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

Jajwanda · Post #261 » by **Jajwanda** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:33 pm

Can you blame them? Sessions will be a free agent in thirty games. Beasley will have to be re-signed. I"m not sure they trade these guys baring that in mind, but it wouldn't be shocking to see Sessions still dealt for a 2+Morris.

That Nicka · Post #262 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:41 pm

First Beasley is rejected and now Sessions? Man, this is starting to make me think the front office is ready to build around Bynum and the 2 draft picks if they are so unwilling to give them up... Which also means they believe we couldn't win it with a core of Sessions/Kobe/Beasley/Gasol/Bynum

If this is true then I expect Gasol will be traded for young pieces... Which is unfortunate because I do think that core could seriously contend... But I guess we're ready to go young and cheap... Kobe is gonna be pissed

KOB3 · Post #263 » by **KOB3** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:56 pm

Correct me if im wrong, but dont we have 2 first round picks this year? If there is a way to give up both those picks and end up with Beasley and Sessions that would be amazing. Yeah luxury tax blah blah but if thats really the case of what these two rejected deals have been about, they should pull the trigger on both.

FORGET HOWARD. If somehow we can get Beasley and Sessions while obviously keeping pau and bynum, this team will look pretty sweet.

Post #264 » by **TyCobb** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:58 pm

I believe the Lakers traded their own '12 second round pick with Odom in exchange for the TPE and '12 Dallas first. So we just have the Bulls second round pick.

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/ ... s/detailed

EDIT Read it wrong.

Neither of those players are worth 1st's.

KOB3 · Post #265 » by **KOB3** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:59 pm

That Nicka wrote:First Beasley is rejected and now Sessions? Man, this is starting to make me think the front office is ready to build around Bynum and the 2 draft picks if they are so unwilling to give them up... Which also means they believe we couldn't win it with a core of Sessions/Kobe/Beasley/Gasol/Bynum

If this is true then I expect Gasol will be traded for young pieces... Which is unfortunate because I do think that core could seriously contend... But I guess we're ready to go young and cheap... Kobe is gonna be pissed

The problem is..What young pieces are worth giving up Gasol? Certainly Rondo, for example, is better than sessions, but if id take pau+ sessions over Rondo any day.

That Nicka · Post #266 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 7:59 pm

We have our first round pick and Dallas'

That Nicka · Post #267 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 8:02 pm

KOB3 wrote:
That Nicka wrote:First Beasley is rejected and now Sessions? Man, this is starting to make me think the front office is ready to build around Bynum and the 2 draft picks if they are so unwilling to give them up... Which also means they believe we couldn't win it with a core of Sessions/Kobe/Beasley/Gasol/Bynum

If this is true then I expect Gasol will be traded for young pieces... Which is unfortunate because I do think that core could seriously contend... But I guess we're ready to go young and cheap... Kobe is gonna be pissed

The problem is..What young pieces are worth giving up Gasol? Certainly Rondo, for example, is better than sessions, but if id take pau+ sessions over Rondo any day.

I agree... The front office apparently does not

Jetset · Post #268 » by **Jetset** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 9:08 pm

As I've been saying, we're going all in for Dwight.

First declining Beasley and now Sessions, I'm lovin it. Neither player is worth a 1st rounder imho.

barrettcg · Post #269 » by **barrettcg** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 9:55 pm

I actually doubt that we are going all out for D. Howard... instead I think that both the lakers front office (Bynum has been Jim Buss' project from the start and I firmly believe that he does not want to give him up unless he is forced to) and the magic front office (want to keep Howard without a doubt)will not come to an agreement in order for Howard to come to the lakers. Would I like Howard on the team ... yeah most def.. but at what cost? The long term issues under the new CBA is if we can afford (or really if the buss family will shell out the money in luxery tax) to have three extremely high paid players, and it looks to me as if they will not do it.

What the lakers are missing is what we had in the Jerry West era (not playing era but GM era) where we could get those players that had huge potential and didn't have to shell out huge amounts of money. West was an amazing GM and I don't even think that it is Mitch's fault it is simply what it is.. a son who wants to run daddy's business and doesn't know what he is doing.

barrettcg · Post #270 » by **barrettcg** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:00 pm

and on a side note.. I know I'm gonna get killed on the board for saying this but I would love to have Rondo on the team. I know he doesn't have a consistant mid to extended jump shot but he does find a way to score and when you can penetrate like he can with the court awareness that he has it would allow for even easier buckets for Bynum and Kobe, and I think that he would be an even bigger asset not on the offensive side but on the defensive side. He has an unnaturally long wingspan and is very quick. He would definately help us if we had to play the likes of Westbrook or Parker, or even Landry.

Gek · Post #271 » by **Gek** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:03 pm

Jetset wrote:As I've been saying, we're going all in for Dwight.

First declining Beasley and now Sessions, I'm lovin it. Neither player is worth a 1st rounder imho.

If we traded a player + pick for a player, it'd make much more sense than tpe + pick for a player because, as it has been pointed out a few times, neither player is worth the added salary, especially with us being over the luxury tax.

Gek · Post #272 » by **Gek** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:03 pm

Jetset wrote:As I've been saying, we're going all in for Dwight.

First declining Beasley and now Sessions, I'm lovin it. Neither player is worth a 1st rounder imho.

If we traded a player + pick for a player, it'd make much more sense than tpe + pick for a player because, as it has been pointed out a few times, neither player is worth the added salary, especially with us being over the luxury tax.

If we don't trade into the NBA Finals, I'd rather have fun with the draft.

barrettcg · Post #273 » by **barrettcg** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:15 pm

[/quote]

if we don't trade into the NBA Finals, I'd rather have fun with the draft.[/quote]

EXACTLY!

Jetset · Post #274 » by **Jetset** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:16 pm

barrettcg wrote:I actually doubt that we are going all out for D. Howard... instead I think that both the lakers front office (Bynum has been Jim Buss' project from the start and I firmly believe that he does not want to give him up unless he is forced to) and the magic front office (want to keep Howard without a doubt)will not come to an agreement in order for Howard to come to the lakers. Would I like Howard on the team ... yeah most def.. but at what cost? The long term issues under the new CBA is if we can afford (or really if the buss family will shell out the money in luxery tax) to have three extremely high paid players, and it looks to me as if they will not do it.

What the lakers are missing is what we had in the Jerry West era (not playing era but GM era) where we could get those players that had huge potential and didn't have to shell out huge amounts of money. West was an amazing GM and I don't even think that it is Mitch's fault it is simply what it is.. a son who wants to run daddy's business and doesn't know what he is doing.

How do you explain them turning down Beasley and Sessions? You can't say "well they don't to pay the luxury tax", they knew they'd have to before engaging in discussions with Minnesota and Cleveland. If that were really the factor then they wouldn't have had discussions in the first place.

As far as Orlando not doing it, all indication is pointing towards Orlando trading Dwight if they fail to get either Nash or Ellis or a player like that on the team. And Orlando's president has already said this. And as far as LA and ORL not agreeing on a deal, all reports have it that Orlando doesn't want Brook Lopez and isn't interested in NJ's deal, and that Nets GM Billy King is willing to call Orlando's bluff about trading him. Whether the Billy King part is actually true I don't know but it's been said for months that Orlando just isn't interested in Lopez. So I believe if we can make a 3 team deal with Pau and Bynum going out we'd have enough assets and could definitely get Dwight.

And if it isn't a deal for Dwight, then it's got to be some other sort of deal. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. Our FO has had their eye on Beasley while we were putting a deal together for Chris Paul, I'm sure they just didn't wake up in the morning and decide they no longer wanted Beasley.

Gek wrote:
Jetset wrote:As I've been saying, we're going all in for Dwight.

First declining Beasley and now Sessions, I'm lovin it. Neither player is worth a 1st rounder imho.

If we traded a player + pick for a player, it'd make much more sense than tpe + pick for a player because, as it has been pointed out a few times, neither player is worth the added salary, especially with us being over the luxury tax.

If we don't trade into the NBA Finals, I'd rather have fun with the draft.

Even though Cleveland and Minnesota aren't luxury tax teams, I'm sure they'd rather have the cap space rather than taking back Steve Blake + filler.

And oh yeah if we don't trade into the Finals or at least into legit playoff contention, I'd actually rather miss the playoffs and get a really good pick.

barrettcg wrote:and on a side note.. I know I'm gonna get killed on the board for saying this but I would love to have Rondo on the team. I know he doesn't have a consistant mid to extended jump shot but he does find a way to score and when you can penetrate like he can with the court awareness that he has it would allow for even easier buckets for Bynum and Kobe, and I think that he would be an even bigger asset not on the offensive side but on the defensive side. He has an unnaturally long wingspan and is very quick. He would definately help us if we had to play the likes of Westbrook or Parker, or even Landry.

If Howard doesn't happen I actually want Rondo. I don't think the whole Celtics thing applies with Rondo like it would say a Pierce.

barrettcg · Post #275 » by **barrettcg** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:23 pm

[/quote]

if we don't trade into the NBA Finals, I'd rather have fun with the draft.[/quote]

EXACTLY!

barrettcg · Post #276 » by **barrettcg** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:33 pm

Jet-

I agree with you that the lakers were and probably still are interested in Beasley and Sessions, but to say that they turned down the deal because it didn't have anything to do with money I think is wrong. I never said anything about the luxury tax in what you quoted and I think that everyone knows that as long as Kobe is on the team that the lakers will have to continue to fork out luxury tax money. This isn't the issue, the issue is I don't think that the lakers wanted to give up a first round pick for Beasley. Obviously I'm not in the front office but why spend more money and give up a pick when you could give up a pick and swap salaries so that you wouldn't have to take on any more money? If the Wolves really want to get rid of Beasley they will but why not if your in the lakers front office attempt to trade a player or swap money and give up the pick? I don't think anyone can say if this proposal was even attempted but then again who can say that it wasn't

Jetset · Post #277 » by **Jetset** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 10:40 pm

barrettcg wrote:Jet-

I agree with you that the lakers were and probably still are interested in Beasley and Sessions, but to say that they turned down the deal because it didn't have anything to do with money I think is wrong. I never said anything about the luxury tax in what you quoted and I think that everyone knows that as long as Kobe is on the team that the lakers will have to continue to fork out luxury tax money. This isn't the issue, the issue is I don't think that the lakers wanted to give up a first round pick for Beasley. Obviously I'm not in the front office but why spend more money and give up a pick when you could give up a pick and swap salaries so that you wouldn't have to take on any more money? If the Wolves really want to get rid of Beasley they will but why not if your in the lakers front office attempt to trade a player or swap money and give up the pick? I don't think anyone can say if this proposal was even attempted but then again who can say that it wasn't

No, I'm not saying that you said anything about the luxury tax. But that's what people are coming up with as to why the Lakers declined the deals. Basically in shorter words "Oh the Lakers are being cheap". You don't know how many times I've heard those words echoed this week. And everything you just said is pretty much on point, Beasley isn't worth a 1st rounder and neither is Sessions. Whether we're making a huge trade or not.

barrettcg · Post #278 » by **barrettcg** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 11:00 pm

Okay.. I understand why you would think what you did after reading my posts again... However I think that I was simply trying to say what you were saying... Neither Beasley or Sessions are worth a 1st, AND the lakers would take on more money but not if it meant taking on more money in order to get either of those players. I think that the FO would take on more money if it meant getting someone that would help us make a deep playoff run and hopefully make a strong case that we could be able to get to the finals. (Beasley and Sessions as stated before do not fill that void)

azdaver · Post #279 » by **azdaver** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 11:13 pm

barrettcg wrote:I think that the FO would take on more money if it meant getting someone that would help us make a deep playoff run and hopefully make a strong case that we could be able to get to the finals. (Beasley and Sessions as stated before do not fill that void)

I agree. And I also think that the FO must believe that there are other opportunities for players out there that either haven't fully materialized or been explored, where a more complete player may be acquired that would justify increasing dollars invested in salary because it would mean increasing the potential of this team making a stronger run in the playoffs.

It's one big chess match and to the observers sometimes it feels like you're taking a step back or sacrificing something when in reality you're setting up for a bigger move. I think it was Jerry West who was quoted as saying something to the effect that the greatest trades are the ones you don't make in the face of desperation.

Emperor_Earth · Post #280 » by **Emperor_Earth** » Fri Mar 2, 2012 11:14 pm

VIPER8382 wrote:The financial argument against a first rounder is also a joke. Assuming we keep that player for all 4 years, and stay way up in the tax braket, the 1st will probably cost a bit over twice what Beasley would, but the big difference is that Beasley is for 2 months, while the first rounder would be for 4 years!

in four years, since we are luxury tax team, it will be $2+/$ over iirc. And again, it's not how much you net spend, it's how much flexibility you have each year. We lose no flexibility this year with a Beasley experiment as the deadline will be passed and we don't lose out on any potential moves if this is a Mar 15 deal. Whereas if you take on a first round player, you lose flexibility for every year of that contract.

As the team, you have much more information/control on resigning/not signing Beasley off half a season with your team and a few with others than trying to make a guess if some college 3 is going to have his skills translate to the pro level off training camp and predraft workouts.