|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Collison would be a bigger swing but a blinder bet. He hasn’t appeared in an NBA game since 2019 and is 34, seven years older than Arcidiacono. Those in the gym when Collison visited said he looked solid — in basketball playing shape and showing flashes of his former self in a pickup setting.
But nobody, in that brief of a glimpse, was comfortable predicting whether Collison would be anywhere near the player who averaged 11.2 points and 6.0 assists as a starting point guard on a Pacers team that made the 2019 playoffs. If he was, he’d be a slam dunk in that 15th spot. But if he is (or even if he isn’t), would he be willing to take a prove-it non-guaranteed camp invite? There’s also buzz he might be eyeing a Lakers camp invite.
https://theathletic.com/2828249/2021/09/16/warriors-roster-watch-whats-happening-with-the-vacant-15th-spot/
|
So now they wanna protect Bron, huh? Russ/Nunn/Rondo/Collison...
https://tenor.com/bb2pt.gif
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | | As for the bright lights of LA, the one player who comes to mind is AC. If he played for the Cavs, Blazers, 76ers I don't believe he would have received the size of the bag he did. Playing with Lebron, AD with all the associated publicity that shown on him I believe propped his bag up $2-3 million per year. |
You could be right, but Hollinger's model valued him at about $12M. There is nothing magical about Hollinger's model, but it is not affected by the amount of publicity that a player receives. |
I am not familiar with the Hollinger model but if AC played with the Cavs do you believe he would still be valued at $12M? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Four Decade Bandwagon
Star Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 8151
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | Quote: | Collison would be a bigger swing but a blinder bet. He hasn’t appeared in an NBA game since 2019 and is 34, seven years older than Arcidiacono. Those in the gym when Collison visited said he looked solid — in basketball playing shape and showing flashes of his former self in a pickup setting.
But nobody, in that brief of a glimpse, was comfortable predicting whether Collison would be anywhere near the player who averaged 11.2 points and 6.0 assists as a starting point guard on a Pacers team that made the 2019 playoffs. If he was, he’d be a slam dunk in that 15th spot. But if he is (or even if he isn’t), would he be willing to take a prove-it non-guaranteed camp invite? There’s also buzz he might be eyeing a Lakers camp invite.
https://theathletic.com/2828249/2021/09/16/warriors-roster-watch-whats-happening-with-the-vacant-15th-spot/
|
So now they wanna protect Bron, huh? Russ/Nunn/Rondo/Collison...
https://tenor.com/bb2pt.gif |
How much more “protecting James” is even possible. At some point the man is going to have to play the game. To establish chemistry with teammates, to be in shape, in some respects to maintain his credibility.
It seems like they have enough ball handlers and play makers. If they want to protect him at this point I would prefer they sign another C/PF so he doesn’t have to focus on PF duties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
Yeah, but in the real world profit matters. Not to fans, of course, because it's not our money. As a fan, I would have liked to see the Lakers pay $30 million plus in salary and taxes for AC this year. If I was a Lakers owner, I would have let him go and pocketed the cash.
I just don't think it's realistic to expect teams to have no lines in the sand when it comes to spending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
Yeah, but in the real world profit matters. Not to fans, of course, because it's not our money. As a fan, I would have liked to see the Lakers pay $30 million plus in salary and taxes for AC this year. If I was a Lakers owner, I would have let him go and pocketed the cash.
I just don't think it's realistic to expect teams to have no lines in the sand when it comes to spending. |
And I would be right there with you...if it weren’t for a title window. Any other year and/or younger stars with potential and I can understand the penny pinching moves to go “all-in” on a title shot for tomorrow. But as it stands, tomorrow is nigh. Better dot the i’s and cross the t’s before it’s night night on those title dreams.
Bron came to LA in 2018, and in the 3 seasons he’s been here 2 seasons have been marred with injury, while 1 had been unpredictably salvaged via a 4 month COVID hiatus. Dude is about to turn 37...now is the time to go “all-in”. That’s the reality of it.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Last edited by vasashi17+ on Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:54 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | I believe this team as constructed has the juice to go add to our ring count, but we could have made it much more easier on ourselves had we retained or flipped some of our assets instead of losing them outright with nothing to show for it. We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
I realize this is being discussed ad nauseam but it is a pretty dead period for trades and FA and I found your discussion with AE interesting. I have had a number of good past conversations with Aeneas Hunter and know with you and your perspective would be good discussion points. Younger my train of thought was similar to yours but now older it has evolved and thought I'd join in since I held back from commenting in the past. Only issue is I can get wordy if you haven't noticed.
More of less I agree with you in fostering prospects to either use as assets or as future rotation players. What we don't have knowledge of is the behind the scenes politics that govern decisions being made and can only make assumptions.
I discount assets given away during Magic's tenure as he was a disaster in this regard. Of course there is always room for improvement but if what has transpired has achieved a championship and a title run can be extended for multiple seasons then I find it difficult to really offer much criticism on what has been "given" away.
As to so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin I am not sure what cap you are referring to. The Lakers are still a business entity where the goal is to make money and I believe management realizes championships help to make money. There are also business partners that need to be answered to and we have no knowledge how that interaction works. Is being the highest payroll mean an extension of this cap?
The past 2 championship teams are in most part devoid of "assets" as they were used to acquire the needed vets to maximize their opportunity to win the championship and both teams are considered heavy favorites this year. Maybe because we as Laker fans have celebrated multiple championships, myself 12, we become a little complacent in their value. I would believe the Buck fans don't case about the assets lost of used for their championship. As we have seen with recent dynasty type runs the championship window maximizes at 3-4 years with most lasting less. The Lakers are imo good for at least 4-5 years and possibly more if the chips fall in the Lakers favor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@PT: Yeah, I’ve had great exchanges with AH too. At first I think he misunderstood my humor, but I was wondering why he sniffed out my posts out of all the others. Then I understood, I’m an ass and he’s an Aenus Hunter, so of course he had me in the scope  Seriously tho, I enjoy talking hoops with AH cause he knows his (bleep).  On the real though he’s a solid poster-ior. 
Anywho, if you look back to the AD trade, Klutch and AD’s camp all but eliminated Boston from the bidding process. Maybe we were overzealous since we refused to trade as much for George/Kawhi, but to give up our draft flexibility via the deferment options on 2021/22 1st & 2024/25 1st, meant we could no longer deal away any future 1st round picks in any bolstering moves around Bron/AD. It’s almost like we outbid ourselves for an asset that made it blatantly obvious he wanted to come to us and team up with Bron. It was even seen in the Green/1st for Schro deal...who exactly where we bidding against? Anyways, going back to AD, we had leverage too, seeing how we had a max slot in cap space to threaten the Pels with. You either trade AD to us, or we pair Bron up with another star via our cap space.
Speaking of which, I’m sure you already know the ridiculous amount of asset wastefulness that came into acquiring that cap space. Some of it was required (ie DLo to clear out Mozgov), but some it was just inefficiently wasteful (TB, Zu, Moe/Bonga, Jules, etc).
Fast forward to now and you can exploit the market place by rounding out the roster around Bron/Russ/AD with assets you can keep (AC) or flip (Schro). Once again, assets lost. And in terms of Schro, think of the vast amount of assets we gave up to clear cap space that eventually went to Green only to then turn it into Schro, who we then dared to walk away for nothing... and he did.
As for the Russ trade...that wasn’t really even on deck. We were first fortunate to have an asset not walk out for nothing. Without Trez, we have to beg Schro back to the table to get a Russ deal done. But like I said, that option came out of nowhere. Initially, we were intending to continue to put more playmaking responsibility on our soon to be 37y/o point gawd and have Bron setup efficient opportunities for his Buddy.
| Quote: | “I was kinda shocked because I thought I was going to Sac. [The trade for] Buddy Hield, that sh*t was done. I’m thinking in my head ‘Okay, well, I’m in Sac’–45-minute flight, not bad. But then out of nowhere, it goes ‘you’re going to Washington,'” Kuzma explained.
https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/1434669672209821699
|
You could argue that Nunn/Rondo would still be options to help playmake for the team so that Bron wouldn’t have to do it himself, but that was al still dependent on if Miami/Memphis would still renounce those players away to even make them available to us.
So if it were Buddy instead of Russ, we would have to continue to ride Bron/AD for however far they could take us.
But when Russ became an option, we jumped on it and who wouldn’t, especially being in our position. We have limited assets, so if it’s possible to go get a 3rd star you go do it. But our FO knew how much Bron/AD/Russ would take up on our cap sheet along with Deng till we breached the tax line. They knew we had roughly a 10m threshold before we breached the tax line and we still needed to round out the roster with 10-11 players. They had to know the tax was inevitable before they pulled on the Russ trade. So knowing all that, they stilled pulled the trigger and then watched AC/Schro go out for nothing...waived/traded McKinnie/Gasol/2nd for nothing. Then proceeded to round out the roster with 1yr vet mins just to minimize the tax hit.
All that shows me is that they know how profitable a 3rd star is in Russ. They will try to make it even more profitable by riding that 3star circus to a title shot. But had they wanted to, they would have spent a bit more to secure that title shot...instead, they’re more than happy to sell Russ/AD/Bron’s new #6 merchandise while riding these players egos in hopes of attaining #18. Again, that’s just my opinion and how the optics look to me.
Btw, I’m wordy too but thx for hearing me out.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
Yeah, but in the real world profit matters. Not to fans, of course, because it's not our money. As a fan, I would have liked to see the Lakers pay $30 million plus in salary and taxes for AC this year. If I was a Lakers owner, I would have let him go and pocketed the cash.
I just don't think it's realistic to expect teams to have no lines in the sand when it comes to spending. |
And I would be right there with you...if it weren’t for a title window. Any other year and/or younger stars with potential and I can understand the penny pinching moves to go “all-in” on a title shot for tomorrow. But as it stands, tomorrow is nigh. Better dot the i’s and cross the t’s before it’s night night on those title dreams.
Bron came to LA in 2018, and in the 3 seasons he’s been here 2 seasons have been marred with injury, while 1 had been unpredictably salvaged via a 4 month COVID hiatus. Dude is about to turn 37...now is the time to go “all-in”. That’s the reality of it. |
I don't know if I'd call passing on spending $30-40 million a year on AC to be "pinching pennies." That's serious cash.
Ultimately, no move is going to guarantee winning a ring, and no move will guarantee not winning a ring.
The question will a team be willing to spend any amount to nudge their chances a tiny bit higher? In the real world, the answer for all teams is probably no. Everything will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PlantedTanks wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | | As for the bright lights of LA, the one player who comes to mind is AC. If he played for the Cavs, Blazers, 76ers I don't believe he would have received the size of the bag he did. Playing with Lebron, AD with all the associated publicity that shown on him I believe propped his bag up $2-3 million per year. |
You could be right, but Hollinger's model valued him at about $12M. There is nothing magical about Hollinger's model, but it is not affected by the amount of publicity that a player receives. |
I am not familiar with the Hollinger model but if AC played with the Cavs do you believe he would still be valued at $12M? |
I think AC's value, in large part, was being an X factor guy on a ring team. If had done the same things for a Cavs team that won a ring, he would have gotten the same contract. If he had played on a crappy Cavs team, he wouldn't have.
But I don't think there's anything magical about wearing a Lakers jersey that raises someone's value in free agency. Or at least, I can't see any pattern that it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PlantedTanks wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | | As for the bright lights of LA, the one player who comes to mind is AC. If he played for the Cavs, Blazers, 76ers I don't believe he would have received the size of the bag he did. Playing with Lebron, AD with all the associated publicity that shown on him I believe propped his bag up $2-3 million per year. |
You could be right, but Hollinger's model valued him at about $12M. There is nothing magical about Hollinger's model, but it is not affected by the amount of publicity that a player receives. |
I am not familiar with the Hollinger model but if AC played with the Cavs do you believe he would still be valued at $12M? |
If his stats were the same, yes. Hollinger's model is based on a mix of statistical measures. You can certainly argue that his stats are affected by playing with Lebron and Davis, but on the other hand most of his value comes from defense. If he played for the Cavs, then the Cavs might have gotten involved in the bidding (which we did not), which might have boosted his value. Who knows? As I said, you could be right that Caruso got some economic benefit from playing in Hollywood. My point is just that his contract was within the general range of his value in Hollinger's model.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
Yeah, but in the real world profit matters. Not to fans, of course, because it's not our money. As a fan, I would have liked to see the Lakers pay $30 million plus in salary and taxes for AC this year. If I was a Lakers owner, I would have let him go and pocketed the cash.
I just don't think it's realistic to expect teams to have no lines in the sand when it comes to spending. |
And I would be right there with you...if it weren’t for a title window. Any other year and/or younger stars with potential and I can understand the penny pinching moves to go “all-in” on a title shot for tomorrow. But as it stands, tomorrow is nigh. Better dot the i’s and cross the t’s before it’s night night on those title dreams.
Bron came to LA in 2018, and in the 3 seasons he’s been here 2 seasons have been marred with injury, while 1 had been unpredictably salvaged via a 4 month COVID hiatus. Dude is about to turn 37...now is the time to go “all-in”. That’s the reality of it. |
I don't know if I'd call passing on spending $30-40 million a year on AC to be "pinching pennies." That's serious cash.
Ultimately, no move is going to guarantee winning a ring, and no move will guarantee not winning a ring.
The question will a team be willing to spend any amount to nudge their chances a tiny bit higher? In the real world, the answer for all teams is probably no. Everything will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. |
I knew that term would trigger some folks. Okay, maybe not the AC deal, but leaving 890k off Nunn’s mMLE deal which is too small to even use towards a rookie min (ie 925k), swapping Gasol’s 2.7m for DJ’s 1.7m, waiving McKinnie’s 1.9m deal to replace it with Rondo’s 1.7m...would you consider those of the penny-pinching variety?
But it is what is. If we come up short this year and the narrative is that they did everything they could to position themselves for a ring...it’s gonna take more than a penny for my thoughts. 
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
audioaxes
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 12573
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | audioaxes wrote: | | MookieBetts50 wrote: | | audioaxes wrote: | I know most are all in on the Westbrook experiment but all these alternate paths have been looking so much better in my Book. We could have used the Klutch connection for a Wall buy out, grabbed Hield, and still have our 3 and D guards in KCP and Caruso and are big enough to take minutes at the wing.
Plus we still have the ability to grab free agents like Nunn, Monk, Ariza, Dwight, Melo etc. We likely dont grab Bazemore or Ellington who would be beyond redundant. Probably move KCP too as he would be paid too much to be in this glut of guards we'd now have. |
Problem is Wall is a walking band aid and pairing him with AD might be a disaster healthwise. Not sure how we'd be able to add both Wall and Hield's salaray anyway, that's over $60M annually. |
im talking about adding Wall as a buy out player. Very low risk there. As is he is a luxury as a player who can lead non-Lebron lineups. Basically a better Dennis Shroder. If he gets injured we just surround Lebron and AD with shooters and we'd have a ton:
Hield,KCP,Nunn,Caruso,Monk. |
Sure, but how do you get a buy out for Wall? He's got $91M+ to go on his contract. As I said in an earlier post, my reading of the report about Wall and the Rockets agreeing to look for a trade is that the Rockets are not going to buy him out unless he takes a significant pay cut. He'd be crazy to do that. Given his age and health, he would never make the money back. |
yes I know its a tall order to buy him out but they made it clear they rather start their rebuild with their new picks than have him take up minutes from them. So its not really hurting them to buy him out. Plus with the Klutch connections you may be earning some goodwill points by making it happen.
And if worse case no Wall, I still love the idea of having Hield,KCP,Caruso along with our other free agents we signed over risking it with Westbrook.
_________________
(bleep) Kawhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8330
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we didn't get Westbrook, I wouldn't have liked the idea of getting Wall. His shooting percentages have always been pretty low, even before he got hurt.
Last season he shot 40.4% and 31.7% from downtown. Hard pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gng930
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11475
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
Yeah, but in the real world profit matters. Not to fans, of course, because it's not our money. As a fan, I would have liked to see the Lakers pay $30 million plus in salary and taxes for AC this year. If I was a Lakers owner, I would have let him go and pocketed the cash.
I just don't think it's realistic to expect teams to have no lines in the sand when it comes to spending. |
And I would be right there with you...if it weren’t for a title window. Any other year and/or younger stars with potential and I can understand the penny pinching moves to go “all-in” on a title shot for tomorrow. But as it stands, tomorrow is nigh. Better dot the i’s and cross the t’s before it’s night night on those title dreams.
Bron came to LA in 2018, and in the 3 seasons he’s been here 2 seasons have been marred with injury, while 1 had been unpredictably salvaged via a 4 month COVID hiatus. Dude is about to turn 37...now is the time to go “all-in”. That’s the reality of it. |
I don't know if I'd call passing on spending $30-40 million a year on AC to be "pinching pennies." That's serious cash.
Ultimately, no move is going to guarantee winning a ring, and no move will guarantee not winning a ring.
The question will a team be willing to spend any amount to nudge their chances a tiny bit higher? In the real world, the answer for all teams is probably no. Everything will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. |
I knew that term would trigger some folks. Okay, maybe not the AC deal, but leaving 890k off Nunn’s mMLE deal which is too small to even use towards a rookie min (ie 925k), swapping Gasol’s 2.7m for DJ’s 1.7m, waiving McKinnie’s 1.9m deal to replace it with Rondo’s 1.7m...would you consider those of the penny-pinching variety?
But it is what is. If we come up short this year and the narrative is that they did everything they could to position themselves for a ring...it’s gonna take more than a penny for my thoughts. |
Would most people pay $40 million to insure $200+ million? Probably not and I wouldn't even consider AC the most reassuring insurance policy though you could argue that my analogy might not be spot on altogether. And while we will never know if Gasol ever had an intent to come back to accurately critique that decision, I do find it disingenuous to bunch the McKinnie and Rondo transactions together. Nobody could foresee that Rondo was going to get bought out when that decision was made on McKinnie. I think they made that move thinking they could get more on the market with less.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hype
Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 4375
Location: Lake Nacimiento
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: | | We had no limitations (like the hard cap, not having bird rights, etc), so we chose to artificially cap our title hopes in order to not burden the franchises profit margin. Imho, not a good look. |
Yeah, but in the real world profit matters. Not to fans, of course, because it's not our money. As a fan, I would have liked to see the Lakers pay $30 million plus in salary and taxes for AC this year. If I was a Lakers owner, I would have let him go and pocketed the cash.
I just don't think it's realistic to expect teams to have no lines in the sand when it comes to spending. |
And I would be right there with you...if it weren’t for a title window. Any other year and/or younger stars with potential and I can understand the penny pinching moves to go “all-in” on a title shot for tomorrow. But as it stands, tomorrow is nigh. Better dot the i’s and cross the t’s before it’s night night on those title dreams.
Bron came to LA in 2018, and in the 3 seasons he’s been here 2 seasons have been marred with injury, while 1 had been unpredictably salvaged via a 4 month COVID hiatus. Dude is about to turn 37...now is the time to go “all-in”. That’s the reality of it. |
I don't know if I'd call passing on spending $30-40 million a year on AC to be "pinching pennies." That's serious cash.
Ultimately, no move is going to guarantee winning a ring, and no move will guarantee not winning a ring.
The question will a team be willing to spend any amount to nudge their chances a tiny bit higher? In the real world, the answer for all teams is probably no. Everything will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. |
I knew that term would trigger some folks. Okay, maybe not the AC deal, but leaving 890k off Nunn’s mMLE deal which is too small to even use towards a rookie min (ie 925k), swapping Gasol’s 2.7m for DJ’s 1.7m, waiving McKinnie’s 1.9m deal to replace it with Rondo’s 1.7m...would you consider those of the penny-pinching variety?
But it is what is. If we come up short this year and the narrative is that they did everything they could to position themselves for a ring...it’s gonna take more than a penny for my thoughts. |
Even though I absolutely do not think Caruso's value is anywhere remotely worth going that deep in taxes I can still understand some people missing him especially while replacing him with some unknowns that could reap rewards or be a fail while Caruso was at least consistently solid defensively but I def. don't get the constant complaining over him still.
Those other deals are not really even worth talking about though as far as penny pinching goes? With the Nunn deal, why not save the $$ if the deal is still going to get done?
Gasol was retiring and clearly lost his desire to play for us so not sure how this is penny pinching? I also highly doubt the FO was worried about the 200k difference in McKinnie's and Rondo's contracts? Rondo is a much better player for the end of the bench at the minimum and if we didn't get Rondo I doubt McKinnie is back anyways.
If we come up short it will likely be because of the health of our big 3 and def. not any of those "penny pinching" reasons you're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gng930 wrote: |
Would most people pay $40 million to insure $200+ million? Probably not and I wouldn't even consider AC the most reassuring insurance policy though you could argue that my analogy might not be spot on altogether. And while we will never know if Gasol ever had an intent to come back to accurately critique that decision, I do find it disingenuous to bunch the McKinnie and Rondo transactions together. Nobody could foresee that Rondo was going to get bought out when that decision was made on McKinnie. I think they made that move thinking they could get more on the market with less. |
Disingenuous? McK was waived on August 4th...Rondo was linked to us at the end of August. The point was McK at 1.9m was waived and replaced by a vet min cap hit of 1.7m...it could have been Rondo, DJ, Melo, Monk, whoever...that was a 850k savings in salary+tax. And we here still sitting on a 13 man roster with McK still orbiting within the FAbyss. It’s not like we cut him lose to do him a solid in finding a new home that was already lined up.
Fact remains, he could have remained here till Jan. 10th when his contract would be fully guaranteed. The inconvenient truth is that the days of service he gives us during the regular season before we waive him has a prorated tax applied to it.
All these (non)moves had one objective: save ownership money. Thinking otherwise is disingenuous.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| audioaxes wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Sure, but how do you get a buy out for Wall? He's got $91M+ to go on his contract. As I said in an earlier post, my reading of the report about Wall and the Rockets agreeing to look for a trade is that the Rockets are not going to buy him out unless he takes a significant pay cut. He'd be crazy to do that. Given his age and health, he would never make the money back. |
yes I know its a tall order to buy him out but they made it clear they rather start their rebuild with their new picks than have him take up minutes from them. So its not really hurting them to buy him out. Plus with the Klutch connections you may be earning some goodwill points by making it happen.
And if worse case no Wall, I still love the idea of having Hield,KCP,Caruso along with our other free agents we signed over risking it with Westbrook. |
The size of the buyout determines whether it makes sense for the Rockets. If Wall had a moment of madness and agreed to take a $40M buyout, I'm sure the Rockets would do it. But he probably wants $80M or $85M, which is close enough that he might be able to make up most of it over the next two years. The Rockets have no incentive to do that. They are better off letting Rich Paul try to convince some other team to make an offer that the Rockets are willing to take. If that happens, the Rockets win. If that doesn't happen, they can buy him out next offseason or just let his contract run down. Or maybe Wall cracks before then and offers the Rockets enough of a discount to get them to say yes.
Based on the media report, I think this is exactly the way the meeting between the Rockets, Wall, and Paul went down.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waterman40
Star Player
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Posts: 6285
Location: Central Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does trading Simmons to the Rockets for John Wall make sense? Wall could win a chip there, and the Rockets would have an exciting name player to build on.
_________________
LAKERS 2019-2020: NBA World Champions! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hype wrote: |
Even though I absolutely do not think Caruso's value is anywhere remotely worth going that deep in taxes I can still understand some people missing him especially while replacing him with some unknowns that could reap rewards or be a fail while Caruso was at least consistently solid defensively but I def. don't get the constant complaining over him still.
Those other deals are not really even worth talking about though as far as penny pinching goes? With the Nunn deal, why not save the $$ if the deal is still going to get done?
Gasol was retiring and clearly lost his desire to play for us so not sure how this is penny pinching? I also highly doubt the FO was worried about the 200k difference in McKinnie's and Rondo's contracts? Rondo is a much better player for the end of the bench at the minimum and if we didn't get Rondo I doubt McKinnie is back anyways.
If we come up short it will likely be because of the health of our big 3 and def. not any of those "penny pinching" reasons you're talking about. |
The health of our big3 is contingent on the assets you surround them with. A freak injury here, a COVID mishap there and the team stays afloat if you got the ability to take it in stride. Assets were lost for nothing, when they could have remained to bolster an unforeseen health hit. They either ball out for us and keep us afloat or they get flipped for someone that could at the deadline. As of right now, it’s THT, Nunn, 2027 & 28 1st that can be utilized as assets.
-890k remaining from the mMLE can’t be used till a week into the season and only on an undrafted rookie. 925k was the bare minimum needed to do something with it now. Instead it becomes a 3.8m savings.
-Marc’s salary dump along with being replaced by a lower cap hit is a 4.3m savings
-Waiving McK in order to avoid a prorated tax hit till his deal becomes guaranteed to be replaced by a lower cap hit is a 850k savings.
-even looking at THT’s deal...kid left about 1m in potential salary on the table (could gs e made up to 10.5m starting), for an additional 4.3m savings. Why is that even remotely important? If Trez opts out, did we have enough salary to trade for Russ with Kuz/Kcp/McK/Gasol? Nope...that’s when we have to kiss and make up with Schro to get enough salary to get that deal done.
The NBA is a multi-billion operation....in that regard, it’s penny-pinching. But hey, I get it...some of y’all don’t want to see it for whatever reason.
Bottomline: if healthy is thrown all over the place in regards to our title hopes. One way to insure their health is having the assets to turn to in case of emergency.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| waterman40 wrote: | | Does trading Simmons to the Rockets for John Wall make sense? Wall could win a chip there, and the Rockets would have an exciting name player to build on. |
If John Wall was healthy and still an elite player, sure. But he isn't. If he was, he wouldn't have been traded for Westbrook, and the Rockets wouldn't looking to tank with young players.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: |
I knew that term would trigger some folks. Okay, maybe not the AC deal, but leaving 890k off Nunn’s mMLE deal which is too small to even use towards a rookie min (ie 925k), swapping Gasol’s 2.7m for DJ’s 1.7m, waiving McKinnie’s 1.9m deal to replace it with Rondo’s 1.7m...would you consider those of the penny-pinching variety?
|
No, I wouldn't.
1. I don't understand the Nunn comment. If the Lakers were able to get him to sign for $890k less than the full mle, why should they just throw another 890k at him?
2. We waived McKinnie on Aug. 4 because we didn't want him. (No other team has either so far). We picked up Rondo after he was bought out a few weeks later because we wanted a third point guard. I don't see a connection between the two moves.
3. No one really knows what went on with Gasol. It looks like the decision to not to return to the Lakers was his. I don't assume that we picked up DJ and got rid of Gasol just to save money. It's possible we had an agreement in place to pay him for the second season even if he retired from the NBA, so we spent a second round pick to get him off the books to save money. But I've seen no evidence we purposefully chose a lesser quality player to save money.
Sorry, I'm not seeing some nefarious pattern here of the Lakers compromising the roster to make money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: |
I knew that term would trigger some folks. Okay, maybe not the AC deal, but leaving 890k off Nunn’s mMLE deal which is too small to even use towards a rookie min (ie 925k), swapping Gasol’s 2.7m for DJ’s 1.7m, waiving McKinnie’s 1.9m deal to replace it with Rondo’s 1.7m...would you consider those of the penny-pinching variety?
|
I don't really understand your examples.
1. I don't think we swapped Gasol for DJ to save money. We signed DJ and traded Gasol because it was clear he wanted to leave. We may have had a deal in place to pay him the second season even if he left. This one is murky though. However, there is no evidence I know of that it was done by the Lakers as a move to save money.
2. We waived McKinnie on Aug. 4 because we didn't want him on the roster. We signed Rondo after he was bought out by the Grizzles a few weeks later. There was no connection between the two moves.
3. I don't understand the Nunn comment. If the Lakers were able to get him to sign for $890k less than the full mle, why should they just throw the 890k at him?
Sorry, I'm not seeing some nefarious pattern here of the Lakers compromising the roster to make money. |
1. Gasol is rumored to be eying a mid season move to the dubs. Either way, his salary along with McK’s was around 5m...that’s yet another salary ballast bullet to shoot our shot at any tweaks near the trade deadline. Something to keep in mind, the tax is calculated at the end of the year. A Gasol dump could have been made at any point during the season up until the deadline. DJ or not, we have the roster spots to retain Marc while adding DJ. The optics were he replaced Marc so that’s why I used the 1.7m swap out of Marc’s 2.7m deal.
| Quote: | Marc Gasol is a name to watch. He just wiggled his way away from the Lakers and, according to an ESPN report, plans to remain in Spain while sorting out the next (and perhaps last) phase of his playing career.
Gasol nearly signed with the Warriors last summer — and might have done so had Thompson not ruptured his Achilles before free agency. It may never materialize, but he has the exact passing acumen and center skill set that has traditionally fit Kerr’s offense best, similar to David West and Andrew Bogut.
Remember when Bogut jumped on board a title chase in March a couple of years back? If Gasol gets the midseason itch and sees a path to playing time on a Warriors team that will have Thompson back, there’s a roster spot that can be cleared. If any type of bidding war commences, the Warriors do have a taxpayer midlevel they can still offer, if they can stomach the tax bill.
https://theathletic.com/2828249/2021/09/16/warriors-roster-watch-whats-happening-with-the-vacant-15th-spot/
|
2. Salary ballast for me is an asset. Again, without Trez’s deal, we had no direct route to a Russ trade unless we detoured thru Schro Str&&T. McK could have been held onto til Jan 10th, which is when he’s fully guaranteed. However unlike Gasol’s fully guaranteed deal, a prorated tax would be applied to the nonguaranteed portion of McK’s deal for the days of service he would have provided us before getting waived at some point during the regular season.
3. Leaving 890k as opposed to 925k from the mMLE could have afforded us an option to give a 3+ year deal at the rookie min for one of our undrafted rookies that may have shown us promise during training camp. Again, that’s another asset, gone unrealized, for now. That avenue still exists a week into the season (Oct 26th), but I doubt we use it.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | vasashi17+ wrote: |
I knew that term would trigger some folks. Okay, maybe not the AC deal, but leaving 890k off Nunn’s mMLE deal which is too small to even use towards a rookie min (ie 925k), swapping Gasol’s 2.7m for DJ’s 1.7m, waiving McKinnie’s 1.9m deal to replace it with Rondo’s 1.7m...would you consider those of the penny-pinching variety?
|
I don't really understand your examples.
1. I don't think we swapped Gasol for DJ to save money. We signed DJ and traded Gasol because it was clear he wanted to leave. We may have had a deal in place to pay him the second season even if he left. This one is murky though. However, there is no evidence I know of that it was done by the Lakers as a move to save money.
2. We waived McKinnie on Aug. 4 because we didn't want him on the roster. We signed Rondo after he was bought out by the Grizzles a few weeks later. There was no connection between the two moves.
3. I don't understand the Nunn comment. If the Lakers were able to get him to sign for $890k less than the full mle, why should they just throw the 890k at him?
Sorry, I'm not seeing some nefarious pattern here of the Lakers compromising the roster to make money. |
1. Gasol is rumored to be eying a mid season move to the dubs. Either way, his salary along with McK’s was around 5m...that’s yet another salary ballast bullet to shoot our shot at any tweaks near the trade deadline. Something to keep in mind, the tax is calculated at the end of the year. A Gasol dump could have been made at any point during the season up until the deadline. DJ or not, we have the roster spots to retain Marc while adding DJ. The optics were he replaced Marc so that’s why I used the 1.7m swap out of Marc’s 2.7m deal.
| Quote: | Marc Gasol is a name to watch. He just wiggled his way away from the Lakers and, according to an ESPN report, plans to remain in Spain while sorting out the next (and perhaps last) phase of his playing career.
Gasol nearly signed with the Warriors last summer — and might have done so had Thompson not ruptured his Achilles before free agency. It may never materialize, but he has the exact passing acumen and center skill set that has traditionally fit Kerr’s offense best, similar to David West and Andrew Bogut.
Remember when Bogut jumped on board a title chase in March a couple of years back? If Gasol gets the midseason itch and sees a path to playing time on a Warriors team that will have Thompson back, there’s a roster spot that can be cleared. If any type of bidding war commences, the Warriors do have a taxpayer midlevel they can still offer, if they can stomach the tax bill.
https://theathletic.com/2828249/2021/09/16/warriors-roster-watch-whats-happening-with-the-vacant-15th-spot/
|
2. Salary ballast for me is an asset. Again, without Trez’s deal, we had no direct route to a Russ trade unless we detoured thru Schro Str&&T. McK could have been held onto til Jan 10th, which is when he’s fully guaranteed. However unlike Gasol’s fully guaranteed deal, a prorated tax would be applied to the nonguaranteed portion of McK’s deal for the days of service he would have provided us before getting waived at some point during the regular season.
3. Leaving 890k as opposed to 925k from the mMLE could have afforded us an option to give a 3+ year deal at the rookie min for one of our undrafted rookies that may have shown us promise during training camp. Again, that’s another asset, gone unrealized, for now. That avenue still exists a week into the season (Oct 26th), but I doubt we use it. |
No offense, but I find all your reasoning a stretch.
1. Apparently, Gasol no longer wanted to be on the Lakers. The "rumors" of him coming back at midseason doesn't change that. Are you suggesting the Lakers should have let him to home; and kept his small contract on the books as a roster spot to have "ballast"? Don't get that one.
2. You think the Lakers should have held onto McK's tiny contract for "salary ballast" even if they didn't want him as a player? That's a waste to me.
3. OK, so the Nunn thing isn't about saving money, but about signing one of the second round picks to a three year deal? OK, fair enough -- if we actually wanted to sign one of the rookies to a 3 year deal. We'll see if any of them actually even make the team.
Sorry, I'm just not buying all your assumptions about the Lakers motivations. I think this is more about you enjoying the details of the CBA, and you enjoying imagining all the different ways those details can be exploited, even if the Lakers in reality have no interest in exploited the details in the ways you suggest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^And no offense if you ain’t getting the asset handling of the game.
Gasol was a dump for a 2.7m TPE, that probably won’t be used. We used an additional 2nd rounder to do so. Clump in McK’s deal into that trade to get a 4.6m TPE instead. I mean, whynot? It’s a better bullet in case we need to shoot our shot later.
And hypothetically think for a second if we were short around 2m to salary match for Russ this summer. I mean it was a damn near reality if Trez opted out. That would have been tragic, woulditnot? McK had another year (2022/23 season) of nonguaranteed money left on his deal before we waived him.
Adding up all these cost cutting moves (Marc, McK, mMLE) saved nearly 9m net. If you follow the money, it’s all right there.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree bro.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | | As for the bright lights of LA, the one player who comes to mind is AC. If he played for the Cavs, Blazers, 76ers I don't believe he would have received the size of the bag he did. Playing with Lebron, AD with all the associated publicity that shown on him I believe propped his bag up $2-3 million per year. |
You could be right, but Hollinger's model valued him at about $12M. There is nothing magical about Hollinger's model, but it is not affected by the amount of publicity that a player receives. |
I am not familiar with the Hollinger model but if AC played with the Cavs do you believe he would still be valued at $12M? |
If his stats were the same, yes. Hollinger's model is based on a mix of statistical measures. You can certainly argue that his stats are affected by playing with Lebron and Davis, but on the other hand most of his value comes from defense. If he played for the Cavs, then the Cavs might have gotten involved in the bidding (which we did not), which might have boosted his value. Who knows? As I said, you could be right that Caruso got some economic benefit from playing in Hollywood. My point is just that his contract was within the general range of his value in Hollinger's model. |
Thanks. I guess his work is behind a pay wall. I just wanted to see how accurate he was in regards to other players. Makes sense about AC's value is in his defense. I have stated in the past and still believe he should be on the NBA all defensive team. It will be interesting to see how his analytics compare with the Bulls vs. Lakers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
