View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lakerpark Star Player
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 Posts: 2117
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:12 am Post subject: Steve Nash's future |
|
|
What are the Lakers going to do with Nash?
It's too late to do that cut him and spread his contract over 3 years thing.
It's obvious that he is not going to hold up health wise.
Playing him in any significant role will destroy team continuity as he plays 2 games and then sits out 10.
Continuing to try to play him will stunt the growth of young players like Clarkson.
Keeping him on the roster will waste a valuable space that might be better served by allowing them to develop a good young player (maybe like Quincy Miller?)
Are the Lakers willing to hinder their team and their future by being "loyal" to Nash? It's not like he's played 19 years for them like Kobe.
I'm asking you Laker experts out there what are the Lakers going to do? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think they are keeping him around to be a $9-10m trading chip (along with Houston's 2015 1st and other young assets). _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lakerpark Star Player
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 Posts: 2117
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks...
So do you think it's possible to package something like Jordan Hill and Nash plus extras to get someone like maybe Javale McGee or Hibbert?
That first unit really needs a rim protector.
It's amazing to see how much impact Ed Davis has when he's on the court. If the Lakers could get another rim protector for the starting line up maybe that might make them more of a contender. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lakerpark wrote: | Thanks...
So do you think it's possible to package something like Jordan Hill and Nash plus extras to get someone like maybe Javale McGee or Hibbert?
That first unit really needs a rim protector.
It's amazing to see how much impact Ed Davis has when he's on the court. If the Lakers could get another rim protector for the starting line up maybe that might make them more of a contender. |
No.
1. Hill can't be traded until Jan. 2015. And he has veto powers. Too complicated to move him IMO unless he consents to it.
2. Packaging Hill and Nash = nearly $20m plus. Easier to trade a $10m contract IMO (a reason why Pau was so hard to trade). _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gimme_the_rock Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2001 Posts: 11882 Location: Looking outta the window, watching the asphalt grow ...
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Coaching, shooting short parody vids, lawn darts. _________________ We back. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mini Mamba Star Player
Joined: 06 May 2013 Posts: 6006
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | Thanks...
So do you think it's possible to package something like Jordan Hill and Nash plus extras to get someone like maybe Javale McGee or Hibbert?
That first unit really needs a rim protector.
It's amazing to see how much impact Ed Davis has when he's on the court. If the Lakers could get another rim protector for the starting line up maybe that might make them more of a contender. |
No.
1. Hill can't be traded until Jan. 2015. And he has veto powers. Too complicated to move him IMO unless he consents to it.
2. Packaging Hill and Nash = nearly $20m plus. Easier to trade a $10m contract IMO (a reason why Pau was so hard to trade). |
The only way I see Hill agreeing to be traded is if he goes to a contender.
Hopefully at the deadline Nash and Houston's 1st can be packaged to get either a SF or C. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mini Mamba wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | Thanks...
So do you think it's possible to package something like Jordan Hill and Nash plus extras to get someone like maybe Javale McGee or Hibbert?
That first unit really needs a rim protector.
It's amazing to see how much impact Ed Davis has when he's on the court. If the Lakers could get another rim protector for the starting line up maybe that might make them more of a contender. |
No.
1. Hill can't be traded until Jan. 2015. And he has veto powers. Too complicated to move him IMO unless he consents to it.
2. Packaging Hill and Nash = nearly $20m plus. Easier to trade a $10m contract IMO (a reason why Pau was so hard to trade). |
The only way I see Hill agreeing to be traded is if he goes to a contender.
Hopefully at the deadline Nash and Houston's 1st can be packaged to get either a SF or C. |
But we would need a big back as Davis/Boozer/Randle isn't enough in a Hill deal. Nash is probably the most moveable piece, and he may agree to a buyout too if he gets traded to an undesirable team. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. |
Even if the salary cap rises and the stretched out hits will be negligible (and the resultant cap space we would have had)? I guess you're right if we can make a move, but if we can't, it was a bad gamble. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mini Mamba Star Player
Joined: 06 May 2013 Posts: 6006
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Mini Mamba wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | Thanks...
So do you think it's possible to package something like Jordan Hill and Nash plus extras to get someone like maybe Javale McGee or Hibbert?
That first unit really needs a rim protector.
It's amazing to see how much impact Ed Davis has when he's on the court. If the Lakers could get another rim protector for the starting line up maybe that might make them more of a contender. |
No.
1. Hill can't be traded until Jan. 2015. And he has veto powers. Too complicated to move him IMO unless he consents to it.
2. Packaging Hill and Nash = nearly $20m plus. Easier to trade a $10m contract IMO (a reason why Pau was so hard to trade). |
The only way I see Hill agreeing to be traded is if he goes to a contender.
Hopefully at the deadline Nash and Houston's 1st can be packaged to get either a SF or C. |
But we would need a big back as Davis/Boozer/Randle isn't enough in a Hill deal. Nash is probably the most moveable piece, and he may agree to a buyout too if he gets traded to an undesirable team. |
I think Byron likes Sacre but I agree that we would need another big if Hill is shipped out.
If Nash is bought out then I'd like to see him play for a contender and have a chance to win a ring before he retires. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. |
Even if the salary cap rises and the stretched out hits will be negligible (and the resultant cap space we would have had)? I guess you're right if we can make a move, but if we can't, it was a bad gamble. |
It is always better to lose 100% of the salary in a year where you aren't competing than 33.3% in a couple of years in which you might be. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. |
Even if the salary cap rises and the stretched out hits will be negligible (and the resultant cap space we would have had)? I guess you're right if we can make a move, but if we can't, it was a bad gamble. |
It is always better to lose 100% of the salary in a year where you aren't competing than 33.3% in a couple of years in which you might be. |
Not if you include the likely salary cap increases which would make it more like 20-24% and decreasing until the end.
The opportunity cost is the cap space which would have been used by the team IMO to get a SF. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is a better decision if you want to include the salary cap increases. There is no way Nash's contract hurts us this season but might end up helping us. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Last edited by venturalakersfan on Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mini Mamba Star Player
Joined: 06 May 2013 Posts: 6006
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. |
Even if the salary cap rises and the stretched out hits will be negligible (and the resultant cap space we would have had)? I guess you're right if we can make a move, but if we can't, it was a bad gamble. |
Worst case scenario is we can't trade Nash and he serves as a mentor to Lin and Clarkson for the rest of the season. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | I think it is a better decision if you want to include the salary cap increases. There is no way Nash's contract hurts us this season but might end up helping us. |
right, but we all knew the team had a glaring SF hole that couldn't be fixed due to salary cap constraints. With an extra 6-7m you could have gotten an upgrade at the SF spot, and Nash's $3m/hit would amount to $2.2-2.4m a year down the road (when we'd have nearly $30m in cap space next season and more in 2016).
Again, opportunity cost, unless you are writing off this season. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17063
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mini Mamba wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. |
Even if the salary cap rises and the stretched out hits will be negligible (and the resultant cap space we would have had)? I guess you're right if we can make a move, but if we can't, it was a bad gamble. |
Worst case scenario is we can't trade Nash and he serves as a mentor to Lin and Clarkson for the rest of the season. |
Yup.
But for Nash's personal sake I hope he medically retires. He would still get paid and not risk further nerve damage, and the Lakers could have another roster spot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mini Mamba wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I see Nash playing some games and then being shopped heavily at the deadline as an ending contract. Not stretching him was a great decision by the FO. |
Even if the salary cap rises and the stretched out hits will be negligible (and the resultant cap space we would have had)? I guess you're right if we can make a move, but if we can't, it was a bad gamble. |
Worst case scenario is we can't trade Nash and he serves as a mentor to Lin and Clarkson for the rest of the season. |
Is he around practice? Last year I remember he'd be off in Canada "recuperating" and "rehabilitating" when he took games off. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fontana3d Star Player
Joined: 22 Mar 2013 Posts: 3794
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I think it is a better decision if you want to include the salary cap increases. There is no way Nash's contract hurts us this season but might end up helping us. |
right, but we all knew the team had a glaring SF hole that couldn't be fixed due to salary cap constraints. With an extra 6-7m you could have gotten an upgrade at the SF spot, and Nash's $3m/hit would amount to $2.2-2.4m a year down the road (when we'd have nearly $30m in cap space next season and more in 2016).
Again, opportunity cost, unless you are writing off this season. |
You don't get it do you. The Lakers want all of his salary off the books not sterching it for three years. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
fontana3d wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I think it is a better decision if you want to include the salary cap increases. There is no way Nash's contract hurts us this season but might end up helping us. |
right, but we all knew the team had a glaring SF hole that couldn't be fixed due to salary cap constraints. With an extra 6-7m you could have gotten an upgrade at the SF spot, and Nash's $3m/hit would amount to $2.2-2.4m a year down the road (when we'd have nearly $30m in cap space next season and more in 2016).
Again, opportunity cost, unless you are writing off this season. |
You don't get it do you. The Lakers want all of his salary off the books not sterching it for three years. |
I get it. But their reason was primarily the hope he would be healthy.
My point is, with the increasing cap (increased by a wide margin this year, will increase next and in 2016 by a lot), the "stretch hit" is minimal, especially when we have nearly $30m in cap space in 2015 and basically nothing in 2016.
IF the team wanted to truly compete, you take the stretched salary, use the 6-7m to upgrade at the SF, unless you think Wes Johnson was going to cut it. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80 Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 Posts: 38751
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
A very expensive PG coach....I don't see teams taking him despite his expiring contract. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DimesnD Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 Posts: 944
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ for teams wishing to shed long term contracts, and there are quite a few. "him" figures little in the equation in obtaining an expiring contract. "Coach", expensive or not on the other hand could be an bonus in the transaction. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dvdrdiscs Star Player
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 6274
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hill's $10 mil. 1 year + Nash's $10 mil exception + Houston's pick = some disgruntled high paying player.
So who is a disgruntled franchise player? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80 Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 Posts: 38751
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 Posts: 30621
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | fontana3d wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | I think it is a better decision if you want to include the salary cap increases. There is no way Nash's contract hurts us this season but might end up helping us. |
right, but we all knew the team had a glaring SF hole that couldn't be fixed due to salary cap constraints. With an extra 6-7m you could have gotten an upgrade at the SF spot, and Nash's $3m/hit would amount to $2.2-2.4m a year down the road (when we'd have nearly $30m in cap space next season and more in 2016).
Again, opportunity cost, unless you are writing off this season. |
You don't get it do you. The Lakers want all of his salary off the books not sterching it for three years. |
I get it. But their reason was primarily the hope he would be healthy.
My point is, with the increasing cap (increased by a wide margin this year, will increase next and in 2016 by a lot), the "stretch hit" is minimal, especially when we have nearly $30m in cap space in 2015 and basically nothing in 2016.
IF the team wanted to truly compete, you take the stretched salary, use the 6-7m to upgrade at the SF, unless you think Wes Johnson was going to cut it. |
Guess it depends on the definition of truly competing. If it's for the chip?
There isn't a 6-7m SF out there that would make us remotely close to truly competing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|