EPTNBA Offseason 2014 - Page 58
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
| ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015. It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
But nooooo, imaginary backlash is too much to handle. Note: Kobe would've gotten even more $$$ from the organization in this hypothetical. Make no mistake about it, Kobe is the primary reason the Lakers won't compete for another championship until he retires. EDIT: And it's not even a matter of the size of his contract. It's that he took it and forced the Lakers into luxury tax territory again, during an injury recovery season. They could've re-signed him for a max contract this year and they'd be able to compete immediately. Instead, they've got to wait another year to get anyone decent. Lakers fans cried about loyalty (even though he'd still get paid) when I bought up the point last year and look what it's got you. It's got you Carlos Boozer. Hf with that. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 20 2014 04:43 Xeris wrote: You realized they used their amnesty on Metta, right? They couldn't have used it on Kobe because it was gone by the time he got injured. I mean it should've happened after the Achilles injury. Kobe should've taken the entire season to recover, rather than rush back. He should've pulled a Rose. The chances of the Lakers being championship competitive, even if Kobe hadn't gotten re-injured, were known to be low going in. It was also known that the Lakers had to dip below the luxury tax threshhold some time in the next 2 years. They should've done it a year sooner. Instead they have to do it this year, and lost out on both a prime draft class and a prime FA class. None of this is even retrospect information. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
Also, it remains to be seen if they lost out on a prime draft class - Randle could be a z-bo type player and if that's the case, you can definitely win a championship with him on your team. Obviously the Lakers are going to be god awful this year, I'm not doubting that. And I also agree, if Kobe is healthy this year and plays remotely close to his capability, he'll single handedly keep them in the playoff race, which means they'll lose their 1st round pick to the Suns and probably get a mid 20's pick from Houston that will produce a league average player. With Randle, they're also basically taking themselves out of the Kevin Love race... why get Love when you're trying to build a new face of the franchise in Randle (if that's what they want, I guess we'll see how he does this year)...so they have to wait another year for 2016 to have a shot at KD, other superstars. And if next season doesn't go well, perhaps they won't be able to lure the free agents in. I do think they're in a shitty spot, but I'm not entirely sure that Kobe's gigantic contract is the exact reason. I don't think, for example, if Kobe signed a lesser deal, Carmelo would have come. They could have got Carmelo and Gasol at 2 years/22 million and they got neither of them. Kobe's deal really had no impact on their 'Plan A' this summer. It def. didn't work because of his salary. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The main issue isn't the size of his contract (although I think that's ridiculous too), it's the timing. NBA teams have to drop below the luxury tax threshhold once every 4 years to avoid the repeater rate (about 25% higher than normal luxury tax,) and the Lakers could've made the 13-14 season their year. It would've been perfect, because it coincided with Kobe's major injury, a highly touted upcoming draft class and a highly touted upcoming FA class. Instead, they signed the extension and now that Kobe is healthy, they're going to use this 14-15 season to drop under the luxury tax threshhold. It's a complete waste of a season. The Lakers could've had a better lottery position and flexibility to go nuts with contracts this off-season (and this is a damn good off-season to go nuts with $$$.) The only rationale at the time was that the Lakers were being loyal, but Kobe still would've been paid his entire contract if he was amnestied. And I think it absolutely affected the Lakers' free agent attractiveness, because everyone knew they could only add 1 major piece and that was it. Instead of being in rebuilding mode, they're in stay-afloat mode. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16118 Posts
Everything Mitch is doing is pointing to a major FA push in 2016 with a development period for our younger guys this year. He's playing a long game and it could be he knows what he's doing better than you do Jibba. We'll have to just wait and see. If 2016 rolls around and kobe signs for a ridiculously low extension, that leaves us with A TON of cap space since no one we signed is for a deal longer than 2 years except for Nick Young. In the meantime I'm eager to see what this team of ours can do. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16118 Posts
On July 20 2014 08:07 Jibba wrote: It's a soft cap, you've always got room. The 2016 Lakers will be a completely different team, and everything would be off the books anyways because everyone is signing 2 year contracts in anticipation of the TV deal. The Lakers don't care nearly as much in that new TV deal as the rest of the teams in the league do I can guarantee you that. They already have their own massive contract with Time Warner going and that's not going anywhere anytime soon. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On July 20 2014 09:49 Ace wrote: Lakers are actually in a good spot Jibba. If we all look at the real story that losing Dwight means they were no longer competing for a chip. Kobe got his well deserved money, LA just like last year did not over commit to any garbage contracts, and are keeping their books clean till 2016. Short term they'll struggle and look like trash but this is somewhat analogous to the early 90s Lakers after Magic left. Within 6-7 years they were very close to competing again. I'd rather have the Lakers "cap" problems than the Brooklyn shitfest. Better GM than Billy King should not be the measure of a good GM. | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
a lot of these tier 2 players dont want 2 or 3 years from what i've seen, they want length and money. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 20 2014 08:15 Vindicare605 wrote: It's irrelevant because we're talking what FA are doing. Whether they're on the Lakers or not, players right now want to sign 2 years so even if the Lakers were competing today, they'd still be able to compete in 16.The Lakers don't care nearly as much in that new TV deal as the rest of the teams in the league do I can guarantee you that. They already have their own massive contract with Time Warner going and that's not going anywhere anytime soon. You're throwing out excuses for wasting a season a year later than you needed to. Last year's suckage could've been put to far better use. The Lakers could've recharged in 1 year flat. That's what I'm saying - this year we could be talking about the Lakers being back. And all of this makes no impact on the money Kobe makes. Kobe would actually make slightly more under my scenario. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On July 20 2014 11:31 rabidch wrote: bledsoe is still off the table because he wants max with suns. i dont think lance wouldve signed any great contract with the lakers, and monroe is still up in the air. a lot of these tier 2 players dont want 2 or 3 years from what i've seen, they want length and money. A whole bunch did though. Deng for 2 years, Stephenson for 3, Parsons for 3, etc. Not all players wanted the length but plenty did and afaik the Lakers didn't really try to go after any of them. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On July 20 2014 13:06 DystopiaX wrote: A whole bunch did though. Deng for 2 years, Stephenson for 3, Parsons for 3, etc. Not all players wanted the length but plenty did and afaik the Lakers didn't really try to go after any of them. True, but they were all playoff teams. The Hornets might bot be as attractive as the rest but the lakers didn't even make the playoffs last year | ||
| ||
