Lmao. You guys want assets? Yeah, and then you draft the Lonzo Freaking Balls of the World. Weeeeeee. Offering 3 year deals to WB. Clamoring if Okafor can transcend the game with his post game. F all that. You have a chance to win now you do it. By the way, any responsible decent GM can make sure we win now.amd have assets for the future if you now WTF you're doing. GTFO.
What's your trade to win this year? Also, any responsible GM puts the team in a position to win SUSTAINABLY. That means in the short, mid and long term. It's in every management book for dummies, can be a good read So? Have you followed NBA the past 10 years? Do you know LeBron? Have you followed his legacy? For the love of god
Right now, I'm on this Hayward, Washington, Rozier, transaction, which probably wouldn't include any draft picks going out, and I am more than open to taking back long term salary for draft compensation.
Why would the Hornets trade all their trade assets for no picks? What would be your plan with that if you were Hornets GM? Yes, they may want to tank. But they are not a sexy FA destination, so what good would that cap relief do exactly? They would just need to overpay someone next FA just to hit the minimum cap because LaMelo is still in the rookie deal. Rozier and even Hayward contracts are no problem for them. Long term contracts are not a problem for all teams. They are bad if you are over the cap (not the case) or if you want an expiring to go after someone in FA (not the case again). If they had max Miles and wanted to max LaMelo next, it could make some sense, but as of now it's just nonsense. Then, when you go to tank, you use your good players to get either picks or young guys. We are offering none in your offer. Finally, you know LA situation so why would you do that deal to bring us off the hook? You get nothing valuable, lose future trade assets and help a desperate team, doesn't seem much smart. Sure, as a Laker fan I would be fully onboard with that move. But the world doesn't revolve around the Lakers unfortunately
You wrote all that just to end with "as a Lakers fan, I'd be fully on board with it." Well, stop writing dissertations, learn what Michael Jordan is cheap, Hayward probably has negative value due to injury history and 1 more year $30 more million he has to pay him for, right? If you want just include Rozier in the deal; forget Washington; and instead of being a team that is teetering around .500, just tank and go after the best prospect the world has know in the history of the NBA. Weeeeee
Exactly. We still have the ability to acquire picks and prospects especially if we decide to blow the whole thing up and not move forward with AD. Front office seemed to trying to do that with guys like Reddish and a pick from Utah. That was the right thinking in my opinion. Get guys who can compete now along with young players / picks to mitigate losing any picks we send out.
I think this was a real possibility before Bridges. We will see what happens now. fans here were open to shedding Haywards contract when the plan was to resign Bridges. I still think Mitch will negotiate in good faith but the path to a deal got more complicated
Yes. I'm a Lakers fan, but I try not to be stupid. It doesn't matter if he is cheap. Teams still need to spend 90% of the cap. And they can tank without making a bad trade with us. If you want to live in a different world than reality, go for it
Yes, they have a salary floor. Duh. The trade works for all parties. And Mitch is a fair man. Do you know how he operates? He'll listen. I have a strange feeling you don't even watch the games.
I'm convinced half this forum doesn't even watch the games. And the majority don't watch other NBA games.
You still haven't explained how it works for them. I don't know what "watching games" matter in this case. In any case, I follow NBA every day, watch all Lakers games + any good games every day or so. I'm sure I would kick your a** in any NBA or Lakers trivia
I already explained it. Look at the games played for Hayward and what he makes next year. Does Jordan want to pay for Hayward another years or get off his contract when WB can offer an expiriing deal? With respect to Rozier, he's a long term deal. He has to be involved to make salaries match and they off a long-term deal and could possibly retool around LaMelo. While they are not a sexy FA destination, Mitch does work well with other GM's and could trade for pieces that are younger and more durable than Hayward and gives him more flexibility long-term salary wise since they can move off the Rozier deal. Trivia? You probably could beat me. But the fact that you don't know how to utilize a non-shooter in a 5-man unit makes me question your basketball intellect. Sure, you may watch it. Doesn't mean you know what your watching besides the boxscore. At the very least, I'm happy you didn't want to offer WB a 3-year deal.
You keep harping on the Lonzo draft like he was some scrub. Injuries are what has hurt his career greatly. You had a crystal ball on that too, if you're claiming you thought (at least .... erroneously) he was going to be a scrub? Now drafting him over Tatum certainly was a royal f*** up. And how does "you" above make any sense at all in the context of whatever you're on a tangent about? No one here drafted him. B**** at Magic. By the way on Okafor which you keep crowing about knowing he wouldn't be good, I'd honestly like to know why you "knew" that. Was it because he couldn't run the floor and you knew centers have to shoot the 3 now? Bynum couldn't and he would be useful still now in his prime. A lot of us thought Okafor would be good and we certainly needed a center at the time.
So Lonzo is a scrub if he's healthy? And I asked honestly about Okafor because I'd like to know what you saw at that period of time.
