RealGM

Can someone please get me the thread of the reactions to Luke Walton signing his new contract? I really want to see how people felt about this 3 years ago when it was signed

if you click on read all topics, it goes as far back as 2008, we signed walton in 2007 so i doubt you will find it.

I can tell you that when he signed that deal 98% of the posters were all for it.

At that time, Luke Walton was seen as the second most importatant player on the squad.

I remember the overall consensus being: "Paying Luke Walton slightly below mid level money is exactly what he deserves because he is a slightly below mid level talent in this league."

For the record, I have always considered Luke Walton to be a Jud Buechler-type role player, thus I strongly objected to his deal when he signed it. My biggest problem with him was not his inconsistent shooting or constant injuries but him being a defensive liability on the wing. For his defense alone, I was against giving him anything over 2 million (even though number wise, on paper, his contract season was pretty decent).

I didn't mind the salary I just thougth 6yrs was a little to long, I thought he was gona get like 3-4 yrs and was odd that he got signed so quickly to so much w/o letting him test the waters 1st, seemed like mgmt. just threw money at him w/o even seeing what he was worth to others.

I don't think anyone thought 6 years was a good idea. I'm still wondering what Mitch was thinking....

I still wouldn't mind the 6 years if he can play 65 games a season.

I think we generally thought it was an OK deal and I don't remember the length of the contract being much of an issue. No one could have possibly predicted that he'd become this injury prone though, so in retrospect, it was definitely a terrible contract.

semi-sentient wrote:I think we generally thought it was an OK deal and I don't remember the length of the contract being much of an issue. No one could have possibly predicted that he'd become this injury prone though, so in retrospect, it was definitely a terrible contract.

At the time, it wasn't the best deal, but it wasn't terrible, he had good potential as a play making SF in the high post of the Triangle - no one was cutting themselves over it.

The free agent class in 07 wasn't that great but I still think the whole Walton situation was rushed in a way.

j-far wrote:I still wouldn't mind the 6 years if he can play 65 games a season.

Then you should be thrilled. Not counting last season he's averaged 66 games per season.

Look at his career numbers: 71/61/69/60/74/65/29

Although he's only broken 20 mpg twice in his career. His contract year he was playing 33 mpg. Either way, for a guy so unathletic, a below average rebounder, an inconsistent shooter, a guy who merely intelligent...sign him to 6 years? When there were which teams after him? That's what I wish I could know...what was Luke's market like? Because we're not signing anyone else to 6 year deals...it baffles the mind.

ALL HAIL wrote:I can tell you that when he signed that deal 98% of the posters were all for it.

At that time, Luke Walton was seen as the second most importatant player on the squad.

I remember the overall consensus being: "Paying Luke Walton slightly below mid level money is exactly what he deserves because he is a slightly below mid level talent in this league."

For the record, I have always considered Luke Walton to be a Jud Buechler-type role player, thus I strongly objected to his deal when he signed it. My biggest problem with him was not his inconsistent shooting or constant injuries but him being a defensive liability on the wing. For his defense alone, I was against giving him anything over 2 million (even though number wise, on paper, his contract season was pretty decent).

I don't think so.

5 mil a clip for that long. I know that my brother and I were completely against it. Or any deal paying a guy who hasnt proven it for a few years. We were also against the Lakers keeping Ariza over Odom and were FREAKED when Ariza got all the love at the parade. We were thinking goodbye Lamar. I'm glad that Mitch is becoming a better GM every year EVEN if he hasnt hit a grand slam in a while.

I was on board. Definitely one of my biggest "WTF was I thinking?" moments.

TBF he was excellent in the Suns' series in 2005-06. He made key steals, key passes, shooting good 3 pt % and aggressively taking smaller defenders into the post and PJ was speaking in high praise of him throughout that season.

The 6 year deal does baffle me though he had some offer from the Pacers IIRC at that time.

crazyeights,

Those numbers are a little flattering unless you also count the time he missed in the playoffs.

In hindsight, though, it's pretty clear he was a mediocre starter on a mediocre team. Hindsight being 20/20 of course, but history is absolutely littered with guys who peaked out in contract years. Oh, well -- at least we learned our lesson and didn't overpay Sasha. That in and of itself might have made it worthwhile.

i was thrilled, luke being my favorite lakers along with LO.

Still I do not see the logic in looking back at it and regretting what we did though. Its not like his salary has strapped us from a free agency splash or stopped us from signing another role player. Once we took on two max contracts its MLE and LLE all the way for us and Mitch hasn't shown any reluctance in using it to acquire players over the past 3 seasons since Luke and Sasha's deals.

As a fan or a coach the more options you have on the roster the better it is.

j-far wrote:Still I do not see the logic in looking back at it and regretting what we did though. Its not like his salary has strapped us from a free agency splash or stopped us from signing another role player. Once we took on two max contracts its MLE and LLE all the way for us and Mitch hasn't shown any reluctance in using it to acquire players over the past 3 seasons since Luke and Sasha's deals.

As a fan or a coach the more options you have on the roster the better it is.

This. From a fans perspective, who cares how much the Buss family has to pay in luxury tax if it doesn't hurt the roster? Ownership has been more than willing to pay the luxury tax and has used the MLE almost every year and never traded away a key player to save money. The rumors that we wouldn't use and MLE and trade away Odom to save money turned out to be rumors after all.

j-far wrote:acquire players over the past 3 seasons since Luke and Sasha's deals.

As a fan or a coach the more options you have on the roster the better it is.

well that would be an idea but unfortunately you have to actually be healthy and able to play to be considered an option, something Luke is hardly ever and considering the fact he's a backup makes it even more pathetic.

j-far wrote:Still I do not see the logic in looking back at it and regretting what we did though. Its not like his salary has strapped us from a free agency splash or stopped us from signing another role player. Once we took on two max contracts its MLE and LLE all the way for us and Mitch hasn't shown any reluctance in using it to acquire players over the past 3 seasons since Luke and Sasha's deals.

As a fan or a coach the more options you have on the roster the better it is.

It still would've been much better to overpay Turiaf and Ariza instead of Walton and Vujacic.

I just wasn't impressed by Turiaf after those 2007-08 playoffs. Dude flat out sucked out there.