D'Angelo Russell Discussion: Adopting A Professional Attitude

Mostly the first season. If I remember correctly he was insanely subpar compared to the season beforehand.

 

I call it the George McCloud curse. And vladrsd had one good shooting season before he hurt his hand.

 

Ah yes. That escaped my mind. He just had to shred pow.

 

Was it actually boarding? Or did he just slip on ice getting to the lift or in the vicinity? I seem to kind of remember that but not sure.

LOL, nope that was his cover story at first.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-mar-02-sp-lakers2-story.html

 

Some reports are saying he can veto trades? Is that accurate?

 

yeah, i saw that, too. i know if a guy signs two consecutive vet mins with a team, he gets a trade veto. maybe if you sign a deal with bird rights that only has one guaranteed year the same clause is triggered? that would be an odd thing for us to do, though. i'd almost rather just guarantee the second year. it might lower the trade flexibility, but nowhere near as much as a veto can.

 

Well Hood and Vincent can run the point when D Lo takes games off because of soreness.

 

*Reaves

 

*hood*

 

LOL. Yeah... Let's put a rookie to run PG instead of an actual PG in Reaves. SMDH.

#notapg indeed

 

Listening to Irwin's pod, apparently we offered 2 for $40m with the second year being a TO. The agreed counter was for a little less and the second year being a PO.

According to Irwin, yes.

 

interesting. i get why he'd take a little less to get that control.

 

but he also makes himself a trade object by doing that. I doubt we risk him walking for nothing in the offseason, so I guess he better start off well next year, or he may be a trade chip.

 

Can’t he decline a trade destination or more than one and still walk though?

On the good side he has to hopefully up his game with his weaknesses both for his own wanting to get paid more again at some point and to our benefit.

 

Other way around. Player option makes him much LESS of a trade chip

Other teams would find a team option valuable in a trade. They’d be able to evaluate whether DLo is a good fit for them, but if not they could cut ties after the season with no penalty.

With the player option instead, they’d be risking that trading for DLo would just be a rental. He could just chose to leave after the season, so why bother giving up significant assets? But I guess maybe that’s a moot point, because the PO allows him to veto trades apparently?

If we really had the choice to give him a few extra million to get the team option instead of the player option, I wish we would have done so. If I were DLo though, I wouldn’t have really been interested in that team option structure anyways.

 

sounds like we tried. i'm good with it. for the player option to matter to him, he has to play well. he lost himself about 7 per on the starting salary, and two full years by disappearing against denver. he does it again, he needs to learn mandarin. he comes up big, we still have his bird rights. both his and reaves are better than i could have possibly expected heading into FA, and rui's deal is about right on what i thought made sense.

 

I think the veto clause in this contract is exactly that. So it's not a literal veto trade, but a virtual one because of that PO

It's not ideal but I won't sweat it. It's likely if he eventually gets on a trade it's for a team rebuilding guaranteeing playing time to boost his value without pressure. It can also be a team who doesn't care if he opts out because only wants his expiring.

I'm happy he stayed and think he's more likely to get traded next year

 

next year he may be asking us to help him with a sign and trade.

 

The Tin Man just needs to find some heart. Dancing and prancing, during the regular season is irrelevant. Rob's MO has been to punish guys, that don't show up in the playoffs. D'Angelo is lucky he's getting another crack at it IMO.