|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Bishop* wrote: | Quick question.
Let say we are able to get rid of JC contract. Can we sign two max and then sign Randle and Lopez after we have sign the contracts so that we will be over the cap but still have all our players? |
See my sig below.
Depends on which max players (LBJ/WB = 36m max, PG/Boogie = 31m max). |
This also assumes that all of them would not sign for less then max. Why?
From all the hypothetical comments it is a "done deal" that James is signing with the Lakers. (kids, house, business deals). So why wouldn't he sign for $30M to allow the Lakers to keep or sign players to offset the apparent plan to mentor the untouchable young players?
Same with any other free agents joining him. Not just the bench players chasing a ring at vet mins but why wouldn't George for instance leave several million on the table too?
Also to the trading of 1st round draft picks issue. If the two max plan actually happens... why do they need high 20s draft picks? They are in a full blown win now scenario. Free agents and cap space are the desired focus, not late 1st rounders for the next 3 years of the James years. |
1. until a max player says they won't take a max, you can't factor an assumption that they will take a sizeable paycut.
2. re: 1st round picks, it's a Stepien rule concern for me more than the concept of trading out 1st picks. If you trade 2019/21 to get rid of Deng for example, that affects which picks you can then trade later on to presumably get more veteran players.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Four Decade Bandwagon
Star Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 8147
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Bishop* wrote: | Quick question.
Let say we are able to get rid of JC contract. Can we sign two max and then sign Randle and Lopez after we have sign the contracts so that we will be over the cap but still have all our players? |
See my sig below.
Depends on which max players (LBJ/WB = 36m max, PG/Boogie = 31m max). |
This also assumes that all of them would not sign for less then max. Why?
From all the hypothetical comments it is a "done deal" that James is signing with the Lakers. (kids, house, business deals). So why wouldn't he sign for $30M to allow the Lakers to keep or sign players to offset the apparent plan to mentor the untouchable young players?
Same with any other free agents joining him. Not just the bench players chasing a ring at vet mins but why wouldn't George for instance leave several million on the table too?
Also to the trading of 1st round draft picks issue. If the two max plan actually happens... why do they need high 20s draft picks? They are in a full blown win now scenario. Free agents and cap space are the desired focus, not late 1st rounders for the next 3 years of the James years. |
1. until a max player says they won't take a max, you can't factor an assumption that they will take a sizeable paycut.
2. re: 1st round picks, it's a Stepien rule concern for me more than the concept of trading out 1st picks. If you trade 2019/21 to get rid of Deng for example, that affects which picks you can then trade later on to presumably get more veteran players. |
I must be dense because I continue to not see the logic of of maxing out players (especially James) at a max and worrying about using draft picks in 2019 and 2021.
First off, what is the incentive of marquee free agents signing for the max and weaken the team they are going to? Same reasoning of "don't trade for George, he will sign next year". Isn't the point to create your own super team to win now?
To do so two free agents can't realistically take up $65-70M of the $105M cap and have any hope of winning. The only teams currently doing that are over the cap and into luxury tax.
If we can assume they will sign with the Lakers next off-season, why can't we also assume they accept less then max. Its all a hypothetical anyways. And there is some precedence if you look at the MIA super team with a prime James not the declining one. Just because a player is entitled to the max does not mean a team should pay it. Would you max out Paul or Anthony if on the table today?
As for the 1st round picks. Lakers only remaining obligations is for 2018 1st and 2nd round picks. And 2019 2nd rd. After that the Lakers have rights to their 1st round picks.
Isn't the entire argument for 2 max to be contending in 2018 to 2021? How valuable will alternative year picks be in adding vets over the next few seasons? Isn't the reasoning to sign the two max, keep a couple of the young players and trade away the rest for vets or at worst hope the rookie contracts are viable bench players? Isn't the idea to have the majority of the team set next summer and compete for 2-4 years?
To me that seems like the picks can be better used to dump Deng's contract then saving them for just in case scenarios. Signing two max is a win now scenario. Not a lot of roster building will be done after next summer. Just tweaks on those blamed for not pulling their weight by the James camp. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin61
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1332
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Bishop* wrote: | Quick question.
Let say we are able to get rid of JC contract. Can we sign two max and then sign Randle and Lopez after we have sign the contracts so that we will be over the cap but still have all our players? |
See my sig below.
Depends on which max players (LBJ/WB = 36m max, PG/Boogie = 31m max). |
This also assumes that all of them would not sign for less then max. Why?
From all the hypothetical comments it is a "done deal" that James is signing with the Lakers. (kids, house, business deals). So why wouldn't he sign for $30M to allow the Lakers to keep or sign players to offset the apparent plan to mentor the untouchable young players?
Same with any other free agents joining him. Not just the bench players chasing a ring at vet mins but why wouldn't George for instance leave several million on the table too?
Also to the trading of 1st round draft picks issue. If the two max plan actually happens... why do they need high 20s draft picks? They are in a full blown win now scenario. Free agents and cap space are the desired focus, not late 1st rounders for the next 3 years of the James years. |
1. until a max player says they won't take a max, you can't factor an assumption that they will take a sizeable paycut.
2. re: 1st round picks, it's a Stepien rule concern for me more than the concept of trading out 1st picks. If you trade 2019/21 to get rid of Deng for example, that affects which picks you can then trade later on to presumably get more veteran players. |
I must be dense because I continue to not see the logic of of maxing out players (especially James) at a max and worrying about using draft picks in 2019 and 2021.
First off, what is the incentive of marquee free agents signing for the max and weaken the team they are going to? Same reasoning of "don't trade for George, he will sign next year". Isn't the point to create your own super team to win now?
To do so two free agents can't realistically take up $65-70M of the $105M cap and have any hope of winning. The only teams currently doing that are over the cap and into luxury tax.
If we can assume they will sign with the Lakers next off-season, why can't we also assume they accept less then max. Its all a hypothetical anyways. And there is some precedence if you look at the MIA super team with a prime James not the declining one. Just because a player is entitled to the max does not mean a team should pay it. Would you max out Paul or Anthony if on the table today?
As for the 1st round picks. Lakers only remaining obligations is for 2018 1st and 2nd round picks. And 2019 2nd rd. After that the Lakers have rights to their 1st round picks.
Isn't the entire argument for 2 max to be contending in 2018 to 2021? How valuable will alternative year picks be in adding vets over the next few seasons? Isn't the reasoning to sign the two max, keep a couple of the young players and trade away the rest for vets or at worst hope the rookie contracts are viable bench players? Isn't the idea to have the majority of the team set next summer and compete for 2-4 years?
To me that seems like the picks can be better used to dump Deng's contract then saving them for just in case scenarios. Signing two max is a win now scenario. Not a lot of roster building will be done after next summer. Just tweaks on those blamed for not pulling their weight by the James camp. |
I agree, a lot of people can't see the forest through the trees. More assets are better, look at Cleveland with their "top heavy" lineup. A two or three man team can't win it all and LeBron knows that. If two guys take up 65% of the cap and there are no under market rookie contracts on the team, you can't win...ever. You win by adding FA's to complete the process after you've accumulated young underpaid talent. Sending guys away like Zubac, Nance or Kuzma is not smart as they will likely appreciate in value. Stretching Dengs contract at $7.5mil per, when the team will be over cap anyway, is a much smarter move.
As far as the picks, I don't think they'll be considered as valuable enough to offset the weight of Dengs contract. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Isn't the entire argument for 2 max to be contending in 2018 to 2021? How valuable will alternative year picks be in adding vets over the next few seasons? Isn't the reasoning to sign the two max, keep a couple of the young players and trade away the rest for vets or at worst hope the rookie contracts are viable bench players? Isn't the idea to have the majority of the team set next summer and compete for 2-4 years? |
My point is actually this:
1. if you have to burn 1 to 2 future 1st just to get rid of Deng, you are hurting your chances of using 1sts to augment a championship core. So, the price of moving Deng will hurt the team from trading those picks to pick up veterans.
2. the Stepien rule comes into play b/c if we trade say 2019/2021 next offseason just to get rid of Deng, then we will have some issues trading future 1sts (Stepien rule prevents you from trading consecutive 1sts).
So you are actually agreeing with me in a sense.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker's Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 12849
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the only 2Max scenario really worth an all-in approach is if one of those players is James. I think the Spurs are a real threat in drawing his attention with something of a Jordan/Pippen/Jackson parody (James/Kawhi/Pop). If LeBron headed there they could probably field the pieces to add Melo in a year if he doesn't end up in Houston first. Those three guys with Pop running the show and the other pieces they have would rival the Warriors.
It may depend on whether Westbrook locks in before the season, but trading for George would be a boon to our long term plans even if some feel we could end up with him for nothing. Randle/Jordan for George wouldn't be a bad way to go for either team.
_________________
Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
Last edited by Laker's Fan on Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bard207
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Bishop* wrote: | Quick question.
Let say we are able to get rid of JC contract. Can we sign two max and then sign Randle and Lopez after we have sign the contracts so that we will be over the cap but still have all our players? |
See my sig below.
Depends on which max players (LBJ/WB = 36m max, PG/Boogie = 31m max). |
This also assumes that all of them would not sign for less then max. Why?
From all the hypothetical comments it is a "done deal" that James is signing with the Lakers. (kids, house, business deals). So why wouldn't he sign for $30M to allow the Lakers to keep or sign players to offset the apparent plan to mentor the untouchable young players?
Same with any other free agents joining him. Not just the bench players chasing a ring at vet mins but why wouldn't George for instance leave several million on the table too?
Also to the trading of 1st round draft picks issue. If the two max plan actually happens... why do they need high 20s draft picks? They are in a full blown win now scenario. Free agents and cap space are the desired focus, not late 1st rounders for the next 3 years of the James years. |
1. until a max player says they won't take a max, you can't factor an assumption that they will take a sizeable paycut.
2. re: 1st round picks, it's a Stepien rule concern for me more than the concept of trading out 1st picks. If you trade 2019/21 to get rid of Deng for example, that affects which picks you can then trade later on to presumably get more veteran players. |
I must be dense because I continue to not see the logic of of maxing out players (especially James) at a max and worrying about using draft picks in 2019 and 2021.
First off, what is the incentive of marquee free agents signing for the max and weaken the team they are going to? Same reasoning of "don't trade for George, he will sign next year". Isn't the point to create your own super team to win now?
To do so two free agents can't realistically take up $65-70M of the $105M cap and have any hope of winning. The only teams currently doing that are over the cap and into luxury tax.
If we can assume they will sign with the Lakers next off-season, why can't we also assume they accept less then max. Its all a hypothetical anyways. And there is some precedence if you look at the MIA super team with a prime James not the declining one. Just because a player is entitled to the max does not mean a team should pay it. Would you max out Paul or Anthony if on the table today?
As for the 1st round picks. Lakers only remaining obligations is for 2018 1st and 2nd round picks. And 2019 2nd rd. After that the Lakers have rights to their 1st round picks.
Isn't the entire argument for 2 max to be contending in 2018 to 2021? How valuable will alternative year picks be in adding vets over the next few seasons? Isn't the reasoning to sign the two max, keep a couple of the young players and trade away the rest for vets or at worst hope the rookie contracts are viable bench players? Isn't the idea to have the majority of the team set next summer and compete for 2-4 years?
To me that seems like the picks can be better used to dump Deng's contract then saving them for just in case scenarios. Signing two max is a win now scenario. Not a lot of roster building will be done after next summer. Just tweaks on those blamed for not pulling their weight by the James camp. |
The same summer that LeBron went back to Cleveland, they traded Wiggins for Love.
The Lakers won't have to to do that because they will have the cap space to bring in another Max (or very near Max) player. However, Boston or Philadelphia will have the Lakers 2018 first round pick.
So call it even in both teams not having a high draft pick in the same season that LeBron signs on.
**********
Cleveland sent a first round pick to Portland to dump Anderson Varejao and bring in Frye.
Cleveland sent a first round pick to Atlanta to bring in Korver and dump some minor contracts.
If it takes close to two first round picks to completely dump Deng, then it would be much the same as what Cleveland has spent the past few seasons. However, dumping Deng won't be bringing in equivalents to Frye and Korver.
**********
This situation will be far different from adding Magic to a veteran roster decades ago. It took several seasons for everything to click two decades ago when Shaq and Kobe were brought together.
LeBron is starting to accumulate some heavy mileage and is getting up in years. Also they are in the very same division as the powerhouse in the Bay area.
They (Jeanie, Magic and Pelinka) aren't going to have much margin for error on this project and if they are starting with a handicap of owing draft picks to dump Deng, it becomes more difficult to tweak the roster as needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eindhoven
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2015
Posts: 1930
Location: Zürich
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: |
3. Brook agrees to a wink-wink room exception of $4m (to be paid more commensurately in 2019 when he can be re-signed over the cap)
|
I'm always concerned about those wink-wink contracts after the Joe Smith / Timberwolves affair. I know it was much worse back then, as he signed for minimum (refusing an $ 80m extension from GSW) and got a big contract after the Wolves acquired his Bird rights.
A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before.
_________________
.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Laker's Fan wrote: | I think the only 2Max scenario really worth an all-in approach is if one of those players is James. I think the Spurs are a real threat in drawing his attention with something of a Jordan/Pippen/Jackson parody (James/Kawhi/Pop). If LeBron headed there they could probably field the pieces to add Melo in a year if he doesn't end up in Houston first. Those three guys with Pop running the show and the other pieces they have would rival the Warriors.
It may depend on whether Westbrook locks in before the season, but trading for George would be a boon to our long term plans even if some feel we could end up with him for nothing. Randle/Jordan for George wouldn't be a bad way to go for either team. |
Jules/JC would negate the cap savings that the Dipo for PG13 deal was. It was sort of brilliant. They either keep PG13 (win) or at worst, shed Dipo's ugly deal (win).
Jules/JC combined could be 30m+ of your cap space each year. That's not good.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eindhoven wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
3. Brook agrees to a wink-wink room exception of $4m (to be paid more commensurately in 2019 when he can be re-signed over the cap)
|
I'm always concerned about those wink-wink contracts after the Joe Smith / Timberwolves affair. I know it was much worse back then, as he signed for minimum (refusing an $ 80m extension from GSW) and got a big contract after the Wolves acquired his Bird rights.
A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before. |
As Denzel said in Training Day, "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." 
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emplay
Site Staff
Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 25549
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before"
way way more common than you'd think - and the Wolves were just dumb enough to put it in writing, smh
_________________
Salary Cap Strategist and Columnist at Bleacher Report and on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/EricPincus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eindhoven
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2015
Posts: 1930
Location: Zürich
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emplay wrote: | "A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before"
way way more common than you'd think - and the Wolves were just dumb enough to put it in writing, smh |
Well, no case came to mind of such a big difference, except Joe Smith. I mean, players like Wade and others took a paycut but Lopez would go from $ 22m, to $4m, then to something like 16-18m. Would be too obvious.
But, you're the man in the business, if you believe we can get along with something like that, I'm fine. And, agree, the stupid thing about the Wolves was having it in writing.
_________________
.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emplay wrote: | "A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before"
way way more common than you'd think - and the Wolves were just dumb enough to put it in writing, smh |
Didn't KD publicly say he was taking less this year to re-sign others and will seek the max after this contract? Can't get more blatant than that.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eindhoven wrote: | | emplay wrote: | "A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before"
way way more common than you'd think - and the Wolves were just dumb enough to put it in writing, smh |
Well, no case came to mind of such a big difference, except Joe Smith. I mean, players like Wade and others took a paycut but Lopez would go from $ 22m, to $4m, then to something like 16-18m. Would be too obvious.
But, you're the man in the business, if you believe we can get along with something like that, I'm fine. And, agree, the stupid thing about the Wolves was having it in writing. |
Lopez has an injury history, if he takes less next offseason then breaks his foot, do the Lakers still pay him in 2019? They would be forced to. For the record, paying Lopez more than $6-8 mil any season is a mistake.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eindhoven wrote: | | emplay wrote: | "A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before"
way way more common than you'd think - and the Wolves were just dumb enough to put it in writing, smh |
Well, no case came to mind of such a big difference, except Joe Smith. I mean, players like Wade and others took a paycut but Lopez would go from $ 22m, to $4m, then to something like 16-18m. Would be too obvious.
But, you're the man in the business, if you believe we can get along with something like that, I'm fine. And, agree, the stupid thing about the Wolves was having it in writing. |
Someone would probably pay Lopez $20 million next year. I wouldn't count on him giving up that much money, while taking the risk something could happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Eindhoven wrote: | | emplay wrote: | "A wink-wink with Lopez, like take $4m now and $20m next year, would be an obvious by-pass on the CBA. I don't know if someone has made it before"
way way more common than you'd think - and the Wolves were just dumb enough to put it in writing, smh |
Well, no case came to mind of such a big difference, except Joe Smith. I mean, players like Wade and others took a paycut but Lopez would go from $ 22m, to $4m, then to something like 16-18m. Would be too obvious.
But, you're the man in the business, if you believe we can get along with something like that, I'm fine. And, agree, the stupid thing about the Wolves was having it in writing. |
Someone would probably pay Lopez $20 million next year. I wouldn't count on him giving up that much money, while taking the risk something could happen. |
Doubtful. Less cap space and the center position is not one teams are dropping 20m plus unless you are a younger star like Davis or KAT (when he is extension eligible).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
