Dr. Buss + high salary/Odom target for trade all along

[dockingsched]

i see a lot of people talking about dr. buss being willing to pay a huge price tag in the future. two old comments, however, have me questioning that. after the pau gasol trade, mitch said that had bynum not gone down, they probably don't do the trade.

"Three weeks ago, we would not have made a deal," Kupchak said by phone. "But when Andrew went down, we didn't want to give away eight weeks. Lo and behold, Pau was available." - Mitch Kupchak

Had Bynum never been injured, the Lakers might not have felt the need to make the trade. Gasol gave the Lakers a much-needed second option behind Kobe Bryant and lifted them into championship contention.

“I don’t know if we would have gotten here,” Kupchak said.

What's behind these comments? they wouldn't have traded kwame/picks for pau? really?

the only downside to trading for pau is his future contract. thats it. if the trade wouldn't have gone down, then one has to assume that buss assumed the team was already good enough to win and didn't need to add any more salary despite the obvious improvement it would have led to.

does this further enforce the idea that lamar's days are numbered? does the team choose to save elsewhere and just lets players like turiaf/ariza walk away. radman and luke aren't going anywhere with their rather poor play and long contracts.

thoughts about those annoying comments?

[milesfides]

I've maintained on these boards that Buss is in for major, perhaps record luxury tax if he extends all his players.

That's why I believe it's almost inevitable some hearts will be broken. Even trading Lamar for an equal or even perhaps better player still ends up giving the Lakers 4 max contracts(once Bynum gets his). That's pretty astronomical.

I understand the "Buss makes a ton of money" argument, but let's face it, the world doesn't work that way. When Jerry Buss goes to Mickey Dees, he pays a dollar for the same diarrhea burger that we all do.

No owners like to pay the luxury tax, especially private owners like Buss. Life is relative. I don't think Buss's bank accounts guide his basketball decisions.

Proof is in the pudding. The Lakers haggled Fish's contract down so that he'd take a substantial paycut, without using the rest of the MLE to sign anybody else. That was a luxury tax move. They also structured Walton's contract to avoid paying luxury tax this year.

But I wouldn't mistake Buss's greenlighting of the Pau deal as representative of what he'd do with Odom or other players.

Because let's face it; after Bynum went down, we were facing possibly a freefall in the Western Conference, and not only would that be another disastrous season, but it also could possibly result in Kobe opting out.

Assuming the luxury tax with Pau was a necessary cost to save the franchise.

[lukeridenour]

i agree, its going to be extremely hard for the lakers to keep this core. even if they convince odom or bynum to take pay cuts, they'll both have huge contract offerings flying at them. this sport truly does revolve around money.

[magicfan4life05]

the only down side to trading kwame/picks for pau is his contract. what those comments tell me is that the dr. buss isn't as prepared to pay the future huge price tag that people automatically assume he will.

dcash, you made this post on another board but it's about the same subject, i have a question about it. I agree with your premise he will not automatically pay everyone, but If the Lakers win it all this year, how does this change things?

I can understand if the Lakers do not win it this year, he could possibly make some roster changes for financial purposes, but if they somehow pull it out, wouldnt it be a different story?

I think a couple of things go into consideration when you're talking about how much someone is willing to pay for the team roster and how much they could possibly make from it. If the Lakers go on to win or even fall short, they wouldve made so much money because of home games and revenue (playoffs) as opposed to the last couple of seasons. Additionally, if they win it all, the revenue from merchandise sales from championship stuff is huge. So it would just seem to me, this team could could be a good investment because of it's potential if he brought everyone back.

[dockingsched]

i don't think this yrs success changes much. mitch saying the team wouldn't have traded for pau prior to bynum's injury tells me at least two things: 1. they thought they already had the pieces necessary to compete for the title, 2. they want to compete for a title for as cheap as possible. there's a possibility they simply didn't think pau was worth his contract, but that also shows that the lakers have their eye on the tax.

anywhoo, back to your question....if andrew bynum is going to be as good as the lakers believe he will be (as evidenced by not wanting to trade for pau with a healthy bynum), then this current team will be much better if he simply replaces odom or pau, making one of them expendable. the one he replaces in the lineup will be seen as an unnecessary luxury, kinda like what pau was before bynum went down.

[That Nicka]

If anyone were to get the axe it would be Odom imo... A lot of people want to trade him for an Artest or Battier type but honestly it wouldnt surprise me at all if we traded him for an expiring and a pick in order to save money....

We are pretty much stuck with Luke and Radman as I dont think anyone will trade for them until they have 1 or 2 years left on their contract, but hopefully we keep Ariza as he may end up better and probably cheaper than both of them...

I think these guys are definitely here for the long haul though:
Fisher/Farmar
Kobe/Sasha
Ariza/Luke (because of contract)/Radman (because of contract)
Pau/Turiaf
Bynum

And imo as long as we keep these 10 guys we are contenders... maybe favorites

[madmaxmedia]

I think there is at least a shot here.

It's not because I think Dr. Buss wants to win at all costs, or is gonna do it for the fans, but because rings = revenue. I'm not a huge Laker homer, and I think the Lakers have a strong shot at winning 3 rings in 5 years with this group (or this group plus talent for talent trades). They do something along those lines, and there's another 10 years of goodwill and jersey sales for the organization.

I don't think Lamar is going to get any kind of contract offer like his current one, the world has waken up and Lamar is not going to turn into Baby Magic like Riley envisioned. Lamar won't play for peanuts to stay in LA, but I think he'll take somewhat less to play here and win rings instead of contending for bottom half playoff spots.

I think actually upgrading the core group is out of the question though, unless somehow the Lakers got hugely lucky in the draft. We might be able to let Lamar go and sidestep laterally with a smart MLE signing, someone who won't be as big and athletic as Lamar but might be a better fit.

I think Kobe is a Laker for life, and Bynum is here for at least a couple of years at a reduced rate. Gasol is the one I wonder about, and may become expendable if Bynum continues his progress and the Lakers must focus on re-signing him. But even he is here through 2011 (3 more years right?)

I think re-signing Bynum is when the sh*t will go down as far as Laker payroll. Until then, I think the Lakers can keep Lamar if they decide it is in the best interests of the team. And that would mean the same core for the next couple of years...

[Kilroy]

I think a lot has to do with how this series ends up...

If the Lakers loose and Buss catches the vapors of being that close to a championship but missing it, then we might see everyone back. If we loose in 7, I bet Odom is gone and maybe a few others. If we loose tonight, we might see a lot more changes...

As an owner, I could see how the game 4 collapse, coupled with our innabillity to make adjustments to be effective against Boston, might make you kinda stubborn when it comes time to pay people.

I think Bynum, Kobe, Gasol, and Fish are safe, but I wouldn't bet a whole lot on anybody else...

I'd love to see Ariza and maybe Turiaf stay, and I have a feeling Walton will be here too, but beyond that I just don't know...

Sasha is a nice back-up for Kobe, but given all the other pieces we have, will he get the contract? I wouldn't bet on it.

I could even see guys like Radman getting dumped for worthless expirings who'd then get waived just to free up cash for the important pieces.

[DEEP3CL]

Everyone made good points about the future of the payroll. But the bottom line is the team will only have 3 max contracts to think about. One will be if Kobe decides to extend his current deal or opt out to either make more or if he's serious about trying to pass MJ take less in a new deal to insure enough money is on the table to bring in serious talent.

The second being Andrew who has a qualifying offer of 3,771,786 for his starting salary in 2009-10 season. But you can assure he'll make more then that, is contract will be in the range of a Tyson Chandler but slightly more (6 yrs @ 65-70 mil).

The way I see it the team will have only Kobe, Pau and Drew as max players. All others have contracts or will receive contracts in a cap friendly range ( Jordan, Ronny, Trevor & Sasha )

The Lakers only have one poison pill contract on hand and that is Luke's running til 2012-2013, I doubt that Luke will be a Laker that long. Vlad has a player option for the 2010-2011 season that by that time he'll realize that he's not a player of earning more then 6 to 7 mil. But it also makes him less likely to be traded unless the team he's going to has assurances he won't pick up his option. So we're stuck with the Cadet.

Bottom line is that by 2010-2011 the core will be Kobe,Pau, Drew, Jordan, Ronny, Trevor & Sasha .

[Kilroy]

The other thing I was thinking about was that if Bynum didn't have a legit injury... By that I mean if he just had some discomfort but still wouldn't play, then I might be a little less likely to pay him a max contract...
It sounds like there was nothing structurally wrong with his knee. They just removed some minor stuff from the knee and cleaned it up a bit...
Maybe it was worse than the reports indicate but if it wasn't, and I'm sure Buss knows that for sure, then I might start questioning how bad we really need him...

If we let him go (I'd hate to see it happen but if he's just being a b!t&4, I'd be willing to let him walk) we could afford to keep Kobe Gasol, and Odom as our core and maybe pick up some muscle inside for cheap...

[Chubby Chaser]

i see a lot of people talking about dr. buss being willing to pay a huge price tag in the future. two old comments, however, have me questioning that. after the pau gasol trade, mitch said that had bynum not gone down, they probably don't do the trade.

"Three weeks ago, we would not have made a deal," Kupchak said by phone. "But when Andrew went down, we didn't want to give away eight weeks. Lo and behold, Pau was available." - Mitch Kupchak

Had Bynum never been injured, the Lakers might not have felt the need to make the trade. Gasol gave the Lakers a much-needed second option behind Kobe Bryant and lifted them into championship contention.

“I don’t know if we would have gotten here,” Kupchak said.

What's behind these comments? they wouldn't have traded kwame/picks for pau? really?

the only downside to trading for pau is his future contract. thats it. if the trade wouldn't have gone down, then one has to assume that buss assumed the team was already good enough to win and didn't need to add any more salary despite the obvious improvement it would have led to.

does this further enforce the idea that lamar's days are numbered? does the team choose to save elsewhere and just lets players like turiaf/ariza walk away. radman and luke aren't going anywhere with their rather poor play and long contracts.
thoughts about those annoying comments?

What I think Kupchak meant from these comments was that if bynum had not gone down, they would not of been actively looking to make moves and improve the roster. This doesn't mean that they would of turned down the Pau deal. It just meant that the Pau deal might not of been available because Kupchak might not of pursued it so aggressively if we still had Bynum. Obviously Mitch and Jerry would of done that deal 100 out of 100 times no matter if we had a championship team or a lottery team. But if Bynum was not injured, Mitch probably would not of been calling up the Grizzlies GM every day trying to hash out a deal.

Now on the issue of Jerry paying the big bucks. If his track record has proven anything, he will pay big money when we are on the cusp of dynasty status. I have no fear that he'll secure our assets now that we have a good core group of players that can win multiple rings. However, with that said. The real question lies with distinguishing our assets. The big question obviously is lamar odom. Once Bynum comes back, will Lamar be a big enough asset to pay 14 mill a year for as a 4th option? If we lose this series, my guess is no. They will trade him for a Ron Artest prototypical type of small forward that can both knock down the three, and play hard nosed defense. With this in place, I do feel that Buss will cough up the money to keep the right assets in place. I do see Bynum getting maxed out, I do see sasha getting a good pay day. I do see us try to trim our SF position by looking to dump either Vlads or lukes contract somehow. I like lamar he's a great glue guy for our team. But I don't think he'll fit in as the SF to play alongside Pau and Bynum. I'd almost rather have Sasha start at 2, and put Kobe at three then have Lamar starting at the SF spot. But that is a debate for a later day.

[Fencer reregistered]

Willingness to pay on the part of ownership is a HUGE issue.

Miami lost Posey because the owner of a championship team wasn't willing to pay luxury tax.
Boston got Posey because the owners didn't mind paying.
Phoenix has given away a ton of picks and players to avoid paying the tax.
Chicago gave away Chandler for financial reasons.
Dallas rose high because Cuban was willing to pay, then lost Nash because Cuban wasn't.

[Dr Aki]

Willingness to pay on the part of ownership is a HUGE issue.

Miami lost Posey because the owner of a championship team wasn't willing to pay luxury tax.
Boston got Posey because the owners didn't mind paying.
Phoenix has given away a ton of picks and players to avoid paying the tax.
Chicago gave away Chandler for financial reasons.
Dallas rose high because Cuban was willing to pay, then lost Nash because Cuban wasn't.

miami wasnt a championship team anymore, boston was looking for tough vets for a championship run

phoenix are dumbasses for giving up those picks (deng and rondo??) but thats because theyre in a small media market and have to watch their spending habits (and then turn around and trade for shaq??)

chicago, no comment

dallas, no comment

LA is a big media market, the lakers have an owner willing to spend big if it meant rings and earning big cash

[LLcoleJ]

Willingness to pay on the part of ownership is a HUGE issue.

Miami lost Posey because the owner of a championship team wasn't willing to pay luxury tax.
Boston got Posey because the owners didn't mind paying.

Come on... ownership paid posey below market value. It was not a commitment against the tax.

Phoenix has given away a ton of picks and players to avoid paying the tax.

So? The new owner is a cheapskate ( fact). The polar opposite of Dr Buss. Others are also forgetting that Buss has a Billionaire partner. Paul Answhitz. He is 35% owner of the Lakers and owns the Staples Center. Its in his best interest to keep the fans interested.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz ... 20250.html

Chicago gave away Chandler for financial reasons.

......and? was hoping you had a point to this...

Dallas rose high because Cuban was willing to pay, then lost Nash because Cuban wasn't.

The collective ownership of the Lakers could buy Cuban 3 times over.

[Dr Aki]

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_Los-Angeles-Lakers_320250.html

i think the one thing you get from that site is that lakers earnt 32mil in 2007? (correct me if im wrong)

does this mean the ownership might be second-guessing additional spending?

[Mr. Sun]

I am going to go out on a limb and say Buss will not pay significant tax money as long as the Celtics remain stacked with Pierce, Allen and KG because really he won't get any return that can get the Lakers past those guys.

[LLcoleJ]

I am going to go out on a limb and say Buss will not pay significant tax money as long as the Celtics remain stacked with Pierce, Allen and KG because really he won't get any return that can get the Lakers past those guys.

You will be alone on that limb. Considering the owner. He has already been quoted in saying that he has made enough money and now he is only worried about rings. He didnt trade for Pau for a one and done.

I can see Sun fan being nervous, and you should be.Cause we are going to be contenders for the next 5+ years.

[Dr Aki]

You will be alone on that limb. Considering the owner. He has already been quoted in saying that he has made enough money and now he is only worried about rings. He didnt trade for Pau for a one and done.

so you think the lakers are going to run at a financial loss or try to keep the franchise in the green?

[SabasRevenge!]

I'd be shocked if Bynum were ever traded, let alone let go. I'd also be surprised if he signed a contract that looked like Chandlers. IMO he's worth a starting salary of at least 12mil, probably the max if he didn't get injured. One option would be signing him to a shorter contract to evaluate him.

Kobe's worth his 20+mil a year, but in a few years he'll essentially be making two max contracts and I don't think he'll give a sweetheart deal with anyone. On the floor he's worth every penny he gets.

Pau is an excellent complimentary player, but he still carries with him the same weaknesses from his two sweeps in Memphis. IMO he's not a featured player on the Lakers and thus his max contract probably isn't justified. Still, it's difficult to see him being moved.

Odom has always been a frustrating player because of what he can bring to the floor and his frequent lapses. He's essentially a $14.5m role player on this squad and that could be pretty tough to swallow. There are a hell of a lot of expiring contracts this next year and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lakers try to trade Lamar for an expiring/pick because I don't think they resign him.

It will be interesting to follow the financial decisions the Lakers have to make this summer and will probably be pretty telling of their future spending to keep this group together. They may feel that they can build around Kobe and Bynum with interchangeable parts and still be very successful.

[LLcoleJ]

You will be alone on that limb. Considering the owner. He has already been quoted in saying that he has made enough money and now he is only worried about rings. He didnt trade for Pau for a one and done.

so you think the lakers are going to run at a financial loss or try to keep the franchise in the green?

financial loss?