2019 Official NBA Free Agent thread

[tacosman]

As for timelines, it's not an either/or thing. We can try to be good now and develop our young players as we draft them. Zion is the only thing untouchable right now. It all depends on the offer/player. We don't have room for a max slot anyways, but if we did and it was some dream world Kawhi said he wanted to play with Zion in NO, you do that. You don't say "oh gosh kawhi, zion will be 19-23 for this deal of yours and then when he is 24 your contract will be done and you will be coming out of your prime at 33 so we will pass".....

furthermore if we had a max slot and could get that type of player, we wouldn't have to give up anything. The problem is we don't have a max slot and we wouldn't attract a Kawhi(or even a kyrie) anyways. But it's not like we would pass on that sort of talent right now if we did/could.

We have to accept the reality that we are not thought of as a desirable franchise to star for. Whether that's the franchise rep, the city, or a little bit of both isn't important. It just means we have to work harder, get more lucky(which we did recently bigtime!) and have less room for error than the Lakers of the world.

Think about it- since the mid 70s except for a maybe 5/6 year period(when Kobe had fallen off and before Lebron came) and a couple years in the early 90s the Lakers have ALWAYS had at least one megastar top 4 player in the nba. From prime kareem to prime Magic to orime Shaq to prime Kobe and now Lebron for a year to prime AD.....over a 45 year period they have had what...7-8 years where they haven't had a league defining player. Sometimes two. And top 4 may be not specific enough...usually top 2/3. Whether it be drafting, trade, FA, or a forced/leveraged trade(Kareem, AD) the Lakers get these sorts of players. We don't. These players aren't going to come to us in FA like shaq did. These players aren't going to come to us in forced/leveraged trades like Kareem and AD did(if anything as we've seen they'll leave us)….so given these limitations, we *have* to do it in the draft if we want a player like this and then with development. Fortunately we struck gold and got Zion, now it's a matter of two things:

-developing him into a superstar
-if that happens, putting the pieces and framework around him so that when he does emerge into a superstar we won't lose him to the Lakers of the world like we did with LA. or the Bucks did with kareem.

because right now the lakers forum is full of guys giggling over how good zion will look in purple and gold in a few to 6/7 years.

[tacosman]

I think you're being ridiculously generous to LA.

Do they have real better odds than anyone else to win the championship next year? Not really. They have good odds, but are they really more likely to win than, say Toronto, if they keep Kawhi? Or Milwaukee, if they retain their guys? Sure, those guys might not stay on those teams, you might argue, but LA has literally nobody after LBJ and AD, and they may not be able to sign anyone else of serious quality either.

You say they still have another max slot. Not really. They might, if Griff agrees to move the execution date of this deal, but the entire reason this has been a big deal is because if it stays as it currently is, LA does NOT have another max slot this summer.

You're essentially arguing that the Brooklyn Nets won the Celtics deal, because who cares about picks and swaps when you've got SuPeRsTaRs! Ignore the fact that you have little to no depth behind them, ignore the fact that one of your superstars is about to turn 35 and is already visibly declining on D, ignore the fact that the other star you have has a long record of NOT leading teams to the playoffs.

If I'm looking at next season only, then sure, I'd rather be the Lakers.

If I'm looking at the next 5, 6, 7 years, I'd MUCH rather be us.

Essentially, LA are betting that in three or four years time, they'll still be a better team than us. Lebron will be damn near 40. They have no guarantee of a star this summer, and no stars available next summer. Come on.

1) Of course they have better odds than other teams to win right now because....they just do. These things are listed. And right now at the various casinos in futures and prop bets they do. That's not my opinion. regardless of whether or not we believe the booksmakers are a little off on this, they still have really good odds. Personally I sorta like Milwaukee as the true faves and I may place a futures bet on them, but the fact is the lakers currently have the best odds per the vegas casinos.

2) Everything I have read suggests the two sides have agreed to do that with the dates and that this will give the Lakers(with some anticipated other moves) like 600k short of a max slot. So yes, they do essentially have a max slot. Unless people are reporting wrong info. That's why you see all the reports that they are pushing hard for Walker. Big story on the ringer about that now.

3) I'm not sure what the Brooklyn Nets/Celtics deal has to do with anything because the nets didn't get any current superstars(or anything close) in that deal. This is a bizarre example. The lakers got a 26 year old superstar.

4) Looking at 6 or especially 7 years in the nba is very tough to do. Especially in a situation like we are now. Because so much turnover happens that it is really tough to predict anything. None of the players on the current team apart from hopefully Zion(!) are likely to be with us. Making a guess on how an nba team will look 7 years in the future is near impossible. What I do know is that the lakers are a historically great franchise. They have been great for much of the 60s, great for some of the 70s, great for all the 80s, great for much of the 00s...….if I am forced to look such a long time in the future(6-7 years...past any contract length), then I'll take the franchise that has spent most the franchise since my dad was a teenager being great. As I said in another thread, they've almost ALWAYS had league defining players in their primes. Whether by draft(magic, Kobe), FA(Shaq) or trades which were only possible because they were lakers(Kareem, AD). 3/5 of their league defining players came to the lakers because they were the lakers….

5) they already have their guaranteed superstar this summer. His name is AD and he is 26 years old. What you mean is they have no guarantee of another one this summer. You mention they are betting in 3 or 4 years that they will be better than us. Ok, here is what we know in 3 or 4 years:

-they will, barring terrible injury, have 1 in their prime(29 or 30 is still prime) superstar. Will we? Let's see....I love zion, but it's pretty much a guarantee that in 3-4 years barring injury LA will have an in their prime superstar. We can't say the same thing. So I'll go with the team with the known quantity superstar over the team that is hoping to have a superstar then.

Lebron 3 or 4 years from now isn't relevant at all. Yes he won't be good at 39, but he also won't be on their books at 39/40 so it's not a negative. When he comes off the books what you will have is:

-a max slot likely opening
-a 28 year old superstar. Hmmm...a wonder if they can find a player to take that max slot next to an in their prime superstar for the highest profile franchise in the league

you are holding the lakers to a ridiculous standard in these future projections that no other teamn could possibly be held to. The idea that they may not be good because we own their draft picks and there is only one bonafide superstar we are pretty sure they will have then? That's one more likely superstar we can match up to a likely team 3-4 years in the future than oh....27 other teams(Steph with GS although he probably wont be that great then and Giannis, and it isn't sure he will be with bucks anyways)….

so of course it's more likely than not the lakers will be better than us in 3-4 and 6-7 years.....nothing is certain, but they are the lakers. Throughout their entire history they have been associated with having usually 1 and sometimes 2 league defining all time greats. I don't see any reason that won't continue with AD for the next 4-5 years and then possibly when Lebron retires someone else to step in to that slot....

[tacosman]

The lakers currently have better odds to win the nba title than every other team in the league. Every. Single. One.

Oh gosh no I don't want to put ourselves in a situation like that.

The reality is the lakers are in an *incredibly strong* position now. They've got a top 5 nba player in his prime who will be there some time likely. That alone puts them in a good position. Then they have an aging all time great who is still great and has 3 more years on his contract, and while in 2021-22 it's a safe bet he will no longer be a top 5 or even top 10 player he's likely to still be good. Then he comes off the books.

And they still have enough money for another max player this offseason....they can make a choice between that or spending that max slot on 2-3 shooters/more depth.

What the lakers don't have is draft picks/draft control going forward, but if they are really good this won't matter a whole lot. My fear is that when these pick swaps are a possible Laker fans will be making memes showing AD smiling and holding the LOB trophy from a month before saying "How about those pic swaps?".....

But what the lakers do have right now after this trade is what we don't and hope we get one day again- and that's a true superstar player. Anytime you have a chance to get an Anthony Davis type player who wants to play for your franchise a long time, you do it. Every. Single. Time. Because apart from injury risk(and you never know with that) that is the gold standard in the nba- those sort of superstar players. Lebrons, KDs, Kawhis, ADs, Stephs. really just those 5 when healthy. Those are money every single time barring injury. All the stuff we got....the balls, the ingrams, the #4 pick(Garland? Hunter?), pick swaps with a franchise who will still have a great player- there are so many question marks associated with all that we have already gone over. There are no question marks outside of injury with AD.

So let's not pretend that we are in a better position than the lakers. not now, and not in some vague future timeline. They've got the 26 year old superstar who wants to play with them. We don't. We have a lot of maybes and whatifs. And I still like the trade giving our options, but trying to act like we are in a good position relative to the team that is the freaking odds on favorite to win the nba title next year and has a 26 year old top 5(at worst) player who is going to commit to them for a long time....that's insane. Guess what? 4 years from now...AD will probably still be with the Lakers and will be turning all of 30....that's how old steph and KD are now. We can talk about Lebron getting older all we want...that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that AD is going to be in his prime for awhile....

ooops obviously I forgot a certain guy in milwaukee

[Pelicanidae]

1) Of course they have better odds than other teams to win right now because....they just do.

Oh my mistake, didn't realise you had such a bulletproof argument. Thanks for clearing that up.

In all seriousness though, try using your brain instead of just looking at Vegas odds. Do you ACTUALLY think the Lakers have the best shot, out of everyone in the entire league, of winning the chip next year? Don't need to give me an answer, just think about it.

2) Everything I have read suggests the two sides have agreed to do that with the dates and that this will give the Lakers(with some anticipated other moves) like 600k short of a max slot. So yes, they do essentially have a max slot. Unless people are reporting wrong info. That's why you see all the reports that they are pushing hard for Walker. Big story on the ringer about that now.

I'll have to look into it: I haven't seen the updates on this. All I know is that as recently as a couple of hours ago, there was still no guarantee that Griff would make that adjustment. I also don't believe Griff would make that adjustment for free, given that it helps the Lakers out extra without really helping us that much. In any case, even if they have a max slot (which, as I said, is not certain), who are they gonna spend it on? Do you actually think Kawhi is leaving Toronto to go play side-man to Lebron? Durant and Klay aren't healthy, so it's not going to be them. Kemba's already on record saying he's even willing to take a paycut to sign in Charlotte.

You think they're gonna max out Vucevic or something?

Not responding to the rest of your post in detail because it's just the same stuff we've gone over again and again and again and again and if you didn't get it all of those times, you're not going to get it now.

No, free agents don't just fly to LA all the time. No, them having cap space doesn't guarantee signing another FA once Lebron is gone. No, having AD at the age of 30 doesn't guarantee you anything. No, nobody is saying it's a guarantee that LA will suck in 2023, but it's a pretty decent gamble. No, you never outright ''win'' a trade when you're losing a superstar, nobody thinks that.

You're acting like they're guaranteed a three-peat and a decade of success. They're not. They could just as easily suck in 2021 as they could be good. Griff is essentially betting that, at some point in the next 7 years, they will be bad. That, looking at the DUMPSTER FIRE of an organisation they are, led by a terrible owner and a moron GM, with their best player being on the decline of their career and their second best player having already demonstrably proven that they cannot lead a franchise on their own, is a pretty solid bet.

[Mount Zion]

I honestly wish there was a site that actually kept up with the cap, updated regularly, and explained things in real detail. There are tons of resources out there but a lot of them just assume you either already understand it, or they just link to the CBA.

And I love basketball, I really do, and I've read big chunks of the CBA, but I don't wanna have to keep referring to it all the time. It's excruciating.

PLEASE. SOMEBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE CAP PROPERLY.

JUST TELL US HOW MUCH CASH WE GOT.

The NBA salary cap and CBA are just about the most convoluted thing I have ever seen, including the US income tax rules. I really don't get why it is necessary to make it so difficult to understand.

I was playing with the cap figures on this site http://www.shamsports.com/ but if you try to make a trade, it doesn't take into consideration 2019 picks or second round picks. Other than that, it allows you to do almost anything (even things that wouldn't fly according to the CBA). So it isn't perfect, but it does provide a snapshot of team salaries, options, cap holds, etc. and allows you to accept options, decline them (like Randle) and renounce free agents. After I re-signed Payton and Diallo, completed the AD trade and rejected the option for Randle, I renounced the other FAs and traded Ball and Ingram. I ended up with $33 million in cap space and $66 million to the tax apron.

[msusousaphone]

Oh cool. You guys finished your dissertations.

Lol. That's A LOT of typing.

[Pelicanidae]

Oh cool. You guys finished your dissertations.

Lol. That's A LOT of typing.

At least I know how to use capital letters.

[AUSSIE_PELICAN]

The NBA salary cap and CBA are just about the most convoluted thing I have ever seen, including the US income tax rules. I really don't get why it is necessary to make it so difficult to understand.

I was playing with the cap figures on this site http://www.shamsports.com/ but if you try to make a trade, it doesn't take into consideration 2019 picks or second round picks. Other than that, it allows you to do almost anything (even things that wouldn't fly according to the CBA). So it isn't perfect, but it does provide a snapshot of team salaries, options, cap holds, etc. and allows you to accept options, decline them (like Randle) and renounce free agents. After I re-signed Payton and Diallo, completed the AD trade and rejected the option for Randle, I renounced the other FAs and traded Ball and Ingram. I ended up with $33 million in cap space and $66 million to the tax apron.

With the following players on the roster as of 17/6/19:

Holiday
Hill
Moore
Ball
Ingram
Hart
Okafor
Wood
Jackson
Diallo
Williams
Pick 1
Pick 4

18.9M CAP SPACE

as per http://www.shamsports.com/capulator

[13 - 3]

Chris Paul could be out of Houston soon?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pauls-friction

[DroopyDawg]

Chris Paul could be out of Houston soon?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pauls-friction

Nah... nobody is gonna want to give CP3 40 mil/yr. That contract is the only reason Houston will be stuck with him. Otherwise they'd get rid of him.

[Pelicanidae]

"We've been told that Anthony Davis will take his $4M trade kicker so they'll have around $24M to fill out the rest of their roster."@BobbyMarks42 | ��@ESPNLosAngeles pic.twitter.com/LLnfADlWsA

— ShowtimeForum (@ShowtimeForum) June 17, 2019

But I was told that LA had space for a max? I was arguing they didn't but some people were very very insistent that they did.

[bahmamamba]

"We've been told that Anthony Davis will take his $4M trade kicker so they'll have around $24M to fill out the rest of their roster."@BobbyMarks42 | ��@ESPNLosAngeles pic.twitter.com/LLnfADlWsA

— ShowtimeForum (@ShowtimeForum) June 17, 2019

But I was told that LA had space for a max? I was arguing they didn't but some people were very very insistent that they did.

don't forget making it happen on July 6th instead of 30th lmao

Sent from my SM-S903VL using Tapatalk

[Mythrol]

Not necessarily a free agent but the Bucks want to use their pick to get rid of Ilyasova. He's on a very team friendly deal with a 2nd year non guaranteed. He'd be a great fit as a big next to Zion.

[Pelicans78]

We need a veteran tall center who can shoot the 3s. Someone like Brook Lopez or Dewayne Dedmon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[13 - 3]

We need a veteran tall center who can shoot the 3s. Someone like Brook Lopez or Dewayne Dedmon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of the Gasol’s is Available too.

[RobertM320]

Not necessarily a free agent but the Bucks want to use their pick to get rid of Ilyasova. He's on a very team friendly deal with a 2nd year non guaranteed. He'd be a great fit as a big next to Zion.

Here's the tweet. Any interest in this? Ilyasova's contract is about $7M a year I think someone posted. Two years left.

Milwaukee is offering draft compensation this week in hopes of finding a team willing to take on the contract of Tony Snell or Ersan Ilyasova via trade, league sources say, as the Bucks seek to create added flexibility to retain elite status in the East

— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) June 17, 2019

[Mythrol]

His contract is 7m a year for 2 years but the 2nd year is non guaranteed so it can be a 1 year deal and if we like it we can bring him back for an additional year at 7m. Also can be used in trades as a 7m contract but the other team can cut him.

Still feel he's a really good fit as a floor spacing big for us.

[Pelicanidae]

His contract is 7m a year for 2 years but the 2nd year is non guaranteed so it can be a 1 year deal and if we like it we can bring him back for an additional year at 7m. Also can be used in trades as a 7m contract but the other team can cut him.

Still feel he's a really good fit as a floor spacing big for us.

What kind of trade would you have in mind? I'm not sure of my view on it yet. Need a proposal to visualise it properly.

[RobertM320]

What kind of trade would you have in mind? I'm not sure of my view on it yet. Need a proposal to visualise it properly.

I have no idea how that works. It says Milwaukee is willing to give draft compensation for someone to take the Ilyasova contract. I'm assuming it means they'll give picks with him, but do we have to give something back? If so, that would defeat the reason they're doing it. But if it just means we get him for $7M for a year and we get another pick or two. Does he fit with what we need?

[Pelicanidae]

I have no idea how that works. It says Milwaukee is willing to give draft compensation for someone to take the Ilyasova contract. I'm assuming it means they'll give picks with him, but do we have to give something back? If so, that would defeat the reason they're doing it. But if it just means we get him for $7M for a year and we get another pick or two. Does he fit with what we need?

Kinda? He's not a 40% sniper but he can shoot, so the spacing would be appreciated from the big man position, but he's not a true center and really can't bang with anyone in the post so I'm not sure if it's viable to roll him out there too often without another, legit big on the floor. If that's the case, then he doesn't really solve our big problem and he'd take minutes away from Zion and/or Ingram at the 4.

I'm not too thrilled about their pick tbh, I could take it or leave it. It's #30, so basically a second rounder.

[Nola3]

Ummmm Illyasova and, say, a top 20 protected 1st for a fake second would be amazing. I honestly think this type of move is the best use of cap space instead of chasing FA's on an overly frothy market. Absorb well-thought of vets who might be a bit overpaid and get a solid asset to do it. No downside for the next year or so as we develop the kids.

[Pelicanidae]

Ummmm Illyasova and, say, a top 20 protected 1st for a fake second would be amazing. I honestly think this type of move is the best use of cap space instead of chasing FA's on an overly frothy market. Absorb well-thought of vets who might be a bit overpaid and get a solid asset to do it. No downside for the next year or so as we develop the kids.

I mean, it wouldn't hurt, but it's not a solid asset. It's a non-asset. A top 20 protected from Milwaukee might as well not exist.

[Nola3]

I mean, it wouldn't hurt, but it's not a solid asset. It's a non-asset. A top 20 protected from Milwaukee might as well not exist.

I mean, it'd be like number 25 next year (Milwaukee isn't going anywhere). A first rounder for one year of a notoriously good teammate who can shoot and exists as a tall human being, instead of chasing a free agent we'd have to overpay by like $5 mil a year instead. Sign me up.

[Pelicanidae]

I mean, it'd be like number 25 next year (Milwaukee isn't going anywhere). A first rounder for one year of a notoriously good teammate who can shoot and exists as a tall human being, instead of chasing a free agent we'd have to overpay by like $5 mil a year instead. Sign me up.

Like I said, a pick in the 25 to 30 range is worth very little. You can usually package second rounders to move up into that; damn, at 30 it basically IS a second rounder.

He ''exists as a tall human being'' sure, but he can't really play center. We desperately need someone who can play on the court with Zion and Ingram and provide spacing, not someone who takes one of their places. Of course it would work in small-ball line ups, but it's not really ideal.

I guess that's my view. It wouldn't make me upset, it's fine, but it's not ideal and I wouldn't be excited about it. Not every move can be a home run, I get it, but yeah. It's a meh move.

[Mythrol]

I mean he fills a need. Especially if we are keeping Ball and Ingram. He's a floor stretching big which we desperately need. He's on a reasonable contract that's cost controlled and we would gain a small asset to take him.

Not every move has to be a home run. We are trying to round out a team here.