Buddy return???

[MichaelMcNamara]

I still like the Lonzo fit a bit more than you guys. I'm confident in NAW, but I think the defense, rebounding, shooting off the catch, and transition offense of Lonzo is valuable to this team right now while Kira grows (especially in a shortened offseason). If the cost is a late late 1st round pick and some end of the bench guys, maybe a trade later for a 7th man, I'm fine with just holding Lonzo.

Btw, just to kind of end this, Lonzo will not be traded. He also will not sign an extension. He will be a Pel to start the year.

I actually like the fit too. But that fit makes sense at 13-16 mil per year, tops. And those are not the numbers Rich Paul is seeking. It is also not the role Lonzo would love.

And this story always plays out the same....the guy will move on to the team who offers him the most money and the role he thinks he wants. He will fail, be bashed by the fan base and be humbled to an extent. Then, eventually, he will embrace the role he is being asked to play now for a moderate salary. The sad part is that will happen for Lonzo at 28 or 29, but not for us at 23 or 24

[pelafanatic]

I actually like the fit too. But that fit makes sense at 13-16 mil per year, tops. And those are not the numbers Rich Paul is seeking. It is also not the role Lonzo would love.

And this story always plays out the same....the guy will move on to the team who offers him the most money and the role he thinks he wants. He will fail, be bashed by the fan base and be humbled to an extent. Then, eventually, he will embrace the role he is being asked to play now for a moderate salary. The sad part is that will happen for Lonzo at 28 or 29, but not for us at 23 or 24

Yea, this is a likely scenario. I actually think 13 mil for Lonzo is really low if he continues to shoot 38% from 3. I'd say 16-18 mil per year would be more fair considering the contracts being thrown around.

But your point stands, he's not taking that money and accepting a lesser role in the offense. I think he would take less money/less years for a lead role, and I think he would take more money for a secondary role. Cannot see him settling on both

[Pelicanidae]

Yea, this is a likely scenario. I actually think 13 mil for Lonzo is really low if he continues to shoot 38% from 3. I'd say 16-18 mil per year would be more fair considering the contracts being thrown around.

But your point stands, he's not taking that money and accepting a lesser role in the offense. I think he would take less money/less years for a lead role, and I think he would take more money for a secondary role. Cannot see him settling on both

If he isn't interested in taking a lesser role, or taking a pay cut, he can sling his hook. Not sure why we're so focused on appeasing a guy who is, at absolute best, the 4th best player on a contender. You can't make the demands when it's tenuous as to whether or not you're worth having on the team in the first place. You make demands when you know you're in a position of strength. If the team is contemplating whether to keep you or not and you march up and go ''$18m and the starting PG spot, or I go!'' then the correct answer is ''fine, bye.''

[pelafanatic]

If he isn't interested in taking a lesser role, or taking a pay cut, he can sling his hook. Not sure why we're so focused on appeasing a guy who is, at absolute best, the 4th best player on a contender. You can't make the demands when it's tenuous as to whether or not you're worth having on the team in the first place. You make demands when you know you're in a position of strength. If the team is contemplating whether to keep you or not and you march up and go ''$18m and the starting PG spot, or I go!'' then the correct answer is ''fine, bye.''

Well someone else will likely either offer him a lead role or big money was my point. It wont be us

[Pelicanidae]

Well someone else will likely either offer him a lead role or big money was my point. It wont be us

Gotcha. It better not be us. I'd be grouchy about paying him $13m, anything more would legitimately put the spanner in my works.

The issue is, as you say, I feel like someone definitely will offer him $20m or whatever (Knicks?) and either we match it (mistake) or we let him walk for nothing. So that's why I'm in favour of moving him now.

[johnpagenola]

Gotcha. It better not be us. I'd be grouchy about paying him $13m, anything more would legitimately put the spanner in my works.

The issue is, as you say, I feel like someone definitely will offer him $20m or whatever (Knicks?) and either we match it (mistake) or we let him walk for nothing. So that's why I'm in favour of moving him now.

Two questions:

If the big offer happens at the end of the year why would there not be a sign and trade?

Right now, could we trade Lonzo without attaching assets?

[new city champ]

You have to be careful about assuming outcomes. It's possible he might end up liking his fit especially if he thinks the Pels are going to contend. Agree that Griff & Co. have to accurately assess his value and the market for his services. If someone is really going to back up the money truck for him, then you look to deal him at the deadline. But don't think it's a given Klutch can land Lonzo a $20 million pay day especially with the money squeeze on the league...

[Pelicanidae]

Two questions:

If the big offer happens at the end of the year why would there not be a sign and trade?

Right now, could we trade Lonzo without attaching assets?

Why would a team that could sign him outright, that he was willing to go to, do us the favour of making it a S&T? If they don't have to give us anything in return, why would they? Perhaps you can think of a reason, but I can't.

No idea. I'd imagine so, although the return probably wouldn't be that high.

[AusPel]

Two questions:

If the big offer happens at the end of the year why would there not be a sign and trade?

Right now, could we trade Lonzo without attaching assets?

I don't think sign and trades generally happen for RFAs

[pelafanatic]

I don't think sign and trades generally happen for RFAs

To be fair, we just saw one with Boganovic that obviously was nixed due to tampering

[AusPel]

To be fair, we just saw one with Boganovic that obviously was nixed due to tampering

Good point!

[PELICANSFAN]

Why would a team that could sign him outright, that he was willing to go to, do us the favour of making it a S&T? If they don't have to give us anything in return, why would they? Perhaps you can think of a reason, but I can't.

No idea. I'd imagine so, although the return probably wouldn't be that high.

It happens all the time.

[johnpagenola]

Gotcha. It better not be us. I'd be grouchy about paying him $13m, anything more would legitimately put the spanner in my works.

The issue is, as you say, I feel like someone definitely will offer him $20m or whatever (Knicks?) and either we match it (mistake) or we let him walk for nothing. So that's why I'm in favour of moving him now.

You're right that (some) other people rate Lonzo higher than we do: ESPN just ranked Lonzo Ball higher than Zach LaVine on their list of top players. Whoa!

[Pelicanidae]

It happens all the time.

I know it happens, but that doesn't mean we should just assume it will happen unless we have a reason to. Planning your future on ''well, someone else will just help us to be nice'' isn't exactly the most reliable way of going about things.

[Pelicanidae]

You're right that (some) other people rate Lonzo higher than we do: ESPN just ranked Lonzo Ball higher than Zach LaVine on their list of top players. Whoa!

They ranked him above a ton of players who are clearly better than him. John Collins, DeMar DeRozan, etc. Bad.

[Eman5805]

DeRozan wasn’t too happy with it either.

[Sleeper]

In my 2k league i traded Ball for Monk and a 1st from Charlotte. Then I traded that first and Redick and Melli to the bulls for Lavine. Fun team!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Calling this move ahead of time as setup trade or three team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Funcrusher]

Lonzo for Ariza & a 1st? Too little value for Zo or too much?

no one?

[pelafanatic]

no one?

Don't think that one is legal

[Funcrusher]

Don't think that one is legal

Ah, I see. Nevermind then, that's kinda what i thought anyway