2019/20 Players' Transactions: Breaking News , Trades, Free Agents, And Rumors

Ball and Kuzma alone is a greater value today than Gallinari and Rivers. I say again: tell me the GM that says differently and I'll show a GM about to be fired. If/when Jordan is gone, this is no contest.

And your assertion of West's powers and abilities are what?

And what assets are those and why should I be excited? I have yet to hear a great offer for DeAndre Jordan rumored and as a likely expiring contract he's likely to bring back limited value. Based on the trade they just made, I'm not sure those "assets" are going to be all that great.

Yeah that is a weak argument. The Heat right now have a better record than the Bucks. You going to tell me that GMs want the Heat roster over the Bucks?

Cherrypicking

Gallinari at 22 (third year in the league so not really comparable to Kuzma's rookie year, but...): 33.9 minutes
Kuzma at 22 (off the bench): 30.4 minutes

So Kuzma is outperforming a more experienced Gallinari (who by the way was drafted 6th) at the same age as a rookie in less minutes. Proved my point. And Kuzma has until 2021 to get paid. That's three years past this season before we even have to think about paying him more than 3.5 million dollars.

You're right. I'd much rather pay with guys getting paid more than 10 million to sit in a suit. That's a good use of the team's cap space and will very extremely helpful. Good call.

And my argument from the beginning is that we have a better situation than they do. I have yet to see an argument from you that I buy otherwise.

And he's got a Player Option this summer. You think he opts in? You think he sticks around? You think the Clippers don't trade him at this point? Once he's gone, their best player is probably Tobias Harris who is maybe as good as Kuzma and gets paid way more. Super attractive to a FA.

You know this is wrong. You know that. The Lakers have young assets and cap space. The Clippers have paid average veterans that have already gotten paid. They're where we were when we had Boozer and Lin and Jordan Hill. We're beyond that already.

Correct. So we are in agreement: The Lakers situation is better for FAs because we are looking at this summer for FAs. The Clippers are in a worse position to attract FAs than the Lakers.

And on a team that can't defend because they're not athletic enough. LeBron would love to have a team full of young athletes that can cover for him defensively much like Kobe in his second run needed some help from Ron Artest and Trevor Ariza.

So you think the Laker brand is equal to the Clipper brand. What evidence do you have of that? Merchandise sales, jersey sales, All-Star votes, national games all say differently about the Laker brand.

Also:

 

Kevin Love fractured his hand tonight, yet another name being mentioned in trade talks around the league. Supposed to be out 6-8 weeks. All-Stars dropping like flies right now (Cousins, Wall, Love).

 

This is a purposely short-sighted view of the situation. They're better now because of mostly expiring contracts. Lou Williams and Avery Bradley are expiring outright and DeAndre Jordan, Austin Rivers, Teodosic, and even Wesley Johnson are all Player Options. You think they're staying? If you're a FA, you're betting on it?

Because if he's not traded now, he's got a Player Option for this summer. Why would Jordan stick around for this? All the players he promised to play with are gone either by choice (Paul and Redick) or by force (Griffin). I'm not, and I would bet money that FAs aren't, going to count on him staying. And even if he does stay, he's staying for a massive payday so am I really excited to see 40-50% of my cap space tied up in Gallinari and Jordan? I bet that's attractive. If they can dump Gallinari and extend Lou Williams and extend DeAndre, I'll revisit this concept.

Of course I'm being serious. What do you really think West can do here as a consultant? He's not the GM. He's not the owner. He's not the Assistant GM. He's a consultant. That's it. What evidence do you have that he is the deciding factor in this?

Completely different Front Office and decision makers. You know that. And of course this is not the comparison I'm making. You know that too. I'm saying that their roster make up and the decisions they're making are where we were before.

And if you really want to continue that train of thought: if they're really doing a smarter job of rebuilding than the old FO, they better trade DeAndre Jordan and Lou Williams now or they'll risk losing them for nothing and if they trade them away, their roster hits rock bottom and they're no longer attractive to FAs.

This isn't the question. The question is: would GMs want the Heat roster over the Bucks roster because you said the Clippers roster was better than ours because they had a better record. So the question isn't who would you rather play for. The question is which roster is better and more attractive to FAs/GMs/Teams?

I'm not missing the point at all, I'm just moving through yours. You are trying to say that Kuzma and Ball and Ingram have no value from their contracts which is just 100% false. Their ability to be effective at a young age and at their salary means we have contributors that are cheap while we can STILL go get veterans who are even more effective now. And by the time they're getting paid, whatever FA we added is aging and needs these young guys to pick them up. That's the entire point. We have enough money this summer to put veterans around the young players to compete now and in the future. There's nothing more valuable than a young, competent player on a good contract.

And I already proved earlier that LeBron himself has done exactly this before. He went to the Cavs in 2014 after the Cavs won 33 games because they had Kyrie, Wiggins, Waiters, and the ability to fill the team out with other veteran players. It's already happened with literally with this exact same veteran.

And if we're assuming the Clippers are keeping their players, we can keep many of ours too. Julius Randle is not 20 years old and is coming into his own. We can use bird rights on Lopez to bring him back. And we'd still have left over money to add more veterans along with youth that is contributing now and has an opportunity to be even better later.

You know exactly what i'm talking about and your point about the Lakers doesn't really matter. The Lakers' mistakes don't mean that the Clippers didn't also make that mistake. Not to mention the Lakers can easily waive the contract you're referring to and that chapter for them is closed.

Incorrect. It's also based on financial flexibility and talent evaluation. If you really don't believe in the Lakers talent to this degree, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

I am not assuming that. I'm saying this is their best and most unique opportunity right now. If they fail to get a FA this summer, they'll move on to trying to build through these kids and that's fine. It'll just take much longer.

Given Jordan and Rivers are expiring? Sure.

Eggs/Baskets doesn't really apply to the Lakers. All of the Lakers' eggs aren't in the FA basket because they've got a fantastic young cast of players that can develop into their own team.

Which is pretty much one of the biggest reasons the Clippers don't have an argument against the Lakers.

And you might be closer to the being President then your friend, but you don't have the opportunity to be President that say, Bernie Sanders does, someone with proper funding and marketing and experience. The Clippers have nothing reliable for a FA right now besides available cash. They're Charlotte. They're Orlando. They're starting a rebuild with a long road ahead of them.

Ranked 11th in Defensive Rating in the NBA with room to improve. This is empirically false.

So if you're a prospective FA, the only thing that matters to you is that the Lakers couldn't attract a FA two years ago when they lacked any young talent, direction, or available funds to get you a running mate? That makes no sense. It also makes no sense as a FA to not want your jersey to sell more, make All-Star teams, or generally make more money. Who cares about making more money when I can sign with the Clippers?

He's composed sonnets about "playing for home" too. But I personally don't believe we can get him here by himself, it's why I'm not planning for that. The Lakers have to be prepared to offer two max slots just in case.

But along the same line of thought, why would he sign with the Clippers instead of the Lakers if all things are equal? That's what I asked at the start, and I'm still not really hearing a great argument against it. A better one, but not one that I believe holds merit.