.

_SRV_:
I'm really not seeing the horrible element here, I really don't think it's that bad.

Chriswebb86
I am actually happy with this deal. I know some Kings fans may feel we could have gotten more for the players, but this saves us some money especially for next year... Well we finally are rebuilding. We may not make deals that everyone likes but we are pushing towards the future... I actually like the idea of bringing him in... Also, he is not even close to being like K9. He will actually come in and play.
I actually think we did decent with this deal. We get more cap room this offseason. Bring two young players that we can test drive, and add a player that could become a key player over the next few years. I think that is pretty good. While I would have liked a pick added, I think we did decent for what we got in return... I think this trade helps for the future and it sures up the SF position for the next 3 years, and from something I read on sactownroyalty.com it basically costs us about 14 million or so for that position. I think that is great IMO... I think what this deal says is that we are finally going to be rebuilding.
I have no problem bringing him in. I think his value will increase once he starts playing here. I think by the end of the season Kings fans will be happy with him. Also, I think in the long run this gives Kevin more shoots.

Jfucsd10:
Its 4 years with a team option for a fifth. Its not nearly as back as its being made out. After this season, its basically 3 years at 21 million.

Nicky Nix Nook:
Garcia's contract is not any where near the worst. (Ranked 13th worst in the league a year later by ESPN)

Cdt3
This is solid trade and addressed our needs.

AriesMar27 · Post #7 » by **AriesMar27** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:38 pm

it was a bad trade then and it is still a bad trade now... petrie just cant make any good trades, he's lost it. when was the last time that he has made a good trade? i like sergio but it looks like they are trying to move him which means we lost the chance to get blair for nothing... brockman is garbage... he can rebound but thats about it. though knowing petrie he wouldve signed blair to a 5 year mle level deal and his knees wouldve given up on him after 2 years... so i guess he saved us that pain... but id rather have blair for 2-3 years than brockman and sergio....

mobiuseinz · Post #8 » by **mobiuseinz** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:45 pm

I'd rather have Noc than Salmons to be honest.... Salmons would be disgruntled and we would have no chance of playing Casspi and Donte... who knows, we might have not even gotten Casspi... so in the end the trade was still worth it.

AriesMar27 · Post #9 » by **AriesMar27** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:56 pm

mobiuseinz wrote:I'd rather have Noc than Salmons to be honest.... Salmons would be disgruntled and we would have no chance of playing Casspi and Donte... who knows, we might have not even gotten Casspi... so in the end the trade was still worth it.

we got casspi from houston, that pick would still be ours to use on casspi. but id rather have salmons and his contract that expires next season than nocioni's. if his head is on straight, salmons wouldve been the ideal player to have at sf with evans... he is a good enough passer to make up for evans' lack of court vision and playmaking skills. though we would still suck. not as bad as we do now but it would still be better than having nocioni, he is a straight chucker. for anyone who calls salmons a blackhole on offense, look at nocioni, the minute he gets the ball he shoots it. no matter where he is on the court he shoots it....

a-rod · Post #10 » by **a-rod** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:19 pm

AriesMar27 wrote:it was a bad trade then and it is still a bad trade now... petrie just cant make any good trades, he's lost it. when was the last time that he has made a good trade? i like sergio but it looks like they are trying to move him which means we lost the chance to get blair for nothing... brockman is garbage... he can rebound but thats about it. though knowing petrie he wouldve signed blair to a 5 year mle level deal and his knees wouldve given up on him after 2 years... so i guess he saved us that pain... but id rather have blair for 2-3 years than brockman and sergio....

The Maloofs decide that they need to shed the payroll, they made one bad decision after another. They didn't want to step up and take responsibility for their choices, they just let Petrie take the blame for it, and now Petrie is trying to clean up the mess.

_SRV_ · Post #11 » by **_SRV_** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:55 pm

kings4life wrote:Some interesting comments from the trade thread (and Smills and Murray got waived?):

_SRV_:
I'm really not seeing the horrible element here, I really don't think it's that bad.

And what exactly is wrong with this?

kings4life · Post #12 » by **kings4life** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:29 pm

_SRV_ wrote:
kings4life wrote:Some interesting comments from the trade thread (and Smills and Murray got waived?):

_SRV_:
I'm really not seeing the horrible element here, I really don't think it's that bad.

And what exactly is wrong with this?

Just a point that our fanbase was way too happy and excited about the trade, and had blinders on to how the future would turn out with having one of the worst contracts in the league sitting deep on our bench. It's ironic that people like Smills and Murray were adament about how they hated the trade for the long term, and they are the people that have been waived. Seems like their insight quiet valuable looking back...

Post #13 » by **pillwenney** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:58 pm

kings4life wrote:
_SRV_ wrote:
kings4life wrote:Some interesting comments from the trade thread (and Smills and Murray got waived?):

_SRV_:
I'm really not seeing the horrible element here, I really don't think it's that bad.

And what exactly is wrong with this?

Just a point that our fanbase was way too happy and excited about the trade, and had blinders on to how the future would turn out with having one of the worst contracts in the league sitting deep on our bench. It's ironic that people like Smills and Murray were adament about how they hated the trade for the long term, and they are the people that have been waived. Seems like their insight quiet valuable looking back...

"I don't really it's it's that bad" is "way too happy and excited about this"? You seem to be under this impression that the Kings board was giddy at the time, and that's just not remotely true. Most people hated it. Having not read the thread, and going off of memory, I remember not being thrilled, but having a "wait and see" approach. You seem to be creating a sense of popular opinion that just doesn't exist.

And Smills and Murray were not waived because of their opinion on the deal (and again, you're acting like they're the only two that felt that way ,which they weren't at all), so I don't really see your point there.

Website · Post #14 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:16 pm

kings4life wrote:Nicky Nix Nook:
Garcia's contract is not any where near the worst. (Ranked 13th worst in the league a year later by ESPN)

Huh? When did I say that?

SacTownKings4Life · Post #15 » by **SacTownKings4Life** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:52 am

AriesMar27 wrote:
mobiuseinz wrote:I'd rather have Noc than Salmons to be honest.... Salmons would be disgruntled and we would have no chance of playing Casspi and Donte... who knows, we might have not even gotten Casspi... so in the end the trade was still worth it.

we got casspi from houston, that pick would still be ours to use on casspi. but id rather have salmons and his contract that expires next season than nocioni's. if his head is on straight, salmons wouldve been the ideal player to have at sf with evans... he is a good enough passer to make up for evans' lack of court vision and playmaking skills. though we would still suck. not as bad as we do now but it would still be better than having nocioni, he is a straight chucker. for anyone who calls salmons a blackhole on offense, look at nocioni, the minute he gets the ball he shoots it. no matter where he is on the court he shoots it....

Not too sure about that one. I do like Salmons, but I believe he was a little bit of a ball dominator at times.

cuad · Post #16 » by **cuad** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 am

OP must have known that the Rockets are trying to get us to trade Nocioni, Thomas and Beno for Salmons and Miller.

wiltchamberlain · Post #17 » by **wiltchamberlain** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:44 am

kings4life wrote:Without the Nocioni trade, the kings would be about 10 Million dollars deeper than they are now, but that doesn't include probably not taking in the almost 3 million of Armstrong. So by my calculations we would be about 7 million dollars more expenseive, but we would 13 coming off the books in Miller after this season, and only 5.5 mil on Salmons next year.

If the trade never happened, we would have a payrole making our 2010 heavy free agent salary only 35mil. SO roughly 15-20 Mil below the Cap.... So maybe that trade wasn't so great? O wait the idea was to clear space to get a "big time free agent" last offseason. Sean May?

Here is the link to that trade thread, it is a facinating read into the ignorance of our fanbase (much the same as the fans that want to dump Martin for expiring).

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=882840

I think this is one of the most laughably pointless posts I've ever seen on this site. I think your point is that people on this board were way too high on this trade when it happened, is that right?

Well let's look at some quotes from the day it went down

ICTM:
EEWW!!!
Are we going to send Noc somewhere else in a minute? This is CRAP!

Nicky Nix Nook:
Is this the worst trade of the year?
Kings fans: NOW it's time to get your torches and pitchforks. Let's march to Arco in protest!

jeffjtk1234:
yeah its a joke for me...at least good and diogu are expiring...maybe noc will be a solid sixth man but no picks? no young talent? This trade is not good at all...

Lightning Strike:
Utterly sad. I would have rather stayed with what we had then let Chicago force crap on us just to get 5 mil of cap this offseason.

Darkadun:
WTF.

WTF.

WTF??????

YAY. WE GET A NEW 5 YEAR CONTRACT THAT HELPS OUT THE KINGS IN NO WAY. YAY

Am I crazy or do these all seem like the exact opposite of happy? Well I guess ICTM could have meant EWWWW! in a good way, right?

Also I love how in your group of quotes of people celebrating the trade you included a quote from SRV which seemed less than thrilled.

SRV:
I'm really not seeing the horrible element here, I really don't think it's that bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like hardly a ringing endorsement of the trade.
Kings4life I really am hoping that as a poster you're just a little slow out of the gate and will move in to your stride fairly quickly because this doesn't exactly bode well for you.

Website · Post #18 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:32 am

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:
kings4life wrote:Nicky Nix Nook:
Garcia's contract is not any where near the worst. (Ranked 13th worst in the league a year later by ESPN)

Huh? When did I say that?

Ohhh, I thought you were saying that to me! Haha, ya I don't really care THAT much what ESPN thinks. The contract is not bad and if it is, it isn't THAT bad.

It's the Kings, you gotta give a little extra years or money.

_SRV_ · Post #19 » by **_SRV_** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:49 am

kings4life wrote:
_SRV_ wrote:
kings4life wrote:Some interesting comments from the trade thread (and Smills and Murray got waived?):

_SRV_:
I'm really not seeing the horrible element here, I really don't think it's that bad.

And what exactly is wrong with this?

Just a point that our fanbase was way too happy and excited about the trade, and had blinders on to how the future would turn out with having one of the worst contracts in the league sitting deep on our bench. It's ironic that people like Smills and Murray were adament about how they hated the trade for the long term, and they are the people that have been waived. Seems like their insight quiet valuable looking back...

That's giddy for you?