|Go back to previous topic|
|Forum name||Okay Sports|
|Topic subject||As a laker fan though, you're not seeing it for what it is...|
2699488, As a laker fan though, you're not seeing it for what it is...|
Posted by auragin_boi, Mon Jun-17-19 10:15 AM
>Yes, but this goes back to the issue with the picks, and Rob
>apparently getting got for the money that would have gone
>toward that max slot.
You have AD, Bron and potentially another Max player. Any picks this team would have gotten would be late 1st anyway.
And let's actually look at the trade:
"The future picks going to the Pelicans include a 2021 pick that will go to New Orleans if it is in the top eight in that year's draft -- and will become an unprotected pick in 2022 if it isn't -- sources told ESPN's Tim Bontemps.
In addition, the deal includes a pick swap in 2023, which is unprotected, as well as an unprotected first-round pick in 2024 that the Pelicans will have the right to defer until 2025, sources told Bontemps."
So a pick in 2 yrs if it's top 8, goes to the Pelicans...so if it's NOT in the top 8, he Lakers keep it. You think the lakers will be one of the worst 8 teams in the league in 2 seasons?
A pick swap in 2023...so you don't lose your first, you just have to give up your earlier slot to NO if you suck worst than them. But you still get a pick.
And then finally a REAL pick in 2024 that they can defer a yr.
So by my count, the Lakers still get 2 picks in this deal and don't lose one until 3 and 6 yrs from now. So maybe a rebuild post-AD has to last 1 extra season. *shrug* Especially if they get 1-2 titles out of it.
Lakers Future picks:
2020 - 1st and 2nd rounders
2021 - 1st if it's outside of the top 8 (otherwise NO's)
2022 - 1st and 2nd rounders (they lose the first if 2021's isn't conveyed)
2023 - 1st and 2nd rounders (but 1st is swappable with NO)
2024 - 2nd rounder (and potentially 1st if NO defers)
2025 - 1st and 2nd rounders (unless NO defers the 1st here)
>We resign all these guys. Cool.
>You be be ok with us riding out with a top heavy roster with
>poorly fitting parts surrounding said heavies... which makes
>sense, given that you're not a Lakers fan.
>Objectively, there's a major problem with that scenario:
>W sign all those players. At that point, we have no tradable
>assets. We have a big ol bag of dildos, with no picks to
>grease them with.
>So if we have needs to fill, that scenario leaves us with
>precious little wiggle room to do that.
>That's before discussing the poor fit of many of them.
Ok, the issue with alladis: your roster is top heavy. You're not the Warriors and you landed the two biggest FA names on the market two summers running. No way you're not going to be top heavy. It is what it is. The tradeable assets thing is off as well...you still have second round picks, you can deal for the top 8 levied pick and the swap pick. So if the Lakers are still good in 2 seasons (strong possibility) that's a tradeable pick (and we've seen Sacramento do this with Boston/Philly recently).
Poor fit is subjective. Maybe they were a poor fit with the prior cast. AD and Rondo had the best season of his NO career. Lakers were on pace to be a top 4 seed before Bron got hurt. Adding Chandler helped with the depth and defense. Some of the rookies showed promise last year. Why can't the lakers develop what they have and also rely on seasoned vets who know how to play. Only thing this roster might need a bit more of is shooters. But scoring won't be an issue at all for this team. Too many weapons.
>so going inti the tax, particularly in multiple years, is
>problematic. not because we cant afford to pay it, but because
>it severely limits our ability to tweak things as needed.
>it's not just a case of rich people having problems too. it's
>just reality, and long term success and health of this team is
>poorly served by going deep into the tax for the likes of Born
>it's easy to just say "hey you got brawn and AD!", and say
>fuck it with the rest, but that's not how an elite franchise
You don't sign the supporting cast of a top heavy team to long term deals. That's fool-hearty. That's why you see the change to the Warriors depth. They've had to rely on vets looking to get a ring who could add to their talent and developing their late 1st and second round picks. Lakers will be operating the same. Having the max players pretty much guarantees you're paying the luxury tax unless you've been very fortunate early in the process (i.e. not the Lakers).
Long term Success = Bron for 3 more years and the ability to have AD for 6. They can compete for a title for 2 seasons minimum and then Bron's off the boat and retired. His cap comes back into the fold before the last pick is even conveyed to NO. If they sign another max player, that'll be 4yrs at most and likely for a younger player so you'll get their prime and only have to eat that salary for a yr after Bron is gone.
>>One mo' max
>That one mo max isn't there, because Rob didn't make this deal
>contingent upon the date needed to keep that max slot.
>this could change, but that's where things stand for now.
A few moves could free up 9 mil in space, maybe trading a player and a second rounder to a team for an expiring deal and cash. It's not a longshot that this can happen.
>^^^^a huge mixed bag. At a glance, I'd keep Bullock, Rondo,
>Caruso. The rest depend on price tags and what else we got.
Pricetags would be vet mins or exceptions for most and slightly more (if possible) for those deemed most important. All 1 yrs deals or 2 with a team option for the second yr. Most of those guys aren't going to command a boat load of cash on the open market.
>this doesn't mean we need to just say fuck it, and not take a
>disciplined approach to building around AD and Brawn.
But it has been disciplined. You're not looking at it from the right angle.