| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nightwalker
Star Player
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 2739
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I llike Durant but I just don't see him coming here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LHQ
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 611
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HA!
Pretty naive question. You all know, deep in your hearts...
That Buss and his barmaid will use all the new cap to sign Kobe to a new 10y/800m contract.
Booyah! You heard it here first.
_________________
Hymn for the Red October
-Hans Zimmer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rawr
Star Player
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 1186
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We need a dominant defensive C and a lights out shooting SF. If either of those are available for the max, we'll offer it.
Just look at our last free agent targets to understand what we want.
Dwight Howard and Carmelo Anthony.
_________________
You are either in or on your way to the NBA Finals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AirShooter
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mini Mamba wrote: | I feel that last seasons playoffs was a blip and not the start of a trend for Hibbert.
It is a risk and hurts the salary cap if he can't regain his form but worst case scenario is we have him for two seasons and in 2016 we'd have a ton of money to spend that summer.
We our very small and undersized at C and Hibbert gives us a big, physical presence at C ( 7'2", 290 lbs) that could protect the paint better than the players we currently have. |
Well, if the gamble fails, it's not just a waste of cap space for two season, but there's also an opportunity cost.
The presence of Hibbert on the squad could also make it more difficult to sign other big men on the market who could possibly deliver serviceable performance. Robin Lopez and Asik are among centers who will be free agents next summer. They may be less likely to consider the Lakers if they think Hibberts is sitting on minutes and taking cap space (not that I think they would necessarily come to LA).
Hibbert's contract also has a player option, and contracts with player options aren't particularly attractive as trade bait. He does well, he opts out a year early and you have to spend more cap on him or let him walk for nothing if you don't think it's worth it. He does poorly and he opts in and you're stuck with him for another year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course  )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
Well, this is the kind of trade I could see the Lakers doing.
1. Lakers traditionally like big centers.
2. We need a defensive anchor.
3. Hibbert would have only a player option in 2015, and his salary/cap hit isn't onerous that year. He would be off the books by 2016, or if he elects, he could be a free agent next season (which is my main problem with this trade ironically).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
Well, this is the kind of trade I could see the Lakers doing.
1. Lakers traditionally like big centers.
2. We need a defensive anchor.
3. Hibbert would have only a player option in 2015, and his salary/cap hit isn't onerous that year. He would be off the books by 2016, or if he elects, he could be a free agent next season (which is my main problem with this trade ironically). |
Nash/Hill I'd be upset but I'd understand. The 1st is where I draw the line though yinomes. That's giving up waaayy too much for a guy they need to dump.
Plus I think Hibbert is just too plodding. Would rather have a pogo stick like javale. And neither one of them is a rogue scholar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
Well, this is the kind of trade I could see the Lakers doing.
1. Lakers traditionally like big centers.
2. We need a defensive anchor.
3. Hibbert would have only a player option in 2015, and his salary/cap hit isn't onerous that year. He would be off the books by 2016, or if he elects, he could be a free agent next season (which is my main problem with this trade ironically). |
Nash/Hill I'd be upset but I'd understand. The 1st is where I draw the line though yinomes. That's giving up waaayy too much for a guy they need to dump.
Plus I think Hibbert is just too plodding. Would rather have a pogo stick like javale. And neither one of them is a rogue scholar |
I absolutely understand the counterpoints. Just thinking that it's a kind of move the Lakers can actually make. I'm sure a guy like Hibbert would love to play in LA and has already worked with KAJ. Lakers obviously have a history of pursuing big men so I can see why they would be interested.
I do worry about his option as he could just walk next summer if he chose to. Also was disappointed with his playoffs but it seemed that Indy team just had some bad karma all around.
Nash/Hill would basically require Indy picking up the 2nd year option on Hill at $9m. Would they want him? Not sure. And if they don't, Hill could veto that trade.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gus26
Star Player
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Posts: 3099
Location: Colton
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
they should use it when the right situation presents itself...
they should just keep doing these one year plans and try to compete while not commiting to long term salary unless the right players work and they're willing to sign on to cap friendly deals (like nick young)...
they need to use free agency to sign a game changing superstar player... they shouldn't use it to stay relevent like dallas did...
in 2015 the targets should not be role or complentary players...
we need stars to build around... the season has yet to be played and who knows what can happen so when i say these names don't scratch your head...
1. lebron has a player option (what if kyrie and him don't get along, and kevin love blows out a knee)
2. kevin love has a player option (what if cleveland is just not for him)
3. Lamarcus Aldrige (dwight walked LA can walk, what if lilard gets hurt or the chemistry isn't there anymore)
4. DeAndre Jordan
5. Klay Thompson
6. Kawhi Leonard
7. Reggie Jackson
8. Marc Gasol
9. Rondo
unless i'm forgetting someone all the other players are just role players and if we don't get one of these top 9 Free agents we should just sign one year deals again and see what 2016 looks like... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
Well, this is the kind of trade I could see the Lakers doing.
1. Lakers traditionally like big centers.
2. We need a defensive anchor.
3. Hibbert would have only a player option in 2015, and his salary/cap hit isn't onerous that year. He would be off the books by 2016, or if he elects, he could be a free agent next season (which is my main problem with this trade ironically). |
Nash/Hill I'd be upset but I'd understand. The 1st is where I draw the line though yinomes. That's giving up waaayy too much for a guy they need to dump.
Plus I think Hibbert is just too plodding. Would rather have a pogo stick like javale. And neither one of them is a rogue scholar |
McGee is as rogue as they come though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GonzagaAlum
Star Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 3021
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
My hope... they sign Greg Monroe for the max next off season. If you look at statistical analysis Greg Monroe projects really good as a #5. He just can't play there in DTown.
Greg at 24... Randle younger at the 4 spot...
The frontcourt would be solid for a long time.
Though the key might be to find a lengthy SF or a rebounding stud at SF. It's too bad the Lakers didn't get Stevenson at the value level they could have last year.
Bledsoe... I'm not sure I'd want. The Lin experiment could be one where the Lakers would be better keeping him, then spending more on Bledsoe... and saving that extra money for the 3 spot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GonzagaAlum wrote: | My hope... they sign Greg Monroe for the max next off season. If you look at statistical analysis Greg Monroe projects really good as a #5. He just can't play there in DTown.
Greg at 24... Randle younger at the 4 spot...
The frontcourt would be solid for a long time.
Though the key might be to find a lengthy SF or a rebounding stud at SF. It's too bad the Lakers didn't get Stevenson at the value level they could have last year.
Bledsoe... I'm not sure I'd want. The Lin experiment could be one where the Lakers would be better keeping him, then spending more on Bledsoe... and saving that extra money for the 3 spot. |
Not sure why people are attracted to Monroe. Yes, he's better at 5, but he's pretty much a post and short range shot kind of guy, doesn't exactly light up good defense, and can't guard his own man, sucks at pick and roll or help defense of any kind, and isn't any sort of impediment at the rim. You're getting a ho hum offensive player that is going to obstruct Randle's game while being a horrible defensive partner for him.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GonzagaAlum
Star Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 3021
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | GonzagaAlum wrote: | My hope... they sign Greg Monroe for the max next off season. If you look at statistical analysis Greg Monroe projects really good as a #5. He just can't play there in DTown.
Greg at 24... Randle younger at the 4 spot...
The frontcourt would be solid for a long time.
Though the key might be to find a lengthy SF or a rebounding stud at SF. It's too bad the Lakers didn't get Stevenson at the value level they could have last year.
Bledsoe... I'm not sure I'd want. The Lin experiment could be one where the Lakers would be better keeping him, then spending more on Bledsoe... and saving that extra money for the 3 spot. |
Not sure why people are attracted to Monroe. Yes, he's better at 5, but he's pretty much a post and short range shot kind of guy, doesn't exactly light up good defense, and can't guard his own man, sucks at pick and roll or help defense of any kind, and isn't any sort of impediment at the rim. You're getting a ho hum offensive player that is going to obstruct Randle's game while being a horrible defensive partner for him. |
He's guarding 4's. Which puts him in a Pau Gasol type of spot at the moment. He really shouldn't be defending 4's.
As for post and short range play. I think that's why the Lakers should get him. Randle is going to likely be closer to LO... will face you up then drive to the hoop. Monroe could be the back to the basket guy.
As for his defense. I believe he's underrated in that regard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L.A.M.B
Sixth Man
Joined: 29 Aug 2014
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| we should've signed beasley a long time ago |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Shadow King
Star Player
Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 4363
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | GonzagaAlum wrote: | My hope... they sign Greg Monroe for the max next off season. If you look at statistical analysis Greg Monroe projects really good as a #5. He just can't play there in DTown.
Greg at 24... Randle younger at the 4 spot...
The frontcourt would be solid for a long time.
Though the key might be to find a lengthy SF or a rebounding stud at SF. It's too bad the Lakers didn't get Stevenson at the value level they could have last year.
Bledsoe... I'm not sure I'd want. The Lin experiment could be one where the Lakers would be better keeping him, then spending more on Bledsoe... and saving that extra money for the 3 spot. |
Not sure why people are attracted to Monroe. Yes, he's better at 5, but he's pretty much a post and short range shot kind of guy, doesn't exactly light up good defense, and can't guard his own man, sucks at pick and roll or help defense of any kind, and isn't any sort of impediment at the rim. You're getting a ho hum offensive player that is going to obstruct Randle's game while being a horrible defensive partner for him. |
The only people who droll over Greg Monroe are people who read box scores instead of watching Pistons games... although missing Pistons games isn't exactly a terrible thing to do.
_________________
Lakers, today. Lakers, tomorrow. Lakers, forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Shadow King
Star Player
Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 4363
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| L.A.M.B wrote: | | we should've signed beasley a long time ago |
Agreed.
_________________
Lakers, today. Lakers, tomorrow. Lakers, forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GonzagaAlum wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | GonzagaAlum wrote: | My hope... they sign Greg Monroe for the max next off season. If you look at statistical analysis Greg Monroe projects really good as a #5. He just can't play there in DTown.
Greg at 24... Randle younger at the 4 spot...
The frontcourt would be solid for a long time.
Though the key might be to find a lengthy SF or a rebounding stud at SF. It's too bad the Lakers didn't get Stevenson at the value level they could have last year.
Bledsoe... I'm not sure I'd want. The Lin experiment could be one where the Lakers would be better keeping him, then spending more on Bledsoe... and saving that extra money for the 3 spot. |
Not sure why people are attracted to Monroe. Yes, he's better at 5, but he's pretty much a post and short range shot kind of guy, doesn't exactly light up good defense, and can't guard his own man, sucks at pick and roll or help defense of any kind, and isn't any sort of impediment at the rim. You're getting a ho hum offensive player that is going to obstruct Randle's game while being a horrible defensive partner for him. |
He's guarding 4's. Which puts him in a Pau Gasol type of spot at the moment. He really shouldn't be defending 4's.
As for post and short range play. I think that's why the Lakers should get him. Randle is going to likely be closer to LO... will face you up then drive to the hoop. Monroe could be the back to the basket guy.
As for his defense. I believe he's underrated in that regard. |
Let's start with the defense first. While it is true that he is better guarding centers than power forwards, we're talking an improvement level from horrific to merely quite bad. And the team defense is bad at both spots. Not a good helper, does not protect the rim. And less you think it is his bad teammates, the team defense gets better with him off the court. Underrated is a very kind term. It is rated just about right by any metric you can come up with.
On offense, he should be overpowering 4's if he's a natural center, but he doesn't. He's actually better offensively at 5 as well, where he uses a bit of a face up and attack game (kind of Randle's wheelhouse). Also, as a guy who needs to be down at the basket, he's not ideal even for a face and drive partner, because he's going to bring the help right to the rim. And he's a pretty mediocre offensive player overall, who has plateaued or even regressed once the league figured him out. His sub 50% FG% and pedestrian true shooting percentage, despite playing right near the basket, show us a guy who gets his with his touches, but not at any efficiency gain from the mean. A spectacularly mediocre offensive player.
Which combined with being a bad defender, does not give you much value. This is why he wasn't drawing any real free agent action. The advanced numbers tell a decidedly different story than the simple raw ones do. Average player with little true impact, who because of his size is going to be overpaid even for the raw numbers.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
Well, this is the kind of trade I could see the Lakers doing.
1. Lakers traditionally like big centers.
2. We need a defensive anchor.
3. Hibbert would have only a player option in 2015, and his salary/cap hit isn't onerous that year. He would be off the books by 2016, or if he elects, he could be a free agent next season (which is my main problem with this trade ironically). |
Nash/Hill I'd be upset but I'd understand. The 1st is where I draw the line though yinomes. That's giving up waaayy too much for a guy they need to dump.
Plus I think Hibbert is just too plodding. Would rather have a pogo stick like javale. And neither one of them is a rogue scholar |
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | This proposed trade sounds disgusting. Nash/Hill/1st for Hibbert (after jan 15 of course )????
Sign me up for hell no! Would much rather trade for McGee and keep the 1st. |
Well, this is the kind of trade I could see the Lakers doing.
1. Lakers traditionally like big centers.
2. We need a defensive anchor.
3. Hibbert would have only a player option in 2015, and his salary/cap hit isn't onerous that year. He would be off the books by 2016, or if he elects, he could be a free agent next season (which is my main problem with this trade ironically). |
Nash/Hill I'd be upset but I'd understand. The 1st is where I draw the line though yinomes. That's giving up waaayy too much for a guy they need to dump.
Plus I think Hibbert is just too plodding. Would rather have a pogo stick like javale. And neither one of them is a rogue scholar |
|
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was working the meme, but even still...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Sorry yall I'm obsessed with the rogue scholar meme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GonzagaAlum
Star Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 3021
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | GonzagaAlum wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | GonzagaAlum wrote: | My hope... they sign Greg Monroe for the max next off season. If you look at statistical analysis Greg Monroe projects really good as a #5. He just can't play there in DTown.
Greg at 24... Randle younger at the 4 spot...
The frontcourt would be solid for a long time.
Though the key might be to find a lengthy SF or a rebounding stud at SF. It's too bad the Lakers didn't get Stevenson at the value level they could have last year.
Bledsoe... I'm not sure I'd want. The Lin experiment could be one where the Lakers would be better keeping him, then spending more on Bledsoe... and saving that extra money for the 3 spot. |
Not sure why people are attracted to Monroe. Yes, he's better at 5, but he's pretty much a post and short range shot kind of guy, doesn't exactly light up good defense, and can't guard his own man, sucks at pick and roll or help defense of any kind, and isn't any sort of impediment at the rim. You're getting a ho hum offensive player that is going to obstruct Randle's game while being a horrible defensive partner for him. |
He's guarding 4's. Which puts him in a Pau Gasol type of spot at the moment. He really shouldn't be defending 4's.
As for post and short range play. I think that's why the Lakers should get him. Randle is going to likely be closer to LO... will face you up then drive to the hoop. Monroe could be the back to the basket guy.
As for his defense. I believe he's underrated in that regard. |
Let's start with the defense first. While it is true that he is better guarding centers than power forwards, we're talking an improvement level from horrific to merely quite bad. And the team defense is bad at both spots. Not a good helper, does not protect the rim. And less you think it is his bad teammates, the team defense gets better with him off the court. Underrated is a very kind term. It is rated just about right by any metric you can come up with.
On offense, he should be overpowering 4's if he's a natural center, but he doesn't. He's actually better offensively at 5 as well, where he uses a bit of a face up and attack game (kind of Randle's wheelhouse). Also, as a guy who needs to be down at the basket, he's not ideal even for a face and drive partner, because he's going to bring the help right to the rim. And he's a pretty mediocre offensive player overall, who has plateaued or even regressed once the league figured him out. His sub 50% FG% and pedestrian true shooting percentage, despite playing right near the basket, show us a guy who gets his with his touches, but not at any efficiency gain from the mean. A spectacularly mediocre offensive player.
Which combined with being a bad defender, does not give you much value. This is why he wasn't drawing any real free agent action. The advanced numbers tell a decidedly different story than the simple raw ones do. Average player with little true impact, who because of his size is going to be overpaid even for the raw numbers. |
I think much of your assessment is fair... which is why I stated initially the Lakers would need to find a certain type of SF. A SF that can protect the paint, such as a AK47, Matrix style player (obviously those two guys are old).
I will say in 2015, I'm not sure you can get that player... Jeff Green from the celtics is 6"9 at the SF spot but isn't really a defensive presence.
Maybe Randle can play the 3? Or maybe Randle at the 4 will be a solid defensive player. But part of Monroe in whether he can fit involves the 3 and 4 spots.
But Monroe at ages 24-28 (which is when the Lakers would have him, in this scenario) I don't believe will be any worse than Pau the last 3 years defensively.
If you sign Durant in 2016... He also could play the 3 spot. Then sign a SG elsewhere. Durant played the 4 on Team USA - he could possibly help inside on d. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EldenCampbell
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 939
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Durant in 2016. Can't do much until Kobe's contract is off the books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcarter4kobe
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 17687
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
23M of our cap should of been used on L.Stephenson & Bledsoe this summer instead of Lin, Hill, Young and Boozer
Would of actually had a core now with Bledsoe/Stephenson/Randle and the chance to add another star or anchor in 2015 (about 12M in cap for a 4y50m deal) along with another max slot open in 2016 when Kobe's deal comes off the books
_________________
"He's a Zen master, so he can speak to you, and he doesn't need a microphone; you can hear him in your head, 'Ron, don't shoot, don't shoot.' Whatever, pow, three. I love the Zen, though." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L.A.M.B
Sixth Man
Joined: 29 Aug 2014
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^they didnt wana sign with us. we offered Stephenson the same contract Charlotte did, am I wrong? I also think we offered Bledsoe the same thing Pheonix offered, but he's lookin for a max contract. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| L.A.M.B wrote: | | ^they didnt wana sign with us. we offered Stephenson the same contract Charlotte did, am I wrong? I also think we offered Bledsoe the same thing Pheonix offered, but he's lookin for a max contract. |
I never heard lance being offered an actual contract. Lakers had some interest but unaware it went that far. Remember after lebron and melo signed the Lin and hill deal went down fast and cap space was gone.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
