NEW GENERAL FREE AGENCY/TRADE THREAD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1377, 1378, 1379 ... 2698, 2699, 2700  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
epic_
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jan 2020
Posts: 11310

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:04 pm    Post subject:

Is Bridges available? Or are we morally obligated not to talk to him if he is available?
_________________
💜💛 🏆 👀 🍖 #18!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5777

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:12 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vasashi17+ wrote:
Meanwhile other teams using their remaining prorated fMLE to get 4yr RoS deals completed.

Quote:
Michael Scotto @MikeAScotto
The Washington Wizards have signed Xavier Cooks to a four-year, $6.1 million deal, league sources told @hoopshype. The deal is guaranteed the rest of this season and the 2023-24 season, is non-guaranteed for the 2024-25 season, and includes a team option for the 2025-26 season.

Chase Hughes: The Wizards have made the Xavier Cooks signing official now that he is done leading the Sydney Kings to the NBL title. – via Twitter ChaseHughesNBCS


I guess you gotta be a wizard to pull this cap sh!t off!


We've been through this a bunch of times. So the Wizards just got this guy to agree to a longer deal. Great, but let's take a closer look. He's a 27 year old player who was undrafted out of college and who wound up playing in Australia. He just got a guaranteed contract to play in the NBA. If he turns out to be worth more than the minimum, it's a good deal for the Wizards. If he turns out to be, well, what you would expect from an undrafted 27 year old who has developed a taste for Vegemite, he just got a good deal. They can't cut him for a year. Time will tell whether the Washington GM is wearing a Wizard's cap or a dunce cap.


Oh yeah, we’ve been through it already. 5xs on my count (TB, Bonga/Svi, THT/AC, Reaves, MaxC). Still doesn’t make it right that they continuously bypass this option when it’s afforded to them.

We have the resources (whether that’s cap space, unused exemption portions, etc) yet continue to treat player development like a poison pill. And oh look, Reaves this summer could lead to exactly that if negotiations get contentious.

We’re talking about a 1.85m investment (140k for the remainder of the year via that RoS deal and 1.7m the following year). Then it’s nonguaranteed money and team options in yrs 3 & 4. If the dude ends up a dud, the Wiz spell him away. If not, you got a low risk high reward asset on a team friendly deal with full bird rights in tow.

And for the folks wanting to counter with the Klutch/THT example, check out fellow Klutch klient 20y/o Jaden Hardy in Dallas on a 3yr (partially guaranteed deal).

This option has been there for us several times and we continuously choose not to exploit it. Self inflicted wounds for a team starving to gain assets. And here we are with a great scouting team only to kick them up on 2yr deals and have them develop further with our competitors.

So yeah, we’re going to continue to disagree on this one fam.
_________________
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
epic_
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jan 2020
Posts: 11310

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:24 pm    Post subject:

I think the only guys I've really missed in terms of not paying a guy or not handling their contract "right" is Alex. I don't eve care about Zubac. TBD if we lose guys like AR or Max. But we'll see.
_________________
💜💛 🏆 👀 🍖 #18!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5777

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:26 pm    Post subject:

epic_ wrote:
Is Bridges available? Or are we morally obligated not to talk to him if he is available?


Tl;dr….there ain’t no bridge for us to cross to get dude this year.

Still considered a RFA for the Bugs, even into next summer. Only way we get him is if we clear cap (or have him willing to take our ntpMLE) and get him to sign an offersheet. At that point, the Bugs can match.

As for this year, we got a roster spot available with only a prorated vet min to our name. He won’t take that even if we were allowed to offer it.
_________________
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
epic_
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jan 2020
Posts: 11310

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:27 pm    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
epic_ wrote:
Is Bridges available? Or are we morally obligated not to talk to him if he is available?


Tl;dr….there ain’t no bridge for us to cross to get dude this year.

Still considered a RFA for the Bugs, even into next summer. Only way we get him is if we clear cap (or have him willing to take our ntpMLE) and get him to sign an offersheet. At that point, the Bugs can match.

As for this year, we got a roster spot available with only a prorated vet min to our name. He won’t take that even if we were allowed to offer it.


Too long, I did read though.
Thanks.
_________________
💜💛 🏆 👀 🍖 #18!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hanging from Rafters
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 4858

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:28 pm    Post subject:

epic_ wrote:
I think the only guys I've really missed in terms of not paying a guy or not handling their contract "right" is Alex. I don't eve care about Zubac. TBD if we lose guys like AR or Max. But we'll see.


Randle and Lopez were the worst…worst than AC. Should have kept Brook, the team needed a center and should have kept Randle for cheap, even if it was just to trade him later. Alex’s deal was important when you look at it by itself but compared to those it’s insignificant.
_________________
“When it looks as if it is a realistic possibility, I want to focus on winning a ship like it’s a goal that can’t be denied. I didn’t see that this off season.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Laker's Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 12972

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:38 pm    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
^LF: I would refute you on that since imho the cost is trivial, but then again we not signing anyone to that 15th roster spot with the meager cost being 900k - 1.1m…so those margin calls stay shoddy AF.

It’s still wild to me that if your end game is 3max players and your ownership group doesn’t want to spend in excess towards the roster outside those 3, at the very minimum you would do your due diligence to ACknowledge those lower signings and make it count in developing them as assets, instead of continually turning the roster over every year. #MinimumExpectations


I agree the costs are negligible in this context. I just don't think our ownership looks at it that way. Too many examples of cutting at the margins. Even something like failing to get in a room with Snyder or closing the deal with Lue. It's a pattern of behavior.

I was thinking about how ownership has been so enamored with stars, even willing to go well into the tax for Russ. When you're a team as accomplished as the Lakers, it's harder to add brand value. Even winning "another" title has less value than it would for a team like the Clippers. But NBA superstars have massive followings on Social and the cross branding potential is real. I mean, Russ has the third most followers on Insta, north of 21 million. Guess who's #4 (Kyrie). For anyone who thinks the Lakers might trade LeBron, he's #1 with over 148 million.

Fans want to see their team win on the court. Ownership wants to grow the value of their business. For the Lakers, those two objectives only overlap so much.
_________________
Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Japago
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Posts: 1596

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:01 pm    Post subject:

One too many LeBron injuries and the trade coming too late was too much for the Lakers to overcome.

This team is still clearly better than they were pre-trade. The Lakers were losing "winnable" game fully healthy before the trade. I can tell this team is a LeBron away from being a good team. You couldn't say that before.

But I've said it a lot by now, but the window to win with LeBron is so short that you arguably should have made a worse trade with the Turner/Hield trade because that came before the season. Could a secondary playmaker have been found with a smaller trade like the Mo Bamba trade? If so, I definitely make that earlier trade.

Now, we have to hope LeBron fights back father time for at least one more season. It's miracle that he's still one of the top players in the league at his age. But, that decline can come at any moment at his age.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 47214

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:19 pm    Post subject:

Embiid is a notch above AD right now and I mean a NOTCH, there was once a time were fans wouldn’t trade AD for Embiid but now Philly would hang up the phone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hanging from Rafters
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 4858

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:40 pm    Post subject:

I know that no one is gonna miss me, I can be really critical of the team at times. But I can’t continue to invest as much mental energy into this team this year with the way things are going. Call me fair weather, it may be true but I just can’t do it. This team is cursed. You can’t choke away so many games (at least 10) in the way they have this year unless something supernatural is going on. It’s just not normal.

I’m out…unless Pelinka signs a center or the team wins the play in I’m gone until the season is over. This is my last post until then.
_________________
“When it looks as if it is a realistic possibility, I want to focus on winning a ship like it’s a goal that can’t be denied. I didn’t see that this off season.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58545

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:58 am    Post subject:

Quote:
This team is still clearly better than they were pre-trade. The Lakers were losing "winnable" game fully healthy before the trade. I can tell this team is a LeBron away from being a good team. You couldn't say that before.

Agreed. It's a lot better. The team was a 12th seeded team when WB was with the team. Now they've been able to get through a patch without Lebron of 10 games with 5-5. They've got a lot more to work with.

The thing that's going to be tough here, is to predict how truly good they can be, to make the most out of the situation. Because financial decisions have to be made on many players and the team without really having a proper look at what the team can do with Lebron.

I will say this. The blueprint on how to win around AD/Bron was shown. However Pelinka keeps avoiding it. I will not ever get why he keeps thinking and so do the coaches they can do things completely different from how they had the most success with AD/Bron. Alas, at this point, all I hope for is we at least be competitive enough to get into the playoffs in the remainder of the AD/Bron era.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11486

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:55 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vasashi17+ wrote:
Meanwhile other teams using their remaining prorated fMLE to get 4yr RoS deals completed.

Quote:
Michael Scotto @MikeAScotto
The Washington Wizards have signed Xavier Cooks to a four-year, $6.1 million deal, league sources told @hoopshype. The deal is guaranteed the rest of this season and the 2023-24 season, is non-guaranteed for the 2024-25 season, and includes a team option for the 2025-26 season.

Chase Hughes: The Wizards have made the Xavier Cooks signing official now that he is done leading the Sydney Kings to the NBL title. – via Twitter ChaseHughesNBCS


I guess you gotta be a wizard to pull this cap sh!t off!


We've been through this a bunch of times. So the Wizards just got this guy to agree to a longer deal. Great, but let's take a closer look. He's a 27 year old player who was undrafted out of college and who wound up playing in Australia. He just got a guaranteed contract to play in the NBA. If he turns out to be worth more than the minimum, it's a good deal for the Wizards. If he turns out to be, well, what you would expect from an undrafted 27 year old who has developed a taste for Vegemite, he just got a good deal. They can't cut him for a year. Time will tell whether the Washington GM is wearing a Wizard's cap or a dunce cap.


I don't think having $1.7 million worth of dead weight on your roster for a year puts you in dunce category. It's got to go to somebody and teams generally survive if their 14th man is just that.

Who knows what the circumstances were surrounding his initial contract but you also can't deny that life would be easier for the FO this summer if Reaves wasn't a free agent. The difference could easily be the same amount that compelled them to let AC go.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:58 am    Post subject:

gng930 wrote:

Who knows what the circumstances were surrounding his initial contract but you also can't deny that life would be easier for the FO this summer if Reaves wasn't a free agent. The difference could easily be the same amount that compelled them to let AC go.


Sure, but everything is easy in hindsight.

Right now, everyone wishes the Lakers had inked Reaves to a longer deal for less money than he'll probably get as a free agent. (Whether he would have agreed to a longer deal is another matter).

In other cases, fans have complained about the Lakers giving deals to players who didn't work out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Halflife
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 17623

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:20 pm    Post subject:

wolfpaclaker wrote:
Quote:
This team is still clearly better than they were pre-trade. The Lakers were losing "winnable" game fully healthy before the trade. I can tell this team is a LeBron away from being a good team. You couldn't say that before.

Agreed. It's a lot better. The team was a 12th seeded team when WB was with the team. Now they've been able to get through a patch without Lebron of 10 games with 5-5. They've got a lot more to work with.

The thing that's going to be tough here, is to predict how truly good they can be, to make the most out of the situation. Because financial decisions have to be made on many players and the team without really having a proper look at what the team can do with Lebron.

I will say this. The blueprint on how to win around AD/Bron was shown. However Pelinka keeps avoiding it. I will not ever get why he keeps thinking and so do the coaches they can do things completely different from how they had the most success with AD/Bron. Alas, at this point, all I hope for is we at least be competitive enough to get into the playoffs in the remainder of the AD/Bron era.

Win around bron/ad? Where is bron?
_________________
Kobe.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Clw9scopegx/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Laker7
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Feb 2003
Posts: 6426
Location: Past left field

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:26 pm    Post subject:

wolfpaclaker wrote:
Quote:
This team is still clearly better than they were pre-trade. The Lakers were losing "winnable" game fully healthy before the trade. I can tell this team is a LeBron away from being a good team. You couldn't say that before.

Agreed. It's a lot better. The team was a 12th seeded team when WB was with the team. Now they've been able to get through a patch without Lebron of 10 games with 5-5. They've got a lot more to work with.

The thing that's going to be tough here, is to predict how truly good they can be, to make the most out of the situation. Because financial decisions have to be made on many players and the team without really having a proper look at what the team can do with Lebron.

I will say this. The blueprint on how to win around AD/Bron was shown. However Pelinka keeps avoiding it. I will not ever get why he keeps thinking and so do the coaches they can do things completely different from how they had the most success with AD/Bron. Alas, at this point, all I hope for is we at least be competitive enough to get into the playoffs in the remainder of the AD/Bron era.


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
_________________
Darvin Ham is an idiot!
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 12:33 pm    Post subject:

gng930 wrote:
Who knows what the circumstances were surrounding his initial contract but you also can't deny that life would be easier for the FO this summer if Reaves wasn't a free agent. The difference could easily be the same amount that compelled them to let AC go.


Reaves signed a two-way deal, then had a big showing in the summer league. A team can convert a two-way deal to a regular contract, and that's what we did. At the time, Reaves wasn't any sort of priority.

Anyway, there's a difference between what is possible as a matter of capology and what is practical as a matter of sports business. What V+ says is correct in terms of capology, but the sports business part is different.

1. A team cannot require a player to sign a three-year minimum contract. That's a bad deal for the player. If he breaks out, then he's stuck making the minimum for an extra year. If he flops, he just gets cut.

2. Getting a player to sign a three-year contract requires negotiation on a quid pro quo basis. This can mean more money than the minimum, more guaranteed money, or possibly some other sort of perk. I went through some of the three-year contracts in one of these threads. None of them were unguaranteed minimum contracts. It's possible that someone somewhere agreed to that kind of deal, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

In the case of the guy from Australia, he isn't actually getting the minimum first-year salary. By showing up early (with just a few games left), he gets a prorated portion of the minimum first year salary, but then gets the second-year salary next year. That's about a $600,000 difference, plus it's guaranteed. In substance, he's getting a $140k signing bonus and then a $1.7M guaranteed contract for next season. That's enough of an incentive to get him to agree to a third year unguaranteed and a fourth year team option. He gets $1.8M guaranteed, which is likely the biggest payday of his life. If the Wizards offered him a four-year minimum contract this summer (starting at around $1.2M), he probably says no.

3. Unless a team has cap space, the team can do this only by burning part of a salary cap exception. Suppose that the team has a $6M taxpayer midlevel exception available (using a round number for convenience). Suppose further that the team wants to use $1.5M to induce a rookie to agree to a three-year contract. That leaves $4.5M of the exception. This means that the team will be outbid by any other team offering the full taxpayer midlevel. The point is that there is a strategic cost to offering this sort of contract.

So while this all sounds great at first glance, it's actually a lot more complicated. Put yourself in the Lakers' position in September 2021, when they converted Reaves' contract. At that point, they did not have enough of the midlevel left to offer Reaves a three-year deal even at the absolute minimum. If they did, it is not a forgone conclusion that Reaves and his agent would have accepted the absolute minimum. If they did, it's a near certainty that they would have demanded a full guarantee. Considering the priorities at the time, it's not surprising that the Lakers didn't go that route. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that it would have been better, but that's beside the point.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:44 pm    Post subject:

Laker7 wrote:

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?


That's a strawman argument. Sure, if everyone would return at a modest salary that put no financial strain on the Lakers, they would probably have them back.

The reality will be more complicated. Even if players demands aren't "outrageous" some will no doubt want more than the Lakers want to pay. The Lakers will need to make tough decisions about how much tax they are willing to pay, if any, which might cause them to get rid of some guys they would keep in a perfect world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11486

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:28 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
gng930 wrote:
Who knows what the circumstances were surrounding his initial contract but you also can't deny that life would be easier for the FO this summer if Reaves wasn't a free agent. The difference could easily be the same amount that compelled them to let AC go.


Reaves signed a two-way deal, then had a big showing in the summer league. A team can convert a two-way deal to a regular contract, and that's what we did. At the time, Reaves wasn't any sort of priority.

Anyway, there's a difference between what is possible as a matter of capology and what is practical as a matter of sports business. What V+ says is correct in terms of capology, but the sports business part is different.

1. A team cannot require a player to sign a three-year minimum contract. That's a bad deal for the player. If he breaks out, then he's stuck making the minimum for an extra year. If he flops, he just gets cut.

2. Getting a player to sign a three-year contract requires negotiation on a quid pro quo basis. This can mean more money than the minimum, more guaranteed money, or possibly some other sort of perk
. I went through some of the three-year contracts in one of these threads. None of them were unguaranteed minimum contracts. It's possible that someone somewhere agreed to that kind of deal, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

In the case of the guy from Australia, he isn't actually getting the minimum first-year salary. By showing up early (with just a few games left), he gets a prorated portion of the minimum first year salary, but then gets the second-year salary next year. That's about a $600,000 difference, plus it's guaranteed. In substance, he's getting a $140k signing bonus and then a $1.7M guaranteed contract for next season. That's enough of an incentive to get him to agree to a third year unguaranteed and a fourth year team option. He gets $1.8M guaranteed, which is likely the biggest payday of his life. If the Wizards offered him a four-year minimum contract this summer (starting at around $1.2M), he probably says no.

3. Unless a team has cap space, the team can do this only by burning part of a salary cap exception. Suppose that the team has a $6M taxpayer midlevel exception available (using a round number for convenience). Suppose further that the team wants to use $1.5M to induce a rookie to agree to a three-year contract. That leaves $4.5M of the exception. This means that the team will be outbid by any other team offering the full taxpayer midlevel. The point is that there is a strategic cost to offering this sort of contract.

So while this all sounds great at first glance, it's actually a lot more complicated. Put yourself in the Lakers' position in September 2021, when they converted Reaves' contract. At that point, they did not have enough of the midlevel left to offer Reaves a three-year deal even at the absolute minimum. If they did, it is not a forgone conclusion that Reaves and his agent would have accepted the absolute minimum. If they did, it's a near certainty that they would have demanded a full guarantee. Considering the priorities at the time, it's not surprising that the Lakers didn't go that route. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that it would have been better, but that's beside the point.


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.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)


Last edited by gng930 on Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 47214

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:31 pm    Post subject:

To me the logical explanation on why we haven’t said a big is because Bron is coming back soon, he’s strong enough to play small ball 5 until Bamba recovers

Last edited by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11486

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:31 pm    Post subject:

Laker7 wrote:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
Quote:
This team is still clearly better than they were pre-trade. The Lakers were losing "winnable" game fully healthy before the trade. I can tell this team is a LeBron away from being a good team. You couldn't say that before.

Agreed. It's a lot better. The team was a 12th seeded team when WB was with the team. Now they've been able to get through a patch without Lebron of 10 games with 5-5. They've got a lot more to work with.

The thing that's going to be tough here, is to predict how truly good they can be, to make the most out of the situation. Because financial decisions have to be made on many players and the team without really having a proper look at what the team can do with Lebron.

I will say this. The blueprint on how to win around AD/Bron was shown. However Pelinka keeps avoiding it. I will not ever get why he keeps thinking and so do the coaches they can do things completely different from how they had the most success with AD/Bron. Alas, at this point, all I hope for is we at least be competitive enough to get into the playoffs in the remainder of the AD/Bron era.


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 can't see them keeping Beasley at $16 million and I'd be inclined to agree.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bron2AD
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jun 2021
Posts: 9752

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:45 pm    Post subject:

I rather have reaves start next year then Malik Beasley start
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5777

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:01 pm    Post subject:

@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.

These kids ain’t household names like Leonardo DiCaprio…so where’s the leverage when they trying to earn a deal with Hollywood’s team?

Recently someone scrubbed through Reave’s old social posts and it was this kid’s dream to play for the Lakers. He wholly embraced being called “hillbilly Kobe” cause that was his favorite player. So walking into negotiations with Kobe’s agent you still feel dude gets slighted in being offered a rookie min 3yr deal? Really?! Even after dude gets explained that his fav team growing up would earn full bird rights to hand him a bag after that rookie deal was up. It’s mutually beneficial to the player and the team to earn longterm money via a 3yr deal.

Instead, we keep placing ourselves in these poisonous predicaments…

2017: needed just 816k to get TB for up to 4yrs via our 18m in cap space; instead the entire lump sum went to KCP on a 1yr deal; I highly doubt Klutch feels slighted in having 816k held back to get our rookie on a longterm deal, but I’m sure y’all will argue it haha

2018: needed just 832k to get Bonga/Svi for up to 4yrs via our cap space left over after we got Bron in the sack

2019: needed just 898k to get THT/AC for up to 4yrs via cap space left after it went kawhietly unused into the night; and then 2yrs later, it led to an ACcounting error

2020: no 2nd rounders or undrafted to deal with

2021: needed just 925k to get get Reaves for up to 3yrs via left over tpMLE; instead we were left 35k short after Nunn took 5m from the 5.89m exception; still could have offered the prorated rookie min @890k weeks into the regular season, instead that remaining exception amount went unused for the entirety of the season

2022: needed just 953k to get MaxC for up to 3yrs via a portion of the 6.48m tpMLE; instead the entirety was given to Walker on a 1yr deal and who isn’t receiving any significant PT and is set to expire; Klutch strikes again, right? But wasn’t it Klutch klient Nunn the year before that didn’t demand the entire MLE be used to gain his services? Couldn’t we just offer Walker a 2yr deal with 953k guaranteed in the 2nd year of a partially guaranteed deal and then just waive him so that he got the full 6.48m anyways?

Again AH, you can keep countering, but I fundamentally disagree with this strategy. Nothing can convince me otherwise.
_________________
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: 11486

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:08 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.

These kids ain’t household names like Leonardo DiCaprio…so where’s the leverage when they trying to earn a deal with Hollywood’s team?

Recently someone scrubbed through Reave’s old social posts and it was this kid’s dream to play for the Lakers. He wholly embraced being called “hillbilly Kobe” cause that was his favorite player. So walking into negotiations with Kobe’s agent you still feel dude gets slighted in being offered a rookie min 3yr deal? Really?! Even after dude gets explained that his fav team growing up would earn full bird rights to hand him a bag after that rookie deal was up. It’s mutually beneficial to the player and the team to earn longterm money via a 3yr deal.

Instead, we keep placing ourselves in these poisonous predicaments…

2017: needed just 816k to get TB for up to 4yrs via our 18m in cap space; instead the entire lump sum went to KCP on a 1yr deal; I highly doubt Klutch feels slighted in having 816k held back to get our rookie on a longterm deal, but I’m sure y’all will argue it haha

2018: needed just 832k to get Bonga/Svi for up to 4yrs via our cap space left over after we got Bron in the sack

2019: needed just 898k to get THT/AC for up to 4yrs via cap space left after it went kawhietly unused into the night; and then 2yrs later, it led to an ACcounting error

2020: no 2nd rounders or undrafted to deal with

2021: needed just 925k to get get Reaves for up to 3yrs via left over tpMLE; instead we were left 35k short after Nunn took 5m from the 5.89m exception; still could have offered the prorated rookie min @890k weeks into the regular season, instead that remaining exception amount went unused for the entirety of the season

2022: needed just 953k to get MaxC for up to 3yrs via a portion of the 6.48m tpMLE; instead the entirety was given to Walker on a 1yr deal and who isn’t receiving any significant PT and is set to expire; Klutch strikes again, right? But wasn’t it Klutch klient Nunn the year before that didn’t demand the entire MLE be used to gain his services? Couldn’t we just offer Walker a 2yr deal with 953k guaranteed in the 2nd year of a partially guaranteed deal and then just waive him so that he got the full 6.48m anyways?

Again AH, you can keep countering, but I fundamentally disagree with this strategy. Nothing can convince me otherwise.


This is an interesting quirk. My understanding is that the MLE (and any unused portions) prorate with the season. ??
_________________
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 2:18 pm    Post subject:

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. At the time we signed Nunn, I suspect that the idea of negotiating with Reaves and his agent wasn't even on the radar. At that point, Reaves wasn't important in the big picture.
_________________
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: 5777

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:20 pm    Post subject:

@G: the vet min exception prorates downward from day 1 of the season…meanwhile the other exceptions (all MLEs - room, tp, ntp, BAE, bird) except for DPEs & TPEs begin to prorate downward for every day of the season after Jan 10th.
_________________
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
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 ... 1377, 1378, 1379 ... 2698, 2699, 2700  Next
Page 1378 of 2700
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