Still can't make sense of not going after Stephenson & Bledsoe when you could of probably had both. They aren't superstars, but all star caliber players. Combined with Randle you have a core to build on plus a max slot to swing for the fences again in 2016
You don't rebuld while overpaying for players, you overpay when you are there and need that last piece. Bledsoe is vastly overpaid for who he is now, maybe he plays into that contract, but for now he isn't worth what he is being paid. Tie yourself into several of those types of contracts and getting to the title is that much harder. Maybe you can survive one, but I didn't see the guy available this past offseason that was worth it.
I disagree that $9m for Lance is "overpaying." We'd still have a max cap space for 2015, a building piece, and in 2016, we have crazy cap space regardless.
We have a max space if we get rid of some of the players we have now, players that we might want to keep for the future. So what is the difference? We are without them or we are without Lance? Net sum of 0 unless one wants to overrate Lance. With him it isn't the $9 mil, it is the 2-3 years that are a problem.
his contract is 2 yrs with 3rd team option. the same time kobe is coming off.
I would prefer to have Lance over all the scrubs we have including Lin
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:13 am Post subject:
And Hill has one year. For cap space, one year is greater than two years. I get it, you will accept being mediocre. I would prefer they aren't. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Still can't make sense of not going after Stephenson & Bledsoe when you could of probably had both. They aren't superstars, but all star caliber players. Combined with Randle you have a core to build on plus a max slot to swing for the fences again in 2016
You don't rebuld while overpaying for players, you overpay when you are there and need that last piece. Bledsoe is vastly overpaid for who he is now, maybe he plays into that contract, but for now he isn't worth what he is being paid. Tie yourself into several of those types of contracts and getting to the title is that much harder. Maybe you can survive one, but I didn't see the guy available this past offseason that was worth it.
beggers dont have a chance at being picky and we have to overpay RFA talent to come play for us.
next yr the cap i heard is going to be 72mil and then grow in 2016. This contract will look like peanuts then.
Aslo if I am superstar in the making why would the team put the guy on market?
we have to take calculated risks after evaluation.
you want prime lebron/durant who are not coming to this team. I remember last time this year you were 1 of those who said you will only pay Melo aroun 13/15mil per yr and later changed the tune in the summer
I think that point is that we don't. Because that comes back to bite you in the end. You and others constantly complaining about how we overpaid for Nash is a perfect example. Want your cake and to eat it too.
The only bright spot is that Jeanie has given this regime 3 years, with this being the first. You don't know how much of a relief it is to know that the clock is ticking on Jim/Mitch and that they wont be here doing what they've been doing for the past few years forever. It's nice to know that their power is not unchecked. That's exactly what I wanted to hear, and that's all I care about at this point.
No she's not because she also had a hand of killing our cap vy giving Kobe that extension from the business side of it. You put him on the open market he doesn't get no more than 15 mil a year. So in my opinion she needs to go too as in sell the team.
And Hill has one year. For cap space, one year is greater than two years. I get it, you will accept being mediocre. I would prefer they aren't.
Not about accepting mediocrity, it's about building with the strong young pieces that draws the big fish. Melo basically said the LA's roster sucked.
Lance for 9 for even 3yrs is a bargain. When MJ is the better GM you have to start questioning your FO. The problem with spoiled brats that inherit everything is they are out of touch with reality. Jimmy thinks he has his dad's and old lakers aura like pied piper and stars will just come here.
I would've given Lowry 12 and Lance 9 for 3-4yr contracts. Both are allstar caliber and growing. Now you can attract a superstars by saying we have 3 really good starters plus Randle is a few hrs away. _________________ Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:33 am Post subject:
So it is your expectation that adding strong young players should be done in one season? The Lakers haven't had that opportunity until this past offseason, and I guess it was expected that one offseason should be enough to rebuild. But guess what, you add those pieces and you can't get a big fish because you have no cap space. Two years from now they will have both. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Wolf, I think the "Home Run" theory is usually what the Lakers FO ascribe to. But I hope they don't this upcoming offseason. We need foundational pieces and we are utterly lacking in that department.
We have no credible (on a playoff team) #2, 3 option. Why would an established free agent want to join this team when there is little in place?
My hope is that the team look to hit some doubles, maybe triples this offseason. Go for some RFAs (Klay, Leonard, RJax, etc. to name a few). Likely they will be matched. But if that doesn't work, I hope the team doesn't go for another placeholder year (i.e. Jordan Hill). Sign an Arron Afflalo level player. Do what Dallas did when they got Monta Ellis.
We need to be an attractive destination. And a 37 y.o. Kobe, Randle returning from a devastating injury isn't enough. Sadly, Kobe's championship window with this team has likely passed, so it's about setting the table for the next squad (while Kobe is given a reasonably competitive team to work with).
you guys keep asking the same question over and over again. WHY WOULD AN ESTABLISHED FA WANT TO COME HERE IF OUR ROSTER ISNT ALREADY LOADED WITH TALENTED ROLE PLAYERS."
It will take a real life laker superstar to come here in that atmosphere. Not some wanna be superstar that really just wants to super team his way to the finals. Now the question is this...Is this manner of thinking just something LBJ thinks about or is ALL of the nba's new era guys thinking along the lines of "i want it easy, so i wont go anywhere unless they have a great team in place already so i can just add a little to it and we win it all?"
if thats the thinking of all current new era star FA's then the lakers will keep missing out on them via FA signings, with their old mentality.
You have to remember kareem came here not because of the roster. he won a ring in a bucks uniform. He came here because he felt he was too big for that small city and he needed to go some where that was big enough for him(NY or L.A.) he chose L.A.
Also cap knew he was good enough to turn a dump into a solid playoff team which meant all he needed was a bit more help after he got here. not the other way around like you guys keep implying is the new way of thinking. which is... have everything in place first then get a FA superstar.
The attraction to being a laker in Los Angeles is the main attraction. the attraction if you're a superstar player is that you are good enough to carry the LAKERS into the playoffs on your own. but you know they have a track record of putting the right pieces around their main stars in order to win not one, but multiple titles.
Any player not coming to the lakers because we dont have lance/Ithomas or any of the like tells me these kids are SOFT. and DUMB and do not remember recent history. They should look it up..google it.
Shaq came here. the lakers were not a very good team before shaq got here. he didnt come for ceballos. he came for L.A. and the lakers FO who's known for giving 3 to 5 rings to legendary players. shaq got how many rings? 3. smart move big fella.
kobe has never left L.A. because of the reality. what other franchise can almost guarantee a true legendary player that he will end up with no less then 3 rings and those 3 will probably be in a 3 peat? No one can say that but the lakers FO. they have done it over and over again. they know what they are doing.
If i'm a FA superstar i'm going to be a laker unless i grew up hating them or something. and even then i would still consider it. because not only will i get paid my nba check, i'll get all sorts of side stuff that comes my way from just being a laker. i mean nick young is supposed to be like the some low number ranked player. and he's a star in the city. what does that tell you. only a fool would pass this up. or someone who doesnt do their research. shame on you if you dont research before you decide your future.
and to those that keep saying we could've had all these great role player FA signings this year and then got big time stars next year or the year after that. thats not how it works.
Name me one team that has ever pulled that off? There isnt one.
You can't afford to slightly over pay for role players that are pretty good. then have cash left over for two star players.
this is why teams that dont get star players end up going broke over paying for solid role guys. then they are stuck being mediocre for years and years and years and years.
The only teams that have had solid role guys prior to signing a FA star is when they drafted said Role guy(s). so their solid role guy(s) are on a cheap rookie contract.
And Hill has one year. For cap space, one year is greater than two years. I get it, you will accept being mediocre. I would prefer they aren't.
1. Why does getting Lance preclude the Lakers from having cap space? With Lance we'd have $20m or so in cap space assuming we don't have any other big contracts. So the "max cap space" argument is not supported.
2. What progress can the FO point to the prospective free agent for 2015? Is this team going to tank to get a top 2 worst record (NO)? So if we are terrible (say 5th worst in the league but we don't get a top 5 pick and it goes to the Suns), what are you selling as a great reason for the FA to come here instead of a more ready to win team?
3. Given points #1 and 2, I'd rather be "mediocre" and give the Suns a higher pick, show free agents that we have progress in roster construction.
I think lots of people are conflating "home run" trades with free agency. We literally have no record of Mitch's ability to lure a max free agent. So it's a lot of extrapolation on your part too of Mitch's ability to snag the next great player and lure him to a team that was basically in the bottom 5 for 2 consecutive seasons. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
and to those that keep saying we could've had all these great role player FA signings this year and then got big time stars next year or the year after that. thats not how it works.
Name me one team that has ever pulled that off? There isnt one.
You can't afford to slightly over pay for role players that are pretty good. then have cash left over for two star players.
this is why teams that dont get star players end up going broke over paying for solid role guys. then they are stuck being mediocre for years and years and years and years.
The only teams that have had solid role guys prior to signing a FA star is when they drafted said Role guy(s). so their solid role guy(s) are on a cheap rookie contract.
Whether you drafted them or acquired them, the point is that star free agents (I'm talking about Lebron, Durant level players) today want to be on a team with pieces.
What are we offering to a free agent? "You can be #2 behind Kobe, and we have a 20 year old Julius and nothing else." Is that an effective pitch?
Lakers have made some stunning trades, but that's not the same as recruiting a star player here. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: Re: You swing for a homerun, you hit some, you miss some. Mitch's strategy.
wolfpaclaker wrote:
This has been Mitch's strategy for a long time.
Don't understand the massive panic in being 0-2 with this roster.
You can argue about Isiah, Lance etc. All reasonable arguments. But the Lakers GM is a guy who delivered Pau, Dwight, CP 3 (almost) and Nash (when he was an all-star) using this strategy.
I understand the complaints about coaching.
I don't get the complaints with the roster. The Lakers had 2 choices. 1) go for the big moves or 2) go for the other smaller scale FA's. Considering they have about 0 big fish right now, I totally understand swinging for a homerun.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Mitch and the Hill/Lin contracts. A trade may come up sooner than later. The #1 thing we need right now is a young in prime star. Could Lin/Hill/picks get us that? Long shot. But so was Pau, so was getting Dwight or even CP3.
Patience is required regarding the roster. In terms of coaching? Different story. The consistently bad coaching hires continues from our FAV team's FO.
While I thought the Kobe contract was looney, I endorse the idea of swinging for the proverbial fences when it comes to free agent signing... and since we struck out, the Kobe contract is more palatable in that he at least gives a reason to watch (which begs the question on whether Mitch anticipated failure).
A roster full of overpriced, middling talent will appease our short-term desire to "look good" but it doesn't build towards an eventual championship team. I'd rather stay the course and suck bad for a limited number of seasons, draft well and organically grow a capable team. Armed with promising young players on rookie contract, the location, the gilt-lined Lakers brand and tons of available cap space, Mitch will haul in a couple of first-tier superstars.
The 95 laker team won 53 games and was considered one of the best young and exciting teams at the time. Missing was a legit center to compete with the top teams in the league and shaq knew this
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: Re: You swing for a homerun, you hit some, you miss some. Mitch's strategy.
angrypuppy wrote:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
This has been Mitch's strategy for a long time.
Don't understand the massive panic in being 0-2 with this roster.
You can argue about Isiah, Lance etc. All reasonable arguments. But the Lakers GM is a guy who delivered Pau, Dwight, CP 3 (almost) and Nash (when he was an all-star) using this strategy.
I understand the complaints about coaching.
I don't get the complaints with the roster. The Lakers had 2 choices. 1) go for the big moves or 2) go for the other smaller scale FA's. Considering they have about 0 big fish right now, I totally understand swinging for a homerun.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Mitch and the Hill/Lin contracts. A trade may come up sooner than later. The #1 thing we need right now is a young in prime star. Could Lin/Hill/picks get us that? Long shot. But so was Pau, so was getting Dwight or even CP3.
Patience is required regarding the roster. In terms of coaching? Different story. The consistently bad coaching hires continues from our FAV team's FO.
While I thought the Kobe contract was looney, I endorse the idea of swinging for the proverbial fences when it comes to free agent signing... and since we struck out, the Kobe contract is more palatable in that he at least gives a reason to watch (which begs the question on whether Mitch anticipated failure).
A roster full of overpriced, middling talent will appease our short-term desire to "look good" but it doesn't build towards an eventual championship team. I'd rather stay the course and suck bad for a limited number of seasons, draft well and organically grow a capable team. Armed with promising young players on rookie contract, the location, the gilt-lined Lakers brand and tons of available cap space, Mitch will haul in a couple of first-tier superstars.
Free agency is a different ball game. When we don't have any compelling reasons and pieces for a star player to join, why would an established vet come here?
I agree about acquiring middling players at large contract prices. But Lance is the right blend of price/talent for me and we can't go into next season with a bunch of placeholders again. That will result in another cycle of disastrous offseasons.
If he had our draft pick (top 5 is not enough for us to get it IMO) it's a different calculation. But I have to operate with the assumption that we aren't getting it if I'm the FO. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:56 am Post subject:
Let's be real here. As long as Jimbo is in charge, the Lakers will never win another ring. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
and to those that keep saying we could've had all these great role player FA signings this year and then got big time stars next year or the year after that. thats not how it works.
Name me one team that has ever pulled that off? There isnt one.
You can't afford to slightly over pay for role players that are pretty good. then have cash left over for two star players.
this is why teams that dont get star players end up going broke over paying for solid role guys. then they are stuck being mediocre for years and years and years and years.
The only teams that have had solid role guys prior to signing a FA star is when they drafted said Role guy(s). so their solid role guy(s) are on a cheap rookie contract.
Whether you drafted them or acquired them, the point is that star free agents (I'm talking about Lebron, Durant level players) today want to be on a team with pieces.
What are we offering to a free agent? "You can be #2 behind Kobe, and we have a 20 year old Julius and nothing else." Is that an effective pitch?
Lakers have made some stunning trades, but that's not the same as recruiting a star player here.
also those trades were made when we had assets.
butler for Kwame
pau for brown expiring, rookie 1st, potential 2nd in Marc and 2 future 1st
LO/Pau for CP3
Bynum for Dwight
nash for 2 future 1st
right now we have zero assets. Randle was great selling point last week but not today.
lakers Free Agency card last 2 summers:
Howard Max rejected
Lebron Max rejected
Melo Max rejected
Dirk Max rejected
Bosh Max rejected
but the FO/Ownership somehow thinks we will sign MAX contract when the team has no future or pieces
Dallas finally stopped pursuing the "max free agent or bust" angle and signed Monta Ellis. I know folks were clowning that move but it has turned out to be a great signing at a reasonable price.
I would love to start getting a player like that next offseason, a clear cut #2/3 option to start building a foundation. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:21 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
And Hill has one year. For cap space, one year is greater than two years. I get it, you will accept being mediocre. I would prefer they aren't.
1. Why does getting Lance preclude the Lakers from having cap space? With Lance we'd have $20m or so in cap space assuming we don't have any other big contracts. So the "max cap space" argument is not supported.
2. What progress can the FO point to the prospective free agent for 2015? Is this team going to tank to get a top 2 worst record (NO)? So if we are terrible (say 5th worst in the league but we don't get a top 5 pick and it goes to the Suns), what are you selling as a great reason for the FA to come here instead of a more ready to win team?
3. Given points #1 and 2, I'd rather be "mediocre" and give the Suns a higher pick, show free agents that we have progress in roster construction.
I think lots of people are conflating "home run" trades with free agency. We literally have no record of Mitch's ability to lure a max free agent. So it's a lot of extrapolation on your part too of Mitch's ability to snag the next great player and lure him to a team that was basically in the bottom 5 for 2 consecutive seasons.
Actually it is, you are getting to cap space by getting rid of players on the roster. The FO is getting there by not signing Lance. It is your value of Lance vs that of the FO that is the difference. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Still can't make sense of not going after Stephenson & Bledsoe when you could of probably had both. They aren't superstars, but all star caliber players. Combined with Randle you have a core to build on plus a max slot to swing for the fences again in 2016
You don't rebuld while overpaying for players, you overpay when you are there and need that last piece. Bledsoe is vastly overpaid for who he is now, maybe he plays into that contract, but for now he isn't worth what he is being paid. Tie yourself into several of those types of contracts and getting to the title is that much harder. Maybe you can survive one, but I didn't see the guy available this past offseason that was worth it.
Did you see how he impacted the game on both ends of the floor last night? Combined with the fact his game is only growing & more importantly the cap will see a big jump when it's time to go for another "home run" in 2016
As long as we would still have a max slot open in 2016, overpaying (in some opinions) wouldn't be so bad for all star talent when we lack talent
Stephenson at 9-10M can't even be considered anything close to overpaying. Especially at only 2 guaranteed years
Yeah I saw, he is nowhere near a max player. And the 2 guaranteed years are the problem with Lance.
Having a core of Randle/Stephenson/Bledsoe locked in for the future at only 27M would only help attract a major star _________________ "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."
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:23 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
magickobe24 wrote:
and to those that keep saying we could've had all these great role player FA signings this year and then got big time stars next year or the year after that. thats not how it works.
Name me one team that has ever pulled that off? There isnt one.
You can't afford to slightly over pay for role players that are pretty good. then have cash left over for two star players.
this is why teams that dont get star players end up going broke over paying for solid role guys. then they are stuck being mediocre for years and years and years and years.
The only teams that have had solid role guys prior to signing a FA star is when they drafted said Role guy(s). so their solid role guy(s) are on a cheap rookie contract.
Whether you drafted them or acquired them, the point is that star free agents (I'm talking about Lebron, Durant level players) today want to be on a team with pieces.
What are we offering to a free agent? "You can be #2 behind Kobe, and we have a 20 year old Julius and nothing else." Is that an effective pitch?
Lakers have made some stunning trades, but that's not the same as recruiting a star player here.
Again, the Lakers will be in that shape in a couple of years, with a max slot and money to also bring in some good 2nd and 3rd option types of players. They aren't there now. Unless you are impatient or feel that there will be no worthwhile FAs beyond 2016, their plan is being executed. Or if you think that Randle and Stephenson are enough to lure a top FA. I am of the idea that they aren't. While I like Lance's play, I think he is a good 3rd option. Why would a potential FA be impressed with that? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:26 am Post subject:
dcarter4kobe wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dcarter4kobe wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dcarter4kobe wrote:
Still can't make sense of not going after Stephenson & Bledsoe when you could of probably had both. They aren't superstars, but all star caliber players. Combined with Randle you have a core to build on plus a max slot to swing for the fences again in 2016
You don't rebuld while overpaying for players, you overpay when you are there and need that last piece. Bledsoe is vastly overpaid for who he is now, maybe he plays into that contract, but for now he isn't worth what he is being paid. Tie yourself into several of those types of contracts and getting to the title is that much harder. Maybe you can survive one, but I didn't see the guy available this past offseason that was worth it.
Did you see how he impacted the game on both ends of the floor last night? Combined with the fact his game is only growing & more importantly the cap will see a big jump when it's time to go for another "home run" in 2016
As long as we would still have a max slot open in 2016, overpaying (in some opinions) wouldn't be so bad for all star talent when we lack talent
Stephenson at 9-10M can't even be considered anything close to overpaying. Especially at only 2 guaranteed years
Yeah I saw, he is nowhere near a max player. And the 2 guaranteed years are the problem with Lance.
Having a core of Randle/Stephenson/Bledsoe locked in for the future at only 27M would only help attract a major star
And with Kobe's salary you get that major star how? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
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
