You guys, I think we need to pay Lonzo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

So, in your view, there is no scenario where Ball actually could be a good player next to Zion? Noice.

---

He's talking about a scenario in which Lonzo is $20m+, as he just confirmed in his last comment.

Can I see Lonzo being a good player next to Zion? Sure. Can I see him being good enough justify that kind of salary at this stage in a rebuild? No.

You can't ask the question ''will Lonzo be good'' in a vacuum, cause it's not really the question that's on hand. You can't pay Lonzo ''big 3 player'' money because he is not that kind of player. He's a good auxiliary roleplayer, in his best form. It's worth paying for that if you're a good team trying to keep the band together in deep playoff runs with championship aspirations. It's not worth paying that to keep an actively bad team together.

You sign Lonzo for $20m or more now only if you think he's going to be not just good but 'third best player on a contender' good. If you don't think that, and you actually think he's more like the 4th or 5th best player on a contender (which I think is the more realistic scenario) but you pay him 3rd banana money anyway then you hamstring yourself later on: suddenly when it's time to actually get that 3rd guy, you don't have the money or you don't have the flexibility or they end up potentially stuck behind your overpaid guy because you can't exactly play your $20m+ guy as a bench piece in most circumstances.

None of this is news, it's basically the argument that Shamit lays out in the article I posted. How many bad teams can you think of that backed up the money truck for a roleplayer ended up with that paying off? I can't think of many. How many bad teams paid too much to retain their guys that they 'couldn't afford to lose' and ended up regretting it? The list is endless.

Don't you think Lonzo is evolving into more than just a role player?

And even if he's a role player he's hitting 8 threes a game better than the whole league for the last 2 months

Joe Harris got 18 mil and all he can do is hit threes and he's like 28

Just realized that Lonzo is currently a 78% FT shooter... That's an absurd improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

Just realized that Lonzo is currently a 78% FT shooter... That's an absurd improvement.

---

With his new stroke, it seems completely sustainable too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

Don't you think Lonzo is evolving into more than just a role player?

And even if he's a role player he's hitting 8 threes a game better than the whole league for the last 2 months

Joe Harris got 18 mil and all he can do is hit threes and he's like 28

---

Not really.

Joe Harris is a better shooter than Lonzo (I know, I know, but one of them can basically only hit wide open catch and shoot set shots and the other guy flies around off-ball relocating and stuff, and has been more efficient overall than Lonzo for longer) and Lonzo's other skills that he was so lauded for have greatly underperformed. He's the next Magic Johnson who has basically had to be taken entirely off-ball in the halfcourt to stop him drowning the offense, and his reports of his defense have been dramatically exaggerated.

So a sub-Joe Harris shooter with really good transition passing and good connectivity and meh defense. Do you pay that upwards of $20m a year? No, I don't. I don't consider that a Big 3, star type player.

The Shams article was good. Someone pointed out his article didn?t account for injuries for his examples. Anyway, there?s still a higher ceiling for Lonzo at his age. I think in the current or slightly expanded role if he maxed out his abilities he could hit 18ppg/8reb/7ast/2stl on 45/42 type numbers. It’s not likely but from what I’ve seen it’s a 20% chance maybe.

Can he get close to enough to that to justify 20-22m? A solid maybe from me. Lolz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Not really.

Joe Harris is a better shooter than Lonzo (I know, I know, but one of them can basically only hit wide open catch and shoot set shots and the other guy flies around off-ball relocating and stuff, and has been more efficient overall than Lonzo for longer) and Lonzo's other skills that he was so lauded for have greatly underperformed. He's the next Magic Johnson who has basically had to be taken entirely off-ball in the halfcourt to stop him drowning the offense, and his reports of his defense have been dramatically exaggerated.

So a sub-Joe Harris shooter with really good transition passing and good connectivity and meh defense. Do you pay that upwards of $20m a year? No, I don't. I don't consider that a Big 3, star type player.

---

$20 million price is just a lazy number. I wouldn't put that much thought into the price tag. $15-$20 is probably price tag. And I just took the ceiling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

$20 million price is just a lazy number. I wouldn't put that much thought into the price tag. $15-$20 is probably price tag. And I just took the ceiling.

---

The difficulty with the conversation, or at least one of the difficulties, is that the ranges people have discussed are so wildly different. If for some reason Lonzo doesn't command much on the open market and we can lock him up for somewhere in the $14-$16m per range, perhaps even with a team option, then that's a deal I'm much more interested in taking. Meanwhile, some other people have even floated the idea of him getting $25m per, which is entirely out of the question - and some people have also suggested the idea of a player option which drives it even further into the ''no way on Earth'' zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

So a sub-Joe Harris shooter with really good transition passing and good connectivity and meh defense. Do you pay that upwards of $20m a year? No, I don't. I don't consider that a Big 3, star type player.

---

the 'meh defense' is probably the best defense we have on the team.

First we let Randle walk (All Star)
Then we let Wood walk (All Star in the making)
Now let's get rid of Ball who has shown unbelievable improvement in a Pels uniform We have so much talent on this team, he will be easily replaced, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

The difficulty with the conversation, or at least one of the difficulties, is that the ranges people have discussed are so wildly different. If for some reason Lonzo doesn't command much on the open market and we can lock him up for somewhere in the $14-$16m per range, perhaps even with a team option, then that's a deal I'm much more interested in taking. Meanwhile, some other people have even floated the idea of him getting $25m per, which is entirely out of the question - and some people have also suggested the idea of a player option which drives it even further into the ''no way on Earth'' zone.

---

I think Ball was offered 14-15 million per in the offseason and turned it down. So, I don't think you're getting Ball at 15 million. I think the negotiating line will probably be at 18-19 million 3+1 with player option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

I think Ball was offered 14-15 million per in the offseason and turned it down. So, I don't think you're getting Ball at 15 million. I think the negotiating line will probably be at 19 million.

---

And that's about where I say draw the line, that $18m mark.

In my view, you pay extra for players when you're a good team and you're trying to keep the band together for a reason. You don't pay through the nose to keep a bad team where it is.

We are a bad team. I'm happy to pay guys who have shown they're special, that's your Zion and your Ingram for you. I'm not interested in paying through the nose to retain the roleplayers who clearly are not good enough to elevate the team. I'm not interested in becoming a luxury tax team in exchange for 32-50 seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Not really.

Joe Harris is a better shooter than Lonzo (I know, I know, but one of them can basically only hit wide open catch and shoot set shots and the other guy flies around off-ball relocating and stuff, and has been more efficient overall than Lonzo for longer) and Lonzo's other skills that he was so lauded for have greatly underperformed. He's the next Magic Johnson who has basically had to be taken entirely off-ball in the halfcourt to stop him drowning the offense, and his reports of his defense have been dramatically exaggerated.

So a sub-Joe Harris shooter with really good transition passing and good connectivity and meh defense. Do you pay that upwards of $20m a year? No, I don't. I don't consider that a Big 3, star type player.

---

Meh defense is a bit of a generalisation.

When his man gets a step on him he's bad. But he's always got active hands in the passing lanes, he generates steals and he's a good team defender. He's also good when his man hasn't got a step on him

would lonzo be hard to move in the future at 4yr/80mil with any option on the end as a piece for a good disgruntle player?.......if so then i would pay him 18-20mil a year.....

i see that as a win win for us either way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

Meh defense is a bit of a generalisation.

When his man gets a step on him he's bad.

---

I think what hurts him the most is this happens a lot in the clutch against elite Guards or scorers. So, it's really glaring and you can't win championships like that. Yet, When you compare him to Hart doing the hokie pokie lost at the top of key defending air... It's not so bad.

give lonzo his credit on defense....he take the challenge of the opp best player majority of the time and do the best he can and hold his own....lonzo aint all world defense but he is one of the best we have with hart as his side kick...

when hart and lonzo engage on defense together this team is good...they showed it in the last 3 games....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

the 'meh defense' is probably the best defense we have on the team.

First we let Randle walk (All Star)
Then we let Wood walk (All Star in the making)
Now let's get rid of Ball who has shown unbelievable improvement in a Pels uniform We have so much talent on this team, he will be easily replaced, huh?

---

Haven't seen any evidence that Randle was interested in staying in N.O. after we drafted Zion. Wasn't the only reason he came here in the first place because he was buddies with AD? I mean, what was Randle going to do last year? Plan on sitting behind Zion? You certainly weren't going to tell your potentially generational talent to come off the bench.

And Wood has already been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Personally, I was in favor of keeping him as a bench piece over someone like Okafor, or bringing in Melli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

And that's about where I say draw the line, that $18m mark.

In my view, you pay extra for players when you're a good team and you're trying to keep the band together for a reason. You don't pay through the nose to keep a bad team where it is.

We are a bad team. I'm happy to pay guys who have shown they're special, that's your Zion and your Ingram for you. I'm not interested in paying through the nose to retain the roleplayers who clearly are not good enough to elevate the team. I'm not interested in becoming a luxury tax team in exchange for 32-50 seasons.

---

Steven Adams just got $17.5 million per year on his extension. Do you think he provides more to this team than Lonzo does? Or was that a bad contract also? Do you think the Pels will have trouble moving Adams on that contract, if necessary? Just trying to get a feel for how you view the current pieces on this team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

give lonzo his credit on defense....he take the challenge of the opp best player majority of the time and do the best he can and hold his own....lonzo aint all world defense but he is one of the best we have with hart as his side kick...

when hart and lonzo engage on defense together this team is good...they showed it in the last 3 games....

---

I give Lonzo the credit that when he's on a guy who is of roughly similar size to him but not much faster or stronger, and he can get in good position early, he's a capable defender. He's solid in the passing lanes as well, and sometimes very good.

He is pretty much useless on anyone who is notably quick laterally or who has an above average handle, or anyone who gets him in a screening action, or anyone who gets the step on him, or anyone considerably larger than him, and he's also not an excellent off-ball defender in general, just a solid one.

Bledsoe is a huge part of our defensive woes against guards but he's not the only one. Lonzo gets smoked almost as frequently. His defense cannot be used as a justification to pay for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pr1840

Steven Adams just got $17.5 million per year on his extension. Do you think he provides more to this team than Lonzo does? Or was that a bad contract also? Do you think the Pels will have trouble moving Adams on that contract, if necessary? Just trying to get a feel for how you view the current pieces on this team.

---

I don't think it's quite as bad because I can imagine Steven Adams being the 4th best player on a strong playoff team (mainly cause he has been, at times), and that's what he's being paid like (at $17m), and it's a short deal that's an expiring in Zion's extension year. I wouldn't like it if it was a 4 year deal (as Lonzo's almost certainly will be) or if it had a player option or something.

Personally I am not massively attached to anyone on the team outside of Zion. The price for moving Ingram would be very high, so he's very likely to stick around and I'm happy for that because he's a very good player. Ultimately by the time this team is hopefully contending, he'll be being paid like the 2nd or (potentially, depending on trades and stuff) 3rd best player on that team and that's fine because I think he is the 2nd or 3rd best player on a very very good team.

Everyone else is moveable for the right price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I don't think it's quite as bad because I can imagine Steven Adams being the 4th best player on a strong playoff team (mainly cause he has been, at times), and that's what he's being paid like (at $17m), and it's a short deal that's an expiring in Zion's extension year. I wouldn't like it if it was a 4 year deal (as Lonzo's almost certainly will be) or if it had a player option or something.

Personally I am not massively attached to anyone on the team outside of Zion. The price for moving Ingram would be very high, so he's very likely to stick around and I'm happy for that because he's a very good player. Ultimately by the time this team is hopefully contending, he'll be being paid like the 2nd or (potentially, depending on trades and stuff) 3rd best player on that team and that's fine because I think he is the 2nd or 3rd best player on a very very good team.

Everyone else is moveable for the right price.

---

Come on, be serious. So, you are OK with paying a 4th piece $17-$18 million but a younger 3rd piece at $20 million is terrible. That 4th piece is older and has many more miles on his body so is likely not to be the 4th piece on this team when that time comes. If Ball had a different name and came in a different trade, you would be excited at how well he has improved since becoming part of this team. You cannot let go of the anti-Laker deal bias. You even add a puzzling comment about the price to move Ingram being high. I cannot believe that you actually think Ingram and his contract are negatives such that the cost of moving him would be very high (or am I misunderstanding that comment?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pr1840

Haven't seen any evidence that Randle was interested in staying in N.O. after we drafted Zion. Wasn't the only reason he came here in the first place because he was buddies with AD? I mean, what was Randle going to do last year? Plan on sitting behind Zion? You certainly weren't going to tell your potentially generational talent to come off the bench.

And Wood has already been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Personally, I was in favor of keeping him as a bench piece over someone like Okafor, or bringing in Melli.

---

April 17, 2019 After the season was over after Davis promised to opt out ("That's All Folks").....

?In the summertime, I?ll weigh the pros and cons of everything and what works best,? Randle said. ?Honestly, it?s been great for me here. I?m loving it, I?m enjoying every second of it. My family?s happy here. It?s been a good situation. When we get to the summertime we?ll see what happens, but for now, I?m just enjoying the moment. I realize anything can happen in this business, but I?m enjoying it so far.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Come on, be serious. So, you are OK with paying a 4th piece $17-$18 million but a younger 3rd piece at $20 million is terrible. That 4th piece is older and has many more miles on his body so is likely not to be the 4th piece on this team when that time comes. If Ball had a different name and came in a different trade, you would be excited at how well he has improved since becoming part of this team. You cannot let go of the anti-Laker deal bias. You even add a puzzling comment about the price to move Ingram being high. I cannot believe that you actually think Ingram and his contract are negatives such that the cost of moving him would be very high (or am I misunderstanding that comment?)

---

You've completely misread my comment about Ingram. I'm saying that the price it would cost another team to get me to give him up would be so high as to be unlikely for anyone to be willing to pay. I'm saying he is valuable to the team and I wouldn't get rid of him for anything short of a King's ransom. That is a compliment to Ingram.

As for the Adams/Lonzo difference, it's twofold (both of which I mentioned in my original post and both of which you've ignored). The first is length of the contract: Adams will be expiring by the time Zion's rookie extension comes up, which is the vital year for the team to be starting to take 'real' form: Lonzo would not, he would be at best halfway through it and potentially less than that depending on if it's a 4 or a 5 year deal: I can't see Klutch accepting a shorter deal than 4. The second thing is pay: Adams is $17m a year which is a lot, yes, but not insane for a high end roleplayer these days - it's pretty much within the bounds that I said would be acceptable for Lonzo, also. The Lonzo deals most people are talking about are usually more around the $20m and up area.

So yes, Adams on a shorter, cheaper contract isn't a huge issue to me, whereas Lonzo on a contract of at least double the length at a higher price is much less appealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

You've completely misread my comment about Ingram. I'm saying that the price it would cost another team to get me to give him up would be so high as to be unlikely for anyone to be willing to pay. I'm saying he is valuable to the team and I wouldn't get rid of him for anything short of a King's ransom. That is a compliment to Ingram.

As for the Adams/Lonzo difference, it's twofold (both of which I mentioned in my original post and both of which you've ignored). The first is length of the contract: Adams will be expiring by the time Zion's rookie extension comes up, which is the vital year for the team to be starting to take 'real' form: Lonzo would not, he would be at best halfway through it and potentially less than that depending on if it's a 4 or a 5 year deal: I can't see Klutch accepting a shorter deal than 4. The second thing is pay: Adams is $17m a year which is a lot, yes, but not insane for a high end roleplayer these days - it's pretty much within the bounds that I said would be acceptable for Lonzo, also. The Lonzo deals most people are talking about are usually more around the $20m and up area.

So yes, Adams on a shorter, cheaper contract isn't a huge issue to me, whereas Lonzo on a contract of at least double the length at a higher price is much less appealing.

---

Thanks for the clarification. So, you would be ok with a 2-3 year deal for Lonzo in the $20 million range? I have been thinking the Pels could go into that range on a shorter deal (probably 3 years), if Lonzo wanted to bet on himself again with a sooner free agency.,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Come on, be serious. So, you are OK with paying a 4th piece $17-$18 million but a younger 3rd piece at $20 million is terrible. That 4th piece is older and has many more miles on his body so is likely not to be the 4th piece on this team when that time comes. If Ball had a different name and came in a different trade, you would be excited at how well he has improved since becoming part of this team. You cannot let go of the anti-Laker deal bias. You even add a puzzling comment about the price to move Ingram being high. I cannot believe that you actually think Ingram and his contract are negatives such that the cost of moving him would be very high (or am I misunderstanding that comment?)

---

A maturing player who can score on three levels and who is money from the foul line. Plus, he isn't totally reliant on others to get a shot, if needed.

It definitely is his ant-Ingram bias coming through loud and clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

A maturing player who can score on three levels and who is money from the foul line. Plus, he isn't totally reliant on others to get a shot, if needed. It definitely his ant-Ingram bias coming through loud and clear.

---

Slowly improving ISO game that'll pay dividend in long playoff runs years from now. Got to atleast have 1 good ISO guy to win a chip nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

Slowly improving ISO game that'll pay dividend in long playoff runs years from now. Got to atleast have 1 good ISO guy to win a chip nowadays.

---

Agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Thanks for the clarification. So, you would be ok with a 2-3 year deal for Lonzo in the $20 million range? I have been thinking the Pels could go into that range on a shorter deal (probably 3 years), if Lonzo wanted to bet on himself again with a sooner free agency.,

---

I'd be much more open to that than a longer deal at the same price. By that point he will either have proven himself as legitimately worthy of the big money, or he'll be a young, 'solid' expiring.

2 years + a team option is probably a compromise I'd be fairly willing to consider: the $20m a year Lonzo would want, but with the flexibility that helps the team long term. If Lonzo/Klutch weren't amenable to that kind of middle ground then I'd just move on from him completely honestly.

Mods pls delete this thread

Thx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

Mods pls delete this thread

Thx

---

I don't mean to dig on Lonzo here, and I know it's just a coincidence and that he'll almost certainly bounce back, but it is quite funny that after everyone made jokes about him only being good in February he immediately comes out in March and goes

- 23/7/8 on 56/60/100 splits vs Utah (really good game)
- 12/1/5 on 50/33/0 vs Chicago
- 10/4/1 on 25/18/0 vs Miami.

He's shooting 31.8% from 3 over three games in March. Again, that will almost certainly improve after all-star break, but it is funny. Dude just loves February.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

He's talking about a scenario in which Lonzo is $20m+, as he just confirmed in his last comment.

Can I see Lonzo being a good player next to Zion? Sure. Can I see him being good enough justify that kind of salary at this stage in a rebuild? No.

You can't ask the question ''will Lonzo be good'' in a vacuum, cause it's not really the question that's on hand. You can't pay Lonzo ''big 3 player'' money because he is not that kind of player. He's a good auxiliary roleplayer, in his best form. It's worth paying for that if you're a good team trying to keep the band together in deep playoff runs with championship aspirations. It's not worth paying that to keep an actively bad team together.

You sign Lonzo for $20m or more now only if you think he's going to be not just good but 'third best player on a contender' good. If you don't think that, and you actually think he's more like the 4th or 5th best player on a contender (which I think is the more realistic scenario) but you pay him 3rd banana money anyway then you hamstring yourself later on: suddenly when it's time to actually get that 3rd guy, you don't have the money or you don't have the flexibility or they end up potentially stuck behind your overpaid guy because you can't exactly play your $20m+ guy as a bench piece in most circumstances.

None of this is news, it's basically the argument that Shamit lays out in the article I posted. How many bad teams can you think of that backed up the money truck for a roleplayer ended up with that paying off? I can't think of many. How many bad teams paid too much to retain their guys that they 'couldn't afford to lose' and ended up regretting it? The list is endless.

---

Mike Conley's first extension with the Grizzlies is the best/most favorable outcome I can come up with. Not that they're similar players necessarily, but the profile is pretty equivalent...high draft pick, mostly disappointing play with some positive signs, team no good though some pieces were there (Gasol/Z-Bo), etc.

Very interesting-

Per @cleantheglass Lonzo Ball-Brandon Ingram-Zion Williamson-led lineups have a +16.5 efficiency differential w/o Bledsoe on the floor. That figure jumps to +32.6 w/o Bledsoe and Adams.

So yes, I want to see the Pelicans engineer a better roster around this young trio.

— Oleh Kosel (@OlehKosel) March 11, 2021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Very interesting-

---

I don't know how to embed tweets, but from the same tweet, Shamit Dua's quote:

"Sample size of 55 minutes and barely 100 possessions...."

Not saying there isn't a valid thought here, but contextually that's a pretty small sample.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Very interesting-

Per @cleantheglass Lonzo Ball-Brandon Ingram-Zion Williamson-led lineups have a +16.5 efficiency differential w/o Bledsoe on the floor. That figure jumps to +32.6 w/o Bledsoe and Adams.

So yes, I want to see the Pelicans engineer a better roster around this young trio.

? Oleh Kosel (@OlehKosel) March 11, 2021

---

Watching Bledsoe with the Pels makes me viscerally angry.

This also seems to say that Griffin had a very bad offseason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Very interesting-

Per @cleantheglass Lonzo Ball-Brandon Ingram-Zion Williamson-led lineups have a +16.5 efficiency differential w/o Bledsoe on the floor. That figure jumps to +32.6 w/o Bledsoe and Adams.

So yes, I want to see the Pelicans engineer a better roster around this young trio.

— Oleh Kosel (@OlehKosel) March 11, 2021

---

The starting lineup needs to be

Kira
Lonzo
Ingram
Zion
Adams

That way we can see if the Kira Lonzo combo will work or not before we resign Lonzo or not. If we keep Bledsoe starting after the trade deadline I’m gonna really question SVGs intelligence

I just don't want to see Lonzo walk for nothing. Sure, it's better than making a mistake, but you either trade him before the deadline or you dig in and are willing to match any offer.

Maybe a year of warning cries has the effect of teams overcorrecting and trying to squeeze, but in general, when teams have money, they spend it.

I really think you're going to see an offer for Lonzo between 20M to his max around 28+M per year.

— Shamit Dua (@FearTheBrown) March 11, 2021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Maybe a year of warning cries has the effect of teams overcorrecting and trying to squeeze, but in general, when teams have money, they spend it.

I really think you're going to see an offer for Lonzo between 20M to his max around 28+M per year.

— Shamit Dua (@FearTheBrown) March 11, 2021

---

Simply a baseless opinion. How many teams with that kind of money are going to spend it on Lonzo? Maybe at the $20 million mark, but I cannot see anyone maxing him out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donato

I don't know how to embed tweets, but from the same tweet, Shamit Dua's quote:

"Sample size of 55 minutes and barely 100 possessions...."

Not saying there isn't a valid thought here, but contextually that's a pretty small sample.

---

Wouldn't expect it to be a large sample size given the fact that we have been very healthy as a team. However, it is disappointing that the group is worse with the two veterans we brought in around them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Simply a baseless opinion. How many teams with that kind of money are going to spend it on Lonzo? Maybe at the $20 million mark, but I cannot see anyone maxing him out.

---

Well, it's not exactly baseless: it's based on the track record of what teams actually do in these kinds of circumstances.

Free agency coming up. The actual FA class is not particularly loaded, with most of the big names either extended or under normal contract, but there's a lot of teams with a lot of cap space. What happens when multiple teams with a lot of money run into a FA with no real stars in it?

Solomon Hill gets $12m a year, Otto Porter gets $24m a year, Timofey Mozgov gets a $62m deal, Bismack Biyombo signs for $18m a year, Harrison Barnes gets $24m a year.

Why, when the cap is larger now than it was then, would it be at all surprising for Lonzo to be offered $20m or more per season? That's the 2021 monetary equivalent of the Biyombo deal, really.

Remember when I was saying that one huge thing for me when it comes to Lonzo is the consistency, because I have basically no faith in him to continue hot streaks?

Over the last 6 games, Lonzo Ball is averaging:

12/3/5 on 35.9% from the floor and 29.2% from 3.

This is after averaging 16/5/5 on 46.5% from the floor and 48.9% from 3 in February.

We all expected those averages to come down a bit, sure - I don't think even his biggest fans expected him to suddenly shoot 49% from 3 forever - but to crash this hard this quickly is a testament to that unreliability.

Of course, 6 games is a small sample size and for all we know it's just a blip and he'll pick back up and shoot 39% from 3 from now until the end of the year again, but it's this sort of thing - the fact that his suddenly shooting 29% from 3 isn't surprising - to makes me very concerned about giving him the cash: zero faith in consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Well, it's not exactly baseless: it's based on the track record of what teams actually do in these kinds of circumstances.

Free agency coming up. The actual FA class is not particularly loaded, with most of the big names either extended or under normal contract, but there's a lot of teams with a lot of cap space. What happens when multiple teams with a lot of money run into a FA with no real stars in it?

Solomon Hill gets $12m a year, Otto Porter gets $24m a year, Timofey Mozgov gets a $62m deal, Bismack Biyombo signs for $18m a year, Harrison Barnes gets $24m a year.

Why, when the cap is larger now than it was then, would it be at all surprising for Lonzo to be offered $20m or more per season? That's the 2021 monetary equivalent of the Biyombo deal, really.

---

As I said, I can see something around $20 million, but nothing close to the max as Shamit stated. I know you know that most of those deals you are referring to came in a one-time year when the cap skyrocketed because the NBAPA refused to allow the spreading of the large increase in cap. This year is not even remotely comparable. Also, none of those are nearly max deals that Shamit referred to as a possibility for Ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

As I said, I can see something around $20 million, but nothing close to the max as Shamit stated. I know you know that most of those deals you are referring to came in a one-time year when the cap skyrocketed because the NBAPA refused to allow the spreading of the large increase in cap. This year is not even remotely comparable. Also, none of those are nearly max deals that Shamit referred to as a possibility for Ball.

---

Shamit said something between $20m up to the max. If you think $20-22m is plausible but $25-28m isn't, then that's fine but it still falls within the range he described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Shamit said something between $20m up to the max. If you think $20-22m is plausible but $25-28m isn't, then that's fine but it still falls within the range he described.

---

This was what I said-

Maybe at the $20 million mark, but I cannot see anyone maxing him out.

You chose to bring up completely irrelevant contracts to say that his comment was reasonable. Everyone knows this is not 2016 as the cap did not artificially balloon with a one-time infusion. When teams have money, they may spend, but typically not on long-term deals. I do not see Ball getting a 4-5 year max deal simply because a team has money to spend. I also do not see him signing a 1 year deal with a team for $20-$28 million. Now, maybe some team will think he is their future and splurge, but I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

This was what I said-

Maybe at the $20 million mark, but I cannot see anyone maxing him out.

You chose to bring up completely irrelevant contracts to say that his comment was reasonable. Everyone knows this is not 2016 as the cap did not artificially balloon with a one-time infusion. When teams have money, they may spend, but typically not on long-term deals. I do not see Ball getting a 4-5 year max deal simply because a team has money to spend. I also do not see him signing a 1 year deal with a team for $20-$28 million. Now, maybe some team will think he is their future and splurge, but I doubt it.

---

Shamit said that due to all the money going around and the lack of marquee free agents, he could see someone offering him a contract between $20 and $28m a year.

You came out and said, essentially, ''that's a baseless opinion, I could maybe see someone offering $20m but not the upper end of that range''

Which is basically just agreeing in principle with minor quibbles over the detail. It doesn't actually matter for our purposes if Lonzo gets offered $20m or $22m or $28m because all of those numbers are too much.

If you can't see someone offering him $28m, then cool, good for you; but you could imagine someone maybe giving him $20m, which is still too much so what difference does it make? Very little.

The ''irrelevant contracts'' are not really irrelevant: everyone knows that this is not 2016 but the fact remains that there are several teams with a lot of money and not many names to spend it on: the why for that situation is what is really irrelevant. If someone was willing to spend $18m a year on Bismack Biyombo in 2016, which had a cap of around $95m (ish), that was about 19% of the cap. I personally don't think it's at all unlikely that someone will offer Lonzo an equivalent chunk of the cap this year, which (in this year's $109m cap) is about $21.8m.

A contract of equal proportion for Lonzo yields something like $22m a year in today's cap; can I see someone taking a swing on Lonzo for equivalent cap impacts as they were willing to swing on Biyombo? Yes, I can. That's why I brought it up: because if you can imagine one, you'd have to see Lonzo's value as being inarguably lower than Biyombo's to argue that this $20-28m range was out of the question. Unless you think the NBA FO's have just become collectively far far smarter in the last 5 years, which maybe you do.

$20 million for an ascending player is an easy contract to move, but $25-28... He'll cost you assets to move if plummets back down to his old mean. High risk/mild reward at the end of the day. You're Paying and Praying that he doesn't stay just average with a very flawed game.

The Clippers, with a well-chronicled need for a playmaking upgrade, are exploring trade routes to acquiring New Orleans' Lonzo Ball before next Thursday's NBA trade deadline, league sources say.

— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) March 19, 2021

Funnily enough, what the Clips need most is a penetrator who can threaten the rim and create collapses, and Lonzo is very much not that.

But if they want to cough up or facilitate a three way for him, I'm in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

The Clippers, with a well-chronicled need for a playmaking upgrade, are exploring trade routes to acquiring New Orleans' Lonzo Ball before next Thursday's NBA trade deadline, league sources say.

— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) March 19, 2021

Funnily enough, what the Clips need most is a penetrator who can threaten the rim and create collapses, and Lonzo is very much not that.

But if they want to cough up or facilitate a three way for him, I'm in.

---

They would have to create a 3-team trade as they have nothing to offer. With Kennard's poison pill, a multiple team trade is probably the only way to include him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

Mods pls delete this thread

Thx

---

Why? This is the greatest thread ever. Especially if we trade Lonzo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

They would have to create a 3-team trade as they have nothing to offer. With Kennard's poison pill, a multiple team trade is probably the only way to include him.

---

For sure but I think we have to also be conscious that Stein has a history of Pels friendly leaks; I think he was one of the dudes surrounding the Jrue trade stuff last year. In that case it could be a Pels-side leak to amp up trade pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

They would have to create a 3-team trade as they have nothing to offer. With Kennard's poison pill, a multiple team trade is probably the only way to include him.

---

I said last week to keep an eye on Luke Kennard. We'll see.