Rob Pelinka Discussion: BBall Ops Pres + GM (AKA: Lucky Rob)

feel like you have to put a lot of stock in whatever stat they're using AND its theoretical conversion rate to salary to put much stock in this stuff. like, kon knueppel is worth 50m by their count, while reaves is worth 33. ok bro.


edit: and as far as the FA rewind stuff goes, i think we paid more to get our targets locked up. like, was sexton going to go for the tpmle had we not signed him? maybe. but not with us. mamu at room? again, maybe but not with us. when you're trying to compete and using cap space, you can't just hold your money and wait. sometimes there's nothing left. and if you're the nets or the tanking era thunder, ok, you just eat salaries for picks, but not if you're the lakers.

 

Your case proves the opposite point. Buyers pay premiums all the time to buy a house based on ROI projections. You’re not paying what it’s worth in 10 years, but may up the offer based on what you believe the future returns will be.

The 2nd part about a dilapidated old house isn’t really relevant. Our free agents are turnkey, not fixer uppers. If they continue to be who they’ve been, the AAV is right around market value. Might need a new analogy.

 

You made my point for me. "May up the offer based on expected returns" is not the same as paying the full projected value or close to it, which is what I asked. The gap between those two is the entire argument.

And you can't have turnkey both ways. If they're finished products rather than fixer-uppers, then what they produce now is the right pricing basis, which is exactly what the model that was posted on the previous page is saying. If they're improvement projects, then you demand a substantial discount for the risk that they never improve.

Which was what we didn't really do here. Rob paid starter salary money to guys who were never more than backups in their teams, which like I said may work out, but doesn't seem like a very good decision today, particularly when the contracts are long, and have player options, so the biggest chunk of the risk is on the Lakers, not on the players.

 

false. sub mle contracts are bench player contracts. the only guys getting paid starter money on the lakers are luka, reaves, and kessler.

we're only projecting grimes as a starter, and in previous spot starting roles, he's performed well. if he's a credible starter, we're underpaying him by about 10m per. huge value.

 

You’re making assumptions that are rooted in fiction. These contracts are at market value. This gap you speak of doesn’t exist. We’re not paying a full projected value that they haven’t already met. The only argument for a premium paid is the PO, not the AAV.

And you’re twisting the turnkey concept. The product may be ready to go, but the bigger discussion here is on the subject of value and there are other factors playing into that such as location ( neighborhood vs. the team situation). The product itself doesn’t have to change in order for the value to change.

Again, poor choice for analogy.

 

What about Bob?

 

was saying in the other thread you better hope he's safe.

 

You wrote "the only argument for a premium paid is the PO, not the AAV." That is you conceding the argument. Options are compensation. Teams trade dollars for options constantly because options cost money. So we agree a premium was paid, we are just disagreeing about which line it sits on. Mine is the line where the player captures the upside and we absorb the downside.

On market value: repeating it isn't evidence. Name the other team that offered 4/$60 for Grimes and 4/$52 for Mamu, or for a similar career arc player. If there wasn't one, we didn't meet the market, we were the market, and "market value" just means "the number we picked."

And actually when we see the money more established guys like Tari Eason went, or guys at roughly the same level as Mamu like Dean Wade, the other transactions disagree with what you just said, so essentially you're just making stuff up to suit your argument.

And you and abeer3 are running opposite defenses. You say we're not paying for anything they haven't already met. He says, one post up, that we're projecting Grimes as a starter and that IF he's credible we're underpaying by 10m. That "if" is the gap you say doesn't exist. He named it while defending the deal.

 

Forget the analogy. One question nobody's answered.

$13m a year for a backup big. No starting four. Every defense so far argues the first number was fair and skips the second entirely.

Fair value and right allocation aren't the same question. Assuming that you're right and that every contract was market price. A GM still should be graded on whether the money went to the biggest hole. SmoothOperator already showed the alternative: Grimes at 4/$36, bi-annual to Mamu instead of Sexton, and there's room for a Collins, Eason or Rui.

Long years plus POs means it will be difficult to undo it. We couldn't move Vando in over a year with him out of the rotation, and there's barely any draft capital left to sweeten anything.

so it this just me picking on Rob, or do those A/B grades need to be revised after injecting some rationality and common sense?