A year wasted thanks to Monte.
- Thread starter nikefutbolero
- Start date
Yes it was. 1st round draft picks have high value and have always been the center piece for major trades in the league. We used a 1st round pick and got nothing in return except for cap space that we used on nobody. How is this not poor asset management? What's the cost of having Holmes on this team vs. not having him on the team? Was it necessary for the Sabonis extension?
You can't seriously be using win shares to justify the trade... how do you even equate a draft position to win shares.. let alone salary.. and let's pretend we did draft a young player with #24. That means 4 years of a controlled rookie contract on a cheap rookie scale with RFA at the end of it.
What's the point of getting rid of $25mpy over 2 years when you do nothing with that money?? You're talking $12.5mpy which is not even an albatross contract.
Look at what the Mavericks got for Holmes + a draft pick compared to what we got... Daniel Gafford. At the end of the day, we gave up a 1st round and received nothing from it.
You can't seriously be using win shares to justify the trade... how do you even equate a draft position to win shares.. let alone salary.. and let's pretend we did draft a young player with #24. That means 4 years of a controlled rookie contract on a cheap rookie scale with RFA at the end of it.
What's the point of getting rid of $25mpy over 2 years when you do nothing with that money?? You're talking $12.5mpy which is not even an albatross contract.
Look at what the Mavericks got for Holmes + a draft pick compared to what we got... Daniel Gafford. At the end of the day, we gave up a 1st round and received nothing from it.
True, but oh man. If Holmes' contract were still on the books and Monte made the same moves he'd be in some big trouble. Essentially he's saving a few million on the difference between Holmes' deal and Duarte's. Duarte is starting to look like potential dead money right now but being less than the other deal is giving Monte at least a little more wiggle room from that apron. Monte has work to do. If he can't find talent, he's got to find flexibility.
Presumably he got the player he wanted at 32. We also drafted Slawson. Presumably we weren't going to draft OMax and had no interest, so the main distinction assuming those were our targets is they are on 2-ways instead of guaranteed deals that first rounders get. It gives us a lot of flexibility.
Either way - he drafted two players this year and we had a full roster including all three two-ways at various times this season. Having another guaranteed roster spot would have probably meant not signing Keon to the first team after the deadline.
Either way - he drafted two players this year and we had a full roster including all three two-ways at various times this season. Having another guaranteed roster spot would have probably meant not signing Keon to the first team after the deadline.
Last edited:
You're not taking one key aspect of this entire discussion/argument into consideration...
Say that Monte's guy would have been available at #24, would there been a reasonable argument for grabbing him at #24, instead of trading that pick, moving out of the first round, getting some assets (even if it were cash) in return, and still being able to grab him in the early to mid stages of the second round? You're assuming that Monte doesn't have a list of players he wants with each pick the Kings have in the draft. But, I think it has been made perfectly clear that Monte has been going into each draft with a list of players he would like to be able to grab with each selection the Kings have, should that player still be on the board. If his desired player is not on the board when the Kings pick, Monte is not going to just throw all of his chips at some random Joe in hopes of hitting it big in a year or two (or three). He's going to move that pick for financial flexibility and/or future picks. And, if he feels that his desired player will still be available when the Kings' next pick comes around, he's going to look at moving the pick for financial flexibility and/or future picks.
Neither of which is a bad thing to do at the end of the day.
Say that Monte's guy would have been available at #24, would there been a reasonable argument for grabbing him at #24, instead of trading that pick, moving out of the first round, getting some assets (even if it were cash) in return, and still being able to grab him in the early to mid stages of the second round? You're assuming that Monte doesn't have a list of players he wants with each pick the Kings have in the draft. But, I think it has been made perfectly clear that Monte has been going into each draft with a list of players he would like to be able to grab with each selection the Kings have, should that player still be on the board. If his desired player is not on the board when the Kings pick, Monte is not going to just throw all of his chips at some random Joe in hopes of hitting it big in a year or two (or three). He's going to move that pick for financial flexibility and/or future picks. And, if he feels that his desired player will still be available when the Kings' next pick comes around, he's going to look at moving the pick for financial flexibility and/or future picks.
Neither of which is a bad thing to do at the end of the day.
Holmes at his best (on some ridiculous near minimum type deal) was a starter who usurped two huge draft and $$$ commitments the Kings made in Bagley and whatever that loser was we signed in FA (honestly bleached it!!!) oh yeah Dedmon.
Many of us expressed concern that if he moved back to a bench guy he'd be overpaid but again there was consensus not just in Kingsland but around the league that he was worth more to the point his agent went out of his way to inflate the contract by including the kicker and some of the incentives as the base part of the deal when it was announced and other folks had to correct him.
The real problem was he went from a guy who could be productive for 20+ minutes a night to a guy who was a liability if he could even get time on the floor.
Many of us expressed concern that if he moved back to a bench guy he'd be overpaid but again there was consensus not just in Kingsland but around the league that he was worth more to the point his agent went out of his way to inflate the contract by including the kicker and some of the incentives as the base part of the deal when it was announced and other folks had to correct him.
The real problem was he went from a guy who could be productive for 20+ minutes a night to a guy who was a liability if he could even get time on the floor.
Monte has shown that he is not adverse to making a surprise big trade (Sabonis, in this instance) in which a coveted "core" piece is moved. The major piece sent out was also a piece he drafted and was thought to be about as "safe" as possible on this team.
If he sees a move he thinks will make the team better, he'll do it. But he's opportunistic, not rash.
If his management team thought that this year was better served by tinkering around the edges because no big moves were available for their liking, so be it. I'm not going to hammer him only one year removed from actually making the playoffs for the first time in 1.5 decades. I'm going to give them all a little time to keep improving before I get too worked up about it. They've earned it in my book. Last year was proof that they could make big changes that improved the team. This year we had more injuries, increased competition in the west, and we still have good records against many of the top teams and a winning record overall.
Let them cook.
If he sees a move he thinks will make the team better, he'll do it. But he's opportunistic, not rash.
If his management team thought that this year was better served by tinkering around the edges because no big moves were available for their liking, so be it. I'm not going to hammer him only one year removed from actually making the playoffs for the first time in 1.5 decades. I'm going to give them all a little time to keep improving before I get too worked up about it. They've earned it in my book. Last year was proof that they could make big changes that improved the team. This year we had more injuries, increased competition in the west, and we still have good records against many of the top teams and a winning record overall.
Let them cook.
First round picks have value, but how much value depends on a lot of factors. Picks that are locked into the 20+ range have a lower value than picks that are not. With the league now allowing second round picks to be given "effective FRP contracts", it appears that teams are beginning to value late firsts lower than early seconds because of potential financial savings. Part of the value of a pick is in knowing who may be (and who may not be) available to draft. Is an unprotected pick from a hamfisted franchise four years down the road worth a lot? Yes. Is the #24 pick in a draft with a fairly weak back end with 23 players already off the board worth a lot? Depends on what "a lot" means, but, probably no? Unless a team knows exactly who they want to pick at that spot, the pick is worth very little.
Because we took an asset and used it to get rid of a larger liability. A net positive would seem to qualify as good asset management.
$25M over two years. Was it strictly necessary for the Sabonis extension? In terms of cap rules, no. However, it's possible that come this offseason it may make the difference between being in the tax and not being in the tax. Holmes was taking up a roster spot, which was freed up. $25M is $25M, not exactly chump change for a small-market franchise. We tend to see the NBA as if teams have unlimited bank accounts, but in reality it's a business and salaries are important. Holmes represented something a bit short of 10% of the salary cap for two years. That's not nothing.
Look at it this way: Is it strictly necessary to trade in your old car when you buy a new car? Not necessarily, but if you can't use both cars, why would you want to make the payment on the old one too just to have it take up room in your garage you could use to store something else?
Of course I'm serious, and stop calling me Shirley. Equating salary to Win Shares is fairly easy because we know how much money is paid out and we know about how many Win Shares are created each year. I've gone through it before, and the answer is that a team should expect to pay about 3% of the salary cap (or right now, ~$4M) for one WS. And 4 years of a controlled rookie contract (in this case, about $13M total) is not such a great deal if the player you pick isn't going to be a big enough contributor. There's not a guy right now taken in the range between #24 and #34 (where we picked Colby) that jumps out as an obvious contributor down the road. Maybe it happens, but nobody obvious. And you'll notice that we waited until after #23 came off the board to trade the pick - Monte knew exactly what our options were, and it's clear he wasn't enthused with them.
Again, $25M is actually $25M. I don't imagine you'd care to throw $25M of your own money down the drain, so I'm not sure you should be so cavalier as to throw $25M of somebody else's money down the drain.
Yes, Gafford would have been a much better option. In fact, it looks like a fleecing. But I don't imagine that Holmes for Gafford was on the table on draft night, and it would be foolish to skip a reasonable opportunity to to make a net-positive trade, and continue with salary obligations you can't use, in the mere hope that somebody will make a mistake and give you extra value in the future.
Because we took an asset and used it to get rid of a larger liability. A net positive would seem to qualify as good asset management.
$25M over two years. Was it strictly necessary for the Sabonis extension? In terms of cap rules, no. However, it's possible that come this offseason it may make the difference between being in the tax and not being in the tax. Holmes was taking up a roster spot, which was freed up. $25M is $25M, not exactly chump change for a small-market franchise. We tend to see the NBA as if teams have unlimited bank accounts, but in reality it's a business and salaries are important. Holmes represented something a bit short of 10% of the salary cap for two years. That's not nothing.
Look at it this way: Is it strictly necessary to trade in your old car when you buy a new car? Not necessarily, but if you can't use both cars, why would you want to make the payment on the old one too just to have it take up room in your garage you could use to store something else?
Of course I'm serious, and stop calling me Shirley. Equating salary to Win Shares is fairly easy because we know how much money is paid out and we know about how many Win Shares are created each year. I've gone through it before, and the answer is that a team should expect to pay about 3% of the salary cap (or right now, ~$4M) for one WS. And 4 years of a controlled rookie contract (in this case, about $13M total) is not such a great deal if the player you pick isn't going to be a big enough contributor. There's not a guy right now taken in the range between #24 and #34 (where we picked Colby) that jumps out as an obvious contributor down the road. Maybe it happens, but nobody obvious. And you'll notice that we waited until after #23 came off the board to trade the pick - Monte knew exactly what our options were, and it's clear he wasn't enthused with them.
Again, $25M is actually $25M. I don't imagine you'd care to throw $25M of your own money down the drain, so I'm not sure you should be so cavalier as to throw $25M of somebody else's money down the drain.
Yes, Gafford would have been a much better option. In fact, it looks like a fleecing. But I don't imagine that Holmes for Gafford was on the table on draft night, and it would be foolish to skip a reasonable opportunity to to make a net-positive trade, and continue with salary obligations you can't use, in the mere hope that somebody will make a mistake and give you extra value in the future.
