Laker Summer FAQ (Read 1st post on pg. 1, then ask Qs, thx)

LUUUKE wrote:

Giorgio Moroder wrote:

Sky wrote:I don't see it no. They have Josh, Marvin and Shelden at forward so Odom doesn't really help them. They'd love to have Bynum but LA isn't doing that.

When they fail to get KG or JO they will get desperate and Joe Johnson might be in play.

so what possible trade can happen for us to get JJ?

cause i dont see it happening

If the Hawks don't get Oden. LO and Bynum for JJ, Shelden Williams and filler(Lue)

I forgot ..the other option..A.daniels and haywood..and we would be able to keep Bynum and Odom and brown cuz they wouldn't want him back..

If we got AD and haywood in a traded and still had our MLE to sign players..that would be great

Hey does anyone know how to get tickets for the
Vegas Summer League: July 6-15 @ UNLV??

I plan on attending this event and I'm not exactly sure where to purchase tickets at.

Stupid question that anyone can answer:

Isn't it possible that the Lakers FO promised Bynum and his family that they won't trade him early in his career considering that he is/was pretty immature, young and didn't get much teaching in basketball at that time?

It almost seems to me that it may be the only reason why they are so bent on keeping him.

But then the question is why did they promise him that? What good does it do the Lakers to constantly turn down trade to make the team better? Why, cuz they want to keep their word/honor? Over business and $$$??

Questionmark wrote:Stupid question that anyone can answer:

Isn't it possible that the Lakers FO promised Bynum and his family that they won't trade him early in his career considering that he is/was pretty immature, young and didn't get much teaching in basketball at that time?

It almost seems to me that it may be the only reason why they are so bent on keeping him.

No. The NBA is a buisness. This is not College Basketball. The Lakers didn't recruit Bynum and have in home visits. The reason they are so bent on keeping him is because Jim Buss has a very large ego.

Sky wrote:Jonez - I think the odds favor Kobe and Phil sticking around. Doesn't necessarily mean LA will succeed in making the right deal, more about I don't see Kobe forcing his way out for another year even if LA fails to deliver on adding impact help.

JO is the best hope IF the Lakers are willing to give Bynum. Anyone's guess on that one.

So, an LO/JO pairing is the most likely. Cool, that'll help team chemistry immediately... both guys will have a rehab partner.

Sky, thanks for the excellent effort in the write-up.

One thing I don't get... you mentioned that LA is much too risk averse to plan for freeing cap and going the FA route to land someone large. I don't get this... wasn't the original swing for the fences plan to go the cap space route?

Everything about their trade options -- not to mention everyone and their mother knows 'em -- leads me to believe they'll achieve putting together another '90s Lakers squad... they'll do well, show well, and, well... go home in time to catch finals on the tube. I can't see how cap/FA, where even a moron can either grab or pass and carry it over, is more risky than the ideal that: a. our braintrust -- the same braintrust that scrapped the cap plan to sign Kwame to an additional year and pay Snowboard a contract that everyone in the league deems "do not touch" -- will be able to pull off all the necessary trades without completely hosing the franchise in the process; and b. the same braintrust won't be quickly checkmated by Phoenix given their flexibility and the probable 4th.

Seems like they're swinging for the fences, they just ain't got no bat.

davi921 - Go here.
http://www.vegassummerleague.com/

? - That's not really done in the league. It's more a case of LA believing in what Bynum can become.

Flexx - Trading Bynum was never a strong possibility regardless. Kwame and Cook are not landing Charlie Bell. Mags is in Portland now. Francis can't be signed with MLE unless NY buys him out.

Schizophrenic - Chances are a JO deal will happen relatively early in the summer as that allows Indy and O'Neal's new team to make other moves in free agency. If LA is unwilling to deal Bynum then JO is probably not an issue for the Lakers anyway. Doubt Denver deals Camby here, we're a direct competitor in playoff seeding.

Joe - imo the past plans to clear cap room are part of the reason why they won't do it now. What happened to those plans? Got scrapped when the targeted players re-signed.

I think this is why LA won't clear cap room, here's the scenario. JO is traded to New York. KG signs an extension. Brand signs an extension. Now here are the Lakers with the most notorious gunner matador in the league in Antawn Jamison, and cap room that does them absolutely nothing. JO, KG and Brand are easily tied up, then what? That's why they don't go the cap room route.

A cap room plan for summer 2009 makes sense. Summer 2008 does not. If they want to get Kobe help they're going to have to do it the hard way: intelligent give to get trades, smart drafting, effective use of the MLE. There are no shortcuts.

Sky, do you think that Jim Buss makes a Bynum, Kwame for JO a no go?

Sky wrote:Joe - imo the past plans to clear cap room are part of the reason why they won't do it now. What happened to those plans? Got scrapped when the targeted players re-signed.

I think this is why LA won't clear cap room, here's the scenario. JO is traded to New York. KG signs an extension. Brand signs an extension. Now here are the Lakers with the most notorious gunner matador in the league in Antawn Jamison, and cap room that does them absolutely nothing. JO, KG and Brand are easily tied up, then what? That's why they don't go the cap room route.

A cap room plan for summer 2009 makes sense. Summer 2008 does not. If they want to get Kobe help they're going to have to do it the hard way: intelligent give to get trades, smart drafting, effective use of the MLE. There are no shortcuts.

I'll play devil's advocate. With a cap plan for '08, you at least have flexibility. There's nothing that says you have to use it all in '08. You can use it all, use a portion and carry over the rest, or stand pat and carry it over to '09. Plus, as you noted, many things have to go wrong for the cap plan to fail (which would only force carrying over to '09 rather than completely destroying your chances), while many things must go right for the trade option to succeed. Given the option, I go with the former.

While we're talking risk, assuming JO is the guy (and that's my assumption... I think KG is still pipe, and Gasol isn't the right fit), isn't building your team around a big 3, two of which are extremely injury prone, a huuuuuuuge risk? What's the fallback plan there? That doesn't even take into consideration the possibility of being forced to take back Tinsley (which you just know will happen... it's Mitch, right?). Now, you've got 3 of 5 starters that are extremely injury prone, one of which you didn't really want but were forced to accept to get the guy you really wanted... well, not really, but he was the best available. Just doesn't seem like a solid foundation to me. Seems mucho risky, IMO.

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we had stuck to that original cap plan, we'd be a player in this year's FA, no? So, it's not really the original cap plan that makes 'em scared of a new cap plan, it's the fact that they couldn't follow a plan which scares 'em. Makes sense.

Yeah dealing Bynum becomes less possible as Jimmy gains more power. But it can also be that Bynum and Kwame just doesn't win the day against other offers.

Joe - JO to LA is unlikely to happen. But JO getting traded to somebody this summer is very likely to happen. One target gone. Garnett doesn't have the pair to demand out and certainly won't opt out when it can mean a loss of 50 million or more. Two targets gone. Brand can opt out, but then he loses significant money as well. And the Clips certainly aren't going to deal with us. Target number three gone.

So if JO is dealt, KG stays and Brnad stays, what's the value of 2008 cap room? That's why they don't follow that plan.

Instead they target cap room for summer 2009, when Odom's contract expires and then they have the flexibility.

Sky wrote:Joe - JO to LA is unlikely to happen. But JO getting traded to somebody this summer is very likely to happen. One target gone. Garnett doesn't have the pair to demand out and certainly won't opt out when it can mean a loss of 50 million or more. Two targets gone. Brand can opt out, but then he loses significant money as well. And the Clips certainly aren't going to deal with us. Target number three gone.

So if JO is dealt, KG stays and Brnad stays, what's the value of 2008 cap room? That's why they don't follow that plan.

Instead they target cap room for summer 2009, when Odom's contract expires and then they have the flexibility.

loss of 50 mil?

his salary in 08-09 is 24 mil..where is the other 26 coming from?

Sky wrote:Joe - JO to LA is unlikely to happen. But JO getting traded to somebody this summer is very likely to happen. One target gone. Garnett doesn't have the pair to demand out and certainly won't opt out when it can mean a loss of 50 million or more. Two targets gone. Brand can opt out, but then he loses significant money as well. And the Clips certainly aren't going to deal with us. Target number three gone.

So if JO is dealt, KG stays and Brnad stays, what's the value of 2008 cap room? That's why they don't follow that plan.

Instead they target cap room for summer 2009, when Odom's contract expires and then they have the flexibility.

Brand - Why wouldn't he opt out? Look at his team... they're in worse shape than the Lakers. If he could play along side Kobe and make just as much if not more (thinking the marketing perks might be "fair"), why wouldn't he? Would you? I know I damn well would.

KG - I can't believe he wouldn't opt out. I'm sorry, I just can't buy that he'd sign an extension trusting the Wolves assertion that they'll build around him. Haven't they been "building" around him for some time now? KG may be a nice guy, but he's gone from MVP to borderline obscurity. Sorry, I just can't buy that a guy who was hungry enough to win -- so hungry that he took a pay cut -- has suddenly lost that hunger and is all about the money. I don't buy it.

If I'm gambling -- and it's all a gamble -- I gamble that one or the other is available. Even if they aren't, the Lakers have enough flexibility to go after role players in '08 (should both fall through), then look for the homerun in '09.

Since Bynum seemingly HAS to be in a deal for JO.

Do you think Indy would be willing to ship Shawne Williams to us?

I think it's only fair. Since we're giving up a "potential star". Williams is young, has potential to be a better perimeter defender and has nice shooting range for a rook. he probably got more minutes than Bynum this season so more experience under his belt.

he'd be nice off the bench, assuming he works on his game over the summer. And if he does come off the bench for us we could use the MLE toward something other than an SF

thanks for htis

LUUUKE wrote:

Sky wrote:Joe - JO to LA is unlikely to happen. But JO getting traded to somebody this summer is very likely to happen. One target gone. Garnett doesn't have the pair to demand out and certainly won't opt out when it can mean a loss of 50 million or more. Two targets gone. Brand can opt out, but then he loses significant money as well. And the Clips certainly aren't going to deal with us. Target number three gone.

So if JO is dealt, KG stays and Brnad stays, what's the value of 2008 cap room? That's why they don't follow that plan.

Instead they target cap room for summer 2009, when Odom's contract expires and then they have the flexibility.

loss of 50 mil?

his salary in 08-09 is 24 mil..where is the other 26 coming from?

From opting out of his deal to sign with the Lakers. If he went to the Lakers for the MLE, I think he loses more, like $100M. But if he opts out and signs with a team with cap room, its about $50M. Those are just rough estimates.

But basically its like this:
KG opts out, so he won't get paid $26M in 08, instead signs with the Lakers MLE at $6M. So thats a $20M loss in 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, so thats $100M total loss over the 5 years he signs with LA. Not to mention if he signs his extension with Minny, he'll get $26M a year STARTING, and probably ends around $30M year. So over the life of the deals, you're talking $100M loss.

If he opts out and say signs with Charlotte or whatever, he can only sign a 5yr deal (not 6 with current team) and at lower annual increments. I believe resigning with your team gets you a 12.5% annual raise vs 10% if you leave your current team. So in that scenario, over the life of the deal, it should be about $50M.

So again, KG already gave up the cash to help Minny contend, and for him to go to LA, will cost him around $100M. Can he make some up in endorsements? Maybe- its not like he has no endorsements now. The increase of endorsements for him if he came to LA won't be that significant since he already is a superstar and he gets superstar deals now, even living in Minny- mostly because he lives in LA during the offseason

Sky, as always very thorough and realistic analysis...

I really think at this point even JO is pipe. I am wondering though, you said that landing Shard out of Seattle would require a S&T for a high level guard but I am thinking they might just address that in the draft by getting Conley Jr. (depending of course on where they land in the lottery).

I am wondering if this would be enough to entice them to part with Shard:

Bynum, re-signed Walton, and #19 for Shard and filler (Petro for instance).

Before you laugh at that think about it - Yes they have Swift, Petro, and Sene but neither of those players have Bynum's potential. Walton fits in with their style of play and could be the glue guy they need. They could go any way they want with their first round pick and with #19 they get another solid draft pick.

For the Lakers it's obvious why they do it, even though they've got wood for Walton I think they don't hesitate at the prospect of getting Shard. A core of Kobe/Shard/Odom speaks for itself.

Sky:

no question. No comment. No trade scenario.

....Just THANK YOU for taking the time with this thread. We're lucky to have you.

Punk-101 wrote:Sky:

no question. No comment. No trade scenario.

....Just THANK YOU for taking the time with this thread. We're lucky to have you.

What he said, with some appropriately added emoticons:



As a side note, if the Lakers don't acquire JO or someone that would provide just as much impact, I will be beyond disappointment. I know I'm setting myself up for despair, but a JO trade makes waaaaaay too much sense for both teams to not get a deal done. It HAS to get done damn it!

Joe - Why wouldn't Brand opt out? Money. The common pattern is players will threaten to opt out hoping to get dealt with their current contract intact. The contracts have a baseline and an annual raise beyond what can be done in free agency.

Would the Clippers ever deal Brand here? No way. So if Brand wants out in trade it's not here. He won't sacrfiice his contract. Therefore LA would have to clear over 15 million in cap room to match Brand's current baseline. He'd still lose money on lower annual raise percentages, but that level of fiscal sacrifice would be acceptable.

Garnett already sacrificed tens of millions below the max he could have received. Now as his career winds down he throws another 50 mil out the window? Fans don't place sufficient weight on the money in these scenarios. They just assume the players want to win and will sacrifice vaults of money. I don't think that assumption is accurate. Players want to go to a contender but with the contract intact. They want it all. Team, city, contention and money.

Luuuke - KG wouldn't just play until his current contract ends he'd keep going. So figure he plays another four years after his current contract. Extend that on top of his current deal. Compare that to MLE and it's over 100 million. Compare that to clearing 8-10M in cap room to sign KG and it's well over 50 million.

These guys aren't just going to ignore the money folks. Not when they're making 22 million a year and can keep making at least 22 million a year for the next five years.

Garnett will want to play for a contender sure. But he'll want to be traded there with his contract intact. That's the mindset for all these guys. KG, Brand, JO. Which is why clearing cap room in summer 2008 is pointless.

Thanks guys, good to know you're getting value out of it, makes it well worth it for me.

LAL25 - Lakers won't deal Bynum unless they get an impact big in return. Bynum for Shard I just don't see it.

Just - The Lakers wouldn't be picky on who comes attached with JO in a Bynum trade. As long as it's not a huge contract like Tinsley they'll take whoever Indy gives up. But again the odds are against a JO deal going down. LA might not be willing to give up Bynum, and even if they are, other teams can still outbid us. JO is a long shot at best.

I wouldnt mind getting JO/filler without giving up Odom.

A Lamar-Jermaine-Kobe Team is excellent with Luke and it being the tri we would still have our MLE to get a PG to make the starting 5 very much a contender. With those 4 sky does it improve our chances on getting a better 1, like with that team in place a more likelyhood somoene comes for less than they wouldve gotten?

Sky - yes I know Lakers FO is reluctant to give up Bynum for anything other than a big but what about the financial aspect? Could it be done (Bynum+Walton+19th)?

I really don't see JO or KG as possible/likely so then you have to take a look at what other options there are, Lewis seems like a bit more possible. Bynum being the best asset to land him, because I don't see Seattle moving him under any other deal FO can offer for him.

The more realistic direction of this thread might be "IF KG and JO are out of the picture then what?" - they are very limited if they don't want to deal Odom or Bynum.

By the way I think that Kobe throwing out accolades at Odom while going on his "do something now" speeches = Odom stays.