Free Agency

Look, I don't think you and I are in disagreement about Maker or Monroe. I think your projecting Maker to be a little bit better than he is, but that's fine, no two people see things the same way. I don't like comparing him to Willie because they're two entirely different players. Maker doesn't have the lateral quickness of Willie, nor is experienced enough on the defensive end of the floor. He was lost out there a lot, but that's to be expected for a raw player on the floor with a group of players he's never played with before. Maker's outside shot is not good. It doesn't go the right distance, nor is it on line. he may have led the league in air balls. Where he excelled was hustling for rebounds, putbacks and with weakside help on defense. He had serious trouble trying to post up, or to defend the post up due to lack of strength.

Garnett may be a good comparison down the road, but not now. Garnett may have been thin, but he was also deceptively strong. Look, I don't want to be too critical of Maker. I like him and think he'll be a good player in the future, but I wouldn't expect too much out of him this coming season. I can't emphasize enough that summer league isn't the NBA. I listened to an assistant coach talking about summer league, and how you shouldn't make too much out of those that play well, and those that don't. He said a player may come to summer league to work on only his weaknesses. If he hooks with his right hand, he may hook only with his left in summer league, and as a result, might not look good.

I think some people are making too much of Willie's summer league performance. He was trying new things on the floor with people he's never played with before. The Kings played the first few games without a PG again. There was no spacing on the floor, and Willie was probably trying a little too hard. As one assistant said, put Willie on the floor with Cousins, and it's an entirely different result. Compared to regular season games, summer league has the look of chickens running around with their heads cut off. Every player out there without a contract is trying to catch the eye of a GM. As a result there's a lot of selfish basketball played at times.

Ummm... Curry was a restricted free agent.

In this case, the Kings did not have to rescind the restricted tag. There are a lot of players stuck in limbo right now and their teams have not rescinded their restricted tag, like Moe Harkless. Curry had a choice, he could have signed any contract and the Kings would have retained the right to match, as long as they had the cap space.

Once the Kings rescinded the restricted tag, it was bye-bye Curry.

Unless Vlade and Joeger really didn't want Curry back, I thought it was a bad move to allow a cost controlled (2 years/ $6 mil with Dallas) 2nd or 3rd point guard, with upside leave for nothing.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to allow Curry to walk.

I am well aware that he was restricted and what that means. I also know that we didn't have to rescind the offer. We did it out of respect if you like. Curry would have looked at the moves we made, sat down and talked to the coaches and front office about the prospects of playing time and might have not liked what he heard.

He obviously thought that he was better off in Dallas otherwise there wouldn't have been a request to rescind the offer. The offer was not big and no doubt we would have matched but if the player feels he is better off somewhere else, it is his right.

Again, we didn't have to rescind the offer but we did because it was the right thing to do. It maintains relationships with agents and players. Curry is a guy that has struggled to get playing time in his NBA career to date so the last thing he wanted to do was be stuck at the end of the bench. I assume he wanted more playing time hence why he chose Dallas.

I am well aware that he was restricted and what that means. I also know that we didn't have to rescind the offer. We did it out of respect if you like. Curry would have looked at the moves we made, sat down and talked to the coaches and front office about the prospects of playing time and might have not liked what he heard.

He obviously thought that he was better off in Dallas otherwise there wouldn't have been a request to rescind the offer. The offer was not big and no doubt we would have matched but if the player feels he is better off somewhere else, it is his right.

Again, we didn't have to rescind the offer but we did because it was the right thing to do. It maintains relationships with agents and players. Curry is a guy that has struggled to get playing time in his NBA career to date so the last thing he wanted to do was be stuck at the end of the bench. I assume he wanted more playing time hence why he chose Dallas.

The Curry situation boggles my mind. The Kings wanting to do Curry a favor by rescinding his qualifying offer is fine, but why not get something for him instead go just letting him go? How about doing some sort of sign and trade for a draft pick along with the traded player exception they would get back.

The Curry situation boggles my mind. The Kings wanting to do Curry a favor by rescinding his qualifying offer is fine, but why not get something for him instead go just letting him go? How about doing some sort of sign and trade for a draft pick along with the traded player exception they would get back.

Tony Wrotten deserves a look as a defensive PG/SG with good handles. The injury concerns are big but.

Curry would of had more playing time in Sacramento, considering we only have one point guard (Collison) on the roster.

The notion of doing what's BEST for the PLAYER or what the player's agent wants and "doing the right thing" does not sit well with me, considering that we can not afford to keep on letting talent walk for nothing.

There are many Restricted Free Agents that would love to have their Restricted status rescinded, so they can pursue a lucrative contract with another team. But 9 times out of 10, the teams won't rescind, unless it is BEST for the TEAM, not necessarily the player.

The whole Free Agency system was developed and agreed to by the Players Unions and the Owners in the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Kings have every right to try and keep a player if they so wish.

My contention is that, IF Vlade and Joeger did not see a role for Curry and was about to sign or trade for another point guard, then fine, rescind the Restricted tag.

BUT, if you just rescind to be a "Nice Guy", that is just foolish and you are doing the franchise and the fans a disservice.

We will probably never know, but it would make me feel a lot better if the Kings picked up a genuine Point Guard at some point this summer.

Really aren't going to get a draft pick for Curry. You can tell by the contract he eventually signed he is still just a point of curiosity for teams, not an asset they were heavily competing for. That was why it was disappointing we did not just bring him back. But I sincerely doubt that was 100% a favor to him or his agent. Maybe not even 50%. I think a decision was made that he did not fit what we wanted to do. Now as he played competitive defense and could shoot that raises a ? for me, but I think Joerger's team vision is driving a lot of stuff, and on paper a stubby combo guard without length looks soft and out of place. Now I would have hoped Vlade would have known better, but perhaps he agreed that Curry was a guy who would thrive in a pace system, but not in a grind it out system.

It doesn't need to be a high draft pick. It could have been a 2nd round pick that is vested only if it falls in the 55-60 range. The big thing is the Kings could have acquired a TPE.

The problem is that you are assuming that Curry is worth a 2nd round pick. I like Curry and wanted the Kings to keep him, but he is unproven at this point. The idea that he could've been traded for a future pick is a bit far fetched.

Teams don't value 2nd round picks. They get traded all the time for teams trying to get under the luxury tax. Even if it's a high 2nd round pick, you can put protections around it so that it vests only if it's in the 55-60 range. Kings could have gotten a TPE with the 2nd round pick. Not much, but it's better than just letting players walk even if you think they are scrubs.

Ray McCallum got traded for a 2nd round pick.

While I like Curry more than Ray, Ray had proven much more than Curry has (when he was traded). However, if the Spurs could go back, I bet they would not do that trade anymore.

Bottom line is if you force players to be where they don't want to be, its not going to end well.

What exactly did Ray prove before he was traded? It could not have been much considering he was traded for the 2nd to last pick of the draft.

Really aren't going to get a draft pick for Curry. You can tell by the contract he eventually signed he is still just a point of curiosity for teams, not an asset they were heavily competing for. That was why it was disappointing we did not just bring him back. But I sincerely doubt that was 100% a favor to him or his agent. Maybe not even 50%. I think a decision was made that he did not fit what we wanted to do. Now as he played competitive defense and could shoot that raises a ? for me, but I think Joerger's team vision is driving a lot of stuff, and on paper a stubby combo guard without length looks soft and out of place. Now I would have hoped Vlade would have known better, but perhaps he agreed that Curry was a guy who would thrive in a pace system, but not in a grind it out system.

Let me put it this way. Ray McCallum played in 113 games (over 2 years) with the Kings, 40 of which he started. How well he played is open to interpretation, but that is enough playing time to make a judgment on his potential. I would also point out that he was 23 at the time of the trade.

Seth Curry played in 44 games with the Kings, of which he started 9. That is a much smaller sample size to judge his potential. Add in that he is 25, and many might question how much more he can improve. That makes him a risk that most teams would think twice about before giving up future assets. Especially when there are plenty of young talented players in the d-league (or undrafted) that can be signed cheap every year.

Bottom line is if you force players to be where they don't want to be, its not going to end well.

People are overvaluing Curry big time here. He is a end of the bench type of player. He has struggled to stick in the league. He did well to sign the contract he did. Losing Curry is hardly a loss of big talent. You are acting like we rescinded an offer to Cousins.

Even if he stuck around , he would be stuck behind Collison and Temple for minutes at PG and Afflalo at SG. In fact we would be better of investing some playing time on Richardson at SG than it would be to invest it in Curry.

Come on now, I think you are being overly dramatic here.

Teams have been keeping Restricted Free Agents for the last decade under the premise of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I am sure there were hundreds of free agents that wanted a bigger deal elsewhere, but wound up staying with the team that had their Restricted rights, and everything worked out fine for both parties.

You are still paying them millions of dollars, you are not holding them in a hostage situation here.

I'm not saying that they rescinded an offer to a talent like Cousins, BUT Curry is still a better point guard prospect than any other player we have playing behind Collison right now. And I think he would be better than any Free Agent Point Guard pick up at this point.

Curry was our most reliable 3 point shooter (.450% of 3's) last year and he always hustled and still has some upside. I'm sure coach Joeger could have found a role for him.

Let me put it this way. Ray McCallum played in 113 games (over 2 years) with the Kings, 40 of which he started. How well he played is open to interpretation, but that is enough playing time to make a judgment on his potential. I would also point out that he was 23 at the time of the trade.

Seth Curry played in 44 games with the Kings, of which he started 9. That is a much smaller sample size to judge his potential. Add in that he is 25, and many might question how much more he can improve. That makes him a risk that most teams would think twice about before giving up future assets. Especially when there are plenty of young talented players in the d-league (or undrafted) that can be signed cheap every year.

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?

What happened to Skal and Richardson? Plus, I doubt that Koufos and Ben will be here when the season starts. There's also Isaiah Cousins and Papagiannis to account for.

So Temple, Mac, Barnes, Casspi/Tolliver, Koufos is our current bench, can we get by with that?