I have no problem with keeping Clarkson. Scorers always have a role. He's a guy who can put the team on his back for stretches and he's fine with being a sixth man. His contract is also reasonable and his teammates like him.
I'm also fine with trading him so long as they get fair value in return though. Simply because of the young core players he's doesn't have the star potential that Russell, Ingram, or Randle have, but after those guys he is the Lakers most valuable asset. Not to mention if you acquire Ball, moving Clarkson opens up time for Ball and Russell together. From that point of view if you are going to move one of the young players, I think Clarkson is the safest bet who can fetch value in return. But the key is really to get value in return. There is no reason to move Clarkson if you aren't either improving the team, or opening up cap space (by packaging with Deng or Mozgov) for a chance to improve the team next season.
I'd be fine with trading any of the young players though in the right deal. I just think Clarkson is the most likely for the reasons above.
I have to say that almost everyone here was ecstatic when Clarkson was resigned.
This guy was a bum from day one. Day one.
Times are tough in lala land... sigh...
His trade value is at an all time low but the Lakers don't realize this. We'll probably keep him after we think that we aren't getting "fair value" for him, which in the league market right now essentially a pack of gum and some skittles for Clarkson.
He's not a bum. I actually think his effort level is pretty consistent. It's just that he's not good relative to his contract anymore. I went through the list of guards just using RPM and there were only two worse in a similar price range (almost all were on rookie or minimum contracts). If Mitch and Jim didn't jump the gun on the contract extension we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Exactly. JC isn't a poor player, but relative to contract, he's mediocre.
you seen production of Crabe, E Turner, Tyler Johnson, Ian Mahimini and our 2 solid vets(moose/deng) for how much they are getting paid?
or seen Victor Olodipo play?
So b/c other teams have more expensive and less productive players, we should count our blessings with JC?
There are dozens of more productive players with salaries less than JC (with or without the rookie deal caveat). It's a specious argument you're making.
No those are the players who got contracts after the cap hike.
Name me few who got contracts after cap hike last summer and are out performing (non all-stars)
I have to say that almost everyone here was ecstatic when Clarkson was resigned.
This guy was a bum from day one. Day one.
Times are tough in lala land... sigh...
His trade value is at an all time low but the Lakers don't realize this. We'll probably keep him after we think that we aren't getting "fair value" for him, which in the league market right now essentially a pack of gum and some skittles for Clarkson.
He's not a bum. I actually think his effort level is pretty consistent. It's just that he's not good relative to his contract anymore. I went through the list of guards just using RPM and there were only two worse in a similar price range (almost all were on rookie or minimum contracts). If Mitch and Jim didn't jump the gun on the contract extension we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Exactly. JC isn't a poor player, but relative to contract, he's mediocre.
you seen production of Crabe, E Turner, Tyler Johnson, Ian Mahimini and our 2 solid vets(moose/deng) for how much they are getting paid?
or seen Victor Olodipo play?
So b/c other teams have more expensive and less productive players, we should count our blessings with JC?
There are dozens of more productive players with salaries less than JC (with or without the rookie deal caveat). It's a specious argument you're making.
No those are the players who got contracts after the cap hike.
Name me few who got contracts after cap hike last summer and are out performing (non all-stars)
Jim, it doesn't matter if it's pre/post hike. What matters now is current production vis-à-vis contract.
What hurts JC is Moz/Deng. Their deadweight cap hits make JC the most trade-able deal relatively speaking. No one is taking Moz or Deng without an additional positive asset.
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre _________________ Now Playing: The Zo Show @Staples
I have no problem with keeping Clarkson. Scorers always have a role. He's a guy who can put the team on his back for stretches and he's fine with being a sixth man. His contract is also reasonable and his teammates like him.
I'm also fine with trading him so long as they get fair value in return though. Simply because of the young core players he's doesn't have the star potential that Russell, Ingram, or Randle have, but after those guys he is the Lakers most valuable asset. Not to mention if you acquire Ball, moving Clarkson opens up time for Ball and Russell together. From that point of view if you are going to move one of the young players, I think Clarkson is the safest bet who can fetch value in return. But the key is really to get value in return. There is no reason to move Clarkson if you aren't either improving the team, or opening up cap space (by packaging with Deng or Mozgov) for a chance to improve the team next season.
I'd be fine with trading any of the young players though in the right deal. I just think Clarkson is the most likely for the reasons above.
Yeah. I wouldn't trade JC for a preemptive (2018) salary dump. Need to get something productive in return if that's the case. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I have to say that almost everyone here was ecstatic when Clarkson was resigned.
This guy was a bum from day one. Day one.
Times are tough in lala land... sigh...
His trade value is at an all time low but the Lakers don't realize this. We'll probably keep him after we think that we aren't getting "fair value" for him, which in the league market right now essentially a pack of gum and some skittles for Clarkson.
I would not go as far as bum. I have seen other teams fans talk about acquiring him and he has some value imo.
Tbh, he probably ends up being a Lou Williams type off the bench who can score but is a liability on defense.
I've heard our own fans talk about how we NEED to try and get players who are struggling to make rosters. Fans wanting Clarkson proves nothing, his trade value is likely fairly low.
It's not only fans, Clarkson has value to other teams from everything I've seen and read. A guy who can score off the bench has value to teams just like Lou Williams netted a 1st round pick. He might not be in the lakers long-term plans but he's not a bum or a garbage asset that no one wants.
Lou Will netted the 28th pick so if we're lucky, a Nance caliber player. And I don't think Clarkson could even get us that much on his own.
So you are disappointed that a player drafted in the 40's can only net a pick in the high 20's? And that would be a bad thing?
Never said it was a bad thing or that I was disappointed. And I don't think he could get us a pick in the 20s. I just don't think teams around the league view him as a very valuable piece so I don't think he has much trade value.
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre
No, it literally doesn't matter when the contract was given. $1 in 2015 cap terms isn't different from $1 in 2017 cap terms today. If a player was given a 4 year $12m/year deal in 2015, it's still worth $12m in cap hit in 2017. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre
No, it literally doesn't matter when the contract was given. $1 in 2015 cap terms isn't different from $1 in 2017 cap terms today. If a player was given a 4 year $12m/year deal in 2015, it's still worth $12m in cap hit in 2017.
ok. Yin don't go so far to support your argument that it looks laughable.
you don't like JC the player or the contract for whatever reason, no sugar coating it.
moving on _________________ Now Playing: The Zo Show @Staples
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre
No, it literally doesn't matter when the contract was given. $1 in 2015 cap terms isn't different from $1 in 2017 cap terms today. If a player was given a 4 year $12m/year deal in 2015, it's still worth $12m in cap hit in 2017.
ok. Yin don't go so far to support your argument that it looks laughable.
you don't like JC the player or the contract for whatever reason, no sugar coating it.
moving on
No, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense.
Does the fact that Demarre Carroll signed his deal in 2015 affect whether his contract in 2017 is a good/bad deal? Of course not. It's a bad deal.
I've never gone as far as saying JC is a bad player. It's just due to Moz/Deng, he's the only true tradeable and sizeable cap asset. And you can't really trade him with Moz or Deng b/c you're asking the other team to take on 3 years of nearly $30m/year. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Bard is correct in that the Warriors got extremely lucky with Curry, having him hobbled early in his career kept them in the lottery and they were able to re-sign him for less. But those days are over after last offseason, the cap will likely remain $30-40 mil higher than it was in those days. Meaning that max contracts will be that much higher as well. I already see posters complaining about having to pay our young players when they are off their rookie contracts but it is a pay to play league now. You either pay or you refuse to play. I read an estimate that if the Warriors keep their core together for the next 3 years at market rates, their payroll and taxes will be $1.3 billion. If they want to extend their window, they will need to pay to play. That is the decision that this FO will have to make as well.
VLF,
I agree that financial reasons could eventually force the Warriors to make some difficult decisions, but Curry outperforming his contract for several seasons enabled them to create enough momentum & buzz to lure Durant there.
The leading teams get to the top through some combination of acumen and good luck/fortune.
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre
No, it literally doesn't matter when the contract was given. $1 in 2015 cap terms isn't different from $1 in 2017 cap terms today. If a player was given a 4 year $12m/year deal in 2015, it's still worth $12m in cap hit in 2017.
ok. Yin don't go so far to support your argument that it looks laughable.
you don't like JC the player or the contract for whatever reason, no sugar coating it.
moving on
You two are making different arguments. You're saying the CBA changed so Clarksons salary is fair it seems. Yinoma is saying that it doesn't matter that a market value was different two years before Clarkson signed on the cap. He's right.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144472 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:51 am Post subject:
Plus the timing with Durant was perfect as well, if the cap was what it was in 2015 would he have gone there? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre
No, it literally doesn't matter when the contract was given. $1 in 2015 cap terms isn't different from $1 in 2017 cap terms today. If a player was given a 4 year $12m/year deal in 2015, it's still worth $12m in cap hit in 2017.
ok. Yin don't go so far to support your argument that it looks laughable.
you don't like JC the player or the contract for whatever reason, no sugar coating it.
moving on
You two are making different arguments. You're saying the CBA changed so Clarksons salary is fair it seems. Yinoma is saying that it doesn't matter that a market value was different two years before Clarkson signed on the cap. He's right.
Right.
It's an illusory argument IMO, when we are so salary cap-tight, to say, "hey, that was a "reasonable" deal in 2016." Unfortunately it's 2017 and looking ahead, we may need that 12.5m/year in 2018 to come off the books to make way for PG13 and/or the pipe dream 2nd max player. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
off course it matters when the contract was given. you can't compare what JC got to what Corey Joseph got 2 years before the new cap rise.
thats what john wall does. complaining about jackson's contract.
I agree with JC being the most traceable contract but i don't agree with: relative to contract, he's mediocre
No, it literally doesn't matter when the contract was given. $1 in 2015 cap terms isn't different from $1 in 2017 cap terms today. If a player was given a 4 year $12m/year deal in 2015, it's still worth $12m in cap hit in 2017.
ok. Yin don't go so far to support your argument that it looks laughable.
you don't like JC the player or the contract for whatever reason, no sugar coating it.
moving on
You two are making different arguments. You're saying the CBA changed so Clarksons salary is fair it seems. Yinoma is saying that it doesn't matter that a market value was different two years before Clarkson signed on the cap. He's right.
Right.
It's an illusory argument IMO, when we are so salary cap-tight, to say, "hey, that was a "reasonable" deal in 2016." Unfortunately it's 2017 and looking ahead, we may need that 12.5m/year in 2018 to come off the books to make way for PG13 and/or the pipe dream 2nd max player.
you exactly know what you are doing. using your attorney skills to twist and squeeze the argument is your favor.
All i am asking you is to prove this statement under the new cab by providing stats: relative to contract, he's mediocre _________________ Now Playing: The Zo Show @Staples
Last edited by Chase.button07 on Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:56 am; edited 2 times in total
you exactly know what you are doing. using your attorney skills to twist and squeeze the argument is your favor.
All i am asking you is to prove this statement under the new cab by providing stats: relative to contract, he's mediocre
Prove what statement? All I need to show is that Moz/Deng suck, their cap hits suck, and in 2018 we need cap space. JC is the most tradeable (ergo he isn't a bum) asset given the circumstances.
I don't even disagree that relatively speaking, he's an ok player. But relatively speaking, our cap management sucks and he will likely be the cap-management victim. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144472 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:59 am Post subject:
Bard207 wrote:
Probably not.
That is why I included good luck/fortune in my response.
Yes, and the Lakers have had their share of good luck, with 3 #2 picks in a row. Let's see if that pays off for us. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I have no problem with keeping Clarkson. Scorers always have a role. He's a guy who can put the team on his back for stretches and he's fine with being a sixth man. His contract is also reasonable and his teammates like him.
I'm also fine with trading him so long as they get fair value in return though. Simply because of the young core players he's doesn't have the star potential that Russell, Ingram, or Randle have, but after those guys he is the Lakers most valuable asset. Not to mention if you acquire Ball, moving Clarkson opens up time for Ball and Russell together. From that point of view if you are going to move one of the young players, I think Clarkson is the safest bet who can fetch value in return. But the key is really to get value in return. There is no reason to move Clarkson if you aren't either improving the team, or opening up cap space (by packaging with Deng or Mozgov) for a chance to improve the team next season.
I'd be fine with trading any of the young players though in the right deal. I just think Clarkson is the most likely for the reasons above.
I share the same sentiment. It's not like we're contending anytime soon so a scorer like him with negative net return is not a keeper. I would rather see what can we get from him. If we can't get a good deal then it's also better just to keep him. I would like to see his game with Lonzo. Clarkson is good in transition and open court so he will likely thrive. If he still a liability defensively then might as well ship him out.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144472 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:08 am Post subject:
J.C. Smith wrote:
I have no problem with keeping Clarkson. Scorers always have a role. He's a guy who can put the team on his back for stretches and he's fine with being a sixth man. His contract is also reasonable and his teammates like him.
I'm also fine with trading him so long as they get fair value in return though. Simply because of the young core players he's doesn't have the star potential that Russell, Ingram, or Randle have, but after those guys he is the Lakers most valuable asset. Not to mention if you acquire Ball, moving Clarkson opens up time for Ball and Russell together. From that point of view if you are going to move one of the young players, I think Clarkson is the safest bet who can fetch value in return. But the key is really to get value in return. There is no reason to move Clarkson if you aren't either improving the team, or opening up cap space (by packaging with Deng or Mozgov) for a chance to improve the team next season.
I'd be fine with trading any of the young players though in the right deal. I just think Clarkson is the most likely for the reasons above.
Yes, I don't get this whole "we need to trade our young players instead of paying them" vibe. That sure as heck wasn't how Dr. Buss operated. I guess some here are young enough that they weren't exposed to how the good Doc operated. If we can get a good deal that improves the team, you make that trade. But to make a trade to shed salary I think it is a huge waste. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I have no problem with keeping Clarkson. Scorers always have a role. He's a guy who can put the team on his back for stretches and he's fine with being a sixth man. His contract is also reasonable and his teammates like him.
I'm also fine with trading him so long as they get fair value in return though. Simply because of the young core players he's doesn't have the star potential that Russell, Ingram, or Randle have, but after those guys he is the Lakers most valuable asset. Not to mention if you acquire Ball, moving Clarkson opens up time for Ball and Russell together. From that point of view if you are going to move one of the young players, I think Clarkson is the safest bet who can fetch value in return. But the key is really to get value in return. There is no reason to move Clarkson if you aren't either improving the team, or opening up cap space (by packaging with Deng or Mozgov) for a chance to improve the team next season.
I'd be fine with trading any of the young players though in the right deal. I just think Clarkson is the most likely for the reasons above.
Yes, I don't get this whole "we need to trade our young players instead of paying them" vibe. That sure as heck wasn't how Dr. Buss operated. I guess some here are young enough that they weren't exposed to how the good Doc operated. If we can get a good deal that improves the team, you make that trade. But to make a trade to shed salary I think it is a huge waste.
.
Luxury taxes started around 2001. I still remember how we dumped Horry because Dr Buss does not want to pay him like double because of luxury taxes.
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
ok. Yin don't go so far to support your argument that it looks laughable.
