Kobe addresses the Olympics, Ronny and Sashas.

[milesfides]

I don't think judging a player in less than 10mpg is fair. Especially when he played doubled that in the regular season and was very effective.

[milesfides]

Letting Turiaf go was not a good long-term decision.

i'd like to see the crystal ball you're using to determine that. the lakers have some flexibility with odom being a big chip to either move this season or maybe resign next season. if odom remains in the picture, ronny's pretty much useless unless there's an injury up front. i don't expect odom to get major minutes at pf but imo 15mpg seems pretty realistic. that would leave ronny with next to nil assuming gasol slides to the c to spell bynum on occassion. either way, ronny is not worth 8 mil per year as a backup..............especially if odom stays.

Not a crystal ball at all. How about Mitch Kupchak breaking character to say that Odom's future was not determined with the Lakers? How about Phil Jackson sitting Odom at crucial times in the Finals? How about Bynum's imminent return to the lineup and Odom's return to the SF, where he struggled earlier in the season?

How about the immense luxury tax relief when Odom leaves?



Let's test our decision-making skills, weigh the pros and cons of extending Turiaf.


Worst case scenario: Turiaf doesn't get many minutes and joins Radmanovic and Walton as guys who get paid too much for their level of production.

Oh boo hoo. You know why that's not that terrible?

1. Turiaf is great for team camaraderie and chemistry whether he plays 30 minutes or 0 minutes. His energy is infectious, even when he's not on the floor.

2. Trade value. 4m for a young big with all of Turiaf's attributes is hardly overpaying. Radmanovic doesn't play defense, Walton can't shoot or stay healthy. Turiaf doesn't have any fatal flaws - his contract would be far more moveable than either Walton or Radamnovic's.

3. Insurance for injuries. Pau and Bynum have a history of injuries. Our bigs can't stay healthy - include Mihm and Kwame in that as well. Something in the water? Either way, Turiaf would be valuable insurance.

4. Odom may leave, in fact, a fairly good chance of that happening, which will literally leave us with no backup PF. None. Can you imagine Gasol in foul trouble and Radamnovic trying to guard Kevin Garnett?

Turiaf would incur several million in luxury tax. That's the cost, but he brings far more benefits.

And why pick on him? Any team paying the luxury tax will have some bad values on the team, but 4m for Turiaf is hardly the worst. In fact, I would say that would be one of the best values.

2.5m for Mihm? 6m for Radamnovic? 4.5m+ for Walton?

Turiaf is a steal in comparison.

And what's the cost of not signing him? Save money. But you lose valuable insurance, possibly a major impact player, and his personality in promoting team chemistry is irreplaceable.

4m for Turiaf is an EXCELLENT investment, even on this team, especially on this team, given the makeup of it.

Like all investments, there's certain risk and a term of maturity. Maybe Turiaf wouldn't have a major role next year until Odom's future was settled. But in the meantime, he'd still contribute to the team with his camaraderie and his availability as insurance for injuries. As an asset, he's inherently young, skilled, and has a solid PER of 15 for 2 consecutive years. He has value, and his value will hold regardless of his role on the Lakers. That makes him an excellent investment because he affords an exit strategy, whereas Radmanovic and Walton were limited players already before they even signed. They were much bigger risks, and their struggles are related to their inherent limitations as players rather than circumstance. That's why they'd be difficult to move.

$4m for Turiaf is an excellent investment. In fact, I think Golden State got a steal. Turiaf's role and minutes were limited on the Lakers. See, the MLE is close to $6m, and it's for average players. Turiaf has a solid PER already, and yet he's going to be paid $4m. He's a steal.

For his career, per 36 minutes, he'd be projected to average 13 points, 8 boards, 3 assists, solid percentages from the field and on the free throw line, and almost 3 blocks (probably a bit overinflated due to his role).

Considering his limited role, I would imagine some of those numbers are on the conservative side.

Turiaf is a talented big man. He's got the entire package. One thing that is enormously underrated about his play on the court is his ability to pass, to move the ball. He was a nice, intelligent piece who fit well into our system.

[TonyMontana]

I agree with you Miles, but you know when this team will realize the value of Ronny and what he brought to this team night in and night out?
Its when Bynum or Pau get hurt again, but hopefully that wont happen, but chances are it will, and then who are we going to look to, Benga, Mihm...LOLLL

[TommyTheCat]

Letting Turiaf go was not a good long-term decision.

i'd like to see the crystal ball you're using to determine that. the lakers have some flexibility with odom being a big chip to either move this season or maybe resign next season. if odom remains in the picture, ronny's pretty much useless unless there's an injury up front. i don't expect odom to get major minutes at pf but imo 15mpg seems pretty realistic. that would leave ronny with next to nil assuming gasol slides to the c to spell bynum on occassion. either way, ronny is not worth 8 mil per year as a backup..............especially if odom stays.

Not a crystal ball at all. How about Mitch Kupchak breaking character to say that Odom's future was not determined with the Lakers? How about Phil Jackson sitting Odom at crucial times in the Finals? How about Bynum's imminent return to the lineup and Odom's return to the SF, where he struggled earlier in the season?

How about the immense luxury tax relief when Odom leaves?



Let's test our decision-making skills, weigh the pros and cons of extending Turiaf.


Worst case scenario: Turiaf doesn't get many minutes and joins Radmanovic and Walton as guys who get paid too much for their level of production.

Oh boo hoo. You know why that's not that terrible?

1. Turiaf is great for team camaraderie and chemistry whether he plays 30 minutes or 0 minutes. His energy is infectious, even when he's not on the floor.

2. Trade value. 4m for a young big with all of Turiaf's attributes is hardly overpaying. Radmanovic doesn't play defense, Walton can't shoot or stay healthy. Turiaf doesn't have any fatal flaws - his contract would be far more moveable than either Walton or Radamnovic's.

3. Insurance for injuries. Pau and Bynum have a history of injuries. Our bigs can't stay healthy - include Mihm and Kwame in that as well. Something in the water? Either way, Turiaf would be valuable insurance.

4. Odom may leave, in fact, a fairly good chance of that happening, which will literally leave us with no backup PF. None. Can you imagine Gasol in foul trouble and Radamnovic trying to guard Kevin Garnett?

Turiaf would incur several million in luxury tax. That's the cost, but he brings far more benefits.

And why pick on him? Any team paying the luxury tax will have some bad values on the team, but 4m for Turiaf is hardly the worst. In fact, I would say that would be one of the best values.

2.5m for Mihm? 6m for Radamnovic? 4.5m+ for Walton?

Turiaf is a steal in comparison.

And what's the cost of not signing him? Save money. But you lose valuable insurance, possibly a major impact player, and his personality in promoting team chemistry is irreplaceable.

4m for Turiaf is an EXCELLENT investment, even on this team, especially on this team, given the makeup of it.

Like all investments, there's certain risk and a term of maturity. Maybe Turiaf wouldn't have a major role next year until Odom's future was settled. But in the meantime, he'd still contribute to the team with his camaraderie and his availability as insurance for injuries. As an asset, he's inherently young, skilled, and has a solid PER of 15 for 2 consecutive years. He has value, and his value will hold regardless of his role on the Lakers. That makes him an excellent investment because he affords an exit strategy, whereas Radmanovic and Walton were limited players already before they even signed. They were much bigger risks, and their struggles are related to their inherent limitations as players rather than circumstance. That's why they'd be difficult to move.

$4m for Turiaf is an excellent investment. In fact, I think Golden State got a steal. Turiaf's role and minutes were limited on the Lakers. See, the MLE is close to $6m, and it's for average players. Turiaf has a solid PER already, and yet he's going to be paid $4m. He's a steal.

For his career, per 36 minutes, he'd be projected to average 13 points, 8 boards, 3 assists, solid percentages from the field and on the free throw line, and almost 3 blocks (probably a bit overinflated due to his role).

Considering his limited role, I would imagine some of those numbers are on the conservative side.

Turiaf is a talented big man. He's got the entire package. One thing that is enormously underrated about his play on the court is his ability to pass, to move the ball. He was a nice, intelligent piece who fit well into our system.

the point i was trying to make.............offseason is not done............trade deadline has not been arrived.............next offseason hasn't arrived and the '10 trade deadline has not arrived. how do you KNOW that the lakers aren't going to address the loss of ronny? how do you KNOW they aren't going to resign odom and let him get minutes at pf (ronny's minutes)? if those either of those 2 questions end up happening, then letting him go and not paying him 8 mil to sit on the bench could be a good long term decision. very few people question what ronny brings to the table but when you don't have minutes for a guy 8 mil is a lot of money to suck up for an insurance policy. and while i don't rate ronny's skills as highly as you do, i think he's a great pickup for the warriors who need a starting pf....................for them 4 mil for ronny makes sense.

as for ronny's trade value...............were teams beating down the lakers door trying to make a deal for him? maybe i missed something but imo his trade value isn't all that special and sitting on the pine watching odom absorb his minutes next season wouldn't increase it.

[milesfides]

the point i was trying to make.............offseason is not done............trade deadline has not been arrived.............next offseason hasn't arrived and the '10 trade deadline has not arrived. how do you KNOW that the lakers aren't going to address the loss of ronny?

I don't, they may very well address it. Sufficiently? That's another story, because I don't see another quality big man with Turiaf's abilities (both tangible and intangible) that you can even find, let alone get, for 4m a year. How many PF/C with PER's of around 15 are available for 4m a year?

how do you KNOW they aren't going to resign odom and let him get minutes at pf (ronny's minutes)?

I don't, all I know is that it's probably more unlikely than it is likely - for the reasons that I mentioned previously. Mitch saying Odom's future was insecure, Phil's benching of Odom at crucial points in the Finals, the trade talk involving Odom, the luxury tax aversion (letting ronny go), and Bynum's upcoming extension. All of those, to me, contribute to paint a picture that makes Odom's future with the Lakers reasonably unlikely.

if those either of those 2 questions end up happening, then letting him go and not paying him 8 mil to sit on the bench could be a good long term decision. very few people question what ronny brings to the table but when you don't have minutes for a guy 8 mil is a lot of money to suck up for an insurance policy.

Well, if you're going to see Turiaf as an 8m player because of the luxury tax, you'd better see Odom as a 20+ million player when Bynum gets his extension. You know what I'm saying?

as for ronny's trade value...............were teams beating down the lakers door trying to make a deal for him?

They wouldn't need to, they could offer him deals straight up like Golden State. And we have no idea how many teams were interested in Ronny. All we know is that he signed Golden State's offer sheet and brought it back to the Lakers so that they could match it and so that he could stay a Laker. As for sign-and-trades, I have no idea, and I hardly think anybody else does as well.

maybe i missed something but imo his trade value isn't all that special and sitting on the pine watching odom absorb his minutes next season wouldn't increase it.

Like I said in my previous post, there are things about Turiaf that makes me believe his value will hold.

1. he has a solid PER despite his limited minutes. It's been consistent for two years. It's much easier for a team to believe a guy will produce with more minutes if his PER is high.

2. Turiaf is an all-around quality player. That's the thing with Radmanovic, people knew he wasn't a good defender before the Lakers signed him, but the Lakers signed him anyways for his shooting. Why is he an immovable contract now? Because his lack of defense has been further exposed playing on a high profile team like the Lakers, teams might see his lack of defense as the touch of death. Same with Walton, his inconsistent shooting and his health. But what's the risk in Turiaf's game? Turiaf has no compromise in his game - he has a solid skill set for a big man.

3. He's a big man. Big players who aren't stiffs always have value.

4. Turiaf is a great team player, and his personality would be a significant asset to any team.

Those are the main reasons why I believe Turiaf's value in the event that somehow we retain Odom (which I think is unlikely).

Let me make a few comments in closing - and I'm going to leave this alone, since it's over and done with.

1. Evoking the luxury tax on Ronny is a bit unfair. Plenty of bad contracts on our roster, and Turiaf's 4m wouldn't even approach being one of the worst on our team. But if we want to play the game, we can. Is Ronny worth 8m? No. Is Odom worth 20+ million? No. What's worse? '

We can continue to play that game. Is Sasha worth 10m? Is Bynum worth 24m? You pretty much can't extend or acquire ANYBODY because nobody's worth double their market value. You see what I'm saying?

Picking on Turiaf is a bit ridiculous because if you must pay luxury tax, might as well pay on the fairly lower end of the scale, like Turiaf's 4m.

Why does he have to solely shoulder the luxury tax when his contract will be among the smallest on our team? Just because he's the last one holding the bag?

2. What is the risk in extending Turiaf? In the unlikely event that Odom stays, Turiaf will cost Buss a fair amount of change. Yet Turiaf will still contribute to this team with his personality, energy, and be insurance for our fairly injury-prone frontcourt.

3. What is the risk in not-extending Turiaf? Odom is gone, and we have Radamnovic trying to guard Kevin Garnett in the event Gasol or Bynum gets into foul trouble. Moreover, we lose a bit of our intensity, our chemistry, our sense of brotherhood that really was the unique trademark, our character, of this team last year. It helped overcome some really dark times in our franchise, and it was a significant factor in changing the negative energy surrounding our team into good vibes.

4. Lastly, who'd you rather have, Mihm and Mbenga or Turiaf? Because a resigned Mbenga and Mihm (who expires after this season) will add up pretty close to Turiaf's contract.

I'd take Turiaf - wouldn't you?

[TommyTheCat]

everyone that's seen me post for the last several years knows i'm not a chicken little or pessimistic type of guy. i just don't see the loss of ronny as devestating or a guaranteed bad long term decision. would i like to see him in p&g.........yes............but i don't pay the bills. i've always opted on the side of patience and let the FO and owner do what they feel is necessary and guess what.....................it's turned out pretty sweet so far. while others were freaking out over the last two or three years and bashing pretty much every move the lakers made or didn't make, there were a few of us who quietely kept mentioning patience. there seemed to be an unrealistic expectation that after blowing a championship team up that the lakers should still contend within a year or two. i have no worry that the lakers will end up in a good situation without ronny. if they felt he was THAT valuable to the team, they would have matched the offer.

so, i have to respectfully agree to disagree that letting ronny go was a bad long term decision. not saying it won't turn out to be one but i think it's too early to judge the move.