I honestly be glad getting a vet point like Rose on this team and see if you can dump Bledsoe in the process.
It's a really wash, but I think Rose would be a decent culture move.
 |
| . |
|
I honestly be glad getting a vet point like Rose on this team and see if you can dump Bledsoe in the process.
It's a really wash, but I think Rose would be a decent culture move.
...Rose?Originally Posted by Taker597
A good culture move?
What?
Basketball.
You're essentially saying you're willing to pay 22mil+, because he ain't coming cheaper than that
Not only that, but willing to pay at least $20m for a guy that you hope will be made largely irrelevant by circumstance so that he can't hurt the team too much.
As it was you who started this thread and reasoned that we should keep him (even at 25MM), I suppose 22MM would be a bargain. I agree with you, too; we wouldn't get equal value for him at the trade deadline. I'd prefer to pay no more than 20MM, but more than likely, you are right...it's going to take more.
I've heard a lot of good things about Rose lately.
If that's true... I don't know.
I'm talking purely from a culture perspective.
His play hasn't been very good, and hasn't been for a good long while, but the main criticism of him for me is the culture one.
Steven Adams takes a $12 mil paycut next year, give $10 mil or all of it to Lonzo and you maintain our starting unit at no extra cost.
Just another Kiwi basking in the reflected glory of Steven Adams....bask bask..
.
$10m plus what he's already making is $21m. That's a lot of money for any one player, particularly when you factor in that it would almost certainly include the yearly increases. If it's a 4 year contract by the end it could be worth $26m or more in the final year. Not only is that a lot of money, it's also not just a cost factor.
The reality is, it's easier to trade $26m in salary if it's spread across two guys (earning, say, $16m and $10m apiece) than one dude worth $26m. Unless you think Lonzo is an indispensable piece, an absolute core element, of a high powered playoff team, there's no real justification for paying him that kind of money. You absolutely have to buy the idea that he will be a star for that to make any sense.
Admittedly, this article is dated, but......
https://lonzowire.usatoday.com/2020/...nation-sports/
With the contracts that Harris, Bodanovic, Gallinari and Anunoby signed last year, that $18 million/year seems to be the sweet spot. My guess is Klutch may be pushing for more. That is where the dilemma comes in.
Most of those guys have an elite skill better than any one of Lonzo's best skills, but Lonzo does more things at a higher level than those specialist guys. Plus he's way younger than anyone but OG who is a fantastic defender and an improved shooter, but not much else
I maintain that 22 mil is the lowest Lonzo gets
Last edited by AusPel; 02-24-2021 at 10:49 AM.
From what I've heard, it's more likely that Lonzo will not be traded, which is a change from the last time I spoke on it. There's so much at play here in terms of culture and behind the scenes stuff that it's really not easy to decide on a offer they feel comfortable with. I think they're listening, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's here past the deadline. I'd be extremely surprised if JJ is still here past the trade deadline/buyout date.
That being said, it's not at all a guarantee he's on the roster next season even if he isn't traded
One elite skill is more valuable than 3 good ones
I agree completely. My gut says he's not traded and he signs a BIG offer sheet in the offseason we decline to match, thus losing him for nothing a la Bogdanovic
That's true, but we're not doing a Lonzo v Player X here in terms of signing a real world contract. I mean you can use other contracts as guides, but that is just a guide/reference point
It's Lonzo vs his real open market value and what contract space suitors are willing to spend
Maybe there's not as much cap space available around the league as I'm assuming and he only attracts an 18-20 mil tag. I think we match that.
One thing I will probably bet on, is that he signs an offer sheet somewhere else. As much an ego thing as anything else.
He has no love or ties with NOLA and he is with Klutch
Last edited by AusPel; 02-24-2021 at 11:01 AM.
Best case scenario to worst case, in my opinion:
1. We sign a better 3&D shooter than Lonzo for less or the same amount that he wants, or trade him for a package that includes one or can be flipped into one in the near future
2. We get Lonzo for a 'fair' price
3. We over-pay Lonzo a few million per year
4. We get a great deal on someone who is worse at shooting and defense than Lonzo (which i guess gives us some added cap flexibility at some point that will be utilized in some way ostensibly for something beneficial...)
Now we need to look at the probabilities of each and make a choice. #1 probability seems to be dropping...
As much as I can't stand Klutch, they really are incredible businessmen/women. Rich Paul has the ability to put the fear of god in us over a Lonzo Ball contract.
Ostensibly, we have the final say. Lonzo is a RFA and we hold his Bird Rights. So, it's up to Klutch to go find that mega deal they pine for elsewhere. I don't think that's going to be as easy as some think it will be. But, if they do, the ball is still in our court to match or detach.
You're probly right, Lonzo may not be worth $26m in four years and it's probly an overpay for him individually.
I'm just trying to look at the situation through a different lens. Is it worth thinking of a larger core group and keeping them together and building around them? I'm thinking of Lonzo/BI/Zion/Adams, offensively they are performing well just need to improve the defence.
If so offsetting some of Adam's paycut with a raise for Lonzo means you can keep that core group without significantly increasing your net salary at least for a couple of years.
Of course if that group isn't worth keeping or Lonzo isn't a valuable contributor would be better to trade him while we can. But if it is a viable group a couple of decent trades might be enough to lift them, maybe not immediately, to contender status.
I really don't understand how hard its for some of you to understand.
He wants the max and if he wants the max and BI got the max and Zion will get the max = cant have 3 guys on the roster with the max.
You can have 3 max guys if the rest are rookies and vet mins. You cant have a josh hart and a JJ and an Adams but you can have the justice league of ball+bi+Z.
Would a team thrive with 3 stars and scrubs/rookies? Maybe if your rooks outperform their draft place.... like we could move bledsoe and JJ this deadline for a salary break next season to sign ball to a 3 for 66 deal. Idk what the smartest move is.
You let Lonzo explore free agency. If he gets the max you don?t match, if he gets less and we slightly over pay I?m fine with that. He?s only going to keep getting better, he?s 22. A slight overpay now won?t be that much in the future. I don’t know if he’s gonna get the max regardless of how bad he wants it
If it was three stars, then that's a debate.
If it's 2 stars and Lonzo Ball, even a really really good Lonzo Ball, you're in trouble.
Imagine if Houston was like ''ah yes, our three stars, Chris Paul, James Harden, and Robert Covington.''
...What?! Covington was one of the absolute best roleplayers in basketball at the time! Of course he should be a central pillar that they build around!
Sound unconvincing? Exactly.
Honestly, I think we let him hit free agency with a rfa tender and see where it goes. I wouldnt be upset at a 3/60 deal.
I am more interested what we may or may not do with bledsoe and JJ at the deadline this season.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote