Official [FREE AGENCY] Talk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2775, 2776, 2777 ... 2902, 2903, 2904  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Trade and Free Agency Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:05 am    Post subject:

22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DoubleClutch
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 2712
Location: Town

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:12 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position.

Cha needs big man depth. After big Al it's just Biyombo, Vonleh and Zeller. Pretty underwhelming when healthy and dangerously thin if anyone gets hurt. I see a Hill for MKG trade coming at the deadline.
_________________
“This goes far beyond paychecks”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:15 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position.


Agreed. Stuckey can't replace what Stephenson brought
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Vancouver Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 17740

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:16 am    Post subject:

DoubleClutch wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position.

Cha needs big man depth. After big Al it's just Biyombo, Vonleh and Zeller. Pretty underwhelming when healthy and dangerously thin if anyone gets hurt. I see a Hill for MKG trade coming at the deadline.
in your dreams maybe.
_________________
Music is my medicine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject:

DoubleClutch wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position.

Cha needs big man depth. After big Al it's just Biyombo, Vonleh and Zeller. Pretty underwhelming when healthy and dangerously thin if anyone gets hurt. I see a Hill for MKG trade coming at the deadline.


They're fine. And yes, they have lots of assets to make trades. Not too many big men in the East that pose a threat.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject:

22 wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position.


Agreed. Stuckey can't replace what Stephenson brought


Stuckey is a fraction of Lance, not even close. They will really miss Lance, even though he had some crazy antics.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
30
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 4984

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:07 pm    Post subject:

22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't

Hit the nail on the head.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Big Game James
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 4003
Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:13 pm    Post subject:

22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).
_________________
Don't make me give you a trout slap!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:17 pm    Post subject:

Big Game James wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).


Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez?
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:33 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Big Game James wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).


Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez?


And Lance does not have a near max contract like BGJ said. He makes $9M. Much better use of money than Beasley at the min who was being paid to collect goose eggs on the bench for Miami last year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
30
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 4984

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:50 pm    Post subject:

Big Game James wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).

Since when is 9M near max?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
King Randle
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Posts: 7313

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:59 pm    Post subject:

Absolutely...Beasley at the minimum is a better acquisition than Lance at $27 for 3 years. Lance got his ass kicked by an aging Wade, would blow in Lebron's ear to try to get under his skin. That worked out well right?

If Beasley can carry himself like he did last year in Miami he could be a huge asset. If he got 24-28 minutes a game here he could easily get 11-14 ppg and is a legitimate threat. I still don't think he'll sign here but he would definitley help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:01 pm    Post subject:

30 wrote:
Big Game James wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).

Since when is 9M near max?

Right?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
30
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 4984

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:28 pm    Post subject:

King Randle wrote:
Absolutely...Beasley at the minimum is a better acquisition than Lance at $27 for 3 years. Lance got his ass kicked by an aging Wade, would blow in Lebron's ear to try to get under his skin. That worked out well right?

If Beasley can carry himself like he did last year in Miami he could be a huge asset. If he got 24-28 minutes a game here he could easily get 11-14 ppg and is a legitimate threat. I still don't think he'll sign here but he would definitley help.

Did you forget the part where Stephenson led the NBA in triple-doubles? Did you forget the part where Stephenson was an All-Star Snub? Did you forget the part where Stephenson is only 23? Has Beasley come close to this type of production? No.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
King Randle
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Posts: 7313

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:35 pm    Post subject:

Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.

We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
30
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 4984

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:42 pm    Post subject:

King Randle wrote:
Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.

We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain.


So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...

Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Big Game James
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 4003
Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:45 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Big Game James wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).


Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez?


Yes, and that would be nice. However, doing that would cripple what we as an organization is trying to do. We are attempting to keep our capspace free in an effort to land the heavy weights. Signing Lance at $9 million would hurt that goal. Lance is not worth giving up that goal. That to me is what also makes acquiring Beasley that much more valuable. Signing him allows us to maintain our focus with minimal risk and max reward.
_________________
Don't make me give you a trout slap!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject:

King Randle wrote:
Absolutely...Beasley at the minimum is a better acquisition than Lance at $27 for 3 years. Lance got his ass kicked by an aging Wade, would blow in Lebron's ear to try to get under his skin. That worked out well right?

If Beasley can carry himself like he did last year in Miami he could be a huge asset. If he got 24-28 minutes a game here he could easily get 11-14 ppg and is a legitimate threat. I still don't think he'll sign here but he would definitley help.


please show me the stats. I am v curious. I watched the entire series and never did wade kicked his a$$.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jackobe
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 4466

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:54 pm    Post subject:

30 wrote:
King Randle wrote:
Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.

We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain.


So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...

Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has.


Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.

Let's pick him up, he is a FA!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
30
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 4984

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:01 pm    Post subject:

Big Game James wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Big Game James wrote:
22 wrote:
TheGood83 wrote:
22 wrote:
B_P wrote:

We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??


If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.

I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.

But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas


Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out.


Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.

Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't


Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!

With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents).


Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez?


Yes, and that would be nice. However, doing that would cripple what we as an organization is trying to do. We are attempting to keep our capspace free in an effort to land the heavy weights. Signing Lance at $9 million would hurt that goal. Lance is not worth giving up that goal. That to me is what also makes acquiring Beasley that much more valuable. Signing him allows us to maintain our focus with minimal risk and max reward.


I would actually think, signing a player of Stephenson's calibar would have helped the Lakers get the heavyweights. It would show them that they would not have to carry the team alone, and Stephenson can be a reliable 2nd to 3rd option on a contending team. Also 9M would not have impaired the Lakers ability to sign a max free agent since we would be projected to have 33-37M in cap space (before subtracting 9M) to sign free agents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:01 pm    Post subject:

Jackobe wrote:
30 wrote:
King Randle wrote:
Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.

We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain.


So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...

Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has.


Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.

Let's pick him up, he is a FA!


I heard Gilbert Arenas scored over 60 once. Let's pick him up too!

It'd be for the vet minimum so that automatically means it's a bargain right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
30
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 4984

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:06 pm    Post subject:

22 wrote:
Jackobe wrote:
30 wrote:
King Randle wrote:
Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.

We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain.


So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...

Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has.


Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.

Let's pick him up, he is a FA!


I heard Gilbert Arenas scored over 60 once. Let's pick him up too!

It'd be for the vet minimum so that automatically means it's a bargain right?


Any chance we can bring Damon Stoudamire (Scored 54 points in one game) out of retirement? He would be a great fit! I think we can get him for a bargain vet min deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:07 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Looking around the league - teams with cap space - teams that might want to do S&T - slim slim market for Eric Bledsoe

At some point, I'd anticipate Bledsoe re-signs w/ Suns instead of taking qualifying offer - but I expect the rhetoric to uglify before then


Emplay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hard_Butter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 12223
Location: The Two One Three

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 pm    Post subject:

30 wrote:
22 wrote:
Jackobe wrote:
30 wrote:
King Randle wrote:
Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.

We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain.


So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...

Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has.


Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.

Let's pick him up, he is a FA!


I heard Gilbert Arenas scored over 60 once. Let's pick him up too!

It'd be for the vet minimum so that automatically means it's a bargain right?


Any chance we can bring Damon Stoudamire (Scored 54 points in one game) out of retirement? He would be a great fit! I think we can get him for a bargain vet min deal.


I heard Tony Delk is available....he once scored 53 in a game. He has to be good!
_________________
The butter's hard and the eggs are chillin' in the dark.

Kiss my Converse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hard_Butter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 12223
Location: The Two One Three

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:12 pm    Post subject:

Jim99187 wrote:
Quote:
Looking around the league - teams with cap space - teams that might want to do S&T - slim slim market for Eric Bledsoe

At some point, I'd anticipate Bledsoe re-signs w/ Suns instead of taking qualifying offer - but I expect the rhetoric to uglify before then


Emplay


Uglify? Eric making up words now?
_________________
The butter's hard and the eggs are chillin' in the dark.

Kiss my Converse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Trade and Free Agency Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2775, 2776, 2777 ... 2902, 2903, 2904  Next
Page 2776 of 2904
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