Comments on: Quit Kidding Yourself

By: LA Lakers Writer

LA Lakers Writer — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:57:50 +0000

Considering the players with contracts expiring (Sssha, Turiaf, and Kwame) the Lakers will sign Turiaf mock my words, because he is a energetic PF with the ability to shoot around the perimeter, and posibliy Sasha for his so-called breakout year. lakers need to get some trade value out of kwame by trading him to a team for somebody better. Teams like the Maves, and Kings can use a hard-nose defender that will provide toughness (especially the Maves.)

I enjoy reading the fantasy (never going to happen) trades involving big name players but you have to be realistic. I agree with Lakerfan81 in the sense that the Kings will probably leave the Lakers as their last options in doing a trade for Artest. For the simple fact that would you what to trade someone of that caliaber over to your next door neighbors, and face him multiple times a year, as well as making your division opponents that much better.

If only Odom could just for the love of God show some consistancy especially on the offensive side, then LO for Marion doesn’t seem like a fantasy trade, and could very well benefit both parties depending on how Marion feels he could play for LA.

Teams that we could do a trade with/need a trade pronto:

1. Miami

2. Bulls

3. Maves

*Plus a couple more teams I guess, but take your pick.

Remember: Kobe isn’t getting any younger, and his contract years are getting shorter.

By: lakerfan81

lakerfan81 — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:09:18 +0000

Im not 100% certain, but I think there are rules that prevent signing a player for a 1 yr small contract only for the purpose of having his Brid rights the following year. I think Minnesota got in trouble for that very thing and lost the rights to that player and a couple draft picks.

By: PandG

PandG — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:52:58 +0000

“This is a guy who when healthy is going to get us 15 points and 10 rebounds night-in and night-out, and clog up the painted area.

So we’re going to take away a key low-post threat and a player with a solid 15-18 foot jumper in order to bring in a point guard? ”

Have you really been watching the lakers for the last 3 years? Or, for that matter, this season? Because if you have, then we obvoiusly haven’t been watching the same player. The player you describe is a consistent threat on our front court who can score at will from a number of positions.

The Lamar I know is a guy that will put up ROLLER coaster stats on a night-in-night-out basis. He lacks focus in the triangle offense, he needs the ball to create plays, and his jumper is extremely inconsistent. The stats don’t lie. I agree that Kidd isn’t the answer, but we need to ship lamar out. I would’ve dealt odom for marion in a HEARTbeat but I don’t think the suns would’ve been dumb enough to pull the trigger. The odom experiment has been drawn out for way too long; there’s no more potential left in the bottle. He’s an average defender, but most of all, a poor second option. We need a real threat to pair alongside Kobe.

By: REDDOX

REDDOX — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:21:08 +0000

I agree about acquiring Artest but we shouldn’t give up any of our starters.

We would be the most dominating defensive team in the west with a line up of:

Farmar - quick hands and great anticipation
Bryant - great one-on-one defender and support defense
Odom - Long arms causing deflections and good rebounding
Artest - solid post defender and ranks top 5 in steals
Bynum - Great help defender and solid presence in the paint

We just have to convince the Sac-town Queens to a trade.

By: sirtoken

sirtoken — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:50:54 +0000

Thanks for the cap explanation laker81. Doesn’t look very good for lakers to get Artest as FA. But,what’s to stop a team from signing him or anyone to a MLE for one year a 5M and then renegotiate for more equitable amount thereafter? For instance, sign him for 5M and then resign to multiyear contract for 10M at the end of the first year. I guess it would only happen if Artest really wanted too come to LA and he trusted ownership to up the ante after the first year. Or is there a rule in the CBA against this ploy?

By: sep08

sep08 — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:45:46 +0000

Lakers have no shot of getting Kidd with the current Nets demands. They would have to give up bynum who they love, but due to Kidd’s huge contract the lakers would have to give up Kwame and another filler, which would mean we would have a very depleted front court, and would get a great point gurad who has 2-3 years of play left. The lakers would get dominated in the west with no big men. The salary and trade rules in the NBA make this a very improbable move for the lakers.

By: lakerfan81

lakerfan81 — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:23:05 +0000

Also its not a matter of being willing to spend. The CBA rules do not allow teams to spend money of FA if they are over the cap. If you under the cap you can spend money on FA up to the cap. So if you are 10M under the cap you can offer a player/s up to but not exceeding 10M. It does give teams an annual mid level exception to spend on FA (thats what Randmonovich makes) if they are over the cap so they can fill roster spots and so on. A team can offer a player currently on their team (or one whose contract just ended) any amount of money up whatever the limits the CBA set. So the lakers could offer Brown 20M (if they were brainwashed by him) even though they are over the salary cap.

Then there is a luxury tax. Which is set roughly 10M over the salary cap. If you team is over this amount you pay a dollar for dollar tax, which is divided and goes to any team not over the luxury tax. This is basically issuing in a hard cap in the NBA. Most teams do not want to go over this amount by very much. Because this is a business first and foremost and if you are not making money (or the most you can) it doesn’t matter if you are winning or not. Winning but not making a profit is worst than losing while making one.

By: lakerfan81

lakerfan81 — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:11:18 +0000

The cap next year will be around 57M again; maybe a little higher. Lakers salary next year will be 61.6M. Sasha is a restricted FA and has a qualifying offer of 2.6M which the Lakers do not have to make. Mihm has a player option for 2.5M, which he is likely to take because who is going to offer him more than that unless he starts to play like he did before his ankle injuries/surgeries. Also Turiaf is a FA next year and the Lakers will probably offer him a contract in the 2-3M range (maybe more but hopefully not). Even if Mihm doesn’t take his player option, and the Lakers don’t resign Turiaf and withdraw their qualifying offer for Sasha, their salary will be 56.5M which will be at or just below the salary cap. Plus they will probably sign one rookier so that will put them over the cap. So that means the only money they will have to sign FA will be the MLE.

By: 24allup inya

24allup inya — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:08:15 +0000

mp or mplakers on December 12, 2007 at 1:59 pm said:

lakerfan81

are you sure they are over next year…they are losing kwame’s 9 million, sasha’s 2 million….and they traded away cook’s 3-4 million along with evans’ 1.5 to 2 million….are you sure they are over the cap next year??? andeven if they are it won’t be by much and i’m guessing buss will be willing to spend for someone who will push this team over the top.

And if they get rid of LO it’s what another 12-15million off, what is he making???

By: mp or mplakers

mp or mplakers — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:59:57 +0000

lakerfan81

are you sure they are over next year…they are losing kwame’s 9 million, sasha’s 2 million….and they traded away cook’s 3-4 million along with evans’ 1.5 to 2 million….are you sure they are over the cap next year??? andeven if they are it won’t be by much and i’m guessing buss will be willing to spend for someone who will push this team over the top.