ImageImageImageImageImage

Lakers Mathematics

Moderators: Danny Darko, Kilroy, TyCobb

danfantastk32
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,203
And1: 1,633
Joined: Dec 20, 2015
     

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#61 » by danfantastk32 » Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:08 am

Princeinrevolt wrote:
LakersSoul wrote:
Princeinrevolt wrote:^ And thats how you become the Sacremento Kings everybody. No offense man, but you got to have patience. I'd never sign a max 31 year old unless its Lebron. Also there is no way Kyle Lowry signs with us anyways.


Whether you like it or not, Lowry will get the max this summer. I would prefer Hayward but honestly neither will sign with us even if we throw the max at them. LOL.

Kyle Lowry and Gordon Hayward deserve the max, i never said they didn't. But their teams are the ones that should give it to them, because they are already really good. The Lakers are really young, and adding a 31 year old is not going to do us any good tbh. We'll just waste all our space for someone thats not going to take us anywhere. If we throw the max at Kyle Lowry, we still won't make the playoffs, and on top of that, all our cap space is gone. I would sign Gordon Hayward because he is younger, but he will definitely not sign with us.


I agree Hayward is younger....and younger is 'nice'. But Lowry is a damn good player at a position we need. All Hayward does is make Ingram a trade-piece. How's that better?

Signing Lowry to a 4-year deal would put him at 35 by contract's end. For the record....He'd be 34, and turn 35 like the last 2-weeks of the season. If you have a better PG available, by all means share. But we need a floor leader. Hayward will just make Ingram obsolete, and massively stunt his growth. And I'm sorry....but I think Ingram will be a considerably better player than Hayward, if he gets those minutes.

Getting a floor leader / PG....and sliding Russell to the SG position should be the focus of the team this year. Not bringing in a another SF. Obviously, I prefer we get our pick and use it for a PG. Then it's $$ saved. Honestly, I wouldn't even make a play at Hayward, if we get our pick, and don't need a PG. He's a good SF in this league. I think SF is the one position on this team I'm not at all worried about. I have questions about Zubac, Randle, Russell. We still need a PG. But we're good at the 3. Just give it 2 years.
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 20,914
And1: 21,630
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#62 » by Pointgod » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:50 pm

milesfides wrote:Depends on how Utah's series plays out. Also, championship contenders can't exactly just add Gordon Hayward.

And nobody knows how much Gordon wants to stay in Utah or not, except he hasn't reassured them he'll stay.

By keeping it open, he's a target.

He also was very complimentary of the Lakers roster, Brandon Ingram specifically, and said we're a "very dangerous...good, young, talented team with a lot of good pieces.”

It would be dumb if the Lakers didn't push hard for him.

No guarantees of course, but as long as he's going to hit the free agent market, we let him sit down with Magic, Rob, Jeannie, and Kobe.


The problem is that you can't make a convincing argument as to why Hayward would come here over staying in Utah. Utah right now is in the position that the Lakers hope to be in 3 years. Coming here is a step backwards for Hayward. He'd have to wait for these young guys to develop and there's zero guarantee that they'd develop as planned. Another realistic landing spot is for him to go to Boston. Not only would he be going to a team that can win now, he'd be playing for his old college coach, with an MVP caliber player, most likely the number 1 overall pick and a team with enough flexibility to trade for another superstar in a much easier conference. The Lakers could make a pitch to him but, it will be a waste of time just like in past free agency periods. This all assuming he even hits free agency most likely he signs for 2 plus years with Utah so he's eligible for the 5 year supermax.

We have about 20 million in cap space, I'd rather not spend it unless we can get a legit starter under the age of 30.
User avatar
milesfides
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,012
And1: 1,449
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#63 » by milesfides » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:49 pm

I already did in the Hayward thread. The Jazz only have Gobert - a great player - but that's all they have. If they survive the Clippers, they're going to get wrecked by the Warriors. And if Hayward re-signs with the Jazz, he's locking himself to that roster.

Look, he might re-sign in Utah. He might sign in Boston. Those are all possibilities. But the fact that he's going to hit the market as an unrestricted free agent means he's going to listen.

The Lakers have absolutely nothing to lose to offer him a max contract this summer, and everything to gain. It's that simple.

Look, you think free agent destinations are easy to guess. You're wrong. The truth is that many free agents pick a team that's absolutely surprising to everybody. Every year.

I don't pretend to know what Gordon Hayward is going to do. There are many contingencies.

But he did say the Lakers have an attractive roster. That came out of his mouth. That admission is encouraging, coming from a free agent.

And again, we have nothing to lose. There's no other free agent on the market worth spending on this summer.

And it's easy math to clear a contract or two to offer Hayward the 30m.
“OH! Caruso parachutes in! You cannot stop him - you can only hope to contain him!” -Kevin Harlan, LAL-GSW 4/4/19
User avatar
TylersLakers
RealGM
Posts: 10,878
And1: 2,809
Joined: Jan 20, 2006
Location: Winnipeg Canada
     

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#64 » by TylersLakers » Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:42 pm

milesfides wrote:I already did in the Hayward thread. The Jazz only have Gobert - a great player - but that's all they have. If they survive the Clippers, they're going to get wrecked by the Warriors. And if Hayward re-signs with the Jazz, he's locking himself to that roster.

Look, he might re-sign in Utah. He might sign in Boston. Those are all possibilities. But the fact that he's going to hit the market as an unrestricted free agent means he's going to listen.

The Lakers have absolutely nothing to lose to offer him a max contract this summer, and everything to gain. It's that simple.

Look, you think free agent destinations are easy to guess. You're wrong. The truth is that many free agents pick a team that's absolutely surprising to everybody. Every year.

I don't pretend to know what Gordon Hayward is going to do. There are many contingencies.

But he did say the Lakers have an attractive roster. That came out of his mouth. That admission is encouraging, coming from a free agent.

And again, we have nothing to lose. There's no other free agent on the market worth spending on this summer.

And it's easy math to clear a contract or two to offer Hayward the 30m.


I would absolutely want to meet with him and offer a maximum contract if I was Magic and Pelinka.
Image
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 20,914
And1: 21,630
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#65 » by Pointgod » Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:30 pm

milesfides wrote:I already did in the Hayward thread. The Jazz only have Gobert - a great player - but that's all they have. If they survive the Clippers, they're going to get wrecked by the Warriors. And if Hayward re-signs with the Jazz, he's locking himself to that roster.

Look, he might re-sign in Utah. He might sign in Boston. Those are all possibilities. But the fact that he's going to hit the market as an unrestricted free agent means he's going to listen.

The Lakers have absolutely nothing to lose to offer him a max contract this summer, and everything to gain. It's that simple.

Look, you think free agent destinations are easy to guess. You're wrong. The truth is that many free agents pick a team that's absolutely surprising to everybody. Every year.

I don't pretend to know what Gordon Hayward is going to do. There are many contingencies.

But he did say the Lakers have an attractive roster. That came out of his mouth. That admission is encouraging, coming from a free agent.

And again, we have nothing to lose. There's no other free agent on the market worth spending on this summer.

And it's easy math to clear a contract or two to offer Hayward the 30m.


You're completely underrating the Jazz saying that all they have is Gobert. The Jazz aren't a two player team and they're 25 wins better than our team despite having a ton of injuries. If they manage to keep George Hill, they'll continue to be a playoff staple for the next couple of years. Hayward on the Lakers aren't being Golden State either so that's a moot point.

You're right, no one can predict what free agents will do but you can look at past behaviours to predict the most likely outcomes. All star free agents rarely ever pass up the money and switch teams. Examples are Marc Gasol, Demar Derozan, Mike Conley, Batum, Whiteside, Drummond, Nowitzski etc. Also superstars never leave a playoff team to go to a lottery team. The allstars that did change teams last year Durant, Horford, Wade(Chicago barely missed the playoffs), Howard all signed with teams already in the playoffs. Because it's completely illogical for a player to take less money to go to a significantly worse team. Also there's been a trend of players reupping for a 2 year contract to give management a chance to put a good team around them and sign an extension for more money. (Westbrook, Harden)

Just because Hayward was complimentary about our roster doesn't mean that he would sign here. I'm sure I can find you quotes over the past couple of years of players complimenting the Lakers but we've had a miserable track record in free agency. We do have something to lose buy chasing free agents with a low probability of signing with us, we pass up the opportunities to make trades or sign under the radar free agents (remember we lost out on a chance at Isiah Thomas and Kyle Lowry chasing Melo). If we were an 8th seed team or borderline playoff team I would agree with you and say let's go after Hayward. Or if we were able to make a trade for Jimmy Butler during the draft, then we can make a much stronger pitch that we could compete immediately with room to grow.
User avatar
milesfides
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,012
And1: 1,449
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#66 » by milesfides » Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:22 pm

1. The Jazz are a mature team full of veterans. The Lakers are not. The Jazz don't have much room to get better. The Lakers do. In fact, there were reports about how scouts around the league believe the Lakers young core is one of the most attractive. Look, this coming from Gordon Hayward's mouth - no matter what you say, the person in question is on record saying we have an attractive roster.

2. You're wrong about the money. Gordon probably won't be eligible for the super-max because he likely won't be on an All-NBA team this year. Too competitive. Second, with the supermax off the table, there's not much difference between what the Jazz can offer and what another team can offer - the difference is the 5th year, but Gordon Hayward just turned 27 and he'll get an even more lucrative contract when the 4 years is over. And again, it won't be about the money, because he's hitting free agency. If it were about the money, he would simply commit to Utah, but he hasn't. Instead, the Jazz newspapers are still publishing articles speculating about his free agency during the playoffs series. How's that for certainty? Uncertainty is a fact about his situation, so please stop talking about what Hayward is going to do. Nobody knows.

3. You're wrong about other upcoming free agents complimenting our roster. Please list the number of times a star free agent said such strong, positive, encouraging things about our roster. It was so unusual that it really stuck in my head. Look at his word choice:

"They have a lot of talent on their team,” Hayward said of the Lakers. “A lot of guys that are capable of scoring points in bunches, and so they're very dangerous. When one of them gets going, it can be a long night for you. They're a good, young, talented team with a lot of good pieces.

That language is unusual for a player. This kind of diction is appropriate for scouts and management...or an upcoming free agent.
“OH! Caruso parachutes in! You cannot stop him - you can only hope to contain him!” -Kevin Harlan, LAL-GSW 4/4/19
ALL HAIL
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,474
And1: 1,213
Joined: Dec 27, 2005

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#67 » by ALL HAIL » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:13 pm

milesfides wrote:1. The Jazz are a mature team full of veterans. The Lakers are not. The Jazz don't have much room to get better. The Lakers do. In fact, there were reports about how scouts around the league believe the Lakers young core is one of the most attractive. Look, this coming from Gordon Hayward's mouth - no matter what you say, the person in question is on record saying we have an attractive roster.

2. You're wrong about the money. Gordon probably won't be eligible for the super-max because he likely won't be on an All-NBA team this year. Too competitive. Second, with the supermax off the table, there's not much difference between what the Jazz can offer and what another team can offer - the difference is the 5th year, but Gordon Hayward just turned 27 and he'll get an even more lucrative contract when the 4 years is over. And again, it won't be about the money, because he's hitting free agency. If it were about the money, he would simply commit to Utah, but he hasn't. Instead, the Jazz newspapers are still publishing articles speculating about his free agency during the playoffs series. How's that for certainty? Uncertainty is a fact about his situation, so please stop talking about what Hayward is going to do. Nobody knows.

3. You're wrong about other upcoming free agents complimenting our roster. Please list the number of times a star free agent said such strong, positive, encouraging things about our roster. It was so unusual that it really stuck in my head. Look at his word choice:

"They have a lot of talent on their team,” Hayward said of the Lakers. “A lot of guys that are capable of scoring points in bunches, and so they're very dangerous. When one of them gets going, it can be a long night for you. They're a good, young, talented team with a lot of good pieces.

That language is unusual for a player. This kind of diction is appropriate for scouts and management...or an upcoming free agent.

I don't entertain thoughts of Hayward because of Boston. If he leaves his team, I can't see him going anywhere but Boston.

Him in Boston is too perfect of a fit. Hayward has a relationship with the coach, Boston has a promising future, he's very talented, Boston needs him, and he's white. It'll be a marketing coup for Ainge.
User avatar
milesfides
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,012
And1: 1,449
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#68 » by milesfides » Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:45 pm

It's possible, but nobody knows for sure. But we have nothing to lose by making him an offer.
“OH! Caruso parachutes in! You cannot stop him - you can only hope to contain him!” -Kevin Harlan, LAL-GSW 4/4/19
MelosSoreWrist
Analyst
Posts: 3,534
And1: 1,565
Joined: Mar 25, 2012

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#69 » by MelosSoreWrist » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:00 pm

danfantastk32 wrote:
Princeinrevolt wrote:
LakersSoul wrote:
Whether you like it or not, Lowry will get the max this summer. I would prefer Hayward but honestly neither will sign with us even if we throw the max at them. LOL.

Kyle Lowry and Gordon Hayward deserve the max, i never said they didn't. But their teams are the ones that should give it to them, because they are already really good. The Lakers are really young, and adding a 31 year old is not going to do us any good tbh. We'll just waste all our space for someone thats not going to take us anywhere. If we throw the max at Kyle Lowry, we still won't make the playoffs, and on top of that, all our cap space is gone. I would sign Gordon Hayward because he is younger, but he will definitely not sign with us.


I agree Hayward is younger....and younger is 'nice'. But Lowry is a damn good player at a position we need. All Hayward does is make Ingram a trade-piece. How's that better?

Signing Lowry to a 4-year deal would put him at 35 by contract's end. For the record....He'd be 34, and turn 35 like the last 2-weeks of the season. If you have a better PG available, by all means share. But we need a floor leader. Hayward will just make Ingram obsolete, and massively stunt his growth. And I'm sorry....but I think Ingram will be a considerably better player than Hayward, if he gets those minutes.

Getting a floor leader / PG....and sliding Russell to the SG position should be the focus of the team this year. Not bringing in a another SF. Obviously, I prefer we get our pick and use it for a PG. Then it's $$ saved. Honestly, I wouldn't even make a play at Hayward, if we get our pick, and don't need a PG. He's a good SF in this league. I think SF is the one position on this team I'm not at all worried about. I have questions about Zubac, Randle, Russell. We still need a PG. But we're good at the 3. Just give it 2 years.


Wow, really? I'd be ecstatic if Ingram became 4/5th Hayward.
NYK 455 wrote:
greenhughes wrote:I hope Melo leaves and wins a championship and rubs it all in our face.

How does that make you better than the Lin, Gallo, and Wil fans who root for them over NY?
danfantastk32
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,203
And1: 1,633
Joined: Dec 20, 2015
     

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#70 » by danfantastk32 » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:55 am

MelosSoreWrist wrote:Wow, really? I'd be ecstatic if Ingram became 4/5th Hayward.


I think you prob value Hayward more than me. I just think he's a so-so 'star-level' player. Semi-athletic, but has good head on his shoulders. I'd never give him the max. Too many SF's out there who are considerably better. I'll take Lebron at 40 over Haywards best year. Leonard runs rings around him.

If Ingram never becomes as good as Hayward, I'll be a little disappointed frankly.
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 20,914
And1: 21,630
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#71 » by Pointgod » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:30 pm

Lol according to Lakers fans Russell, Ingram, Randle and our possible lottery pick are all going to be superstars. Zubac is going to be the next Marc Gasol, Clarkson could be good as prime Monta Ellis if he's given a green light lol this means we drafted better than the OKC, the best drafting team in the past decade. I think us Lakers fans need a reality check.
danfantastk32
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,203
And1: 1,633
Joined: Dec 20, 2015
     

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#72 » by danfantastk32 » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:54 pm

Pointgod wrote:Lol according to Lakers fans Russell, Ingram, Randle and our possible lottery pick are all going to be superstars. Zubac is going to be the next Marc Gasol, Clarkson could be good as prime Monta Ellis if he's given a green light lol this means we drafted better than the OKC, the best drafting team in the past decade. I think us Lakers fans need a reality check.


Hey.....all that good drafting, and no titles. So OKC isn't even good enough. We gotta be better.

I think Ingram has it to be a super-star. Some things have to happen.....I admit there's a ways to go. But I think he has the talent to be a super-star. I think Zubac has it to be one of the top Centers in the League. I've also tempered that comment by saying that that's by today's standards where centers are not very good. I think I once mentioned one of Brooke Lopez's better years. Is that really that 'lofty' of an aspiration? I don't think so at all.

I think Russell can be good. I take Ingram as the "super-star" over him though. I'm 50/50 on Russell. I can see it going either way. Randle can be solid. He'll be a bit of a star since he plays for Lakers....but hardly a superstar. That said, Randle and Russell might not make it as Lakers, TBH. Both had lack-luster gains this season, IMO. I myself and several other Laker fans think Clarkson has essentially hit his ceiling. He's a nice pick up in 2nd round.

Gotta get the pick before any of that matters.

I think having a little optimism is good. These are top-draft picks after all. Part of it though, is you have vocal people saying Ingram is the best....then you have others saying Russell is the best. Then you have others saying Randle is very solid, and took a nice step this season. So it kinda looks like everyone thinks the entire team is great. Read around some more.....there are alot of guys who think Randle and/or Russell should be traded. There was a thread dedicated to whether or not Clarkson's contract should be considered a chain around our neck like Moz/Deng. Hardly love there.
LakersLegacy
Head Coach
Posts: 7,118
And1: 3,868
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
   

Re: Lakers Mathematics 

Post#73 » by LakersLegacy » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:01 am

Young is opting out. When asked if we will c him at
Staples next year he said ya... playing against the Lakers for another team.

Increase the cap space.

Return to Los Angeles Lakers