Luke Long Term Equals Not Good For Lakers

[Warhammer3025]

Uhh how so, Morrison's contract doesnt come off the books til the 2010 season. So no matter what, his salary will impact our cap AND force us to pay luxury tax next year unless of course we find some idiot team out there willing to roll the dice on him for an expiring contract... fat chance.

Trading Vlad really has killed our bench. It also forces the bitter pill of giving Puke heavy minutes and now it seems like we wont have Ariza's energy off the bench anymore since Puke cant man up and start. So yea, lets weaken the bench in the middle of a championship run, why? So Buss can save money in 2011!!!! If Morrison had expired at the end of THIS year, it would make too much sense to dump Vlad so we can resign one or both of Odom/Ariza, otherwise we just shot ourselves in teh foot for no reason.

[hermes]

Uhh how so, Morrison's contract doesnt come off the books til the 2010 season. So no matter what, his salary will impact our cap AND force us to pay luxury tax next year unless of course we find some idiot team out there willing to roll the dice on him for an expiring contract... fat chance.

Trading Vlad really has killed our bench. It also forces the bitter pill of giving Puke heavy minutes and now it seems like we wont have Ariza's energy off the bench anymore since Puke cant man up and start. So yea, lets weaken the bench in the middle of a championship run, why? So Buss can save money in 2011!!!! If Morrison had expired at the end of THIS year, it would make too much sense to dump Vlad so we can resign one or both of Odom/Ariza, otherwise we just shot ourselves in teh foot for no reason.

why wouldn't a team want an expiring contract for the free agent bonanza, they would be idiots not to take him

and vlad wasn't playing by the time he got traded anyway, bynum getting injured killed the bench

[Dr Aki]

No what you need to do is not turn a sports question into a business answer after you realize you didn't communicate it like that at 1st. We can bounce it back & forth all day long. My answer stays the same yes I would take Artest because it works better for long term. Is that remedial enough for you? Sigh

Sigh...

lets answer a question with more questions.

how about "does having a better player than luke win us more games? how much would this player cost? and is it worth it on a cost/win ratio seeing as we have lost 13 games all year?"

well, im happy you're not the lakers GM, your solution is to spend, spend, spend. throwing more money at the problem isn't always the right solution

mitch worked hard to get rid of one albatross contract and you want him to undo all his good work to win an extra couple of games?

its not set in stone that luke walton will lose the lakers a championship, if he does, we'll talk about artest next season just like we did this off-season

[DEEP3CL]

Akiho you do realize Artest won't command that much money as you invision right ? He'll get maybe between 8-11 mil and that's a reach at best. And how are you so sure Farmar will be getting an extension ? At the rate he's maturing at I highly doubt it seriously, it's no need to extend Farmar base on what grounds ? He's not in the same ball park as the situation with Bynum.

Also how do you know Walton won't be moved ? You talk like you have all the answers but have none. Your opinions carry no weight here just like any other posters...........everything is relevant for discussion as long as the discussion is in the realm of sensibility.

You talk as if Luke and Jordan are etched in stone with the Lakers which couldn't be further more from the truth.When anklebreaker said,"Luke is way over paid & has 2 many years left on his contract is the only reason why he hasnt been dealt already." You failed to comprehend badly what he was getting at. For one if you really knew about Walton's contract you'll quickly find out he has one of the most difficult types of contracts to deal in the league.

Further more he has a trade kicker in his contract that the Lakers would have to pay.......so how's that for extra hancuffs on a contract that runs 4 more seasons after this one ?

Signing Jordan to an extension would be leathal for the franchise, he'll have what you call a "Poison Pill Provision" meaning players have had their Rookie Scale Contracts extended. Making them very difficult to trade as their incoming trade value becomes an average of all of the remaining years left on the contract and extension. This goes into effect should the Lakers need to trade Jordan.

You need to know the facts first about a players economical status to the franchise before calling out somebody who had a realisticidea that makes sense if the right cards are played.

[Dr Aki]

Akiho you do realize Artest won't command that much money as you invision right ? He'll get maybe between 8-11 mil and that's a reach at best. And how are you so sure Farmar will be getting an extension ? At the rate he's maturing at I highly doubt it seriously, it's no need to extend Farmar base on what grounds ? He's not in the same ball park as the situation with Bynum.

artest? the lakers post-lamar, post-ariza contracts are somewhere around 87-90M guaranteed next season, why in anyone's mind would anyone think kupchak would want to sign artest?

unless you misunderstood the debate, anklebreaker was IN FAVOUR of signing artest, i am NOT IN FAVOUR because as previously mentioned multiple times, the lakers simply cannot afford it

Also how do you know Walton won't be moved ? You talk like you have all the answers but have none. Your opinions carry no weight here just like any other posters...........everything is relevant for discussion as long as the discussion is in the realm of sensibility.

You talk as if Luke and Jordan are etched in stone with the Lakers which couldn't be further more from the truth.When anklebreaker said,"Luke is way over paid & has 2 many years left on his contract is the only reason why he hasnt been dealt already." You failed to comprehend badly what he was getting at. For one if you really knew about Walton's contract you'll quickly find out he has one of the most difficult types of contracts to deal in the league.

Further more he has a trade kicker in his contract that the Lakers would have to pay.......so how's that for extra hancuffs on a contract that runs 4 more seasons after this one ?

well, how do i know walton won't be moved? from all my responses, ive declared walton as an unmovable albatross contract, unable to be moved unless its for an equally unpalatable contract with just as much money owed making it a lateral financial move. why would the lakers move a contributing member of the lakers grandfathered into the triangle for someone who would need to come in and relearn everything again?

how can you ask that question and then proceed to provide evidence that he won't be moved? thats a bit illogical isn't it??

until he is moved, until hes wearing someone else's jersey, im going to continue to assume luke will be here. walton and the lakers are handcuffed to each other at the very least til 2012 when luke becomes an expiring

Signing Jordan to an extension would be leathal for the franchise, he'll have what you call a "Poison Pill Provision" meaning players have had their Rookie Scale Contracts extended. Making them very difficult to trade as their incoming trade value becomes an average of all of the remaining years left on the contract and extension. This goes into effect should the Lakers need to trade Jordan.

You need to know the facts first about a players economical status to the franchise before calling out somebody who had a realisticidea that makes sense if the right cards are played.

fair enough, i don't know that farmar will be extended

but there is other information available that at the very least gives me an idea of what the lakers will defintely do:
1. no farmar = giant hole at backup PG, whats a backup PG thatll adequately fill farmar's role going to cost? 3-4mil per sound reasonable?
2. fisher will be 35/36 when farmar's contract ends, how much longer can fisher play at this level?

if anything, the lakers will in all likelyhood need 2 future PGs, one of them very likely being farmar

and if the lakers can get him at 3-4mil per? that's a bargain! not signing him would be lethal for this franchise is you ask me, the lakers would definitely not be signing farmar just so they could have a hard time moving him, which would make the PPP argument completely moot.

now unless shannon brown/sun yue/09 draft picks make vast improvements in their play and turn into contributing factors at the point, farmar's job is relatively safe for the foreseeable future

this conversation about farmar can actually wait another year, when farmar comes off the books and we're all wondering if kupchak re-signs jordan or goes another direction

you're all right, my words hold no weight, but it all depends on who's words you choose to listen to and agree with, I make my predictions based on the status quo and past historical decisions:
1. trading vladi and mihm to save money = lakers not looking to add artest (who will at the very least command the MLE)
2. walton's immovable contract = walton's here to stay or getting another immovable contract
3. lakers PG situation (current and future) = farmar being 1 of 2 future rotation PGs

[Anklebreaker702]

well, im happy you're not the lakers GM, your solution is to spend, spend, spend. throwing more money at the problem isn't always the right solution

mitch worked hard to get rid of one albatross contract and you want him to undo all his good work to win an extra couple of games?

its not set in stone that luke walton will lose the lakers a championship, if he does, we'll talk about artest next season just like we did this off-season

Ok Akiho I usually like they way you post but this 1 has a feeling like you're drawing a line in the sand! So let's go! Actually it's good that you are not the GM because you are only looking at short term. Who cares about the regular season & 1 title? This played out already last season & had Artest just opted out, he'd be a Laker right now. That's what all stupid GM's do win 1 title or get close to 1 & get conservative. Mitch damn near lost his job for being a "Yes" man & grew some stones & now IMO is doing the best job out there. The more titles, the more money so on & so on. In case you didnt know there are team bonuses for making playoffs & even more for winning it all.

No one is saying throw money around but Luke is less than average at best surrounded by guys who are better than average @ every starting position. Luke has not lived up to his contract just like that bum Chris Mihm. There were supporters of him over Mbenga in here also until DJ was finally given time that guys that know ball saw B4 he got more time already knew he could do. Now where are the Mihm supporters? (CRICKETS CHIRPING)

So I see your angle now as well, run behind the the $$$$ so no one can see you swinging from Luke's hairs. You have to be a Luke lover to keep supporting this argument

[DEEP3CL]

Again who say's Lamar is in the Lakers plans and how do you know of such plans ? LO is currently taking salary space that is also part of the Lakers problem. Trevor is has and will be priority number one, not LO.

With the cap numbers taking a for sure cut this summer no player on the open market will command the salary they had hoped for. It's the same reason agents for top player such as Wade and LeBron have been encouraged to take the extensions now. So if those guys are boxed in how in the hell do you think the Lakers feel about LO ?....................ahh they're not worried one bit.

Walton's contract is not all that impossible to move as I made it seemed. The Lakers used the MLE they had to sign Luke, his per yer salary is not that outrageous but it just goes to show how stupid Mitch was during the time of rebuilding. Luke should have never gotten a contract that pays.......
$4,840,000 (09-10) $5,260,0009 (10-11) $5,680,000 (11-12) $6,100,000 (12-13).

This is Mitch's problem to solved since he created it, but having Artest at the MLE is worth more than having Walton. And Ariza has " Early Bird Rights" meaning the Lakers don't have to worry about the cap since they're over anyway. Bottom line is the Lakers will make moves to have player on the roster who are worth pay the tax for period.

[larry14r]

Again who say's Lamar is in the Lakers plans and how do you know of such plans ? LO is currently taking salary space that is also part of the Lakers problem. Trevor is has and will be priority number one, not LO.

With the cap numbers taking a for sure cut this summer no player on the open market will command the salary they had hoped for. It's the same reason agents for top player such as Wade and LeBron have been encouraged to take the extensions now. So if those guys are boxed in how in the hell do you think the Lakers feel about LO ?....................ahh they're not worried one bit.

Walton's contract is not all that impossible to move as I made it seemed. The Lakers used the MLE they had to sign Luke, his per yer salary is not that outrageous but it just goes to show how stupid Mitch was during the time of rebuilding. Luke should have never gotten a contract that pays.......
$4,840,000 (09-10) $5,260,0009 (10-11) $5,680,000 (11-12) $6,100,000 (12-13).

This is Mitch's problem to solved since he created it, but having Artest at the MLE is worth more than having Walton. And Ariza has " Early Bird Rights" meaning the Lakers don't have to worry about the cap since they're over anyway. Bottom line is the Lakers will make moves to have player on the roster who are worth pay the tax for period.

Ah Luke had bird rights when the Lakers re-signed him, and the MLE went to D-Fish in 07.

[DEEP3CL]

^ Yep............that's right.

[Dr Aki]

sigh, id trade luke as soon as could to save money if i could, but to trade him for eddy curry? curry would get no time/no opportunity to contribute for the remainder of his contract

but you need to look at the bigger picture, how much money do you waste having to re-train a new member of staff? having a player not play while getting paid is wasting money, pure and simple. at least with luke, you're getting some production at for his 20 million dollar pricetag, eddy curry would neither earn PT in front of mbenga or powell, let alone lamar/pau/drew, making him a 20 million dollar 300lb deadweight

players that don't play are only traded for their contracts. at the very least, with luke playing, kupchak is advertising luke, whereas if you trade for curry, you're backing yourself into a corner and admitting defeat. teams dont trade for players based on reputation, they do it with advanced scouting and film, how else was mitch able to trade radmanovic? how did he convince memphis the javaris crittenton was a worthy young asset? how did memphis know about marc gasol hiding in the spanish ACB?

theres a reason why kupchak is still GM, he didnt panic, hes very meticulous in his thinking. even the caron for kwame trade was thought through, they thought they were getting a young, 7ft center with plenty of upside and trading a wing player in which they already had kobe for. the risk/reward ratio was there. in hindsight, thats obviously a **** move, but at least he landed gasol with kwame

he signed vladi to a 4yr/22M deal, lakers needed someone to space the floor, vladi made his living as a 3pt bomber, PJ commented many times of his rational for having vladi on the floor - "the mere threat of vladi keeps the floor spaced". again, didnt turn out as planned, mitch waited for the right deal to come along, and he took it

even if he had traded kobe and rebuilt around bynum, kupchak would still be here. cutting costs and helping the lakers bide their time at a minimal cost whilst rebuilding with draft picks and young stars. the fans might hate kupchak and would still be calling him cupcake, but he would still have a job because lakers management knew his worth to the franchise

and factors concerning LO:

there have been countless articles with lamar saying "i want to stay a laker", "LA is my second home", including an article of him saying "i will take less to stay"

there have been plenty of articles of dr buss saying "i will spend to keep this team together... if we win a championship". dr. buss was slated in one article talking about "trimming the excess fat", hence the vladi, mihm deals, why the lakers didnt spend the MLE both last season (2007/08) and this season.

also of note is the refusal of kupchak to deal lamar for artest and KT over the summer, doing so wouldve added more salary to the payroll and why lakers won't be chasing anyone for the MLE in 2009/10 as well

noone will outbid the lakers on lamar, all the contenders can at most offer lamar the MLE (barring S&T deals plus lamar isnt wanting out anyway), teams with cap-space arent going to waste their cap on lamar, there has been plenty of debate of this subject as well, this quite obviously gives the lakers an obvious advantage due to holding his bird rights. how can anyone argue against giving lamar a starting salary of ~7-8M per season (an approximate 25% decrease on his current 11.4M salary)

if anyone decides to argue lamar's importance to the team, theres one stat that bulges out at you. lamar has the largest +/- of all the lakers by a LOOOOOONNNNG margin, about double of the next nearest laker (kobe bryant). lamar brings the intangibles, we can't measure them (guess thats why theyre called intangibles) but theres a reason why lamar is in the top 3 of the 4 best floor units the lakers can put on the floor (again, in terms of overall +/- as a unit)

all signs point to lamar being re-signed (IMO 100% chance) if we win a ring, and even if we don't, there are still plenty of indications that he will stay a laker regardless (albeit at an even smaller contract)

i can find references for everything about lamar that i just said, just in case anyone questions any of it and wants proof in the form of articles/statistics. i will if you ask nicely. it just might take a while to try to dig up because living in australia, its a little harder to get my daily lakers fix. i read anything and everything and i usually read the same things multiple times a day