The official- "LA rejects X player for 1st"

nate44 · Post #161 » by **nate44** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Why would the Wolves be looking to trade Beasley, when their number 2 overall pick is backing up the best PF in the league? Beasley is a perfect fit for them at the SF spot. Williams has much better potential IMHO only 20 years old, but is really a PF.

Jajwanda · Post #162 » by **Jajwanda** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:56 pm

GIve the Lakers 3m in cash.

dingclancy · Post #163 » by **dingclancy** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:36 pm

If that Beas rumor is true, it means that the Lakers has no plans to use that trade exception all along. They really just want to cut down on salary. Not that Beasley is worth 12million, but that was a chance to get a talent for nothing and we turned it down.

Cards are out, there is no plan after trading Odom. :lol:

Post #164 » by **dockingsched** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:47 pm

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... el-beasley

The Minnesota Timberwolves offered to trade Michael Beasley to the Los Angeles Lakers for a first-round draft pick, but the Lakers turned them down, according to a league source.

While Beasley, a talented and athletic small forward, would fill one of the Lakers' greatest needs, the Lakers rejected the offer because they do not want to add to their luxury tax bill, according to the source.

Iamabeasttt · Post #165 » by **Iamabeasttt** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:47 pm

lakers decline wolves offer for beasley

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... el-beasley

they don't want to spend money.

Jetset · Post #166 » by **Jetset** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:49 pm

Now everyone can STFU about him, I didn't want him anyway.

I think we're going all in for Howard so we're going to need that pick.

mlhouse · Post #167 » by **mlhouse** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:51 pm

WHat do you think the Lakers should offer for Beasley? If it isn't a late first round draft pick, why should the Wolves even bother?

Jetset · Post #168 » by **Jetset** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:53 pm

lol @ the ESPN comments section. Sounds a lot like the stuff that goes on here. A bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off claiming the end is near.

mlhouse wrote:WHat do you think the Lakers should offer for Beasley? If it isn't a late first round draft pick, why should the Wolves even bother?

I don't care what they want for him, I don't want him.

Jajwanda · Post #169 » by **Jajwanda** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:58 pm

**** Jim Buss.

Post #170 » by **dockingsched** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:59 pm

Jajwanda wrote:**** Jim Buss.

Under the new revenue sharing plan in the recently adopted collective bargaining agreement, the Lakers will pay a bundle and because of that, owner Jerry Buss is no longer willing to spend so freely in going above the luxury tax, according to sources...

KingLakers · Post #171 » by **KingLakers** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:01 pm

My guess is the Lakers want to offload a contract along with the pick for Beasley. Walton and Artest have conrtacts that would work in a trade. The Wolves can just amnesty Walton or Artest in the summer.

Jajwanda · Post #172 » by **Jajwanda** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:02 pm

Oh give me a **** break, the tax rise doesn't go into effect for another two years.

Jetset · Post #173 » by **Jetset** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:02 pm

You shouldn't have posted that doc, now people's heads are going to do this now that they can't pin everything on Jim

Post #174 » by **dockingsched** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:03 pm

KingLakers wrote:My guess is the Lakers want to offload a contract along with the pick for Beasley. Walton and Artest have conrtacts that would work in a trade. The Wolves can just amnesty Walton or Artest in the summer.

nope.

mlhouse · Post #175 » by **mlhouse** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:05 pm

KingLakers wrote:My guess is the Lakers want to offload a contract along with the pick for Beasley. Walton and Artest have conrtacts that would work in a trade. The Wolves can just amnesty Walton or Artest in the summer.

No they can't amnesty Walton or Peace, only the Lakers can.

There is no way that the Wolves would have any interest in taking back a long term contract. ZERO. If the Lakers are not willing to offer a 2012 first, there is no way that Minnesota makes a trade.

Jajwanda · Post #176 » by **Jajwanda** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:05 pm

They will amnesty MWP in the summer. If they had done it earlier they could have made this simple deal. Now we're sitting here hoping for Gilbert Arenas.

Post #177 » by **dockingsched** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:07 pm

mlhouse wrote:
KingLakers wrote:My guess is the Lakers want to offload a contract along with the pick for Beasley. Walton and Artest have conrtacts that would work in a trade. The Wolves can just amnesty Walton or Artest in the summer.

No they can't amnesty Walton or Peace, only the Lakers can.

There is no way that the Wolves would have any interest in taking back a long term contract. ZERO. If the Lakers are not willing to offer a 2012 first, there is no way that Minnesota makes a trade.

walton expires next yr, he's not long term. u know u want him.

Jajwanda · Post #178 » by **Jajwanda** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:08 pm

There is no way I pay a dime in ticket sales, merchandise, or anything if this franchise is now a cash cow.

Jetset · Post #179 » by **Jetset** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:09 pm

mlhouse wrote:
KingLakers wrote:My guess is the Lakers want to offload a contract along with the pick for Beasley. Walton and Artest have conrtacts that would work in a trade. The Wolves can just amnesty Walton or Artest in the summer.

No they can't amnesty Walton or Peace, only the Lakers can.

There is no way that the Wolves would have any interest in taking back a long term contract. ZERO. If the Lakers are not willing to offer a 2012 first, there is no way that Minnesota makes a trade.

You're acting as if Minnesota backed out. We backed out.

mlhouse · Post #180 » by **mlhouse** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:12 pm

Jetset wrote:
You're acting as if Minnesota backed out.

THere is no way that Minnesota takes on $6 million in 2012-13 salary to trade away Michael Beasley. They are not the Lakers who sign mediocre players to ridiculous contracts. A late first round draft pick can be purchased for $3 million, so why would they be interested in paying $5.8 million for one?