Do you WANT to see LeBron become a Laker?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you want LeBron to become a Laker?
Yes
36%
 36%  [ 100 ]
No
52%
 52%  [ 141 ]
Undecided
11%
 11%  [ 30 ]
Total Votes : 271

Author Message
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 23276

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:52 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Quote:
Sign James and all assets and energy have to go to winning in the next season or two. Despite assertions otherwise, James is declining and will only continue to do so over the next year or two. Or the other option is to show some patience and let the young roster develop into professionals and have a longer run.


He is declining from an all-time great level. It's not a decline from say Deng in 2015 to 2017. I disagree about a 2 year window too. B/c you have a 33 year old LBJ, a 29 year old PG13 (next year), and then a slew of younger bodies, there's a way to extend this window of contention for a long period.

Warriors have a bunch of guys approaching 30 and over with a ton of wear/tear from extended playoffs. Rox have CP3 who is breaking down (though amazing when healthy).


My concern isn’t LBJs decline. And I agree he would make us better. Obviously haha.

My concern, as Four Decades mentioned, is that if we aren’t good enough in year 1 of the LBJ experiment, could we consider moving an Ingram/Ball for that missing piece?

If we are not willing to do that, we should not get LBJ. I’m not willing to do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CalisFinest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Mar 2012
Posts: 2575
Location: Upland, California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject:

Yes. A few caveats though.

1. LeGM, i'm not trying to ship off all the young talent and paying dudes like JR Smith and TT multi-year deals.

2. LeCoast is real, not sure what kind of message that sends to other guys on the team. One thing about this Laker team is that they've been playing hard, to see your leader coast is a terrible example, despite him being able to put up nearly a triple double doing so.

3. LeDecline? It's coming, but how hard and how fast?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 96152
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:09 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Quote:
Sign James and all assets and energy have to go to winning in the next season or two. Despite assertions otherwise, James is declining and will only continue to do so over the next year or two. Or the other option is to show some patience and let the young roster develop into professionals and have a longer run.


He is declining from an all-time great level. It's not a decline from say Deng in 2015 to 2017. I disagree about a 2 year window too. B/c you have a 33 year old LBJ, a 29 year old PG13 (next year), and then a slew of younger bodies, there's a way to extend this window of contention for a long period.

Warriors have a bunch of guys approaching 30 and over with a ton of wear/tear from extended playoffs. Rox have CP3 who is breaking down (though amazing when healthy).


My concern isn’t LBJs decline. And I agree he would make us better. Obviously haha.

My concern, as Four Decades mentioned, is that if we aren’t good enough in year 1 of the LBJ experiment, could we consider moving an Ingram/Ball for that missing piece?

If we are not willing to do that, we should not get LBJ. I’m not willing to do that.


He won’t have a no trade clause. We can ship him for a healthy Kawhi if he acts up. Lol.
_________________
Lakers most hated list: 1) Celtics; 2) Mintz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 23276

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:50 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Quote:
Sign James and all assets and energy have to go to winning in the next season or two. Despite assertions otherwise, James is declining and will only continue to do so over the next year or two. Or the other option is to show some patience and let the young roster develop into professionals and have a longer run.


He is declining from an all-time great level. It's not a decline from say Deng in 2015 to 2017. I disagree about a 2 year window too. B/c you have a 33 year old LBJ, a 29 year old PG13 (next year), and then a slew of younger bodies, there's a way to extend this window of contention for a long period.

Warriors have a bunch of guys approaching 30 and over with a ton of wear/tear from extended playoffs. Rox have CP3 who is breaking down (though amazing when healthy).


My concern isn’t LBJs decline. And I agree he would make us better. Obviously haha.

My concern, as Four Decades mentioned, is that if we aren’t good enough in year 1 of the LBJ experiment, could we consider moving an Ingram/Ball for that missing piece?

If we are not willing to do that, we should not get LBJ. I’m not willing to do that.


He won’t have a no trade clause. We can ship him for a healthy Kawhi if he acts up. Lol.


Not worried about LBJ demanding things either although that is a risk. It’s more that when you invest in a player like Lebron, you also need to invest everything in your power to get pieces here needed to win in that window.

If you are unwilling to move Lonzo for a seasoned vet, if that is what is needed to have a better chance to win, then you shouldn’t get LbJ at all. If LbJ was 27, you could justify it because you’d have the benefit of time.

Can you imagine someone acquiring Kobe at 32 and then not wanting to move 20 yr old talent to surround him with vets? Makes no sense. When you acquiring Kobe, you are putting everything on the table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Judah
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 3951

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:00 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Quote:
Sign James and all assets and energy have to go to winning in the next season or two. Despite assertions otherwise, James is declining and will only continue to do so over the next year or two. Or the other option is to show some patience and let the young roster develop into professionals and have a longer run.


He is declining from an all-time great level. It's not a decline from say Deng in 2015 to 2017. I disagree about a 2 year window too. B/c you have a 33 year old LBJ, a 29 year old PG13 (next year), and then a slew of younger bodies, there's a way to extend this window of contention for a long period.

Warriors have a bunch of guys approaching 30 and over with a ton of wear/tear from extended playoffs. Rox have CP3 who is breaking down (though amazing when healthy).


My concern isn’t LBJs decline. And I agree he would make us better. Obviously haha.

My concern, as Four Decades mentioned, is that if we aren’t good enough in year 1 of the LBJ experiment, could we consider moving an Ingram/Ball for that missing piece?

If we are not willing to do that, we should not get LBJ. I’m not willing to do that.


He won’t have a no trade clause. We can ship him for a healthy Kawhi if he acts up. Lol.


Not worried about LBJ demanding things either although that is a risk. It’s more that when you invest in a player like Lebron, you also need to invest everything in your power to get pieces here needed to win in that window.

If you are unwilling to move Lonzo for a seasoned vet, if that is what is needed to have a better chance to win, then you shouldn’t get LbJ at all. If LbJ was 27, you could justify it because you’d have the benefit of time.

Can you imagine someone acquiring Kobe at 32 and then not wanting to move 20 yr old talent to surround him with vets? Makes no sense. When you acquiring Kobe, you are putting everything on the table.

This organization is smitten with Lonzo, even despite his father. Do you seriously think they would just up and trade him that easily? I don't believe for a second that the idea of trading Lonzo is something that they'd seriously consider, let alone for just some "seasoned vet" instead of an All-Star caliber player. You're completely underestimating how high they are on Lonzo, not to mention that LeBron would probably want to play with Lonzo anyways. I think he'd love to mold Lonzo and make him better just like he did with Kyrie.

I know it gets repeated so often that it's basically become a fact that's stitched into everyone's brains, but I don't buy this idea that LeBron's presence on the team automatically means that half, if not all of the young core will be gone and replaced with a bunch of geezers. I think the youthfulness of these core players that the Lakers have is a major selling point if anything. The same crowd of people are bemoaning LeBron's age as a reason to steer clear of him altogether, so why would he want to trade young players who might actually be talented enough to help extend his career for veteran role players who are in the fourth quarter of theirs like he is?

Part of the appeal when he returned to CLE was that they had a group of young players with potential that he knew he could mold and turn into winners if they followed him. That Miami squad appeared to be on its last leg. All those years of playing into June looked like it had caught up to them and he believed just enough in CLE's young core to sign up. And the crazy thing is that this young core the Lakers have (Lonzo, BI, Kuzma, Hart, and possibly Randle) are better overall than the one CLE had at the time (Kyrie, TT, Waiters), despite no one in the Lakers' core being quite as proven as Kyrie was that early in his career.

But the point is, having such a treasure chest of young players (including an All-Star vet in George, assuming he comes) would lessen LeBron's workload dramatically. The Cavs were the oldest team in the league going into the season. Then they got younger when they made all of those moves at the deadline and you can clearly see the difference. I don't see LeBron looking to strip this team of its youth just so he can surround himself with geezers all over again. I think the youthful upgrades the Cavs made have probably shown him the benefit of having young legs next to him he can run with. The Lakers can keep their young core intact and fill out the rest of the roster with veterans if/when Lopez, KCP, Randle, and IT all leave.
_________________
“Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 10798

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:42 am    Post subject:

I'd take Lonzo over Lebron. Certainly not right now but 15 years of Lonzo or 3 of a declining Lebron is a no brainer to me. But Lebron likes Lonzo.

I would like to see Lonzo put a muzzle on his dad though. I think that's easier said than done, that fool just blurts out whatever pops in his head at the time. And the media is happy to take advantage of that and get some sound bites.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shaber
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 3456

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:05 am    Post subject:

Getting LeBron is the same as were getting Dwight and Nash.
We've been there. Please do not repeat old mistakes.
_________________
.

Lakers depth chart

PG Johnson / Goodrich
SG Bryant / West / Scott
SF Baylor / Worthy / Cooper
PF Mikkelsen / Hairston / McAdoo / Gasol
C Chamberlain / Abdul-Jabbar / O'Neal / Mikan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 30104
Location: Holland

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:12 am    Post subject:

Shaber wrote:
Getting LeBron is the same as were getting Dwight and Nash.
We've been there. Please do not repeat old mistakes.


this
_________________
Purple and Banana
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lowest Merion
Retired


Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10720

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:00 am    Post subject:

Quote:
There is also a salary floor they need to hit.


This is perhaps one of most misunderstood provisions of the CBA.

The answer is no, they don’t have to reach the floor. Example. Let’s say the floor is $80 million, but the team only pays $70 million in salary over the course of that year. The team would be required to divvy up the ten million, (meaning the difference between salary paid and the floor), with players that played on the team throughout the season. In this hypothetical, I’m not sure exactly how the salary to floor difference is paid out to players. The language of the CBA is a little vague about it to say the least (I’m just going off memory. I have a copy of the CBA but just not in front of me at the moment).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 96152
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:13 am    Post subject:

Shaber wrote:
Getting LeBron is the same as were getting Dwight and Nash.
We've been there. Please do not repeat old mistakes.


Not even close. Dwight never won anything and was injured. Nash was closer to 40 years old.

If anything, it's like adding a 32 year old Kobe who was still an all star/all NBA level player.
_________________
Lakers most hated list: 1) Celtics; 2) Mintz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 96152
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:15 am    Post subject:

Judah wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Quote:
Sign James and all assets and energy have to go to winning in the next season or two. Despite assertions otherwise, James is declining and will only continue to do so over the next year or two. Or the other option is to show some patience and let the young roster develop into professionals and have a longer run.


He is declining from an all-time great level. It's not a decline from say Deng in 2015 to 2017. I disagree about a 2 year window too. B/c you have a 33 year old LBJ, a 29 year old PG13 (next year), and then a slew of younger bodies, there's a way to extend this window of contention for a long period.

Warriors have a bunch of guys approaching 30 and over with a ton of wear/tear from extended playoffs. Rox have CP3 who is breaking down (though amazing when healthy).


My concern isn’t LBJs decline. And I agree he would make us better. Obviously haha.

My concern, as Four Decades mentioned, is that if we aren’t good enough in year 1 of the LBJ experiment, could we consider moving an Ingram/Ball for that missing piece?

If we are not willing to do that, we should not get LBJ. I’m not willing to do that.


He won’t have a no trade clause. We can ship him for a healthy Kawhi if he acts up. Lol.


Not worried about LBJ demanding things either although that is a risk. It’s more that when you invest in a player like Lebron, you also need to invest everything in your power to get pieces here needed to win in that window.

If you are unwilling to move Lonzo for a seasoned vet, if that is what is needed to have a better chance to win, then you shouldn’t get LbJ at all. If LbJ was 27, you could justify it because you’d have the benefit of time.

Can you imagine someone acquiring Kobe at 32 and then not wanting to move 20 yr old talent to surround him with vets? Makes no sense. When you acquiring Kobe, you are putting everything on the table.

This organization is smitten with Lonzo, even despite his father. Do you seriously think they would just up and trade him that easily? I don't believe for a second that the idea of trading Lonzo is something that they'd seriously consider, let alone for just some "seasoned vet" instead of an All-Star caliber player. You're completely underestimating how high they are on Lonzo, not to mention that LeBron would probably want to play with Lonzo anyways. I think he'd love to mold Lonzo and make him better just like he did with Kyrie.

I know it gets repeated so often that it's basically become a fact that's stitched into everyone's brains, but I don't buy this idea that LeBron's presence on the team automatically means that half, if not all of the young core will be gone and replaced with a bunch of geezers. I think the youthfulness of these core players that the Lakers have is a major selling point if anything. The same crowd of people are bemoaning LeBron's age as a reason to steer clear of him altogether, so why would he want to trade young players who might actually be talented enough to help extend his career for veteran role players who are in the fourth quarter of theirs like he is?

Part of the appeal when he returned to CLE was that they had a group of young players with potential that he knew he could mold and turn into winners if they followed him. That Miami squad appeared to be on its last leg. All those years of playing into June looked like it had caught up to them and he believed just enough in CLE's young core to sign up. And the crazy thing is that this young core the Lakers have (Lonzo, BI, Kuzma, Hart, and possibly Randle) are better overall than the one CLE had at the time (Kyrie, TT, Waiters), despite no one in the Lakers' core being quite as proven as Kyrie was that early in his career.

But the point is, having such a treasure chest of young players (including an All-Star vet in George, assuming he comes) would lessen LeBron's workload dramatically. The Cavs were the oldest team in the league going into the season. Then they got younger when they made all of those moves at the deadline and you can clearly see the difference. I don't see LeBron looking to strip this team of its youth just so he can surround himself with geezers all over again. I think the youthful upgrades the Cavs made have probably shown him the benefit of having young legs next to him he can run with. The Lakers can keep their young core intact and fill out the rest of the roster with veterans if/when Lopez, KCP, Randle, and IT all leave.


Well put. Lonzo/BI/Jules/Kuz are probably reasons why he would JOIN the team. Remember he joined Kyrie, Tristan who were the young centerpieces on the Cavs (but traded Wiggins to be fair). I doubt he forces the Lakers to trade Lonzo or BI.
_________________
Lakers most hated list: 1) Celtics; 2) Mintz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 23276

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:47 am    Post subject:

The concern for me isn't that he will force the Lakers to trade Lonzo or BI. And the concern for me also isn't that if we acquire Lebron that that means we will automatically move them either.

The concern is that when you acquire Lebron, you put yourself in a position where you MIGHT also need to move one of them if that's what it takes to accomplish the goal of acquiring Lebron to begin with.

It's like if you put your entire advertising budget into a Superbowl ad. Well, that means that there is a very real risk that you may need to spend more money on inventory to meet the prospective incoming demand. And the risk is if the ad doesn't work, then you're left in an overstock position. So the concern here is NOT that you WILL be left in an overstock position but rather, that by virtue of committing such a significant investment in the ad itself, that you must also be willing to take on the risk of purchasing more inventory to meet the demand.

So sure, I acknowledge that we may not have to move anyone after acquiring Lebron. But I firmly believe that when you do make that move, you have to at least consider the possibility of it if it gives you a better chance to achieve the goal of acquiring Lebron in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 96152
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:51 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
The concern for me isn't that he will force the Lakers to trade Lonzo or BI. And the concern for me also isn't that if we acquire Lebron that that means we will automatically move them either.

The concern is that when you acquire Lebron, you put yourself in a position where you MIGHT also need to move one of them if that's what it takes to accomplish the goal of acquiring Lebron to begin with.

It's like if you put your entire advertising budget into a Superbowl ad. Well, that means that there is a very real risk that you may need to spend more money on inventory to meet the prospective incoming demand. And the risk is if the ad doesn't work, then you're left in an overstock position. So the concern here is NOT that you WILL be left in an overstock position but rather, that by virtue of committing such a significant investment in the ad itself, that you must also be willing to take on the risk of purchasing more inventory to meet the demand.

So sure, I acknowledge that we may not have to move anyone after acquiring Lebron. But I firmly believe that when you do make that move, you have to at least consider the possibility of it if it gives you a better chance to achieve the goal of acquiring Lebron in the first place.


Maybe one of Lonzo/BI/Kuz may be moved, but I'm doubtful. One of the selling points of the Lakers is that assuming you get PG13/LBJ/re-sign Jules, the rest of your starters and immediate rotation are all under rookie deals. Right now Lonzo/BI/Kuz/Hart make less than just Tristan Thompson alone. You start eroding these cost-controlled deals and you get into trouble by being too top heavy.

Plus, in 2019, we would have a full MLE to use. That would be IMO where you add another high level veteran to the rotation.
_________________
Lakers most hated list: 1) Celtics; 2) Mintz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 23276

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:56 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
The concern for me isn't that he will force the Lakers to trade Lonzo or BI. And the concern for me also isn't that if we acquire Lebron that that means we will automatically move them either.

The concern is that when you acquire Lebron, you put yourself in a position where you MIGHT also need to move one of them if that's what it takes to accomplish the goal of acquiring Lebron to begin with.

It's like if you put your entire advertising budget into a Superbowl ad. Well, that means that there is a very real risk that you may need to spend more money on inventory to meet the prospective incoming demand. And the risk is if the ad doesn't work, then you're left in an overstock position. So the concern here is NOT that you WILL be left in an overstock position but rather, that by virtue of committing such a significant investment in the ad itself, that you must also be willing to take on the risk of purchasing more inventory to meet the demand.

So sure, I acknowledge that we may not have to move anyone after acquiring Lebron. But I firmly believe that when you do make that move, you have to at least consider the possibility of it if it gives you a better chance to achieve the goal of acquiring Lebron in the first place.


Maybe one of Lonzo/BI/Kuz may be moved, but I'm doubtful. One of the selling points of the Lakers is that assuming you get PG13/LBJ/re-sign Jules, the rest of your starters and immediate rotation are all under rookie deals. Right now Lonzo/BI/Kuz/Hart make less than just Tristan Thompson alone. You start eroding these cost-controlled deals and you get into trouble by being too top heavy.

Plus, in 2019, we would have a full MLE to use. That would be IMO where you add another high level veteran to the rotation.


Why would those rookie deals even matter if you make the move to acquire Lebron? They just become POTENTIAL trade assets if reinforcements are needed to accomplish the goal of getting Lebron.

Acquire anyone else, and the young kids are completely off the table. For me, that is just more palatable.

I think we all agree here. There is a risk of moving one or some of out young guys. It’s just a risk you are willing to take and I am not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 96152
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:04 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
The concern for me isn't that he will force the Lakers to trade Lonzo or BI. And the concern for me also isn't that if we acquire Lebron that that means we will automatically move them either.

The concern is that when you acquire Lebron, you put yourself in a position where you MIGHT also need to move one of them if that's what it takes to accomplish the goal of acquiring Lebron to begin with.

It's like if you put your entire advertising budget into a Superbowl ad. Well, that means that there is a very real risk that you may need to spend more money on inventory to meet the prospective incoming demand. And the risk is if the ad doesn't work, then you're left in an overstock position. So the concern here is NOT that you WILL be left in an overstock position but rather, that by virtue of committing such a significant investment in the ad itself, that you must also be willing to take on the risk of purchasing more inventory to meet the demand.

So sure, I acknowledge that we may not have to move anyone after acquiring Lebron. But I firmly believe that when you do make that move, you have to at least consider the possibility of it if it gives you a better chance to achieve the goal of acquiring Lebron in the first place.


Maybe one of Lonzo/BI/Kuz may be moved, but I'm doubtful. One of the selling points of the Lakers is that assuming you get PG13/LBJ/re-sign Jules, the rest of your starters and immediate rotation are all under rookie deals. Right now Lonzo/BI/Kuz/Hart make less than just Tristan Thompson alone. You start eroding these cost-controlled deals and you get into trouble by being too top heavy.

Plus, in 2019, we would have a full MLE to use. That would be IMO where you add another high level veteran to the rotation.


Why would those rookie deals even matter if you make the move to acquire Lebron? They just become POTENTIAL trade assets if reinforcements are needed to accomplish the goal of getting Lebron.

Acquire anyone else, and the young kids are completely off the table. For me, that is just more palatable.

I think we all agree here. There is a risk of moving one or some of out young guys. It’s just a risk you are willing to take and I am not.


Rookie deals matter b/c we believe that Lonzo/BI have a chance to be stars, and at the cap hit they're getting paid, it's a steal. I just think it's the fringier guys like Kuz/Hart that may be moved more than BI/Lonzo/Jules. I think LBJ would want to play with that trio for sure.

If we may lose Kuz or Hart (and get a more established vet) while keeping PG13/LBJ/BI/Lonzo/Jules, it's not too steep of a price.

We have been accustomed to our young kids and trading even one hurts. But we will soon have to transition back to the big boy's league (i.e. playoffs, Finals).
_________________
Lakers most hated list: 1) Celtics; 2) Mintz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 9813

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:07 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
The concern for me isn't that he will force the Lakers to trade Lonzo or BI. And the concern for me also isn't that if we acquire Lebron that that means we will automatically move them either.

The concern is that when you acquire Lebron, you put yourself in a position where you MIGHT also need to move one of them if that's what it takes to accomplish the goal of acquiring Lebron to begin with.

It's like if you put your entire advertising budget into a Superbowl ad. Well, that means that there is a very real risk that you may need to spend more money on inventory to meet the prospective incoming demand. And the risk is if the ad doesn't work, then you're left in an overstock position. So the concern here is NOT that you WILL be left in an overstock position but rather, that by virtue of committing such a significant investment in the ad itself, that you must also be willing to take on the risk of purchasing more inventory to meet the demand.

So sure, I acknowledge that we may not have to move anyone after acquiring Lebron. But I firmly believe that when you do make that move, you have to at least consider the possibility of it if it gives you a better chance to achieve the goal of acquiring Lebron in the first place.


Maybe one of Lonzo/BI/Kuz may be moved, but I'm doubtful. One of the selling points of the Lakers is that assuming you get PG13/LBJ/re-sign Jules, the rest of your starters and immediate rotation are all under rookie deals. Right now Lonzo/BI/Kuz/Hart make less than just Tristan Thompson alone. You start eroding these cost-controlled deals and you get into trouble by being too top heavy.

Plus, in 2019, we would have a full MLE to use. That would be IMO where you add another high level veteran to the rotation.


Why would those rookie deals even matter if you make the move to acquire Lebron? They just become POTENTIAL trade assets if reinforcements are needed to accomplish the goal of getting Lebron.

Acquire anyone else, and the young kids are completely off the table. For me, that is just more palatable.

I think we all agree here. There is a risk of moving one or some of out young guys. It’s just a risk you are willing to take and I am not.


There's some truth to it (although I don't like it) that we already trade away our prospects (JC/Nance/DLo) for 'vets' (in the form of cap space) and LAbron might demand more vets but if we do get PG AND LAbron, our cap space is gonna be capped thus these rookie deals can't be easily moved for a vet star. I mean $6mil/yr Lonzo... how many $6mil yr vet is better than Lonzo?
I agree with Yinome that it would be extremely unlikely to move BI/Kuz/Lonzo even if LAbron wants to
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wino
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 9369
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:00 pm    Post subject:

With the emergence of Randle, I think his game and PG's game would go really well together. The question I have is if PG will come here if he knows we aren't even going to try to get Lebron??

I'm not sure he will. On the other hand, if he thinks we have a pretty good team where he could come in and be the guy but not actually have a ton of pressure on him to be our one and only #1 offensive threat, because of our balance. And then ALSO knowing that we have the money to sign another marquee talent.

I think that keeping our five kids and signing PG this year might be a really good way to go. See how they gel and then decide what player to go after with the remaining room, or if a trade needs to be made.

On the other hand if Lebron wants to come here, it will be really tough to say no. If I knew he came to the Lakers and the Lakers said no, hmmmm. Would the Lakers be better off going for Lebron and keeping the five while moving on from PG?

It appears that neither Klay nor Kawhi are likely to sign with us, and I don't think we would sign Lebron and then go after Irving. Who else is available in the time frame that we could sign and not gut our team to trade for?
_________________
I support Magic and Rob!!

Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain

And Vecsey is the most stupid of them all!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KingKobe20
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 9469
Location: L.A County, 26 miles away from Staples Center

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:52 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Hell yes.


+100


I understand some die hard Kobe Laker fans do not want to see we Lebron wearing the purple and gold armor because they feel maybe he could lessen Kobe’s legacy?

I’m a die hard Kobe fan but first things first , I’m a die Hard LAKER FAN first and Hell, we need to surpass Boston for Championship Banners as we are only 2 away from doing so.

Lebron would certainly give us a chance!!!

#LABRON
_________________
"Tryin' to get that Kobe number, One Over Jordan"
-Kanye


aka ILLWiLL20

R.I.P PHIL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 16848

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:06 pm    Post subject:

It's more question of

Would you be willing to sell your young talent to get LeBron the veterans he's gonna want for an IMMEDIATE roster he feels is gonna go to the finals, and then after a 2 year span be left with no cap space and the drama of him probably leaving.

Or...

Would you rather let LeBron ring chase for these 2 years while the Warriors are still on top, and keep developing our talent so that after that 2 year span, LeBron is out of the picture as far as titles go, and our youth is ready to break out and go on a run of their own.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CRoost
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 1619

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:12 pm    Post subject:

Wino wrote:
With the emergence of Randle, I think his game and PG's game would go really well together. The question I have is if PG will come here if he knows we aren't even going to try to get Lebron??

I'm not sure he will. On the other hand, if he thinks we have a pretty good team where he could come in and be the guy but not actually have a ton of pressure on him to be our one and only #1 offensive threat, because of our balance. And then ALSO knowing that we have the money to sign another marquee talent.

I think that keeping our five kids and signing PG this year might be a really good way to go. See how they gel and then decide what player to go after with the remaining room, or if a trade needs to be made.

On the other hand if Lebron wants to come here, it will be really tough to say no. If I knew he came to the Lakers and the Lakers said no, hmmmm. Would the Lakers be better off going for Lebron and keeping the five while moving on from PG?

It appears that neither Klay nor Kawhi are likely to sign with us, and I don't think we would sign Lebron and then go after Irving. Who else is available in the time frame that we could sign and not gut our team to trade for?


I don’t think PG will come without us signing another max . He wants money and the chance to win and just him won’t be enough. He ain’t going to waste the rest of his prime years to just be in the playoffs.. He’s been in the playoff before so he already know what it takes. This one of the main reason that our office created those cap space and let go of some of our good young players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 9885

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:43 pm    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
Shaber wrote:
Getting LeBron is the same as were getting Dwight and Nash.
We've been there. Please do not repeat old mistakes.


this


What!? Dwight was never that good. Nash was never close to Lebrons level. He never even made the finals and Lebron does that every year, and Nash even got to play with Nowitzki in his prime. Dwight couldn’t even win when he played with Harden, and he couldn’t win regular season games with Kobe.

Lebron could actually be better rested next season when his team gets knocked out before the Finals and he finally gets a longer summer break.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB