Any Significance to Taylor Veto?

Post #1 » by **Klomp** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:29 am

Kahn signed off on the 3-way with POR and LAL, but Taylor vetoed because he didn't want to take on additional salary, according to LA Times report.

The Lakers were seven minutes from acquiring Minnesota forward Michael Beasley, but Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor blocked an agreed-upon three-team trade right before the deadline that would have sent Fisher to Minnesota, not Houston, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. The trade also would have involved Portland.

"It was whisker-close," said the person, who did not want to be identified.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketbal ... ?track=rss

Any significance to this?

Post #2 » by **Calinks** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:32 am

Taylor likes Beasley's comedic stylings and enjoys his locker room presence.

Foye · Post #3 » by **Foye** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:34 am

Thank god he vetoed it even if it was for a wrong reason. Kahn's trades are bullsh#t

Post #4 » by **C.lupus** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:40 am

Why was it for the wrong reason. It would have been stupid to take on Fisher's contract and have $3 million less cap space.

younggunsmn · Post #5 » by **younggunsmn** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Taylor saved Kahn from severe anal rape. The man may not know basketball but his his greed saved him in the end.
You don't trade a player with Beasley's talent to the Lakers, and also take on a bad contract and save them millions of luxury tax $ in the process.

Taylor is Bruce Willis and Kahn is Ving Rhames in this picture. :lol:

Post #6 » by **Klomp** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:50 am

C.lupus wrote:Why was it for the wrong reason. It would have been stupid to take on Fisher's contract and have $3 million less cap space.

He thinks the trade should've been voided because he thinks Beasley has more trade value than he actually does.

younggunsmn · Post #7 » by **younggunsmn** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:57 am

"bring out the Gimp" (beasley)

"you want us to take Derek Fisher too?"

Taylor: You okay man?
Kahn: "No man, I'm pretty ****ing far from okay".

Post #8 » by **Calinks** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:37 am

It is true that if Beasley even brought 15PPG to the Lakers Kahn would get murdered by fans across the country.

Dewey · Post #9 » by **Dewey** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:48 am

another irrelevent topic ... Beas needs to make a decision to play or just continue to say he just wants to play basektball. the pointless discussions around this guy are old.

LordBaldric · Post #10 » by **LordBaldric** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:06 am

99.9% chance that the extra cap space turns out to be meaningless. Seriously, who are we going to sign now using that space? Portland has positioned themselves to match on Batum, and no way NO doesn't match what we can offer E Gordon. No other free agents are worth offering more than what we would still have in cap space if we took on Fisher.

Kahn is just going to end up signing another one of his 4 year $4 million per wonders and will just eat the rest of the space. I'd rather have Crawford or a 1st round pick than the big fat nothing we are going to get.

Esohny · Post #11 » by **Esohny** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:38 am

Is it significant that Taylor didn't want to pay his salary just to have the Wolves knocked out of first round of the playoffs, if they managed to sneak in?

I agree with the principle of not taking on Fisher's contract, because he's a waste of space now, but I also tend to agree with the Dark Lord when he says it probably won't make a difference in the offseason.

Steve_Holiday · Post #12 » by **Steve_Holiday** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:03 am

I don't know if I even believe the report to begin with.

Post #13 » by **Klomp** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

But does anyone look at the fact that Taylor was unwilling to add salary (Fisher) in an attempt to add a key piece (Crawford) for a playoff run?

TheProdigy · Post #14 » by **TheProdigy** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:06 am

Steve_Holiday wrote:I don't know if I even believe the report to begin with.

This.

Saltine · Post #15 » by **Saltine** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:17 am

More likely that the lakers thought Kahn would take the bad deal, and he said nope. The cheap behavior of the lakers would piss off their fans, so we get a story about how Minnesota killed the deal.

psundeen · Post #16 » by **psundeen** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:29 am

I dont really believe it... It's been a while since the media has been able to make fun of Minnesota, and they saw an opportunity.

I might be the only one who thinks this, but Fisher probably would have opted out... I bet he would have tried to sign on with a team that has a shot at the championship next year... And even if he didnt, I think he could have played a Sam Mitchell type role on the team. I wouldnt have minded the trade going though.

Post #17 » by **Klomp** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:30 am

psundeen wrote:I dont really believe it... It's been a while since the media has been able to make fun of Minnesota, and they saw an opportunity.

Wouldn't they be making fun of Kahn if this were the case, and not Taylor?

Saltine · Post #18 » by **Saltine** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:39 am

They are making fun of Kahn, he got overruled by his boss.

LordBaldric · Post #19 » by **LordBaldric** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:52 am

Klomp wrote:But does anyone look at the fact that Taylor was unwilling to add salary (Fisher) in an attempt to add a key piece (Crawford) for a playoff run?

You mean like as a sign Taylor is cheaping out on the team? That's certainly possible. Stuff like "maintaining cap space/flexibility" certainly serve as excuses to keep payroll down. Then you have the waterfall of trade downs and pick sell offs during the last draft. Also the bizarre refusal to ink Love to a full 5 year deal (if they aren't regretting that one by now they should be). None of this is lock down proof but they aren't exactly positive signs.

Swish4 · Post #20 » by **Swish4** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:30 am

I think regardless of the reasons it was the right decision by Taylor.