Improving and Saving $$ with LAL

[DBoys]

As that report shows, and in direct contradiction of rugby's foolish nonsense being spouted above, the Lakers WANT a longer contract on him at that price, not a shorter one ...clearly he's worth the contract.

[TheOUTLAW]

Beginning with the premise that Sessions is a bad contract is starting from a point of error. The Cavs actually like Sessions but they already have a PG that they like even more and would like to fill out the team. However, the idea of taking on a bad contract to move him is completely ridiculous.

[rjgraca]

Beginning with the premise that Sessions is a bad contract is starting from a point of error. The Cavs actually like Sessions but they already have a PG that they like even more and would like to fill out the team. However, the idea of taking on a bad contract to move him is completely ridiculous.

+1
This entitlement for LA thread would be better served in the Laker Forum on RealGM.

[spearsy23]

Walton used to get playing time... And so did Smush Parker

[TheOUTLAW]

I just don't get why people think that Cleveland is at all concerned with the contract that they are paying Sessions. He's fine and we are in a good position contract wise. The Cavs actually could take on salary, but I see no reason for them to want to especially to get a worse player and get a pick that they could spend 3 million to buy (per Laker fans justification).

[rugby-hook]

Folks are misreading the Amico report, LA is not going to spend a 1st for a rental, they need to accomplish additional objectives in any trade.

In the past, LA spent on rentals and figures a deep playoff run would engender loyalty. In addition, in the past, Bird rights were of prominence to the Lakers so that they could keept players and go over the cap.

Under the new CBA, they have to get under the LT in 2 years, which means that Bird rights and rentals are out of the question, as is selling draft picks to fund the cost of the LT. With the staggered LT multipler, LA could lose money in 3 years, even with the new cable deal. As such, LA needs to dump salary when it fills needs or acquires talent. The mere fact that Sessions has not moved proves that LA has a more complicated agenda -- it has to get salary relief in every trade.

This is the CBA that Cleve and Charlotte demanded and so if Cleve wants a draft pick and LA is the only team willing to give them a 1st, they will have to help solve the LT dilemna that they created.

[loserX]

LA needs point guard help a lot more than Cleveland needs to get a first for $1.5M instead of $3M.

If the two teams walked away from the table, it would be LA saying "damn" and Cleveland saying "oh well, whatever". The leverage is Cleveland's and there's no point in LA trying to deal from a position that states otherwise.

[rugby-hook]

loser,

Is your last post really what you beleive? If so, then you have demonstrated why there was a lockout. Should a team put a priority of improving themselves or should the emphasis be on preventing other teams from improving? If LA did not need a PG, would Cleveland then do the deal? Stalemates happen when one side is worried that they other side will improve more than themselves. It is similiar to the aphorism of cutting your nose to smite your face.

Cleveland is re-building and its plan requires multiple draft picks and this upcoming draft is particularly strong. No other team has a draft team for trade. Clevland wants to move Sessions for the pick of course it does not want to take back a player, but that means no pick. This board wants Cleve to not acquire the pick and slow down its rebuilding efforts because LA will trruly benefit by acquiring Sessions. LA is also willing to pay more (the pick) for Sessions but has a salary rider attached.

Does the stalemate really benefit Cleveland? Are they further ahead without the pick and keeping Sessions? Cleveland has decided, bacause is on the market, that the pick is more valuable. By arguning against the trade because LA has a real need, Cleve is hurting its own interest and not acting in its own self interest. When evealuating trades, teams should look at improving themselves and worry less about not improving their trading partner.

[loserX]

Cleveland is re-building and its plan requires multiple draft picks and this upcoming draft is particularly strong. No other team has a draft team for trade.

You have literally no idea whether that last sentence is true. For that matter, I could argue that no other team has a worthwhile PG available to LA for less than a pick.

Clevland wants to move Sessions for the pick of course it does not want to take back a player, but that means no pick. This board wants Cleve to not acquire the pick and slow down its rebuilding efforts because LA will trruly benefit by acquiring Sessions.

That is not at all what the board wants. The board wants Cleveland to get fair value for its asset. A terrible contract and a pick in the high 20s is not deemed to be fair value, especially given how dire LA's need is.

Does the stalemate really benefit Cleveland? Are they further ahead without the pick and keeping Sessions?

It certainly hurts Cleveland less than it hurts LA. Imagining that trades take place in a leverage-free bubble sounds a bit naive to me.

Cleveland has decided, bacause is on the market, that the pick is more valuable. By arguning against the trade because LA has a real need, Cleve is hurting its own interest and not acting in its own self interest. When evealuating trades, teams should look at improving themselves and worry less about not improving their trading partner.

Why do these parameters apply only to Cleveland and not to LA? LA needs a point guard. If Cleveland demands both picks for Sessions, should LA worry about improving itself at any cost? Or is there a point where the value becomes not worth it?

[rugby-hook]

Should not the issue be how much is each team improving or adding to its plan, not how much a the trade improves the other?

If LA were operating under the old CBA, then the Sessions for a pick would more likely than not have occurred already. Sessions as a rental would have been fine because LA would not want to pay a rookie a 3-yr guarenateed contract. The CBA is forcing LA to get under the LT within 2 years, which means its has to move dollars now and thsu complicating its trading practices.

As suggested, LA is acting in its sole best interest and is indifferent to how much it benefits Cleveland. LA knows that Cleve will get a player that may better than Sessions, but LA needs a player today and to move salary now. True, I am assuming that LA is the only team willing to send out a 1st. My assumption is based on the fact that no other team has consumated this deal yet. In light of Sessions' production, there must be some other hair on this deal because Cleve does not have its pick yet. The contract is too rich, Sessions could be a rental or there are other issues on his game. Something is there because he is available for trade and no one has bitten.

No one has answered why Cleveland should delay its rebuilding efforts and not acquire a pick for $1.5mm of cap space next season? The only cogent answer is that LA should pay more because they have a need. Why should Cleve not improve because it trading partner may also improve? Should the only trades a team conclude are those deals where the other side improves less than yourself? Really? Should team overpay for the "missing" piece? Of course they should -- it is called a run for a ring. Trades hopefully are even, but never are. Like in business, one side sells what they have in surplus to acquire assets for where they are scarce. Value is in the eye of the beholder. The criticism of this deal is that it helps LA too much; there are no attacks on Cleveland not achieving its rebuilding objectives.

[loserX]

Should not the issue be how much is each team improving or adding to its plan, not how much a the trade improves the other?

I ask again: would the Lakers add both picks to this deal? It would improve the team short-term and add to its plan. Or does it reach a point where the deal is simply too "unfair" to pursue? Does Cleveland have the right to make the same determination from their side?

The CBA is forcing LA to get under the LT within 2 years, which means its has to move dollars now and thsu complicating its trading practices.

That is certainly true. It's hard to make a deal when the Lakers are trying to get better and cheaper at the same time.

As suggested, LA is acting in its sole best interest and is indifferent to how much it benefits Cleveland.

Obviously. However, in the negotiation process, Cleveland will also be demanding the best deal for itself, regardless of whether the Lakers consider it an overpay. The key is finding middle ground.

Should team overpay for the "missing" piece? Of course they should -- it is called a run for a ring.

You mean like the Lakers? Sounds like they should be overpaying here, then. Would they add the second pick?

Trades hopefully are even, but never are. Like in business, one side sells what they have in surplus to acquire assets for where they are scarce. Value is in the eye of the beholder. The criticism of this deal is that it helps LA too much; there are no attacks on Cleveland not achieving its rebuilding objectives.

Correct. The Lakers are getting too good a deal for the value they send out, and Cleveland should demand more for Sessions.

[rugby-hook]

How would adding both picks advance the LA objective of getting better and cheaper at the same time? It does not, but everyone is measuring what LA gives, rather than what and how it fits into Cleveland's plan. Clev does not get better by keeping Sessions; it gets better by acquiring a 1st for $1.5mm of cap space. Is staying pat better for Cleve? This is not the issue examined; rather this board is looking at the trade like a portfolio manager -- asset for asset. Franchises need a mix of parts and should trade duplicates for missing components. Cleve did so and got the Irving pick and it is suggested they should do the same, but on a lower scale, with Sessions.

Stop focusing on LA; look at the matter from the Cleve POV. No one is arguing that Sessions may not be worth a 1st, but if no other franchise is willing to cough it up, a team as to look at either keeping the piece or lowering the price. Cleve could lose Sessions for nothing if he opts out; ergo the issue remains is Cleve better by trading Sessions for a 1st and Walton v. Sessions v. an opted-out Sessions? After seeing what Clev pays for picks and its current attempt to mimick OKC, it is strongly suggested that making the trade secures a better future for Cleve.

If another team will cough up a 1st with lower salary demands, then Cleve should take that deal. But the choice is keeping or losing Sessions v. the proposed LA deal, I think Cleve advances it rebuilding effort further by taking the LA deal and securing the pick.

[FGump]

LA is not going to spend a 1st for a rental, they need to accomplish additional objectives in any trade.

Quoted for raging cluelessness.

[dockingsched]

yeah, i think its better if i lock this.

sessions/eyenga for walton/2012 lottery protected 1st thread is there for discussion.