LONNIE WALKER IV signs with Lakers ($6.5m - 1 year)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sonic the laker
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Oct 2013
Posts: 1780

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:53 am    Post subject:

GOODRICH25 wrote:
sonic the laker wrote:
Why are people getting mad about the Lakers signing Lonnie Walker with the mid level exception? If I'm not mistaken, most everyone here was surprised...and disappointed...when we heard the news (myself included). We were baffled as to why the Lakers would sign another guard onto a team that was already guard heavy. And, people were flaming Pelinka for the signing. Now that Lonnie has been a exceptionally pleasant surprise, people are flaming Pelinka for not signing him to a longer contract... Ok.

Also, there's the possibility...which I think is closer to the truth...is that Klutch is using the Lakers as a reclamation project for their players. It's quite likely that Lonnie and Klutch weren't looking for a multi year deal. They wanted a one year deal to show what Lonnie could do, and hopefully cash in if he performed well. It's one of those things that is what it is. Sometimes players will take chances to bet on themselves. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes not. All that said, with Westbrook's salary off the books next season, it's not impossible that the Lakers are able to retain Lonnie. Just have to see.


That's not what people are wondering about, it's the length of the contract. We find studs but then they walk after a year


But, that's the thing. No one knew he was a stud. Yeah, he showed flashes. Yet, nothing consistent. That's why the Spurs were fine with just letting him walk, for nothing. If the front office KNEW he was going to be this good from jump, I'm sure he would have gotten a longer contract...if that's what Lonnie wanted.

Also, its funny. I'm sure that even if the Lakers FO had some prescient ability, and had signed Lonnie to a longer deal in the beginning, they would have been flamed for signing another THT-like contract...
_________________
ZOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90132
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:00 am    Post subject:

The whole point of the MLE for him is that he might have upside. But doing a one year with no option means if he fulfills it, you get nothing out of it going forward. It’s poor planning and salary management, something you see over and over.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Megaton
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Posts: 22942

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:52 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
The whole point of the MLE for him is that he might have upside. But doing a one year with no option means if he fulfills it, you get nothing out of it going forward. It’s poor planning and salary management, something you see over and over.


What’s also even more frustrating was that he gave Nunn the year before a MLE + one year option. So it’s not like he just, sorta didn’t know he could do that. He just chose not to, for the sake of saving all that precious cap space in search of a 3rd star. Which is mind boggling stupid.
_________________
Russell Westbrick: https://media.tenor.com/images/3c15249955860a4b16b59e8ae035fb75/tenor.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
andree
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 05 May 2014
Posts: 515

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 12:03 pm    Post subject:

Ironically in summer most of (if not almost all of) posters were gainst Lonnie Walker! What we need another guard when we have so many, instead to go for a real winger?
Would Lonnie received a longer contact, I can only imagine how Pelinka would have been butchered here (not that he is held in high regard).
Now, after a good start, Pelinka is an idiot for giving only one year contract.
This is quintessence of armchair manager mentality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakerican
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 3407

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 12:50 pm    Post subject:

In reality, in the summer we have Reeves, WB, THT and Nunn who wasn't cleared to even 5 on 5.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Laker's Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 11661

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 1:44 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
The whole point of the MLE for him is that he might have upside. But doing a one year with no option means if he fulfills it, you get nothing out of it going forward. It’s poor planning and salary management, something you see over and over.


That might even be a little generous. Another read of the situation, given who has gotten the exceptions, is that they are resources Rich Paul has been given to provide a platform for his clients to secure better contracts. That could certainly be said for Trez, Nunn and Lonnie. In different ways, salary space that went to KCP and THT worked the same.
_________________
Member: Austin “Manu” Reaves fan club.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 35672

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:04 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
The whole point of the MLE for him is that he might have upside. But doing a one year with no option means if he fulfills it, you get nothing out of it going forward. It’s poor planning and salary management, something you see over and over.



I think it was actually a little different: The Lakers didn’t want to commit to cap space next year, and Walker was the best they could do with a one-year mMLE offer. He was a placeholder mMLE. If they were willing to sign someone to a multiyear deal, I think they would have gone with someone else.

It's easy to forget that there was a lot of eyeball rolling with the Lakers signed Walker. At the time of signing, the concensus seem to be it was a C or C+ move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 43048

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:33 pm    Post subject:

A MLE player playing like he’s worth 15-20M per
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sonic the laker
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Oct 2013
Posts: 1780

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:40 pm    Post subject:

Megaton wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
The whole point of the MLE for him is that he might have upside. But doing a one year with no option means if he fulfills it, you get nothing out of it going forward. It’s poor planning and salary management, something you see over and over.


What’s also even more frustrating was that he gave Nunn the year before a MLE + one year option. So it’s not like he just, sorta didn’t know he could do that. He just chose not to, for the sake of saving all that precious cap space in search of a 3rd star. Which is mind boggling stupid.


Comparing Nunn, and Walker, is not a good comparison. Nunn was a known scoring commodity, from his time on the Heat. Walker was not a known commodity. It's easier to invest more in the known, than the unknown.
_________________
ZOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Killer_Z
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3962

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:42 pm    Post subject:

Best MLE signing in the past 10 years?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
levon
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 7917

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:43 pm    Post subject:

If he keeps playing like this, we might actually use our cap space on him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 43048

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:44 pm    Post subject:

Killer_Z wrote:
Best MLE signing in the past 10 years?


The last great MLE signing was Metta World Peace
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 23170

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:57 pm    Post subject:

Wish we had him on a multi-year deal like we did for Nunn.
_________________
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
Rubin
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 23 Aug 2017
Posts: 602

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:10 pm    Post subject:

Inspector Gadget wrote:
Killer_Z wrote:
Best MLE signing in the past 10 years?


The last great MLE signing was Metta World Peace


Ron Artest at the time. By the time he was MWP he was beyond washed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 35672

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:17 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Wish we had him on a multi-year deal like we did for Nunn.


Nunn signed a one year deal, plus a one year player option.

That was an acknowledgeable that we were getting Nunn for a bargain, and he probably expected to opt out and sign elsewhere for more money. But then he got injured.

If Walker had asked for that deal, the Lakers probably would have turned it down, since all the benefits go to the player. He leaves if he plays well, he sticks around if he doesn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hanging from Rafters
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 1544

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:59 pm    Post subject:

andree wrote:
Ironically in summer most of (if not almost all of) posters were gainst Lonnie Walker! What we need another guard when we have so many, instead to go for a real winger?
Would Lonnie received a longer contact, I can only imagine how Pelinka would have been butchered here (not that he is held in high regard).
Now, after a good start, Pelinka is an idiot for giving only one year contract.
This is quintessence of armchair manager mentality.


Yes, Pelinka was an idiot for not signing LW4 for two years and TBjr as well. The point is…don’t sign this guy, Lonnie Walker to the mle, there are other pressing needs…but if you do then sign him to 2 years not one. I know that isn’t what we were saying. We were saying…why sign this guy? But If Pelinka felt like it was a worthy signing then he should have signed him to two years. Vet min and mini-tpMLE 1 year deals do very little good for the team and is cap mismanagement. The amount is small enough to absorb the loss, waive or trade if it doesn’t work out but give an advantage to have a bonus year to keep a player at a bargain price if it does work out.

Rob wasn’t gonna save face if Walker sucked because he was smart enough to only give 1 year…that’s dumb. Signing for 1 year was gonna make Rob look stupid either way, whether Walker turned out good…stupid for not locking in another year, Walker turned out bad…stupid for wasting the tpMLE. The only competent options were not to sign at all or if Rob believed it was a worthy risk then sign him for 2 years to reap the benefits.

Can’t speak for everyone but that’s how I feel about it… didn’t like the signing at the time but now recognize that if Rob liked LW4 well enough to sign him then he was an idiot not to sign LW4 for two years.
_________________
Just win baby!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hanging from Rafters
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 1544

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:30 pm    Post subject:

Megaton wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
The whole point of the MLE for him is that he might have upside. But doing a one year with no option means if he fulfills it, you get nothing out of it going forward. It’s poor planning and salary management, something you see over and over.


What’s also even more frustrating was that he gave Nunn the year before a MLE + one year option. So it’s not like he just, sorta didn’t know he could do that. He just chose not to, for the sake of saving all that precious cap space in search of a 3rd star. Which is mind boggling stupid.


Mind boggling stupid…especially when you consider the MLE was a 2 year deal for Nunn plus Damion Jones got a 2 year vet min but Walker MLE is a 1 year deal and Troy Brown Jr only got a 1 year vet min deal instead of 2 years like Jones.

So now the Lakers will have had Nunn for two years, and will have Jones for two years…both looking useless (still hoping 4 Nunn)…but with Walker and BrownJR the team will be fortunate to keep after only one year yet both Walker and BrownJR look very useful.

Rob wiffed on Nunn/Jones in one direction then wiffed on Walker/TBjr in the other…should have just been consistent and competent and we would have Walker/TBjr under team friendly contracts next year instead of wondering how we’re gonna keep them.
_________________
Just win baby!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
andree
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 05 May 2014
Posts: 515

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:33 am    Post subject:

Hanging from Rafters wrote:
andree wrote:
Ironically in summer most of (if not almost all of) posters were gainst Lonnie Walker! What we need another guard when we have so many, instead to go for a real winger?
Would Lonnie received a longer contact, I can only imagine how Pelinka would have been butchered here (not that he is held in high regard).
Now, after a good start, Pelinka is an idiot for giving only one year contract.
This is quintessence of armchair manager mentality.


Yes, Pelinka was an idiot for not signing LW4 for two years and TBjr as well. The point is…don’t sign this guy, Lonnie Walker to the mle, there are other pressing needs…but if you do then sign him to 2 years not one. I know that isn’t what we were saying. We were saying…why sign this guy? But If Pelinka felt like it was a worthy signing then he should have signed him to two years. Vet min and mini-tpMLE 1 year deals do very little good for the team and is cap mismanagement. The amount is small enough to absorb the loss, waive or trade if it doesn’t work out but give an advantage to have a bonus year to keep a player at a bargain price if it does work out.

Rob wasn’t gonna save face if Walker sucked because he was smart enough to only give 1 year…that’s dumb. Signing for 1 year was gonna make Rob look stupid either way, whether Walker turned out good…stupid for not locking in another year, Walker turned out bad…stupid for wasting the tpMLE. The only competent options were not to sign at all or if Rob believed it was a worthy risk then sign him for 2 years to reap the benefits.

Can’t speak for everyone but that’s how I feel about it… didn’t like the signing at the time but now recognize that if Rob liked LW4 well enough to sign him then he was an idiot not to sign LW4 for two years.


I got your point, but it is easier said than done. Pelinka might thought Lonnie had potential and tpMLE could be a good deal. But until the player himself proves this, it is uncertain.
The best scenario is to give a 1+1 deal, the second year being a team option. I don`t know if works for MLE.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 43048

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:47 am    Post subject:

Rubin wrote:
Inspector Gadget wrote:
Killer_Z wrote:
Best MLE signing in the past 10 years?


The last great MLE signing was Metta World Peace


Ron Artest at the time. By the time he was MWP he was beyond washed.


I mentioned Metta World Peace because the name sounds cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ThePageDude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 2170

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:38 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:

<snip>

I think it was actually a little different: The Lakers didn’t want to commit to cap space next year, and Walker was the best they could do with a one-year mMLE offer. He was a placeholder mMLE. If they were willing to sign someone to a multiyear deal, I think they would have gone with someone else.

It's easy to forget that there was a lot of eyeball rolling with the Lakers signed Walker. At the time of signing, the concensus seem to be it was a C or C+ move.


Yes, that was the logic. However vasashi pitches a viable 3rd alternative between the extremes of 1-year-no-repeater-tax (0 risk) and longer-contract-pay-repeater-tax (max risk). He asks why can't the FO take a bit of risk and offer multi-year *affordable* (read: trade-able) contracts that could be sent (perhaps with cash + 2nd-rounders) to some other team's cap-space? If the player works out, you retain him into freed-up cap-space, if not, you find a deal for him, and we know that deals for moderate/value contracts get made all the time, and cap-space (the key is MODERATE) is always available for rental.
Oh and the narrative that Walker IV was not valued by SA is wrong. The Spurs valued him enough to extend him a qualifying offer. Walker asked them to rescind the QO because he wanted more minutes and exposure so as to up his value; the Spurs did him a solid. . Seems like he made the smart move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 35672

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am    Post subject:

ThePageDude wrote:

Oh and the narrative that Walker IV was not valued by SA is wrong. The Spurs valued him enough to extend him a qualifying offer. Walker asked them to rescind the QO because he wanted more minutes and exposure so as to up his value; the Spurs did him a solid. . Seems like he made the smart move.



Well, the Spurs didn't value him that much, if they were willing to remove the QO. And obviously no team offered him more than a one-year mMLE, so he wasn't highly valued around the league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
blackmamba08
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2015
Posts: 2491
Location: Croatia

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:47 am    Post subject:

Inspector Gadget wrote:
Rubin wrote:
Inspector Gadget wrote:
Killer_Z wrote:
Best MLE signing in the past 10 years?


The last great MLE signing was Metta World Peace


Ron Artest at the time. By the time he was MWP he was beyond washed.


I mentioned Metta World Peace because the name sounds cool


Pandas friend sound even better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 43048

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:01 am    Post subject:

Shooting 37% from 3 on high volume as well, hilarious looking back at the comments that he wasn’t gonna be a good 3pt shooter, the crow tastes delicious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 4327

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:48 am    Post subject:

ThePageDude wrote:
activeverb wrote:

<snip>

I think it was actually a little different: The Lakers didn’t want to commit to cap space next year, and Walker was the best they could do with a one-year mMLE offer. He was a placeholder mMLE. If they were willing to sign someone to a multiyear deal, I think they would have gone with someone else.

It's easy to forget that there was a lot of eyeball rolling with the Lakers signed Walker. At the time of signing, the concensus seem to be it was a C or C+ move.


Yes, that was the logic. However vasashi pitches a viable 3rd alternative between the extremes of 1-year-no-repeater-tax (0 risk) and longer-contract-pay-repeater-tax (max risk). He asks why can't the FO take a bit of risk and offer multi-year *affordable* (read: trade-able) contracts that could be sent (perhaps with cash + 2nd-rounders) to some other team's cap-space? If the player works out, you retain him into freed-up cap-space, if not, you find a deal for him, and we know that deals for moderate/value contracts get made all the time, and cap-space (the key is MODERATE) is always available for rental.
Oh and the narrative that Walker IV was not valued by SA is wrong. The Spurs valued him enough to extend him a qualifying offer. Walker asked them to rescind the QO because he wanted more minutes and exposure so as to up his value; the Spurs did him a solid. . Seems like he made the smart move.


🫡 my guy!

No surprise here, but I gotta agree with my Dude again. This isn’t a hard exercise, since most teams understand they don’t have the draw that tge LA market has, so they try to lock up their exception deals, especially if dude is a young boy.

Exceptions are an annual resource that capped out teams have every year and we have to start looking at them as that. You sign an exception player this year to a 2yr+ deal, then next summer when you sign another one, you got 2 on the roster. And you keep adding those assets each year. Instead, we operate with these 1yr deals and start back at square 1 the following summer.

At the least you acquire salary fodder…at most you get a dude on < NBA average salary while the cap keeps climbing. And if the market for SkyWalker was only 1yr MLE deals, then you have a better opportunity at negotiating multiyear deals with dude. He knows he gets LA’s shine to either get Monk like deals or you remain with Las to get another crack at it like Nunn.

When we first introduced Ham, we championed him as a coach who can develop young players…we then proceed to give MaxC an unimaginative 2yr rookie exception deal and give SkyWalker a 1yr pact.

Instead, we should have earmarked 1.02m from the MLE to get MaxC on a 3yr deal, with a low QO caphold in year 4 for when he becomes a RFA…we then wound have full bird rights on dude to match or exceed any other offer if need be, but again with a low caphold if we playing the cap game 3 years from when we inked dude. We then turn to SkyWalker with the remaining MLE amount and tell him we will guarantee the 1.02m difference in yr2 of his deal, so that he gets paid that amount either way for 1yr if service even if we waive him in yr2. Again, it’s not hard to negotiate that with a guy that had a market of 1yr @ the MLE amount.

Again before yall get caught up in the Klutch tax narrative, understand Dallas drafted klutch klient Hardy at #37 this past summer. They earmarked 1m of the MLE and offered dude a 3yr rookie min pact with the 3rd year guaranteeing only 400k. They then gave the rest of the MLE to McGee on a 3yr deal. But supposedly a 19y/o THT held klutch leverage in 2019 to only get a 2yr deal with all that cap space…bruh!

The concept is so easy an exNike exec could just do it. Meanwhile Rob conveniently hides behind the Klutch tax and champions cap flexibility with these 1yr/short term deals, while blocking max cap space with the Bron extension.

Dude is so good at story telling yet has no innovation in planning out a story board. Yet got a 4 year extension to live out his happily ever after.
_________________
Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scout_0
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 22 Oct 2020
Posts: 1546

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:20 pm    Post subject:

Inspector Gadget wrote:
Shooting 37% from 3 on high volume as well, hilarious looking back at the comments that he wasn’t gonna be a good 3pt shooter, the crow tastes delicious.


And you knew he would shoot 37% based on what?
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 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 20 of 22
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