The Rock wrote: 2013/2014 we are not contending a championship.
Lakerjones wrote:JGC wrote:Lakerjones wrote:JGC wrote:I love people bag on the FO for signing too many old players and then they want to give a multi-year deal to Danny Granger of all players. HUH?
I know you're not talking about me because I never said we would be giving him a multi-year deal (unless he proves he is worth it), nor have I bagged on the FO for signing so called "old players." But I'll still respond. So as you corrected me in the other thread, Granger is 30 as of last month instead of 29. Is that supposed to be old? I said he was a young-ish player and to me he is. 30 for a small forward is pretty much right in the middle of a players' prime. Lebron James is only a year and a half younger than Granger. Do you consider him old? Or is 28 and a half so much younger than 30? I just think you're splitting hairs here.
The question mark for Granger is not his age, but his knee. If you're worried about his knee, join the club. So am I. I have no idea where he's at. But I like the idea that he's an EXPIRING contract, not a multi-year deal. He doesn't get in the way of the 2014 plan in any way. If he's healthy, and I concede that's a big if, he's just the kind of player I'd like to have on this team. He's a two way SF (our most glaring need) and he can shoot the three. Trade Pau for him and you have a better fit for the team and a young-ish player who might possibly be a good match with Howard going forward. Then you have this year to see how good he's going to be. If he is good you can negotiate with him.
To me it's all upside. I don't see what we lose by it. Obviously there's more luxury tax money to be saved by amnestying Pau than MWP, but in terms of fielding a better basketball team I'd rather take the chance on Granger than just let Pau go.
Wasn't directed at you specifically ... just, to all those on the Granger bus.
Well, if 30 isn't old and saying 28 = 30 then our team isn't old and we don't need to get any younger. I mean, if 28 and 30 are the same then so is 30 and 32. Which means, 30 and 34 are the same so Kobe is the same as 28. Which means, Steve Nash is the same as Kyrie Irving too. Unless, we're splitting hairs here.
We're having the same discussion in two different threads =)
The point is... what is the point of trading away Pau for Granger?
- Granger couldn't play at all this season because of injury
- Granger doesn't make you a contender.
- What do you do if Granger, in an expiring contract coming off an injury, trying to play for a final BIG contract, puts up big, big numbers? Then what?
- Granger is a nice player, but if you give any SF over 15 shots, plus 5-6 FTs per game, they could probably score in the high teens, with 2 assists and 5 boards per game.
Yeah, I figured you weren't aiming at me specifically, that's why I prefaced mine the way I did, JGC.
RE: the age thing - I know what you are saying - the point being that Granger isn't getting any younger or any better. And I do agree with that. As a player he's not on an upswing. My point though, was that he just turned 30. Lebron is not two years younger than him, it's a year and a half difference. He's 28 and a half if we are going to split hairs. My point is that age-wise they're both still in their primes. Generally speaking most pundits, and I'd agree with them, tend to think of pro ball players being in their prime from age 28-32. That's when their maturity, skills and court smarts usually catch up with their athleticism. That's the age when most guys hit their stride. So I don't think of Granger as old, or older. The main concern for me is not age, but that knee. That's my question mark.
As far as why I would trade Pau for Granger I think I've already spelled it out now pretty clearly in a few posts in each thread.
therealdeal wrote:The Rock wrote:You guys are not taking into consideration the repeater tax. We absolutely have to do our best to get under the tax line. 2013/2014 we are not contending a championship. 2014 use draft pick (yes even a late 20s pick can yield a rotation player) + capspace to build a title contender. If a team has been a taxpayer in 3 consecutive season prior to 2014 it screws up everything for that year with even heavier penalties kicking in
We'll be under the tax line in 2014 when everyone comes off the books. I'm not forgetting anything. The team has repeatedly said they'll pay the money if they feel like they're fielding a competitive team. A team of Nash/Bryant/Granger/Howard is certainly competitive if they stay healthy. The key is putting usable pieces around them to help out.
C0TT0NCANDY wrote:kray28 wrote:Ron's bro, Daniel, basically said that the opt-out will not happen. He'd be dumb as hell to do it.
So MWP is not opting out.
Since when did his brother read Ron's mind on future decisions? anything can happen.... especially with Peace.
The Rock wrote:You guys are not taking into consideration the repeater tax. We absolutely have to do our best to get under the tax line. 2013/2014 we are not contending a championship so why make lateral moves (aka trade Pau for Granger - another big contract guy) . 2014 use draft pick (yes even a late 20s pick can yield a rotation player) + capspace to build a title contender. If a team has been a taxpayer in 3 consecutive season prior to 2014 it screws up everything for that year with even heavier penalties kicking in
kray28 wrote:His brother is a Spurs fan from what I know.
Weezy wrote:The Rock wrote:You guys are not taking into consideration the repeater tax. We absolutely have to do our best to get under the tax line. 2013/2014 we are not contending a championship so why make lateral moves (aka trade Pau for Granger - another big contract guy) . 2014 use draft pick (yes even a late 20s pick can yield a rotation player) + capspace to build a title contender. If a team has been a taxpayer in 3 consecutive season prior to 2014 it screws up everything for that year with even heavier penalties kicking in
I am taking it into account, 2014 is when we get under the cap. THIS upcoming season is when we take one last shot with a still expensive roster. I just want it to be with Howard, Kobe, Nash (unfortunately, can't see trading him) and someone other than Pau, because not changing at least some of the core is a recipe for the same thing that happened this season.
C0TT0NCANDY wrote:After thinking about it, Heisler has been fired from the LAT for 2 years now, and writes blogs at Lakersnation which is ran by a bunch of teenagers and also he writes for the crappy NY Times... so how can you really trust his sources if he even has any? I think he's a tool.
edit: did anyone see his new article at Lakersnation? no wonder he got fired from LAT... he sounds like a broken record.
KareemTheGreat33 wrote:Gasol will be expiring as a Laker...it's better than swallowing longer contracts in his stead, we pay the 80 million tax, TW will foot the bill. we set forth another mediocre product for the 4th consecutive season.
Savory Griddles wrote:I posted in another thread, why not Pau for OJ Mayo? Is it adequate compensation? Of course not. But if Dallas strikes out on the big FA's this summer, Pau and Dirk would be a nice tandem to roll into next season with and it doesn't effect Dallas' long term cap situation. They have the cap space to absorb the 15 million dollar difference. OJ, while not an all-star, at least fills a need and saves us A TON of money. Both guys expire next year.
davriver290 wrote:I've asked this in another thread, but no one answered it. If we just resign Dwight, and Keep Gasol and Kobe... Can't we take one year of these extra fines and penalties? After this upcoming season is over, isn't Kobe's and Gasol's deals expired? Then we can possibly sign them for a lot less the next season? Cause that's a lot of money off the books right?
Pau Gasol: After talking to several specialists, I'm going to proceed to regenerate both of my patellar tendons and working hard to get back to my 100%
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests