2014 Cap Space Projections – Pacific Division
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6121

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:12 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
As Earl Clark found out last year, one can "make more money" and be out of the league.

Nick Young Jodie Meeks will get numerous offers to be rotation players or starters on bad teams.

Nick and Meeks have proven that they are good rotation players, but not starters on contending teams.

Johnson has talented, but not consistent enough to be anything more than a rotation player, or a starter on a bad team

Same with Hill
Clark signed with Cleveland, was traded to the 76ers and was waived, and then signed with NY, which leased him after a couple of 10 day contracts because he played poorly. I guess you are assuming he would have played better if he was making less money? Who knows? He might have signed for less, played just as badly and been cut.

I guess you're also assuming no one will sign him next year? Again, who knows.

Only thing we know for sure is he has that $4 million Cleveland paid him. Anyway, I doubt any NBA player is going to take less money on the fear he'll play poorly if he does.

By and large players will always go for the most cash. And that makes sense since they could take less cash and be traded to a team they don't want to be at.

I am not sure impressed with any of the guys you mention either. That said, I can't see why any of them wouldn't jump to be a starter with a starter's salary if offered the cash.

I think most guys who haven't already gotten big paychecks would prefer to be starter on a bad team (with more money) than a sub on a contender.
Not saying that Clark should have resigned with the Lakers, but maybe he had a choice of less money with a team playing a system more suited to his style of play could have been a better choice. Less upfront money but longer career or go for as much money as possible is the decision that Clark and most of today's Lakers face.

If your axiom that players prefer being starters on a bad team, as oppose to lessor money to play for a contender is true, the Bucks (along with teams like the Bobcats, Kings, Magic and others will have ex-Lakers in their starting lineups.
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: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:05 am    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
activeverb wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
As Earl Clark found out last year, one can "make more money" and be out of the league.

Nick Young Jodie Meeks will get numerous offers to be rotation players or starters on bad teams.

Nick and Meeks have proven that they are good rotation players, but not starters on contending teams.

Johnson has talented, but not consistent enough to be anything more than a rotation player, or a starter on a bad team

Same with Hill
Clark signed with Cleveland, was traded to the 76ers and was waived, and then signed with NY, which leased him after a couple of 10 day contracts because he played poorly. I guess you are assuming he would have played better if he was making less money? Who knows? He might have signed for less, played just as badly and been cut.

I guess you're also assuming no one will sign him next year? Again, who knows.

Only thing we know for sure is he has that $4 million Cleveland paid him. Anyway, I doubt any NBA player is going to take less money on the fear he'll play poorly if he does.

By and large players will always go for the most cash. And that makes sense since they could take less cash and be traded to a team they don't want to be at.

I am not sure impressed with any of the guys you mention either. That said, I can't see why any of them wouldn't jump to be a starter with a starter's salary if offered the cash.

I think most guys who haven't already gotten big paychecks would prefer to be starter on a bad team (with more money) than a sub on a contender.
Not saying that Clark should have resigned with the Lakers, but maybe he had a choice of less money with a team playing a system more suited to his style of play could have been a better choice. Less upfront money but longer career or go for as much money as possible is the decision that Clark and most of today's Lakers face.

If your axiom that players prefer being starters on a bad team, as oppose to lessor money to play for a contender is true, the Bucks (along with teams like the Bobcats, Kings, Magic and others will have ex-Lakers in their starting lineups.


Yeah, I really question most of that. Who exactly are all these ex-Lakers you think turned down tons of money elsewhere to be low paid bench players?

As far as Clark, again who knows? It's possible he's just not that good, and he lucked out having an OK run with the Lakers it's just the right time, and he made some money as a result.

I think the notion that if he had signed elsewhere for much less he'd have a longer career is dubious. You may be right, but who knows? Like I said before, the only sure thing in all this is the money in the bank.
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
Page 3 of 3
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