|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: | | Quote: |
To me, it seems like Westbrook's reputation has been sliding the last few years.
|
I agree, but his level is the same as it was 3 years ago when he was making the AS team every year. He's one of the best at his position. No doubt about it. |
Sure, but that raises the question was he overrated 3 years ago. People went gaga when he first got his triple double season but there seems to have been a reevaluation of it since then and in retrospect people aren't as impressed by the triple double season now as they were at the time.
What's been most noticeable to me is the way he has dropped in the players vote for the all-star team. He doesn't seem to be held in the same esteem among players as he once was
Opinions about him are very divergent. In preseason rankings, I saw different people rank him as anywhere from the 7th to 15th best point guard in the NBA right now.
Last edited by activeverb on Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:22 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: | | governator wrote: | | Can I say Westbrook been under control this whole month! |
In November his O rating was 105.
In October? 93.
He's improved big time. The terrors are not there anymore. He is who he is, but he does fit and have a role. I feel way more comfortable with him having the ball and making plays than I ever did with Dennis Schroder. On offense, there was never anything Dennis did particularly well that justified a higher usage rate. Ballhandling/passing? Average for a starting PG. Attacking the rim? Above average. Finishing? Average. 3 point shooting? Average. There was nothing he did that stood out, and teams sagged off him too. With Westbrook they play him same, but the difference is his ballhandling/passing and getting to the rim is elite for his position and his finishing at he rim is quite good. They can send 3 guys on Westbrook, but he will still find a way to get into the paint and do kickouts or find the open man. With Dennis, we neither got that, nor did we get the type of 3 point shooting we needed around Bron/AD. |
Yeah, I hope the trip will get along better on both sides by playoff but we need Melo and another player (Ariza 3&D) to be 40% snipers for the 4th Q lineup. This gamble can actually work in the end |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mad55557777
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 23272
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | governator wrote: | | So, 12 games and counting sans LeBron… is Westbrook trade actually saving the season? Avoiding lottery when not having the pick? |
I hope that this is not the new standard for the season. I still have hopes that this roster is going to come together and make a run. |
in a sense, yes. the team would probably be 5 games or more under 500 if not for Westbrook. nobody could've predicted lebron would've missed these many games. this is bad for the team because they still need time to adjust to each other. the chemistry between Westbrook and AD is amazing now, and i just hope Lebron can join them soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sina
Star Player
Joined: 12 Jul 2015
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Russ has been great so far! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSD
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2016
Posts: 23788
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Consistent with career pattern, he is starting to heat up as the season goes on, especially last few seasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Halflife
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 16755
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Outspoken wrote: | | Inspector Gadget wrote: | | This thread has really gotten silent since Westbrook started playing like a star. |
It doesn't seem like it to me, but what do you mean? |
Yes do-tell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mad55557777 wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | governator wrote: | | So, 12 games and counting sans LeBron… is Westbrook trade actually saving the season? Avoiding lottery when not having the pick? |
I hope that this is not the new standard for the season. I still have hopes that this roster is going to come together and make a run. |
in a sense, yes. the team would probably be 5 games or more under 500 if not for Westbrook. nobody could've predicted lebron would've missed these many games. this is bad for the team because they still need time to adjust to each other. the chemistry between Westbrook and AD is amazing now, and i just hope Lebron can join them soon. |
I was really referring to the last sentence in Gov's post. As for your point, I'm not sure that the net effect of the Westbrook trade has been a positive so far. It's hard to say. I've seen a few metrics indicating that Westbrook is a net negative or at best neutral, but I don't take metrics seriously when we have so little data. Anyway, we're really comparing him to what we gave up in the trade -- KCP, Kuzma, Harrell, and effectively Caruso. It's debatable whether we would be doing better with those players instead of Westbrook. We're 12-11 from a remarkably easy schedule, but would we be better with those other guys instead of Westbrook? Would we be better if we had traded for Hield? I could probably make a case either way.
As for your comment that no one could have predicted that Lebron would miss so many games, well, yes, they could. Lebron is about to turn 37. The Covid protocol issue was not predictable, but the minor injuries are not surprising.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | mad55557777 wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | governator wrote: | | So, 12 games and counting sans LeBron… is Westbrook trade actually saving the season? Avoiding lottery when not having the pick? |
I hope that this is not the new standard for the season. I still have hopes that this roster is going to come together and make a run. |
in a sense, yes. the team would probably be 5 games or more under 500 if not for Westbrook. nobody could've predicted lebron would've missed these many games. this is bad for the team because they still need time to adjust to each other. the chemistry between Westbrook and AD is amazing now, and i just hope Lebron can join them soon. |
I was really referring to the last sentence in Gov's post. As for your point, I'm not sure that the net effect of the Westbrook trade has been a positive so far. It's hard to say. I've seen a few metrics indicating that Westbrook is a net negative or at best neutral, but I don't take metrics seriously when we have so little data. Anyway, we're really comparing him to what we gave up in the trade -- KCP, Kuzma, Harrell, and effectively Caruso. It's debatable whether we would be doing better with those players instead of Westbrook. We're 12-11 from a remarkably easy schedule, but would we be better with those other guys instead of Westbrook? Would we be better if we had traded for Hield? I could probably make a case either way.
As for your comment that no one could have predicted that Lebron would miss so many games, well, yes, they could. Lebron is about to turn 37. The Covid protocol issue was not predictable, but the minor injuries are not surprising. |
What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to. |
We added $7-8M to the payroll in the Westbrook trade. The luxury tax hit would be a multiple of the figure. Someone like V+ could figure out the exact number. I realize that none of us actually know the precise rationale behind the Caruso decision. However, we do know that the Lakers were using the luxury cap numbers in an effort to persuade Caruso to accept a lower offer than what the Bulls gave him. I am making the assumption that the luxury tax hit from the Westbrook trade influenced the Caruso decision. I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a proven fact.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miggz23
Star Player
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 6821
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| miggz23 wrote: | Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
Spectacular defense I heard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2019
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 10813
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| miggz23 wrote: | Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
He'd be starting at the 2. Which is why Rob missed the train on AC. A legit starting role player who plays elite D and does everything right for 2/$20M? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to. |
We added $7-8M to the payroll in the Westbrook trade. The luxury tax hit would be a multiple of the figure. Someone like V+ could figure out the exact number. I realize that none of us actually know the precise rationale behind the Caruso decision. However, we do know that the Lakers were using the luxury cap numbers in an effort to persuade Caruso to accept a lower offer than what the Bulls gave him. I am making the assumption that the luxury tax hit from the Westbrook trade influenced the Caruso decision. I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a proven fact. |
It just seems strange to put that on Westbrook and not the 15 Mill Nunn and THT are making combined a year. Especially if you factor in the timing of what happened this offseason.
Or I mean, our FO could've just paid the tax, like other championship contenders (GS and BRK).
I guess you could argue LBJ and AD cost us Caruso. Because they spearheaded us getting WB.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8352
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've noticed that lately Westbrook has played really well in the second halves of games. I like that, especially given our problems in the third quarter (which may be a thing of the past now hopefully).
If you have to have a star who plays bad or mediocre one half and good or great the other half, you want to have the good or great half be the second half. I know I'm stating the obvious, but that's a good sign because Westbrook can help us impose our will and finish games strong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope they now realize what a big mistake it was, and that they make up for it by moving THT in a deal for a starting caliber 2 guard. Caruso loss is what it is. It hurts, but in the end, Caruso would not be starting here. I know there's some who think that, but I don't think his game fits well with the starters, especially Westbrook. Two non-shooters in the backcourt? Nah. I know Alex's 3 ball is better, but defenses don't respect Alex's shot. And Alex is a hesitant shot maker. That was not his strength. What we need next to Westbrook is a shot maker. As you saw with Ellington, he is a great fit when he plays D and makes his 3s. Ellington plays a low usage game, catch and shoot, etc perfect. Problem? He's not starting level. For every good game, he has about 3-4 not good games.
We need a starting level 2, and don't have the means to get one, unless we move THT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to. |
We added $7-8M to the payroll in the Westbrook trade. The luxury tax hit would be a multiple of the figure. Someone like V+ could figure out the exact number. I realize that none of us actually know the precise rationale behind the Caruso decision. However, we do know that the Lakers were using the luxury cap numbers in an effort to persuade Caruso to accept a lower offer than what the Bulls gave him. I am making the assumption that the luxury tax hit from the Westbrook trade influenced the Caruso decision. I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a proven fact. |
It just seems strange to put that on Westbrook and not the 15 Mill Nunn and THT are making combined a year. Especially if you factor in the timing of what happened this offseason.
Or I mean, our FO could've just paid the tax, like other championship contenders (GS and BRK).
I guess you could argue LBJ and AD cost us Caruso. Because they spearheaded us getting WB. |
Whether you like it or not, it appears that we had financial constraints that kept us from offering enough to keep Caruso. There is a straight line between those financial constraints and the Westbrook trade. You're saying that we could have signed Caruso anyway, but that's just howling at the moon.
You also seem to think that I am saying that this is the personal fault of Westbrook (or Lebron or Davis). It's the trade, not the person. Assigning individual responsibility is a different subject.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26389
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Westbrook has turned a corner thus far the past 12 games
Russell Westbrook first 11 Games played of this season
18.8 PPG
8.8 REB
8.5 AST
1.5 STL
0.1 BLK
5.1 TOV
41.1% Field Goal
25.6% Three Point
64.2% Free Throw
Russell Westbrook last 12 games of this season
22.4 PPG
7.7 REB
8.7 AST
1.2 STL
0.3 BLK
4.3 TOV
47.8% Field Goal
34.5% Three Point
71.3% Free Throw
He's kept up his end of it thus far, so credit is due to him.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29077
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: | | miggz23 wrote: | Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
He'd be starting at the 2. Which is why Rob missed the train on AC. A legit starting role player who plays elite D and does everything right for 2/$20M? |
Not to mention super packageable contract. Imagine being able to combine AC and THT right now. That could have netted a nice wing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LGFan
Star Player
Joined: 07 Jun 2021
Posts: 1860
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | 2019 wrote: | | miggz23 wrote: | Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
He'd be starting at the 2. Which is why Rob missed the train on AC. A legit starting role player who plays elite D and does everything right for 2/$20M? |
Not to mention super packageable contract. Imagine being able to combine AC and THT right now. That could have netted a nice wing. |
| pjiddy wrote: | | Classic LG wondering what overpay they can get for THT when his value is at his lowest. A few good games and he’ll be back to untradeable or Lillard packages. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mad55557777
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 23272
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: | | miggz23 wrote: | Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
He'd be starting at the 2. Which is why Rob missed the train on AC. A legit starting role player who plays elite D and does everything right for 2/$20M? |
Why do we blame rob when jeanie is the one not willing to pay luxury tax? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29077
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LGFan wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | 2019 wrote: | | miggz23 wrote: | Alex Caruso
Lakers 20: 21mpg / 6.4ppg / 2.9rpg / 2.8apg / 1.1spg with 43/40/65 shooting split.
Bulls 21: 30mpg / 8.7ppg / 3.8rpg / 4.2apg / 2.2 spg with 45/34/85 shooting split.
Question is will he be playing 30mpg with this line-up?... Not much improvement. Numbers this year looks better due to more PT? But his 3 ball has been down. |
He'd be starting at the 2. Which is why Rob missed the train on AC. A legit starting role player who plays elite D and does everything right for 2/$20M? |
Not to mention super packageable contract. Imagine being able to combine AC and THT right now. That could have netted a nice wing. |
| pjiddy wrote: | | Classic LG wondering what overpay they can get for THT when his value is at his lowest. A few good games and he’ll be back to untradeable or Lillard packages. |
|
So "Lillard package" = vet wing?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to. |
We added $7-8M to the payroll in the Westbrook trade. The luxury tax hit would be a multiple of the figure. Someone like V+ could figure out the exact number. I realize that none of us actually know the precise rationale behind the Caruso decision. However, we do know that the Lakers were using the luxury cap numbers in an effort to persuade Caruso to accept a lower offer than what the Bulls gave him. I am making the assumption that the luxury tax hit from the Westbrook trade influenced the Caruso decision. I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a proven fact. |
It just seems strange to put that on Westbrook and not the 15 Mill Nunn and THT are making combined a year. Especially if you factor in the timing of what happened this offseason.
Or I mean, our FO could've just paid the tax, like other championship contenders (GS and BRK).
I guess you could argue LBJ and AD cost us Caruso. Because they spearheaded us getting WB. |
Whether you like it or not, it appears that we had financial constraints that kept us from offering enough to keep Caruso. There is a straight line between those financial constraints and the Westbrook trade. You're saying that we could have signed Caruso anyway, but that's just howling at the moon.
You also seem to think that I am saying that this is the personal fault of Westbrook (or Lebron or Davis). It's the trade, not the person. Assigning individual responsibility is a different subject. |
Maybe I'm just not understanding. How the line is straight from Wesbrook --> no Caruso. Yet the line somehow dodges THT and Nunn.
Is it a squiggly line?
Are you saying it was impossible to have signed Westbrook and Caruso. And not brought in Nunn or THT. Genuinely asking, maybe you know something about the cap I don't know.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Maybe I'm just not understanding. How the line is straight from Wesbrook --> no Caruso. Yet the line somehow dodges THT and Nunn. |
The line is straight from the Westbrook trade and its payroll effect to not signing Caruso. Nunn is irrelevant. Caruso was gone by the time we signed him. If we signed Caruso, we might not have signed Nunn. Who knows? Anyway, without the Westbrook trade, all else equal, we would have had the payroll space to sign THT and Caruso.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vasashi17+
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 5614
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to. |
We added $7-8M to the payroll in the Westbrook trade. The luxury tax hit would be a multiple of the figure. Someone like V+ could figure out the exact number. I realize that none of us actually know the precise rationale behind the Caruso decision. However, we do know that the Lakers were using the luxury cap numbers in an effort to persuade Caruso to accept a lower offer than what the Bulls gave him. I am making the assumption that the luxury tax hit from the Westbrook trade influenced the Caruso decision. I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a proven fact. |
TL;dr: sure looks like LA chose THT over AC when it came to who they wanted to pay the associated taxes on. I understand why they wanted to keep THT, but imho they created an unnecessary ultimatum between the 2.
Let me be the 1st to say, imho Caruso should have been retained for the additional luxury tax, for nothing else than we have Bron on the roster and those 2 as teammates had a ridiculous +/- rating. You can argue that Bron needs additional playmakers around him or additional jump shooters around him, but the fact remains, AC was a proven entity to work with James and as Father Time encroaches Bron, no other non-star player should have held a premium in pairing with Bron than our guy AC. If we’re all about exploiting Bron’s title window before it slams shut, AC would have been the asset to retain even after the Russ trade.
That being said, it was in our best interest to retain an asset/project like THT as well. We should have kept both imho.
As for what AC could have cost us…
We know he ended up signing a 4yr deal guaranteeing 30m (and potentially earning up to 37m). Seeing how he’s a full bird free agent for us, we could have kept dude on a 5yr 30m guaranteed deal paying him much more than the potential 37m the Bulls gave him over 4 (via full bird rights 8% annual escalators).
Year1: 7m
Year2: 7.6m
Year3: 8.2m
Year4: 8.8m
Year5: 9.5m (fully unguaranteed)
= 31.6m guaranteed over 4, with potential to earn 41m over 5. Both figures pay him more than his current Bulls deal.
It was rumored we wouldn’t budge off 7m per. It was rumored he was looking for 4y/40m. We essentially could have started him at that 7m figure and still got him his 40m.
In terms of tax for this season, at a projected 7m, his deal would have led to about 27.25m in additional taxes (ie (5m * 3.75 tax rate) + (2m * 4.25 tax rate). So AC on this type of deal wound have cost us just under 35m this year (ie his annual + associated taxes).
Also consider that last year, there was a 30% tax cut to luxury tax teams due to COVID. We can’t rule out that this was an isolated event. COVID could impact the league’s BRI this year and in turn could result in further COVID forgiveness tax cuts.
Lastly, I believe it’s a huge problem by our FO not to lock our young’ns in on a longterm deals. With THT, we had early bird so we could have offered him a 4th year. With Reaves, we could have offered up to 3 years if we earmarked 925k of our mMLE exception. Same could have been the case with Nunn or even Monk had we offered some of the mMLE to him instead of the vet min. And with AC, we had full bird, so we could have offered up to 5 yrs in a new deal.
Why is that important? You retain an asset on relatively a team friendly deal for much longer and all these potential deals would have been at or less than the NBA average salary this year (ie 10.5m). With the projected 75B cable deal on the horizon and with the potential of cap correcting due to COVID, the cap forecast calms for either a gradual cap smoothing event heading into 2025 or a ridiculous 1 summer cap spike, as we saw when KD cupcaked his way to the dubs. If that type of cap event occurs, we would be sitting on crazy good deals for young assets like AC, Nunn, Monk, THT, Reaves, etc.
Remember, we got to the big3 via assets. So we better start stocking back up in case we need to make another asset heavy purchase soon.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | What's the logic behind Westbrook costing us Caruso? I can understand saying THT cost us Caruso. But even that isn't 100% true. Because we could've kept both. We chose not to. |
We added $7-8M to the payroll in the Westbrook trade. The luxury tax hit would be a multiple of the figure. Someone like V+ could figure out the exact number. I realize that none of us actually know the precise rationale behind the Caruso decision. However, we do know that the Lakers were using the luxury cap numbers in an effort to persuade Caruso to accept a lower offer than what the Bulls gave him. I am making the assumption that the luxury tax hit from the Westbrook trade influenced the Caruso decision. I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a proven fact. |
TL;dr: sure looks like LA chose THT over AC when it came to who they wanted to pay the associated taxes on. I understand why they wanted to keep THT, but imho they created an unnecessary ultimatum between the 2.
Let me be the 1st to say, imho Caruso should have been retained for the additional luxury tax, for nothing else than we have Bron on the roster and those 2 as teammates had a ridiculous +/- rating. You can argue that Bron needs additional playmakers around him or additional jump shooters around him, but the fact remains, AC was a proven entity to work with James and as Father Time encroaches Bron, no other non-star player should have held a premium in pairing with Bron than our guy AC. If we’re all about exploiting Bron’s title window before it slams shut, AC would have been the asset to retain even after the Russ trade.
That being said, it was in our best interest to retain an asset/project like THT as well. We should have kept both imho.
As for what AC could have cost us…
We know he ended up signing a 4yr deal guaranteeing 30m (and potentially earning up to 37m). Seeing how he’s a full bird free agent for us, we could have kept dude on a 5yr 30m guaranteed deal paying him much more than the potential 37m the Bulls gave him over 4 (via full bird rights 8% annual escalators).
Year1: 7m
Year2: 7.6m
Year3: 8.2m
Year4: 8.8m
Year5: 9.5m (fully unguaranteed)
= 31.6m guaranteed over 4, with potential to earn 41m over 5. Both figures pay him more than his current Bulls deal.
It was rumored we wouldn’t budge off 7m per. It was rumored he was looking for 4y/40m. We essentially could have started him at that 7m figure and still got him his 40m.
In terms of tax for this season, at a projected 7m, his deal would have led to about 27.25m in additional taxes (ie (5m * 3.75 tax rate) + (2m * 4.25 tax rate). So AC on this type of deal wound have cost us just under 35m this year (ie his annual + associated taxes).
Also consider that last year, there was a 30% tax cut to luxury tax teams due to COVID. We can’t rule out that this was an isolated event. COVID could impact the league’s BRI this year and in turn could result in further COVID forgiveness tax cuts.
Lastly, I believe it’s a huge problem by our FO not to lock our young’ns in on a longterm deals. With THT, we had early bird so we could have offered him a 4th year. With Reaves, we could have offered up to 3 years if we earmarked 925k of our mMLE exception. Same could have been the case with Nunn or even Monk had we offered some of the mMLE to him instead of the vet min. And with AC, we had full bird, so we could have offered up to 5 yrs in a new deal.
Why is that important? You retain an asset on relatively a team friendly deal for much longer and all these potential deals would have been at or less than the NBA average salary this year (ie 10.5m). With the projected 75B cable deal on the horizon and with the potential of cap correcting due to COVID, the cap forecast calms for either a gradual cap smoothing event heading into 2025 or a ridiculous 1 summer cap spike, as we saw when KD cupcaked his way to the dubs. If that type of cap event occurs, we would be sitting on crazy good deals for young assets like AC, Nunn, Monk, THT, Reaves, etc.
Remember, we got to the big3 via assets. So we better start stocking back up in case we need to make another asset heavy purchase soon. |
Basically, it looks like the Lakers drew a line in the sand on how much they would spend on salary and tax, and Caruso was on the other side of the line. It makes me wonder if there were some internal politics that fans don't know about which affected their choice. Oh, well. Water under the bridge at this point. |
|
| 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
|
|
