Kempe Contract Watch Thread {Signed 8-year, $85 million - $10.63 AAV}

Bollocks said:
Thank f***. Finally. It seems like a good deal, all in all, especially consdiering the pessimistic outlook we all had...



Is this confirmed? I really doub it. It makes very little sense. For kempe at least a 10-team exempted NMC should make sense and it's something Holland would kinda have to agree to, no?

If the contract really is without NMC/NTC then that is amazing. I really doubt it, though...and I think these contract clauses usually take a while to become public.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe it's too early to tell but on PuckPedia, there are no icons whatsoever on the years he's signed for to indicate any NMC/NTC, where as in his current contract, he has a Modified No Trade Clause with the 10-team exemption thing.

Because when I clicked on other players that were recent signings like Shane Pinto (4 yr deal), the last 2 years of his contract has that Modified NTC icon.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
season 2 maisel tv GIF by The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
 
It took this long to come up with this ??? (Somehow, I don't think this is the last Holland-crapfest that we'll have to endure . . . I guess I'm being Monsieur Evidentment ici, eh?)
 
jammer06 said:
I kinda don't get this, If I'm kempe I don't give a sh*t about the first 4 years, its the final 4 where I want the NMC.
Click to expand...

If he really loves LA it makes sense. He has a fair chance for 4 years without worrying he'd get traded, then he gives the team some flexibility moving forward.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like a very team friendly deal...

PS: what is the deal with signing bonuses? What are the pros/cons from the player's/team's standpoint?
 
Bollocks said:
PS: what is the deal with signing bonuses? What are the pros/cons from the player's/team's standpoint?
Click to expand...

Getting your money immediately. It can have significant tax savings implications. It protects the player in case of a lockout. I’ve not heard of any down side for the player.
 
Bollocks said:
If he really loves LA it makes sense. He has a fair chance for 4 years without worrying he'd get traded, then he gives the team some flexibility moving forward.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like a very team friendly deal...

PS: what is the deal with signing bonuses? What are the pros/cons from the player's/team's standpoint?
Click to expand...
The big distinction was that signing bonus's were due on a certain date (july 1, start of season etc) and thus in the players hands (minus escrow at the time) instead of waiting for the monthly payments. So if there was a lockout or some stoppage you have the money in hand. Also some teams used big signing bonus structures in RFA deals to put cash flow pressure on some teams so they couldn't match. Generally speaking they don't really change the cap, just represent deeper pocketed owners.
 
Statue4Deano said:
Getting your money immediately. It can have significant tax savings implications. It protects the player in case of a lockout. I’ve not heard of any down side for the player.
Click to expand...
the only downside would be an adjustment down in escrow during the season (paying at 14% and finding out midseason that its 0 for the rest of the season). Seems we've crossed that bridge and it wasn't much of one in any case.
 
Bollocks said:
If he really loves LA it makes sense. He has a fair chance for 4 years without worrying he'd get traded, then he gives the team some flexibility moving forward.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like a very team friendly deal...

PS: what is the deal with signing bonuses? What are the pros/cons from the player's/team's standpoint?
Click to expand...
oh on the trade front, he's likely to be worth his contract for the first 4 years, and he doesn't have school age kids those 4 years. Generally speaking if you're concerned about not moving it's family concerns and you're going to want that when you're likely to suck and the team needs to move you. Mid 30's age players have lots more inertia than late 20's
 
Thanks for sharing that Deano. I like the NMC part. Kings commit to the first 4 years then the 15 team no trade list after that is very fair, IMO. If Kings need to trade him later, his AAV is lower and will be more attractive to other teams.

Next up ... Clarke. 💰
 
McSorleyFan said:
Thanks for sharing that Deano. I like the NMC part. Kings commit to the first 4 years then the 15 team no trade list after that is very fair, IMO. If Kings need to trade him later, his AAV is lower and will be more attractive to other teams.

Next up ... Clarke. 💰
Click to expand...
Uh his aav doesn't change, the cash out of pocket does though
 
jammer06 said:
I'm totally lost on how mayor thinks the signing bonus vs salary changes any of the AAV. None of that gets excluded. This that common core math I been hearing about?
Click to expand...
That confused me too. Sent me down another internet black hole trying to find some strange clause in the CBA for it.
 
jammer06 said:
I think he's left out some bit about how barry came down on the total number for more signing bonus money. Otherwise he's just wrong (imagine that).
Click to expand...
I bet this is correct. Kempe clearly wanted his money ASAP and the Kings wanted to drag it out so the compromise was a lower total number/AAV.

Nice to see the Kings use their last chance to take advantage of the 8th year on this deal. It sure would be nice if they could find a way to sneak a Clarke 8 year deal in before the buzzer.
 
Kempe signs his deal and now the slump is upon us. Tonight's game against the Caps was terrible. Slow, methodical and uninteresting. Why would management complete a deal when the Kings were on a winning streak. You wait until the winning streak is over and then you sign a player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

Share this page

Back
Top