71 replies to this topic

[Randy]

drzachary, on 09 December 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

I'm still really, really enjoying this. My absolute favorite outcome would be for the deal to stay dead, Gasol and Odom to start publicly demanding a trade (and phoning in their seasons until they get what they want), the Lakers to send them away for pennies on the dollar, the new Lakers coach to get fired and for Woodson to replace him.

I'm with you on this, though I don't really care about whether Woody gets hired.  If I were the owner (the NBA) I would say this deal sucks.  The league takes on oodles of salary and gives up tons of salary cap money from the Lakers, as Dan Gilbert's letter explained.  Why would they do that just to help the Lakers and pick up a few guys who are getting old.  In this deal the lose CP and pick up lots of costs.  This is probably more costly than just getting nothing for him at the end of the season. (Or sending him somewhere else.)

[AHF]

Randy, on 09 December 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

I'm with you on this, though I don't really care about whether Woody gets hired.  If I were the owner (the NBA) I would say this deal sucks.  The league takes on oodles of salary and gives up tons of salary cap money from the Lakers, as Dan Gilbert's letter explained.  Why would they do that just to help the Lakers and pick up a few guys who are getting old.  In this deal the lose CP and pick up lots of costs.  This is probably more costly than just getting nothing for him at the end of the season. (Or sending him somewhere else.)

They are playoff contenders if they make the trade with a lineup of Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Emeka Okafor and they have about 12M in expiring contracts that are good trade pieces each of the next two seasons.  I think that compares very favorably to losing him for nothing at the end of the year.  Remember that they still need to add salary to hit the salary floor this year so it isn't like it is a total waste to add salary - at least these are all productive players.

The bigger picture issue is that the league gave NO management the responsibility to run the team without interference from the league, let them make moves and add salary over Mark Cuban's objections, and then stomped out this trade which NO management viewed as the maximum return for the team after hearing offers from Boston, Atlanta, Golden State, etc.

Edited by AHF, 09 December 2011 - 12:35 PM.

[drzachary]

AHF, on 09 December 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

The bigger picture issue is that the league gave NO management the responsibility to run the team without interference from the league, let them make moves and add salary over Mark Cuban's objections, and then stomped out this trade which NO management viewed as the maximum return for the team after hearing offers from Boston, Atlanta, Golden State, etc.

Yeah, this is the real problem, but for me it's an added benefit.  I love seeing ownership squabbles that aren't our own. Schadenfreude for sure.  Cry, Lakers "fans," cry like Odom.

[Hotlanta1981]

So, The Lakers get Chris Paul and the Hawks get a washed up Tmac and Earl Watson?



I can tip my cap to the Lake Show because they actually like to try and win championships. It would be nice if the Hawks ever have those same goals.

[drzachary]

Someone smarter than me (that's most of you) tell me -- what's the max that a FA can make on the open market (assuming a team with all the money to spend they want, under the cap) and the max that the FA could make resigning with his existing team?

[frosgrim]

drzachary, on 09 December 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

Yeah, this is the real problem, but for me it's an added benefit.  I love seeing ownership squabbles that aren't our own. .

I wouldn't be so sure that our owners weren't a BIG part of this. The one thing the ASG excels at is creating disputes (and lawsuits).

[drzachary]

GO ASG!

[AHF]

drzachary, on 09 December 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

Someone smarter than me (that's most of you) tell me -- what's the max that a FA can make on the open market (assuming a team with all the money to spend they want, under the cap) and the max that the FA could make resigning with his existing team?

The rough numbers are somewhere around 20-30M that Paul would lose (although recognize that a big part of that is the fact that the deal would be one year shorter which is actually relevant for someone with knee problems).

frosgrim, on 09 December 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

I wouldn't be so sure that our owners weren't a BIG part of this. The one thing the ASG excels at is creating disputes (and lawsuits).

You have to play to your strengths.

[drzachary]

AHF, on 09 December 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

The rough numbers are somewhere around 20-30M that Paul would lose (although recognize that a big part of that is the fact that the deal would be one year shorter which is actually relevant for someone with knee problems).



You have to play to your strengths.

Yeah, I saw in an article elsewhere that it would be 4yr/$74M vs 5yr/$100M.  And of course, teams over the cap couldn't offer that much.  Love it!

[Watchman]

I'm impressed with Dell Demps.  Maybe we could orchestrate a Sund for Demps trade???

[AHF]

http://espn.go.com/l...hris-paul-trade

Paul to LAC

Eric Gordon, Minnesota unprotected #1, Kaman and Aminu to NO.

LAC deal >> LAL/Hou deal for the Hornets.

[drzachary]

Yah, much better than the LAL deal.