Luke Walton is Lakers forgetton man

Post #1 » by **eyriq** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:07 pm

Two seasons ago, Luke Walton was the starting small forward, his future looking bright enough that the Lakers rewarded him with a six-year, $30-million contract. Two years later, Walton has become the forgotten man in the Lakers' deep, talented rotation. He is playing 3.7 minutes per game, fewest on the team. Walton averaged 23.4 minutes last season, appearing in 74 games, averaging 7.2 points. Now, he can't get in the rotation, and that pains Coach Phil Jackson. "Luke is the one guy I worry about a little bit because he's going to have to stay in shape without playing himself into shape by practicing himself there, because there are minutes that could be available," Jackson said. -- LA Times

I think he'd be a great fit in Orlando, especially considering the type of offense that Stan likes to run.JJ and Bogans would get it done financially.

imonfire99 · Post #2 » by **imonfire99** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:10 pm

eyriq wrote:Luke Walton is Lakers forgotten man

Two seasons ago, Luke Walton was the starting small forward, his future looking bright enough that the Lakers rewarded him with a six-year, $30-million contract. Two years later, Walton has become the forgotten man in the Lakers' deep, talented rotation. He is playing 3.7 minutes per game, fewest on the team. Walton averaged 23.4 minutes last season, appearing in 74 games, averaging 7.2 points. Now, he can't get in the rotation, and that pains Coach Phil Jackson. "Luke is the one guy I worry about a little bit because he's going to have to stay in shape without playing himself into shape by practicing himself there, because there are minutes that could be available," Jackson said. -- LA Times

I think he'd be a great fit in Orlando, especially considering the type of offense that Stan likes to run.JJ and Bogans would get it done financially.

knowing the magic that would trade backfire as kobe would teach jj his turnaround fadeaway. jj would then proceed to be the most prolific scorer in nba history.

BassMaster · Post #3 » by **BassMaster** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:19 pm

eyriq wrote:Luke Walton is Lakers forgotten man

Two seasons ago, Luke Walton was the starting small forward, his future looking bright enough that the Lakers rewarded him with a six-year, $30-million contract. Two years later, Walton has become the forgotten man in the Lakers' deep, talented rotation. He is playing 3.7 minutes per game, fewest on the team. Walton averaged 23.4 minutes last season, appearing in 74 games, averaging 7.2 points. Now, he can't get in the rotation, and that pains Coach Phil Jackson. "Luke is the one guy I worry about a little bit because he's going to have to stay in shape without playing himself into shape by practicing himself there, because there are minutes that could be available," Jackson said. -- LA Times

I think he'd be a great fit in Orlando, especially considering the type of offense that Stan likes to run.JJ and Bogans would get it done financially.

Luke Walton's salary is 4,420,000 while the combined salaries of Redick and Bogans is over 5 million so the Lakers would have to send some cash as well to complete this deal. So why would they???
Now if you sent Brian Cook and Marcin Gortat that would make the deal just 200 thousand under Walton's salary so that would make more sense for the Lakers and they get needed help at PF.

mhectorgato · Post #4 » by **mhectorgato** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:31 pm

cougar13 wrote:
eyriq wrote:Luke Walton is Lakers forgotten man

Two seasons ago, Luke Walton was the starting small forward, his future looking bright enough that the Lakers rewarded him with a six-year, $30-million contract. Two years later, Walton has become the forgotten man in the Lakers' deep, talented rotation. He is playing 3.7 minutes per game, fewest on the team. Walton averaged 23.4 minutes last season, appearing in 74 games, averaging 7.2 points. Now, he can't get in the rotation, and that pains Coach Phil Jackson. "Luke is the one guy I worry about a little bit because he's going to have to stay in shape without playing himself into shape by practicing himself there, because there are minutes that could be available," Jackson said. -- LA Times

I think he'd be a great fit in Orlando, especially considering the type of offense that Stan likes to run.JJ and Bogans would get it done financially.

Luke Walton's salary is 4,420,000 while the combined salaries of Redick and Bogans is over 5 million so the Lakers would have to send some cash as well to complete this deal. So why would they???
Now if you sent Brian Cook and Marcin Gortat that would make the deal just 200 thousand under Walton's salary so that would make more sense for the Lakers and they get needed help at PF.

Since both teams are over the cap, then the salaries have to be within 125% ... This trade would work under the CBA.

BassMaster · Post #5 » by **BassMaster** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:37 pm

mhectorgato wrote:
cougar13 wrote:
eyriq wrote:Luke Walton is Lakers forgotten man

I think he'd be a great fit in Orlando, especially considering the type of offense that Stan likes to run.JJ and Bogans would get it done financially.

Luke Walton's salary is 4,420,000 while the combined salaries of Redick and Bogans is over 5 million so the Lakers would have to send some cash as well to complete this deal. So why would they???
Now if you sent Brian Cook and Marcin Gortat that would make the deal just 200 thousand under Walton's salary so that would make more sense for the Lakers and they get needed help at PF.

Since both teams are over the cap, then the salaries have to be within 125% ... This trade would work under the CBA.

Which one???

mhectorgato · Post #6 » by **mhectorgato** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:18 pm

cougar13 wrote:Which one???

The total outgoing salaries of both teams have to be within 125% of each other.

RealGM Trade Checker wrote:Successful Trade Scenario
Congratulations on a successful trade.

Due to Orlando and L.A. Lakers being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Orlando and L.A. Lakers had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.ph ... id=4821405

Post #7 » by **SS_MagicMark** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:39 pm

Why would the Lakers want Brian Cook back, anyway? They already found a sucker to take him.

BassMaster · Post #8 » by **BassMaster** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:05 pm

mhectorgato wrote:
cougar13 wrote:Which one???

The total outgoing salaries of both teams have to be within 125% of each other.

RealGM Trade Checker wrote:Successful Trade Scenario
Congratulations on a successful trade.

Due to Orlando and L.A. Lakers being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Orlando and L.A. Lakers had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.ph ... id=4821405

This one works as well.
http://www.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/3/

Post #9 » by **Devin 1L** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:09 pm

mhectorgato wrote:
cougar13 wrote:
Luke Walton's salary is 4,420,000 while the combined salaries of Redick and Bogans is over 5 million so the Lakers would have to send some cash as well to complete this deal. So why would they???
Now if you sent Brian Cook and Marcin Gortat that would make the deal just 200 thousand under Walton's salary so that would make more sense for the Lakers and they get needed help at PF.

Since both teams are over the cap, then the salaries have to be within 125% ... This trade would work under the CBA.

Also, even if the contracts didn't work, a team couldn't just "send some cash", as cougar stated.

BassMaster · Post #10 » by **BassMaster** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:35 pm

Devin 1L wrote:
mhectorgato wrote:
cougar13 wrote:
Luke Walton's salary is 4,420,000 while the combined salaries of Redick and Bogans is over 5 million so the Lakers would have to send some cash as well to complete this deal. So why would they???
Now if you sent Brian Cook and Marcin Gortat that would make the deal just 200 thousand under Walton's salary so that would make more sense for the Lakers and they get needed help at PF.

Since both teams are over the cap, then the salaries have to be within 125% ... This trade would work under the CBA.

Also, even if the contracts didn't work, a team couldn't just "send some cash", as cougar stated.

Actually I read if they are within a certain margin they can do just that, and the trade I did falls within that margin.

Post #11 » by **craig01** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:53 am

SS_MagicMark wrote:Why would the Lakers want Brian Cook back, anyway? They already found a sucker to take him.

Bingo.

Post #12 » by **eyriq** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:08 am

I did check with the trade machine before mentioning that JJ and Bogans would fill out the trade, but my main point was more that I think Walton is the kind of player that would thrive in our system, and having him on our bench would be terrific. He fits that Hedo mold I think.

mhectorgato · Post #13 » by **mhectorgato** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:42 am

cougar13 wrote:
Devin 1L wrote:
mhectorgato wrote:Since both teams are over the cap, then the salaries have to be within 125% ... This trade would work under the CBA.

Also, even if the contracts didn't work, a team couldn't just "send some cash", as cougar stated.

Actually I read if they are within a certain margin they can do just that, and the trade I did falls within that margin.

They can send money anytime they want. Same with draft picks. However neither have any impact on the incoming / outgoing contract values, which is what 1L was referring to.

Unless you actually want to post a link to where you read that .... ?

Big Aaron · Post #14 » by **Big Aaron** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:09 am

Cougar: Why would we trade away two big men in Cook and Gortat when we are crying out for big men? It makes no sense. You just don't want to entertain any idea of JJ being traded, even though he is at the bottom of a log-jammed pecking order.