LipSkinMatter wrote:BNM wrote:LipSkinMatter wrote:
You just waxed poetic about how bad Kuzma is and then said if the Lakers traded him they would be gutted. How can both be true? If he's that bad, what's the big deal if they lose him?
Because he's yet another rookie contract player the Lakers would have to replace, and a very cheap one at that ($1.9 million in 2019-20). Say the Lakers do cave and give up Kuzma, Ball and Ingram. They are taking back $9 million more in salary than they are sending out. That means rescinding all of their free agents to have $29 million in cap space with nine roster spots to fill. Of course, they can spend that on another max contract player and then fill out the remaining 8 roster spots with min contract guys - to me, that sounds pretty gutted.
Kuzma may not be great, and a poor fit next to Zion, but he is at least a rotation level player for the Lakers on a very cheap contract. Losing him hurts their depth more than it helps NOP. Which is exactly why I think NOP is holding the Lakers feet to the fire on this one.
One of the worst three point shooters in the league should be replaceable by ring chasing vets, no? This logic still doesn't check out. Again, if you get AD for a bunch of garbage, you do it.
How'd that work out for the Lakers last season? All those "ring chasing vets" they signed were even worse than Kuzma. Oh wait, never mind, Lance and Rondo actually shot better than Kuzma from distance.
And yes, of course you do it. My original point wasn't the Lakers should hold onto Kuzma at the risk of not getting Davis. My point was NOP is trying to punish the Lakers as much as possible. Kuzma is a poor fit next to Zion and doesn't want to play there. If they do get Kuzma, they will probably end up flipping him to another team eventually. His value lies in his $1.9 million contract, not because he's a guy you pass on AD for.