RealGM

We're at a point where we're so close to being under the luxury tax threshold that it makes sense to dump one or two of these players to get under the threshold, especially if they're expendable (which I would argue Meeks and Blake are). Obviously Hill is probably the most valuable piece out of the 3, however our front court (especially at PF) is extremely lacking in depth and experience. Meeks has a really low salary so trading him alone will not get us below the threshold.

Questions:
What do you guys think we could realistically get for Hill, Meeks, or Blake (either individually or in a package)?
If we can nab a 1st round pick next year for Hill only (is that realistic or am I overestimating Hill's value?), do we pull the trigger?
If we have to include a future pick in order to dump the contracts (as in, our players have negative value), do we pull the trigger or is it paramount to keep all future assets?
Do we wait until the trade deadline to deal them hoping that D'Antoni's system will inflate their values (applies mostly to Blake and Meeks)?

Salaries just for reference:
Blake - $4,000,000
Hill - $3,563,600
Meeks - $1,550,000

Lakers current salary - $72,656,510 (Including Blake/Hill/Meeks, NOT including Elias Harris, Wesley Johnson, Chris Kaman and whatever other minimum contracts we might add)

Luxury Tax threshold - $71,748,000

Just my 2 cents. I don't think Hill is enough to get a 1st round pick next year. 2nd round pick maybe possible. But then, Hill maybe more valuable to us than a 2nd round pick.

All Hill/Blake/Meeks are expirings so I don't think they are negative value. But the problem is that we also insist on getting expirings back (e.g. ariza). In this case, I see no reason to believe we can expect much upgrade by trading them (why would team trade a better expiring player for our worse expiring player?). So, I incline to keep them and hope MDA system inflat their value by the trade deadline.

Questions like these are a pet peeve of mine... Unless you're talking about a franchise player like LeBron or Durant or something, the answer to this question is always; "Yes, if the right deal presents itself."

A good GM is always looking to trade anyone that isn't part of their core and even then if they aren't the face of the franchise...

Hell, even the face of the franchise might be traded if the right package showed up.

i would be shocked if the lakers moved blake or meeks. blake was awesome last yr playing under MDA, and with Nash's age/injury concerns, i doubt the lakers run with just 2 reliable pg's (nash/farmar). i doubt MDA wants to be in a position again where his only pg options are players like duhon or morris.

meeks, for all his faults that imo people tend to exaggerate, is great value. you're gonna have to replace him with some minimum contract worth almost as much as meeks, so no sense in moving him.

not saying either player is unmovable, but for what they get paid and what they bring to the court theyre not worth dumping right now. perhaps later on if the season is lost, but if you read what mitch said yesterday in his first interview since dwight left, the team is not interested at all in throwing in the white towel.


jordan hill, yeah i can see him getting dumped specially if the lakers grab someone like odom. i think hill actually has enough value to be able to be dumped without any salary coming back, and he's not the greatest of fits next to pau or kaman.

yes, for capspace

dockingsched wrote:i would be shocked if the lakers moved blake or meeks. blake was awesome last yr playing under MDA, and with Nash's age/injury concerns, i doubt the lakers run with just 2 reliable pg's (nash/farmar). i doubt MDA wants to be in a position again where his only pg options are players like duhon or morris.

meeks, for all his faults that imo people tend to exaggerate, is great value. you're gonna have to replace him with some minimum contract worth almost as much as meeks, so no sense in moving him.

not saying either player is unmovable, but for what they get paid and what they bring to the court theyre not worth dumping right now. perhaps later on if the season is lost, but if you read what mitch said yesterday in his first interview since dwight left, the team is not interested at all in throwing in the white towel.


jordan hill, yeah i can see him getting dumped specially if the lakers grab someone like odom. i think hill actually has enough value to be able to be dumped without any salary coming back, and he's not the greatest of fits next to pau or kaman.

Agreed with pretty much everything. I personally like HIll and Pau as a pair alright, but if we did get someone like Lamar for the minimum (and if he's in shape) I can see us dumping salary.

Unless we find a great deal out there, like Kilroy said, I wouldn't want to see any salary dumping moves until the trade deadline. I think Mitch is going to want to see this team out there, let the rotation shake itself out, before making any trades.

I can see Meeks being moved .....he's expendable with the latest moves

No way Hill is traded without any other big body being signed(Odom).....if we trade anyone it would be for salary relief to not pay much of the luxury tax so we'll probably not take any salary in return(basically a trade for picks)

So Meeks is expendable because we have a lot of guards,Hill is not in the current situation

how is meeks expendable when he should be getting all the sg minutes along with blake to start the yr?

the only player the lakers signed this off-season that should be cutting into meek's minutes is nick young, and young should be getting most if not all of his minutes from the absence of MWP.

Because Blake and even Farmar will be playing SG at times and we have Young,Johnson and Kobe also

When all will be healthy(and for now,Kobe's the only question mark),Meeks won't play...period

D'Antoni is notorious for playing a small rotation big mins and if he did that when he had good teams and thus theoretically more room for error,imagine now when we aren't that good

No way he plays all 7 of Nash/Blake/Farmar/Kobe/Young/Johnson + Meeks when all are healthy...it's just not happening,and Meeks is the odd man out..that's why he's expendable

On the other hand,we'll be forced to play a rookie big if Hill is moved and we don't sign a guy like Odom...so he's needed for now

johnson isn't going to be in the rotation, he kinda sucks.

That may be true but he has the size to play the 3 so he's gonna see some mins by default there,at least at the beginning

And Meeks doesn't suck now?We're talking about the supposed floor spacer who shot 39% FG and 35% from 3(while shooting mostly wide open shots I might add)

He fininshed the season shooting 32% from 3 in March and 28% in April while playing 29 mpg

Now he can have a rebound season like Blake did but I wouldn't put my money on it

As of today (post-Harris,Johnson, etc signings) the Lakers are at $76,437,556 in salary. They would need to deal both Blake and Hill while taking practically no salary back at all to get under the threshold. For the sake of not paying the lux tax 2 years in a row (and possibly 3 depending on how free agency pans out next off-season), they should be moved.

Either Meeks or Blake. You don't trade them both because were not gonna have a backup sg. Good luck finding any takers for them though. Hills is a keeper.

I would consider trading those players for a first rounder. i doubt they can get one, but maybe Hill could.

Yes, they both are injury prone and Blake's been stealing money his whole laker career, 2 months doesn't change the fact his tenure has sucked and that he missed half the year only to get hurt again

You trade them for picks or tpes because thy have as much value as those two who will be in suits for 20-30 games like clockwork

dockingsched wrote:johnson isn't going to be in the rotation, he kinda sucks.

You say that as if streaky Meeks or Blake who is often injured (twice last year) and whose whole laker career bar two months has sucked to the point Fisher and Sessions were by noticeably better.

If Wes just watched and imitated Matt Barnes in la, he would be in the rotation easily

Why do any of you care whether the lakers are over the cap or not? Are you personally expected to pay a portion of it or something? If the owner wants to pay the tax and has the money to do so (and lakers certainly make more than enough dough to pay this tax and then some while making a nicely sized profit), why the heck any of u care? If you plan to build a good team worth watching and pay for tickets to do so then you have to invest. I swear people act as if the lakers can't pay or afford to pay the tax or something.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

kblo247 wrote:

dockingsched wrote:johnson isn't going to be in the rotation, he kinda sucks.

You say that as if streaky Meeks or Blake who is often injured (twice last year) and whose whole laker career bar two months has sucked to the point Fisher and Sessions were by noticeably better.

If Wes just watched and imitated Matt Barnes in la, he would be in the rotation easily

i understand your frustration with how blake played under phil and brown, but i think the lakers should and will look at how he plays under the current coach, and what we saw was very encouraging.

as far as meeks, compared to johnson, meeks is doing alright.

KEEPdaPEACEinLA wrote:Why do any of you care whether the lakers are over the cap or not? Are you personally expected to pay a portion of it or something? If the owner wants to pay the tax and has the money to do so (and lakers certainly make more than enough dough to pay this tax and then some while making a nicely sized profit), why the heck any of u care? If you plan to build a good team worth watching and pay for tickets to do so then you have to invest. I swear people act as if the lakers can't pay or afford to pay the tax or something.

this is a very outdated way of looking at things and i hope the lakers fan base can move beyond it very quickly.

with the new tiered tax brackets and next yr with the repeater tax penalty, expecting the lakers to just swallow the bill is a little unrealistic, especially when they're at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to do sign n trades, not being able to use the full mle, and other stuff tax teams can't do.

What Doc said... In the new CBA you'll see teams forming teams like the wheels on slot machine...
There will be an ever rotating group of players around the core until the right combination happens. We're going to be a lot smarter about what we spend money on.
I still think we'll spend money and pay the tax but only when the right core pieces are in place. Until then, I think we'll play it smart and frugal in order to have some flexibility.

That's the key word in the team building future... "Flexibility" is just as important as Market and an ownership's willingness to pay tax bills.