Wesley Matthews

[Smills91]

Did the Kings drop the ball here? The kid was on our summer league roster(and had a nice showing, although Marcus Landry seemed to have had a better SL than Matthews in the Kings defense)...and nw Matthews is ripping it up with the Jazz?

I know it's 20/20 hindsight, but wouldn't Matthews be a better roster space for our us than Ime Udoka? Especially in light of MArtin and Garcia's injuries.

Roster with Matthews when healthy....

C: Hawes, May
PF: Thompson, Thomas, Brockman
SF: Nocioni, Casspi, Greene
SG: Martin Garcia, MAtthews
PG: Evans, Udrih, Rodriguez

[pillwenney]

Arguably. But in the long run, we only have so much time to go around on the wings.

[_SRV_]

They dropped the ball by signing Udoka, not by not signing Mathews.

[Smills91]

They dropped the ball by signing Udoka, not by not signing Mathews.

Eh, he's an end of the bench vet role player, why was signing him bad?

[_SRV_]

it's not bad if you don't consider throwing 1 million $ down the drain bad in this economy, because that;s what it is, with Martin and Garcia out, Noc sucking, he's barely playing, he was a totally redundant signing.

[cdt3]

Udoka was signed for defense against 1/2/3s. You can only have so many scoring guards. Garcia/Martin/Casspi/Donte/Nocioni/Beno/Rodriguez/Evans. Who was the garaunteed defensive stopper at the beginning of the year? Nobody. Nocioni can't defend guards. That's why Petrie signed Desmond Mason but he never recovered from his surgery. Then he signed Udoka who is a vet guard defender.

[KingInExile]

it's not bad if you don't consider throwing 1 million $ down the drain bad in this economy, because that;s what it is, with Martin and Garcia out, Noc sucking, he's barely playing, he was a totally redundant signing.

He's playing for a vet-min contract and fills a mandatory roster spot (teams must have 12 active players on the roster...he's the 12th with Martin and Garcia out). The Kings have to spend money on that roster spot regardless, so your argument of "throwing $1M down the drain in this economy" is 100% flawed.

[sacking101]

I don't think that anyone was expecting martin and garcia to both be injured. He is playing well but that would only take time away from casspi and donte who are playing well themselves.

[SacKingZZZ]

Well, the truth is he probably still wouldn't have the opportunity to really play here even with all the injuries.

[_SRV_]

it's not bad if you don't consider throwing 1 million $ down the drain bad in this economy, because that;s what it is, with Martin and Garcia out, Noc sucking, he's barely playing, he was a totally redundant signing.

He's playing for a vet-min contract and fills a mandatory roster spot (teams must have 12 active players on the roster...he's the 12th with Martin and Garcia out). The Kings have to spend money on that roster spot regardless, so your argument of "throwing $1M down the drain in this economy" is 100% flawed.

I think you are wrong, so if a player is injured on the Kings now, we should go and sign another, you're not making any sense.
P.S. for reference, look at the Blazers roster in today's game.

[XeOnagain]

KIE is right, and from what i know, a big chunk of Vet-minimum contracts are covered by the NBA...

[_SRV_]

Teams in the National Basketball Association must reduce their Active List to a maximum of 12 players the day before the beginning of the NBA season.

Teams must have at least eight eligible players dressed and able to play in a regular season game.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/00421026.html

[KingInExile]

it's not bad if you don't consider throwing 1 million $ down the drain bad in this economy, because that;s what it is, with Martin and Garcia out, Noc sucking, he's barely playing, he was a totally redundant signing.

He's playing for a vet-min contract and fills a mandatory roster spot (teams must have 12 active players on the roster...he's the 12th with Martin and Garcia out). The Kings have to spend money on that roster spot regardless, so your argument of "throwing $1M down the drain in this economy" is 100% flawed.

I think you are wrong, so if a player is injured on the Kings now, we should go and sign another, you're not making any sense.
P.S. for reference, look at the Blazers roster in today's game.

I think you don't understand the CBA and its mandates for minimum roster sizes.

64. What roster size limits exist? What is the Inactive List? What is Injured Reserve?

A team must have 12 players on its active roster, although they can drop to 11 for up to two weeks at a time. They must suit up at least eight players for every game. Any remaining players must be on its Inactive List, and are ineligible to play in games. A team must have a minimum of one and a maximum of three players on its Inactive List, although they can drop to zero for up to two weeks at a time, and can temporarily have four with league approval in the event of a hardship. The composition of the Inactive List can change on a game-by-game basis -- no less than 60 minutes prior to tipoff, the team must present to the official scorer a list of the players who will be active for that game. A player can be inactive for as little as one game. While individual teams are only required to carry 13 players (12 active and one inactive), the NBA also guarantees a league-wide average of at least 14 players per team. The league is surcharged if they do not meet this obligation.

Injured Reserve is the previous name for the Inactive List. It was originally intended for players who were injured and unable to play, however teams often used it as a convenient place to stash extra players. While a medical reason was required for players to be put on Injured Reserve, the league did not insist on an independent physician confirming the diagnosis. Thus it was common for a seemingly healthy player to suddenly develop "back spasms" right before rosters were cut to 12 players, and spend the entire season on Injured Reserve as a result. With the current CBA they gave up the ghost, dropped the medical requirement, and changed "injured" to "inactive." (The cynic will note that marginal NBA players seem to have a lot fewer back spasms nowadays.)

Players assigned to the NBA Developmental League (see question number 66) are automatically placed on their team's Inactive List.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q64

[_SRV_]

They are talking about the roster (players under contract), you have to have at least 13 players under contract, and we do before Ime Udoka, but you don't have to have 12 active players dressed for every game, the limit here is 8, like I said, Portland yesterday had only 8 players (I think) dressed to play. Bottom line, what I'm saying, and from what I understand from the NBA page (and your link which I didn't know about before), the Kings wouldn't have violated any rule by not signing Udoka. They could've kept Martin on the active list and just not add him to the list of players dressed (the same thing Portland is currently doing with Fernandez I believe).

[Smills91]

They are talking about the roster (players under contract), you have to have at least 13 players under contract, and we do before Ime Udoka, but you don't have to have 12 active players dressed for every game, the limit here is 8, like I said, Portland yesterday had only 8 players (I think) dressed to play. Bottom line, what I'm saying, and from what I understand from the NBA page (and your link which I didn't know about before), the Kings wouldn't have violated any rule by not signing Udoka. They could've kept Martin on the active list and just not add him to the list of players dressed (the same thing Portland is currently doing with Fernandez I believe).

His point is that the NBA covers the cost of vets with a high number of years. It's a non-guaranteed contract and it helps the league average get up to 14 players/roster. So it's not even close to a million dollars wasted. It's a few hundred thousand.

[_SRV_]

His point is that the NBA covers the cost of vets with a high number of years. It's a non-guaranteed contract and it helps the league average get up to 14 players/roster. So it's not even close to a million dollars wasted. It's a few hundred thousand.

I remember reading this about the Mason signing, not the Udoka one, if that's the case, then it's clearly not a bad signing.

[pillwenney]

His point is that the NBA covers the cost of vets with a high number of years. It's a non-guaranteed contract and it helps the league average get up to 14 players/roster. So it's not even close to a million dollars wasted. It's a few hundred thousand.

I remember reading this about the Mason signing, not the Udoka one, if that's the case, then it's clearly not a bad signing.

Well since Udoka was essentially signed as a replacement to Mason, I would assume that the same thing applies--although Mason was only partially guaranteed anyway.

[_SRV_]

I don't know the rule, you don't seem to either, I wouldn't assume anything.

[Ballings7]

Uh oh spaghettios...

[Smills91]

Uh oh spaghettios...

Where have you been?