RealGM

Okay, maybe not ruin but...

According the the wiretap, Nash is unlikely to come back for the rest of the season. His last game was the game that disqualified him from the medical retire provision which would have allowed the Lakers to release his salary from their payroll and not have it hit their cap.

Granted--it was a bit of a long shot for the Lakers to get the provision since an NBA doctor has to rule that Nash can't play, but its getting incredibly difficult to defend Nash at this point. I was a Nash apologist, but after this its damn near impossible to defend him and his decision to keep trying.

Are there any Nash apologists left?

When you offer someone a contract, you have to accept their decision to go out on their own terms while the duration of the contract is still in play and not force the issue, especially with a player like Nash. By all accounts he is trying to have a good home stretch rather than retire in irrelevance. I can respect that.

We are not doing anything next season with or without cap space.

I just don't want him here next season

I'm a 100% apologist for Nash the person.

As far as the medical retirement provision and all that, yes it is ironic that the last game he played was his 10th game, and that he might not play another game this season.

I wonder if he was aware about this provision, whether the Lakers would even bring it up. It's a touchy situation for sure. The guy obviously is unfortunately no longer fit to play in the NBA, that was obvious early this season.

I think Donald Sterling might be the type of owner that would try to weasel out of paying Nash, but the Lakers have WAY too much class for that. The ends does not justify the means in this situation.

I don't care about Nash this season. Not my money to spend and clearly the FO doesn't care about the lux tax or else they would've given away Pau or Kaman/Hill. Honestly next season it will be nice to have Nash still on the books. It helps us reach the minimum salary and prevents us from overspending on mediocre free agents (and there are many this summer).

indilakeshow wrote:Okay, maybe not ruin but...

According the the wiretap, Nash is unlikely to come back for the rest of the season. His last game was the game that disqualified him from the medical retire provision which would have allowed the Lakers to release his salary from their payroll and not have it hit their cap.

Granted--it was a bit of a long shot for the Lakers to get the provision since an NBA doctor has to rule that Nash can't play, but its getting incredibly difficult to defend Nash at this point. I was a Nash apologist, but after this its damn near impossible to defend him and his decision to keep trying.

Are there any Nash apologists left?

i think your misunderstanding of the situation is giving a grossly unfair take on Nash.

first and foremost, medical retirement is not a choice. Nash can't just choose to have doctors rule him unable to continue to play. doctors cleared him to play at the time so how are we as fans even discussing that he should have been looking at medical retirement instead?

next, with medical retirement nash could've had his pie and ate it too by not playing and getting paid. now if he wants to get paid he has to play. damn that nash for not just running off with a bunch of money.

lastly, the guy has a guaranteed contract and just not bother anymore but the reason he's not playing isn't because he's lazy or unmotivated or trying to steal checks. he's been hurt and he's trying his best to play the game he loves, why have a problem with that?

BS First off the Nash trade was terrible and secondly If he knew he wasn't at 100% then he should have retired! I'm tired of him and let's face it we won't see him play in a Lakers uniform again and he is going to hurt the cap space for three more years!

^wtf are you talking about? next season is the last year of steve's contract. if you're already thinking about stretch provision, i'm sorry.

imho we'll keep him. he won't get stretch'd

he does't owe us anything honestly, mgmt. gave him that contract now they must deal with it.

Draginho wrote:^wtf are you talking about? next season is the last year of steve's contract. if you're already thinking about stretch provision, i'm sorry.

imho we'll keep him. he won't get stretch'd

Why keep his ars? He's a broken down point guard and yes mgmt have him that contract but he could have kept his money and retired on medical issues, clearly he has them.

cashflo wrote:

Draginho wrote:^wtf are you talking about? next season is the last year of steve's contract. if you're already thinking about stretch provision, i'm sorry.

imho we'll keep him. he won't get stretch'd

Why keep his ars? He's a broken down point guard and yes mgmt have him that contract but he could have kept his money and retired on medical issues, clearly he has them.

I won't lie for the longest I felt this exact way, but the fact is the dude just wants to play and ultimately finish his career on his own terms. Beside that we're probably won't be any good next year so just let his contract expire.

Can you believe we gave away two first round picks for Nash & his contact... We got RAPED on that deal...

And 2 second round picks also. Then 27 million on top of the 4 draft picks. I was on the way to a Dodgers game when I heard the deal. People around me were not happy at it and we all said it was way to much to give up.

I think Nash has done more than just ruin cap space. Could be considered the worse trade in recent memory.

The Nash trade in itself was very uncharacteristic for our franchise. The trade itself was something the Knicks have done in the past. Although it seemed interesting it was rather random. Usually our franchise makes smart calculated moves that fit the personnel. With Kobe, Pau, and Bynum he didn't really make a lot of sense at that time. But if they had Dwight in their back pocket, I am assuming it was made for Mr. Howard. Even in their primes I always saw Jason Kidd being a better fit next to Kobe then Nash. That's why it made sense to me all the times that we targeted Kidd as a possible player to acquire. Nash to this day still confuses me.

even if we had just signed the Nash straight up to the contract, was still a big risk as is but we gave up so much more. Although Pho didn't use the Odom tpe, that was really a valuable assest in todays cba restrictive league. The 2nd pick is hindsight, didnt' really think it would amt to much but seriously why the hell did we give up 2 1st rd picks? for a near dam 38yr old at the time. I understood Nash was probably needed to get Howard to be more suspectible to being traded to LA but the tpe and 1 pick at most should've been enough, Nash not only hooked himself up he got his old team hooked up too

LApwnd wrote:even if we had just signed the Nash straight up to the contract, was still a big risk as is but we gave up so much more. Although Pho didn't use the Odom tpe, that was really a valuable assest in todays cba restrictive league. The 2nd pick is hindsight, didnt' really think it would amt to much but seriously why the hell did we give up 2 1st rd picks? for a near dam 38yr old at the time. I understood Nash was probably needed to get Howard to be more suspectible to being traded to LA but the tpe and 1 pick at most should've been enough, Nash not only hooked himself up he got his old team hooked up too

That deal didn't seem very much like Mitch's style (of negotiation). He's usually very restrained (as shown by this past TD, and the lull that led to first acquiring Pau).

IMO it was a bit of a homerun swing, plus with Nash getting involved personally with Sarver, I think it was we paid a little extra just to get it done. (I think after the CP3 deal/being in pursuit of Dwight for so long, maybe Mitch was a little more desperate to make a splash than normal). If it all worked out they (arrogantly) felt some future late 1st rounders weren't going to justify the opportunity cost of not nabbing Nash.

indilakeshow wrote:Okay, maybe not ruin but...

According the the wiretap, Nash is unlikely to come back for the rest of the season. His last game was the game that disqualified him from the medical retire provision which would have allowed the Lakers to release his salary from their payroll and not have it hit their cap.

Granted--it was a bit of a long shot for the Lakers to get the provision since an NBA doctor has to rule that Nash can't play, but its getting incredibly difficult to defend Nash at this point. I was a Nash apologist, but after this its damn near impossible to defend him and his decision to keep trying.

Are there any Nash apologists left?

If the Lakers waive him during the off season they can use the stretch clause in his contract to spread out the money owed to him which would free up roughly about $6mil more in cap space. So if the cap ends up at the $62.9mil like NBA is predicting than Lakers would have about $28mil in cap space.

It's unfortunate that he hasn't been able to contribute much, but lets be real here. The organization decided to take a gamble on a former allstar in his advanced age to put on the court with gasol, kobe and howard. It obviously hasn't worked out for a number of reasons, but there is no reason to blame nash for signing the contract. He broke down and it's not for lack of effort.

There really isn't anyone to blame. Mitch and co made some moves and everyone got injured or left. It's not like nash is actively sabotaging our team.

dockingsched wrote:

indilakeshow wrote:Okay, maybe not ruin but...

According the the wiretap, Nash is unlikely to come back for the rest of the season. His last game was the game that disqualified him from the medical retire provision which would have allowed the Lakers to release his salary from their payroll and not have it hit their cap.

Granted--it was a bit of a long shot for the Lakers to get the provision since an NBA doctor has to rule that Nash can't play, but its getting incredibly difficult to defend Nash at this point. I was a Nash apologist, but after this its damn near impossible to defend him and his decision to keep trying.

Are there any Nash apologists left?

i think your misunderstanding of the situation is giving a grossly unfair take on Nash.

first and foremost, medical retirement is not a choice. Nash can't just choose to have doctors rule him unable to continue to play. doctors cleared him to play at the time so how are we as fans even discussing that he should have been looking at medical retirement instead?

next, with medical retirement nash could've had his pie and ate it too by not playing and getting paid. now if he wants to get paid he has to play. damn that nash for not just running off with a bunch of money.

lastly, the guy has a guaranteed contract and just not bother anymore but the reason he's not playing isn't because he's lazy or unmotivated or trying to steal checks. he's been hurt and he's trying his best to play the game he loves, why have a problem with that?

That's fair to an extent-- but it assumes that medicine is an exact science-- which in many ways it can be but when it comes to pain management its not. If he's in too much pain to play, which seems to be the case-- why not sit it out? Its not like that 10th game was crucial to the Lakers' success.

Again, I'm not saying I hate Nash for this, I'd love for Nash to return full strength next year but its becoming apparent that this wont be the case. If anything, why not sit out the entire year if he really wanted to come back full strength?