RealGM

Kupchak said that bringing the Lakers' $79.3 million payroll under the $71.7 million luxury-tax level through trades is not a major concern, even with the repeater tax under the new collective bargaining agreement, which penalizes teams with more punitive fees unless they get under the luxury tax twice every four years.

"It's going to be very difficult for us to be a repeater in the next two years just by virtue of all the free agents we have," said Kupchak, noting that only three of L.A.'s 15 players are under contract for next season. "And then even if you're in the repeater tax, if you're in the repeater tax by $30 million, you get killed. If you're in the repeater tax by a $1.5 million or $2 [million], then it's really inconsequential."

milesfides wrote:No, you're not getting it - I'm questioning your reasoning that the Lakers let go of Manny to keep a roster spot open.

Second, who cares what Harris did with the Cavs. I care what he did with us. He attacks the basket, he's got a good stroke, he rebounds well for his position, he's aggressive, he plays with energy. Do the Lakers have a plethora of all-around players?

On a related note, speaking of the Cavs, the Lakers developed and showcased Earl Clark, and got nothing for him. That's lame. Sure, he's not doing well on the Cavs, but who cares? What matters is making other teams in the league interested in our players, and giving us things we want for them.

milesfides wrote:No, you're not getting it - I'm questioning your reasoning that the Lakers let go of Manny to keep a roster spot open.

Second, who cares what Harris did with the Cavs. I care what he did with us. He attacks the basket, he's got a good stroke, he rebounds well for his position, he's aggressive, he plays with energy. Do the Lakers have a plethora of all-around players?

On a related note, speaking of the Cavs, the Lakers developed and showcased Earl Clark, and got nothing for him. That's lame. Sure, he's not doing well on the Cavs, but who cares? What matters is making other teams in the league interested in our players, and giving us things we want for them.

myersia wrote:The real answer is: our franchise is scared to death of what's happening and has no idea how to fix it. Things don't look good. I hope I am wrong.

myersia wrote:The real answer is: our franchise is scared to death of what's happening and has no idea how to fix it. Things don't look good. I hope I am wrong.

LakeShowAK7 wrote:

myersia wrote:The real answer is: our franchise is scared to death of what's happening and has no idea how to fix it. Things don't look good. I hope I am wrong.

wtf kind of analysis is this? what do you base this off of?

dockingsched wrote:

myersia wrote:The real answer is: our franchise is scared to death of what's happening and has no idea how to fix it. Things don't look good. I hope I am wrong.

dockingsched wrote:

myersia wrote:The real answer is: our franchise is scared to death of what's happening and has no idea how to fix it. Things don't look good. I hope I am wrong.

BullsLakersFan wrote:

milesfides wrote:No, you're not getting it - I'm questioning your reasoning that the Lakers let go of Manny to keep a roster spot open.

Second, who cares what Harris did with the Cavs. I care what he did with us. He attacks the basket, he's got a good stroke, he rebounds well for his position, he's aggressive, he plays with energy. Do the Lakers have a plethora of all-around players?

On a related note, speaking of the Cavs, the Lakers developed and showcased Earl Clark, and got nothing for him. That's lame. Sure, he's not doing well on the Cavs, but who cares? What matters is making other teams in the league interested in our players, and giving us things we want for them.

I think is pretty clear. You sign him for the rest of the season and if you need a spot to get one more player in a trade, you have to waive someone of the actual roster or the extra player coming in the trade. It's just wasting money because of it. He's not going to sign for what is left of the season by anyone before the deadline, you can sign him the 21st, why the rush? Geez.

You're overvaluing what he did for us. He had two pretty good games, the rest were average and expected for a player being the 3rd/4th rotation perimeter player playing 20 minutes with license to do mostly what he wanted. No one is giving you an asset for him, not even a 2n round.

AdonisDeMarion wrote:Why are you not seeing the fact that he's a young good player, for years we wanted to get younger and the FO only added old player based of production of the past. This dude attacked the basket and would've been nice to have in that Thunder game the other day. the dude can play he just needs time. Your logic isn't there at all, as of now I'm not even sure if you dropped it along the way either, maybe you never had it to start with....

BullsLakersFan wrote:

AdonisDeMarion wrote:Why are you not seeing the fact that he's a young good player, for years we wanted to get younger and the FO only added old player based of production of the past. This dude attacked the basket and would've been nice to have in that Thunder game the other day. the dude can play he just needs time. Your logic isn't there at all, as of now I'm not even sure if you dropped it along the way either, maybe you never had it to start with....

Did you read my other post? Maybe not being a native english speaker doesn't let me explain myself clear, even I think I did.

WHY sign him NOW? Where's the point really? Can't y'all wait till the deadline is over? What is he going to do for us this season? What kind of advantages does he give us by signing him the remainder of the season and one more year? If you're worried he won't be available in the offseason, well, he's an undrafted 4-years pro; played for Cavs, D-League, played for Cavs when Irving went down, D-League, played 20 days for us, D-League. He's going to be a FA this summer and the Lakers will have no problem picking him if they think he's valuable. You're saying "we wanted to get younger and the FO only added old player based of production of the past", then what the Lakers basically did that this past offseason? The difference is they (Xavier, Wesley, Marshall, etc) were lottery picks.

All started about Lakers not giving him a contract because of the luxury tax, and I said it was because the need to keep a spot just in case. Guess what? Shawne Williams hasn't been signed to another 10-day contract, surprise! I'm pretty sure that if the Lakers do any move (trading Hill/Meeks/Blake) they will sign Manny and Shawne if needed.

Also, helping us winning against the Thunder? Yaaaay!

AdonisDeMarion wrote:with Young and Henry out he was the only one attacking the basket, that what I'm pointing out. Nash getting minutes in any game is beyond stupid. Out with the old in with the new. My point is to give all the young talent time, because the season is already lost. We would need a prime Shaq and Kobe to even get in the post season race now. I'm not worried about him not being there in the future, I'm saying that keeping Nash, Blake and Kaman doesn't nothing for us at all, trade Blake and Kaman for any type of picks. Nobody will want Nash, shut him down and get rid of him in the off-season. I just want to give younger players more minutes.

kinda like the Spurs, they kept the same core but added younger player the fit well around their big 3. Young, Harris, Johnson, Henry and Marshall are those type of young players the Lakers fans have been asking for.