NEW GENERAL FREE AGENCY/TRADE THREAD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1378, 1379, 1380 ... 2693, 2694, 2695  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:31 pm    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
@AV & AH: y’all act like this is a one time occurrence tho. It ain’t.

Unless y’all been asleep this whole time, this has been common practice since the inception of this FO.


Unless you've been asleep the whole time, I have explained repeatedly why this doesn't work the way you think it does. You understand capology. This is the business of sports. Players and their agents don't do dumb things to help teams avoid needing to pay them. It's a quid pro quo situation. The agent will say, "If you want that quid, we want our quo."

Oh, and forget about the full Bird rights angle. That's just silly. "Here, sign this minimum contract that locks you up for three years, and we'll have your Bird rights if we don't cut you before then!" That may sound good in your head, but any agent would roll his eyes at you. Now, if you start offering extra money and/or extra guarantees, you might get a discussion started.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5774

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:56 pm    Post subject:

^Asleep…inception…Leonardo DiCaprio…dream…Hollywood…

I thought you would have picked up on the scheme, AH.

Anyways, didn’t mean to offend you, but if it hasn’t been incepted into you yet, I doubt further discussion will. You acting like one more year at 2m+ (difference in a rookie min 2yr deal vs 3yr deal) is like forcing cyanide pills to these kids & their careers.

Meanwhile, you know what is a tough pill to swallow? Having an undrafted kid potentially get Gilbert’s sour grapes onto our books.

Note to self: maybe I gotta stop watching Laker games for the time being and tune into a good movie instead. Nothing starring Rob Lowe doe 😜
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:31 pm    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
Anyways, didn’t mean to offend you, but if it hasn’t been incepted into you yet, I doubt further discussion will. You acting like one more year at 2m+ (difference in a rookie min 2yr deal vs 3yr deal) is like forcing cyanide pills to these kids & their careers.


I'm not acting like it's a cyanide pill. I'm telling you how it works in the real world. You need to check that top.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5774

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:15 pm    Post subject:

^Well off the top, I’ve been bringing up Jaden Hardy (37th overall pick), since dude is Klutch and Rich was still willing to negotiate a 3yr deal (that final year also being partially guaranteed for only 400k).

But that did get my top spinning again as to how many 2nd rounders/undrafted got 3-4yr deals just this season via either cap space or non-vet min exceptions….

28 kids got drafted in the 2nd round (Milwaukee & Miami had to forfeit their picks); 11 earned NBA deals; only the Lakers (35th overall pick) and ATL (51st overall pick) offered 2yr contracts using the vet min exception, while 4 teams used part of their tpMLE to offer 3yr deals to their rookies and 5 teams used either part of their ntpMLE or cap space to offer 4yr deals to their rookies. 11 out of 28 picks got deals in the NBA. 9 out of 11 got the deals we’ve been debating over!

So I would say the majority of nba teams conduct business in this manner…in the real world!

And while we’re keeping it real, the Lakers endgame was to be top heavy by rostering 3 max players. We’ve been at that plan since 2018. If that’s been the plan all along and you know ownership does not want to pay hefty taxes on non-star/max players, then wouldn’t you try to roster as many minimum developmental players at the bottom of the roster as possible? Wouldn’t you utilize your scouting dept as your real strength to make sure not all vet min guys that we bring in are on 1-2 yr stop gap deals? Continuity, development, potentially creating assets for tomorrow, all while giving Bron/AD/3rd max the horses to run thru the regularSZN!

I guess it’s all a figment of my imagination…Battery acid to the brain. Cause in this world Agent Rob seems to want to unplug us to the harshness of the real.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 6:08 pm    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
^Well off the top, I’ve been bringing up Jaden Hardy (37th overall pick), since dude is Klutch and Rich was still willing to negotiate a 3yr deal (that final year also being partially guaranteed for only 400k).


This example really should teach you how it works, but instead you're learning the wrong lesson.

Jaden Hardy's first season: 100% guaranteed
Austin Reaves' first season: $100,000 guaranteed

Jaden Hardy's second season: 100% guaranteed
Austin Reaves' second season: 0% guaranteed

Jaden Hardy's third season: Partially guaranteed

Total guaranteed money for Jaden Hardy: $3,137,645
Total guaranteed money for Austin Reaves: $100,000

I don't know where the $100,000 guarantee for Reaves came from. All I know is that it happened when the team converted the two-way contract. I don't think that this was required by the CBA. I think that the team just did it.

Anyway, Jaden Hardy got an extra $3M in guaranteed money. If we were willing to make that deal with Reaves, he might have done it. However, that's a risk. If he was a bust -- and there have been a lot of summer league standouts who were busts in the regular season -- people would be using it as an example of ineptitude on the part of Pelinka. "We gave a guaranteed contract to an undrafted nobody who waves a towel from the end of the bench! We could have spent the money on [insert your choice: Isaiah Thomas, Kemba Walker, Marcus Banks, or whoever]!" If you think otherwise, remember how many of Pelinka's other minimum signings from that offseason bombed and how much he got ripped for giving contracts to guys like Ellington and Bazemore.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11485

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 6:20 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
gng930 wrote:
Again...we will never know the hypothetical circumstances and discussions they would have had surrounding this. You could very well be right that Austin and his agent would have scoffed at the proposal. What's silly is that they left a portion of the MLE that year that became useless. What was the point of leaving $890K to spend when the NBA minimum was $925K at the time? Why not keep yourself open to that opportunity? We'll never know if would have worked out but it was stupid of them in the first place to forfeit that opportunity after seeing what happened with THT.


The important point is that they paid Nunn what it took to sign him. At the time, it looked like a good signing. The real question is why we didn't give Nunn the whole thing. My best guess is that it was because we were in the luxury tax, so $890k wasn't just $890k. We had just let Caruso walk. I suspect (but do not know) that we had a budget, and this was as far as we could go. In other words, we weren't saving the $890k for anything. We just weren't going to spend it.


Other than some speculation, the point remains that Nunn/Klutch was clearly not demanding the entire MLE and the team boxed themselves out of this possibility. Whether it was knowingly or out of ignorance, it wasn't smart. Even if Reaves doesn't take it, it may become advantageous later.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 6:45 pm    Post subject:

gng930 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
gng930 wrote:
Again...we will never know the hypothetical circumstances and discussions they would have had surrounding this. You could very well be right that Austin and his agent would have scoffed at the proposal. What's silly is that they left a portion of the MLE that year that became useless. What was the point of leaving $890K to spend when the NBA minimum was $925K at the time? Why not keep yourself open to that opportunity? We'll never know if would have worked out but it was stupid of them in the first place to forfeit that opportunity after seeing what happened with THT.


The important point is that they paid Nunn what it took to sign him. At the time, it looked like a good signing. The real question is why we didn't give Nunn the whole thing. My best guess is that it was because we were in the luxury tax, so $890k wasn't just $890k. We had just let Caruso walk. I suspect (but do not know) that we had a budget, and this was as far as we could go. In other words, we weren't saving the $890k for anything. We just weren't going to spend it.


Other than some speculation, the point remains that Nunn/Klutch was clearly not demanding the entire MLE and the team boxed themselves out of this possibility. Whether it was knowingly or out of ignorance, it wasn't smart. Even if Reaves doesn't take it, it may become advantageous later.


Okay, but that's speculation, too. Rich Paul may have demanded the full taxpayer MLE, and Pelinka may have said no, this is as far as I can go. I gave you my guess as to what happened, but that's all it is. I can't think of any other logical explanation for limiting Nunn to an even $5M. But who knows?

Here's something else you may want to consider as you think about this: We agreed to terms with Nunn on August 3, we signed Reaves and Joel Ayayi to two-way contracts on August 3, and the summer league team played its first game on August 4. We cut Ayayi on October 15. The point is that, as of the time we agreed to terms with Nunn, Reaves was barely even on the radar as a possible Laker. If we kept him, he was going to be playing in the G League. This changed when he played well in the summer league over the next couple weeks, but as of August 3, he was just another guy on the summer league roster, along with Cacok, McClung, and Queen.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5774

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:21 pm    Post subject:

^So if Reaves was willing to play on a two-way and then later agreed to play on a 2yr $100k guaranteed deal via the vet min exception, then you can find it in good reason that Reaves would have been just fine playing for that two-way contract a week into the regular season before we converted him to a standard 3yr deal with the remaining MLE once the rookie minimum amount had prorated to that 890k figure.

The 2021/22 season started on Oct 19th and concluded on April 10th. It was 174 day season and that means only 7 days would have had to elapse before that 925k rookie min prorate downwards to 890k (balance remaining from unused MLE).

You’re telling me Reaves couldn't play on his two-way deal for 1 week before inking a 3yr deal (fully guaranteed or not) using the remaining MLE? Either the kid guaranteed 100k on a 2yr deal drives a hard bargain, or we just F’d up.

Looking at our FO’s history, which seems more likely?
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11485

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:59 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
gng930 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
gng930 wrote:
Again...we will never know the hypothetical circumstances and discussions they would have had surrounding this. You could very well be right that Austin and his agent would have scoffed at the proposal. What's silly is that they left a portion of the MLE that year that became useless. What was the point of leaving $890K to spend when the NBA minimum was $925K at the time? Why not keep yourself open to that opportunity? We'll never know if would have worked out but it was stupid of them in the first place to forfeit that opportunity after seeing what happened with THT.


The important point is that they paid Nunn what it took to sign him. At the time, it looked like a good signing. The real question is why we didn't give Nunn the whole thing. My best guess is that it was because we were in the luxury tax, so $890k wasn't just $890k. We had just let Caruso walk. I suspect (but do not know) that we had a budget, and this was as far as we could go. In other words, we weren't saving the $890k for anything. We just weren't going to spend it.


Other than some speculation, the point remains that Nunn/Klutch was clearly not demanding the entire MLE and the team boxed themselves out of this possibility. Whether it was knowingly or out of ignorance, it wasn't smart. Even if Reaves doesn't take it, it may become advantageous later.


Okay, but that's speculation, too. Rich Paul may have demanded the full taxpayer MLE, and Pelinka may have said no, this is as far as I can go. I gave you my guess as to what happened, but that's all it is. I can't think of any other logical explanation for limiting Nunn to an even $5M. But who knows?

Here's something else you may want to consider as you think about this: We agreed to terms with Nunn on August 3, we signed Reaves and Joel Ayayi to two-way contracts on August 3, and the summer league team played its first game on August 4. We cut Ayayi on October 15. The point is that, as of the time we agreed to terms with Nunn, Reaves was barely even on the radar as a possible Laker. If we kept him, he was going to be playing in the G League. This changed when he played well in the summer league over the next couple weeks, but as of August 3, he was just another guy on the summer league roster, along with Cacok, McClung, and Queen.


Not demanding in the sense that they ended up signing for less so the team had some room to work with. And whether it's for Austin or someone that might come along, you do what you can to leave that option open.

V+ has addressed your point about the timeline and an easy work-around in the case of Reaves. I guess it's possible we were stymied at the negotiating table by the kid who idolized the team growing up, asked other teams not to draft him, and jumped at the 100K guarantee. It's also possible that Rob continued a trend of cap ignorance that he had maintained for several years.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:02 am    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
^So if Reaves was willing to play on a two-way and then later agreed to play on a 2yr $100k guaranteed deal via the vet min exception, then you can find it in good reason that Reaves would have been just fine playing for that two-way contract a week into the regular season before we converted him to a standard 3yr deal with the remaining MLE once the rookie minimum amount had prorated to that 890k figure.


Reaves didn't "agree" to play on a two-year $100k guaranteed deal. You know that.

You're hanging onto this theory tenaciously. I can't change that, but you really should consider that the business of the NBA does not begin and end with capology. When you get down to it, you're insisting that we could have screwed Reaves over by making him play another year at the minimum on an unguaranteed contract, and that Reaves and his agent would have been happy to sign the deal. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen -- you're right about the capology. I'm saying that it doesn't happen -- that's the sports business part.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:23 am    Post subject:

gng930 wrote:
Not demanding in the sense that they ended up signing for less so the team had some room to work with. And whether it's for Austin or someone that might come along, you do what you can to leave that option open.

V+ has addressed your point about the timeline and an easy work-around in the case of Reaves. I guess it's possible we were stymied at the negotiating table by the kid who idolized the team growing up, asked other teams not to draft him, and jumped at the 100K guarantee. It's also possible that Rob continued a trend of cap ignorance that he had maintained for several years.


I don't see that. In August 2021, our priority was building a roster around Lebron and Davis. We had just made the Westbrook trade, and we had holes in the roster. Saving a piece of the MLE to use on an undrafted player was not a priority at all. This should be really obvious. If someone had posted on this board, "Hey, we should voluntarily reduce our available money for free agents in case we want to sign an undrafted rookie to a three-year minimum deal at some point," people would have laughed at it and called the poster an idiot. And they would have been right. It would have been an idiotic idea.

At the time, no one had really heard of Austin Reaves. You can look at the thread from when we signed him for the summer league roster. People were just trying to figure out who he was. Almost two years have gone by, and he isn't an anonymous undrafted kid.

So now we get backwards reasoning with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We should have signed him to a three-year deal! Pelinka is cap-ignorant! Sorry, but it only makes sense in hindsight.

I realize that this idea has seduced some of you. Now you're telling me that he "jumped" at a $100k guarantee. No, he didn't. He didn't have any choice at that point. He was on a two-way contract, and the Lakers converted it. By that point, Reaves was gaining bargaining power. By the time preseason was done and the season was starting, Reaves' bargaining power had increased even further. This is how the business of sports works.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58542

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:49 am    Post subject:

Laker7 wrote:


Wolf,

I am of the opinion that we keep the players we have on the roster this year UNLESS there are clear upgrades available OR someone makes an outrageous contract demand during the offseason. I do not see anyone on the team currently that I say "get him off the team no matter what". What do you think?

L7

I wouldn't say anything you wrote there is inaccurate. There's been a solid case to bring them back. The issues are

1) Do the Lakers pay the tax and/or do the players agree within a figure that nets a tax payment that Jeanie/BFT can live with?

2) If you can't get to a situation where #1 is possible, then you need to evaluate within the roster who you would value and keep and who would you move.

A great potetial trade for us is Bamba, Beasley and the 2023 #1 pick. That's going to possibly net us (and I'm purely speculating here) somone that could start as a big wing or even a big, next to AD/Bron/DLO. Then you have to evaluate the pros and cons of giving DLO a 120/4 type of deal, if it comes to that. I personally think you need to keep DLO at any cost, as otherwise you have given up a lottery pick just to get rid of WB for half a season.

What we still need, IMO, assuming that Lebron/AD can even have another strong season.All of this is assuming AD/Bron mantain the level they had this season obviously which is far from a given considering Bron's age. Well if you want to make a run, IMO you need to upgrade. I'd like to build something as follows IF possible

Starting 5/AD/Gabriel
AD/Vandy
Bron/Brown Jr./Christie
Starting2/Reaves
DLO/Dennis

* Starting 2 that can slide over to starting 3. Someone in the 6'5-6'7 range that can shoot the ball and defend. Obviously not easy to attain, but we still need a starting level 2-way threat like that, IMO.

* Starting 5 that can rim protect and move defensively, allowing Lakers to get back to the elite defense they once had. While the Lakers have been better defensively since the WB trade, they're still heavily reliant on AD. I feel we need to make AD's load lighter and allow him to close games as a 5. Having 2 rim protection players that can move their feet will change our ability defensively.

Even what I've suggested here may not work. I'm not sure
Dennis would re-sign for MMLE.
Jeanie would pay so much tax.
I'm suggesting is to move Bamba/Beasley/pick for 4th highly paid starting player (DLO being the 3rd) to give the Lakers a strong core 4 they can start with, then you also re-sign Reaves for 10M range AND try to keep Dennis for the MMLE.

So 4 high paid players (AD, Bron, DLO + trade return from Beasley/Bamba/2023FRP deal) + re-sign Reaves. That's your core basically with Reaves and it's damn expensive!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 44385

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:12 am    Post subject:

These are decisions to make this offseason
- According to Vasahi’s numbers, it will cost $350 million to “bring them back.”

Who to keep, who to cut?


39 year old Lebron James, 47.6m
- Keep or trade?

30 year old Anthony Davis, 40.6m
- Keep or trade?

20 year old Max Christie, 1.7m
- Keep or trade?

2023 1st pick swap w/ New Orleans, ~3m
- Keep or trade?


25 year old Rui Hachimura, 18.8m RFA caphold (QO must be offered by 6/30)
- Qualifying offer or waive?

25 year old Austin Reaves, 2.1m RFA caphold (QO must be offered by 6/30)
- Qualifying offer or waive?


27 year old Malik Beasley, 16.5m team option (must exercise option by 6/29)
- Team option or waive?

25 year old Mo Bamba, 10.3m nonguaranteed (full guarantee trigger date 6/29)
- Team option or waive?

24 year old Jarred Vanderbilt, 4.7m partially guaranteed (300k with full trigger date 6/30)
- Team option or waive?

28 year old Davion Reed, 2.1m partially guaranteed (500k 10 days after season ends w full trigger date 7/8)
- Team option or waive?


30 year old Dennis Schroder, 2.1m non bird caphold
- Resign?

27 year old Dangelo Russell, 38.7m full bird caphold
- Resign?

25 year old Lonnie Walker, 7.8m non bird caphold
- Resign?

26 year old Wenyen Gabriel, 2.4m early bird caphold
- Resign?

24 year old Troy Brown Jr, 2.1m non bird caphold
- Resign?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:15 am    Post subject:

wolfpaclaker wrote:
A great potetial trade for us is Bamba, Beasley and the 2023 #1 pick.


That's an intriguing idea. There could be teams that want Bamba and Beasley, but more importantly, there could be teams who want to clear cap space and/or get out of a luxury tax hole. They could decline the option on Beasley, waive Bamba, and pocket the draft pick. This could require some structuring, because I know that there are some quirks about trading draft picks on draft night. But it would be do-able.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 44385

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:17 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
A great potetial trade for us is Bamba, Beasley and the 2023 #1 pick.


That's an intriguing idea. There could be teams that want Bamba and Beasley, but more importantly, there could be teams who want to clear cap space and/or get out of a luxury tax hole. They could decline the option on Beasley, waive Bamba, and pocket the draft pick. This could require some structuring, because I know that there are some quirks about trading draft picks on draft night. But it would be do-able.


How about the Lakers waiting to avoid repeater tax?
Which they can do by not picking up their options and keeping their lottery pick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 44385

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:20 am    Post subject:

Save $25 million
Draft Mo Bamba’s replacement with Dereck Lively
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:22 am    Post subject:

We may need to start paying more attention to this story. I am starting to wonder whether James Dolan is about to take a trip on the Donald Sterling highway (i.e., that he is about to make himself a liability to the NBA for reasons unrelated to the performance of the team):

Quote:
Madison Square Garden owner James Dolan allegedly hired a private investigator to follow a state liquor authority investigator as the agency looks to revoke the Garden’s liquor license.

Several Dolan-owned properties were slapped with administrative charges after facial recognition technology was implemented to identify and deny entry to attorneys working on litigation against him.


Quote:
Banning only some sports fanatics from entry may violate state beverage laws that require establishments to admit the general public.


Quote:
In addition to MSG, the SLA could also revoke liquor licenses for Radio City Music Hall and the Beacon Theater, also owned by Dolan.

In response to the four violations filed against him, Dolan filed a petition in Manhattan Supreme Court on March 11 asking a judge to halt the SLA offenses, calling the enforcement, “an abuse of power.”

“This gangster-like governmental organization has finally run up against an entity that won’t cower in the face of their outrageous abuses,” Dolan told The Post last week.


https://nypost.com/2023/03/19/james-dolan-hires-investigator-to-follow-state-liquor-authority/
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5774

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:51 am    Post subject:

@AH: you see it a certain way, but folks like @G and I see it another.

Whether that’s due to “capology” or not is left to interpretation.

All that we know is that Atlanta and La were the only teams to lock in our 2nd round picks via vet min exceptions that can only max Pitu to 2yrs in length. Meanwhile 9 other teams locked in their 2nd round talent on 3-4 yr deals. I don’t know about AT’L’s history, but LA has been doing these 2yr pacts for as long as this current FO has been in office. And we did it yet again with the 35th overall pick in Christie.

Also the main route in which a poison pill contract gets triggered is when you have 1-2 year seasoned players hit restricted free agency. This is something we were looking at with THT and now Reaves this summer and with Christie next summer. All of that unnecessary potential poison is avoidable with a 3+ yr deal offered to these rookies.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:56 am    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
@AH: you see it a certain way, but folks like @G and I see it another.

Whether that’s due to “capology” or not is left to interpretation.

All that we know is that Atlanta and La were the only teams to lock in our 2nd round picks via vet min exceptions that can only max Pitu to 2yrs in length. Meanwhile 9 other teams locked in their 2nd round talent on 3-4 yr deals. .


No, this isn't a matter of opinion. I've explained to you what those other nine teams really did. You don't want to acknowledge it.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5774

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:11 am    Post subject:

^No, what you did is compare Jaden Hardy’s (2022 37th overall pick) 3yr 3.1m guaranteed contract to Austin Reave’s (2021 undrafted) 2yr 100k guaranteed contract.

The appropriate comparison would have it compare to MaxC’s (2022 35th overall pick) 2yr 2.7m guaranteed contract.

And around and around we go…
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:16 am    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
^No, what you did is compare Jaden Hardy’s (2022 37th overall pick) 3yr 3.1m guaranteed contract to Austin Reave’s (2021 undrafted) 2yr 100k guaranteed contract.

The appropriate comparison would have it compare to MaxC’s (2022 35th overall pick) 2yr 2.7m guaranteed contract.

And around and around we go…


What? That doesn't even make sense.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5774

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:31 am    Post subject:

^sheesh, you got that right! I have no idea what you’re even arguing anymore. None of it makes sense to me. You somehow think it’s bad business to negotiate rookies on 3yr+ deals vs 2, when it’s common practice in the NBA.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11485

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:42 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
gng930 wrote:
Not demanding in the sense that they ended up signing for less so the team had some room to work with. And whether it's for Austin or someone that might come along, you do what you can to leave that option open.

V+ has addressed your point about the timeline and an easy work-around in the case of Reaves. I guess it's possible we were stymied at the negotiating table by the kid who idolized the team growing up, asked other teams not to draft him, and jumped at the 100K guarantee. It's also possible that Rob continued a trend of cap ignorance that he had maintained for several years.


I don't see that. In August 2021, our priority was building a roster around Lebron and Davis. We had just made the Westbrook trade, and we had holes in the roster. Saving a piece of the MLE to use on an undrafted player was not a priority at all. This should be really obvious. If someone had posted on this board, "Hey, we should voluntarily reduce our available money for free agents in case we want to sign an undrafted rookie to a three-year minimum deal at some point," people would have laughed at it and called the poster an idiot. And they would have been right. It would have been an idiotic idea.

At the time, no one had really heard of Austin Reaves. You can look at the thread from when we signed him for the summer league roster. People were just trying to figure out who he was. Almost two years have gone by, and he isn't an anonymous undrafted kid.

So now we get backwards reasoning with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We should have signed him to a three-year deal! Pelinka is cap-ignorant! Sorry, but it only makes sense in hindsight.

I realize that this idea has seduced some of you. Now you're telling me that he "jumped" at a $100k guarantee. No, he didn't. He didn't have any choice at that point. He was on a two-way contract, and the Lakers converted it. By that point, Reaves was gaining bargaining power. By the time preseason was done and the season was starting, Reaves' bargaining power had increased even further. This is how the business of sports works.


Fair enough...you have a point about the intricacies leading up to Austin's eventual deal.

But again, I've emphasized the importance of keeping these options open, Austin or not. You feel Nunn/Klutch was willing to take $890K off the MLE but not $925K whereas I feel they would have. I'm not saying they walked into the negotiation table with Nunn/Klutch capping themselves short of the full MLE. But once it became apparent they were willing to settle for less then yes, it should have become freaking obvious. Agree to disagree, we'll just keep going in circles on this point.

Otherwise there is a such thing as multi-tasking especially when you have an entire staff working for a multi-billion-dollar organization. The thought that their focus on Westbrook and otherwise filling out the roster excuses this oversight is silly. This is not even in hindsight of Austin's emergence; V+ pointed this out well before last season even began.

And yes Rob has shown ignorance of the cap rules. Let's not forget this little gem surrounding the AD trade:

https://www.complex.com/sports/2019/06/los-angeles-lakers-anthony-davis-trade-salary-cap
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/6/20/18693436/anthony-davis-lakers-trade-cap-ramifications
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)


Last edited by gng930 on Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 44385

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:44 am    Post subject:

So you guys are arguing about paying Austin peanuts next season vs market value? If they want to keep him then just pay him what he’s worth! It’s not a debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 44385

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:48 am    Post subject:

Bruh. They’re literally arguing about a 3 year rookie contract vs 2 year rookie contract. No one cares. They’re just arguing to one up the other about who is the most right. No one cares.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1378, 1379, 1380 ... 2693, 2694, 2695  Next
Page 1379 of 2695
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB