Dr. Gobbler welched out on his bet from year ago in this thread (1 Viewer)

[JMon348]

Heard on 710 LA/John Ireland that Dwight's agent basically told the Lakers that if he's traded to LA he has no desire to sign an extension and will walk.Is the agent posturing or is there truth behind it?

Good, we don't need him.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Heard on 710 LA/John Ireland that Dwight's agent basically told the Lakers that if he's traded to LA he has no desire to sign an extension and will walk.Is the agent posturing or is there truth behind it?

Good, we don't need him.

 

[Gr00vus]

So...are the Lakers going to make any moves?

I think they're going to have to go dumpster diving. If they could land Beasley and a non-stiff PG for draft picks and change it'd be a nice upgrade for them. That McRoberts signing looks worse every successive game, particularly if they pick up Wallace (is that really happening?). Hopefully he can contribute something in the 2nd half of the season.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

So...are the Lakers going to make any moves?

I think they're going to have to go dumpster diving. If they could land Beasley and a non-stiff PG for draft picks and change it'd be a nice upgrade for them. That McRoberts signing looks worse every successive game, particularly if they pick up Wallace (is that really happening?). Hopefully he can contribute something in the 2nd half of the season.

Also some of the things they're working on involve players that can't move until March 1. I don't expect anything to go down before Thursday.

 

[Shrugs]

I'll take Beasley for a second-round pick

 

[the moops]

I'll take Beasley for a second-round pick

Wolves aren't going to trade him for a 2nd and the Lakers are over the cap so they can't just trade a pick for him.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'll take Beasley for a second-round pick

Wolves aren't going to trade him for a 2nd and the Lakers are over the cap so they can't just trade a pick for him.

Lakers have the Odom trade exception - they can get Beasley for a pick if Minny wants to dump him.

 

[the moops]

they can get Beasley for a pick if Minny wants to dump him.

They are looking to trade him,not dump him.He may have some issues, but Minny isn't just going to give the kid away.

 

[Gr00vus]

they can get Beasley for a pick if Minny wants to dump him.

They are looking to trade him,not dump him.He may have some issues, but Minny isn't just going to give the kid away.

I bet they'd ship him out for a 1st rounder in this year's draft.

 

[the moops]

they can get Beasley for a pick if Minny wants to dump him.

They are looking to trade him,not dump him.He may have some issues, but Minny isn't just going to give the kid away.

I bet they'd ship him out for a 1st rounder in this year's draft.

Probably would. Getting a first rounder in this draft is hardly dumping him.

 

[Gr00vus]

they can get Beasley for a pick if Minny wants to dump him.

They are looking to trade him,not dump him.He may have some issues, but Minny isn't just going to give the kid away.

I bet they'd ship him out for a 1st rounder in this year's draft.

Probably would. Getting a first rounder in this draft is hardly dumping him.

Agreed.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Just to add to the rumor mongering...Third hand rumor so take it for whats it worth, which is almost nothing. Lakers, Celts, Rockets discussing three way deal which looks something like this or some combination of the following:

Lakers get Rondo, Garnett

Celts get K.Martin, Scola, Dragic, Lee, Laker pick and Houston Pick (plus Walton for cap fit)

Houston gets Gasol, Goudelock, McRoberts, and Barnes plus Laker pick.

I'm sure desperate teams get in lots of BS discussions like that...but like I said its just something I heard from friend of friend working over at foxsports.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Just to add to the rumor mongering...Third hand rumor so take it for whats it worth, which is almost nothing. Lakers, Celts, Rockets discussing three way deal which looks something like this or some combination of the following:Lakers get Rondo, GarnettCelts get K.Martin, Scola, Dragic, Lee, Laker pick and Houston Pick (plus Walton for cap fit)Houston gets Gasol, Goudelock, McRoberts, and Barnes plus Laker pick.I'm sure desperate teams get in lots of BS discussions like that...but like I said its just something I heard from friend of friend working over at foxsports.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention or something, but how does that help Boston?

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Just to add to the rumor mongering...Third hand rumor so take it for whats it worth, which is almost nothing. Lakers, Celts, Rockets discussing three way deal which looks something like this or some combination of the following:Lakers get Rondo, GarnettCelts get K.Martin, Scola, Dragic, Lee, Laker pick and Houston Pick (plus Walton for cap fit)Houston gets Gasol, Goudelock, McRoberts, and Barnes plus Laker pick.I'm sure desperate teams get in lots of BS discussions like that...but like I said its just something I heard from friend of friend working over at foxsports.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention or something, but how does that help Boston?

I kinda agree. Although Scola, Martin and a probable lotto pick from Houston are nice pieces...Rondo is a top young PG and they could get more. But Garnett is just throw in at this point. He's gone in a few months and his salary makes it almost impossible to trade him for any real value to most teams. The Lakers huge trade exception makes them one of those teams.

 

[the moops]

But Garnett is just throw in at this point. He's gone in a few months and his salary makes it almost impossible to trade him for any real value to most teams. The Lakers huge trade exception makes them one of those teams.

Hasn't this been discussed in here in how that trade exception does not work in an instance like this?Either way, if Garnett and his expiring deal are going out, Boston sure as hell isn't taking 4 years of Scola and 2 years of Martin back

 

[DaveGrumbles]

But Garnett is just throw in at this point. He's gone in a few months and his salary makes it almost impossible to trade him for any real value to most teams. The Lakers huge trade exception makes them one of those teams.

Hasn't this been discussed in here in how that trade exception does not work in an instance like this?Either way, if Garnett and his expiring deal are going out, Boston sure as hell isn't taking 4 years of Scola and 2 years of Martin back

Sure it does. Any deal like this doesn't happen as one move. These types of big deals are usually done as a series of smaller deals thereby using the exception and even creating other exceptions along the way. Again, its just talk and 99% chance this does not happen for the reason that you stated and its one I agree with...Boston would not necessarily be improved by this deal...short term or long term.

 

[the moops]

Sure it does. Any deal like this doesn't happen as one move. These types of big deals are usually done as a series of smaller deals thereby using the exception and even creating other exceptions along the way.

I think the issue is that that Odom's trade exception cannot be combined with a player's salary in order to take back a larger salary. The exception is 8.9 millon. I believe they can only take back a player with a max salary of that exact figure or lower. Rondo makes 10 million, and Garnett makes 21 million.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Sure it does. Any deal like this doesn't happen as one move. These types of big deals are usually done as a series of smaller deals thereby using the exception and even creating other exceptions along the way.

I think the issue is that that Odom's trade exception cannot be combined with a player's salary in order to take back a larger salary. The exception is 8.9 millon. I believe they can only take back a player with a max salary of that exact figure or lower. Rondo makes 10 million, and Garnett makes 21 million.

I believe they can move salaries in return using the exception. Here's a good link that explains this...the trade exception is basically the same as it was in the 2005 CBA. Actually this is a better explanation

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Good call! So no salaries in return and Rondo's base is 10mil? Guess our imaginary trade is off

But wait...If the first segment of the trade is the pick for Garnett which then creates a 21 mil exception...allowing them to move for Rondo with nothing...and the rest of the imaginary three-way deal is on!

 

[the moops]

But wait...If the first segment of the trade is the pick for Garnett which then creates a 21 mil exception

Not following

 

[DaveGrumbles]

But wait...If the first segment of the trade is the pick for Garnett which then creates a 21 mil exception

Not following

Back to II'm in a meeting trying negotiate trades for the Lakers at the same time...getting lost in these trade exceptions now. I obviously need a vacation.Basically Lakers are screwed and they are a million short on their TPE needed to get Rondo. No way around that in the trade offered. If this rumor is true involving the same players then Lakers would have to be moving more expiring salaries to Boston?Whatever...good luck Kupchak.

 

[Shrugs]

The talk before his big game Tuesday WAS that the Wolves would give Beasley away for a second rounder to clear his salary.

 

[Gr00vus]

Lakers turn down Beasley for 1st rounder offer.

I guess Jerry's been losing too much at the tables. The article cites the Lakers unwillingness to add to their luxury tax bill this year as the reason they turned it down. If that's really the case, I guess we shouldn't expect any moves that would add to their salary total. Somehow the Lakers are becoming a nickle and dime operation. Was it freaky friday at some point over the offseason where the Lakers and Clippers swapped bodies?

 

[Gr00vus]

Steven A. Smith was on L.A. radio last night during the Laker pre-game. He was saying that the cost cutting the Lakers are doing is in preparation for what happens when Jerry dies. He's speculating that the kids are preparing to pay the estate tax they'll get hit with (55% in 2013 for example) when they inherit the team, as they'll get taxed on the market value of the Lakers and will need to have some cash on hand to pay it. With a market value of $900M that'd mean the kids would have to fork over roughly $450M in tax. So they're pinching pennies now. Anyone else have insight into this?

 

[the moops]

Steven A. Smith was on L.A. radio last night during the Laker pre-game. He was saying that the cost cutting the Lakers are doing is in preparation for what happens when Jerry dies. He's speculating that the kids are preparing to pay the estate tax they'll get hit with (55% in 2013 for example) when they inherit the team, as they'll get taxed on the market value of the Lakers and will need to have some cash on hand to pay it. With a market value of $900M that'd mean the kids would have to fork over roughly $450M in tax. So they're pinching pennies now. Anyone else have insight into this?

I have no insight, but that sounds completely made up

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Steven A. Smith was on L.A. radio last night during the Laker pre-game. He was saying that the cost cutting the Lakers are doing is in preparation for what happens when Jerry dies. He's speculating that the kids are preparing to pay the estate tax they'll get hit with (55% in 2013 for example) when they inherit the team, as they'll get taxed on the market value of the Lakers and will need to have some cash on hand to pay it. With a market value of $900M that'd mean the kids would have to fork over roughly $450M in tax. So they're pinching pennies now. Anyone else have insight into this?

In most states, including California, there is a maximum percentage of the total estate that is considered taxable. I'm not sure what that percentage is but its probably something like 30 or 40% of the total estate. Still, that's probably a hefty amount of cash they will owe.

 

[Gr00vus]

Steven A. Smith was on L.A. radio last night during the Laker pre-game. He was saying that the cost cutting the Lakers are doing is in preparation for what happens when Jerry dies. He's speculating that the kids are preparing to pay the estate tax they'll get hit with (55% in 2013 for example) when they inherit the team, as they'll get taxed on the market value of the Lakers and will need to have some cash on hand to pay it. With a market value of $900M that'd mean the kids would have to fork over roughly $450M in tax. So they're pinching pennies now. Anyone else have insight into this?

In most states, including California, there is a maximum percentage of the total estate that is considered taxable. I'm not sure what that percentage is but its probably something like 30 or 40% of the total estate. Still, that's probably a hefty amount of cash they will owe.

We're talking Fed inheritance tax here, not state. It'd be nice to hear from an accountant to give us some insight.

 

[Short Corner]

Hard to plan for this preemptively. Wouldn't they be getting sixty cents on the dollar for any salary saved as that cash would also be subject to the estate tax?

 

[Gr00vus]

Hard to plan for this preemptively. Wouldn't they be getting sixty cents on the dollar for any salary saved as that cash would also be subject to the estate tax?

Saving money is saving money. They're going to need that cash on hand when the bill comes due if the scenario laid out above is true. Keep in mind they're in the luxury tax, so any salary basically costs them double right now, possibly much more when the full CBA kicks in in 2 years if they can't get under the cap. Given their current commitments, they'd very likely be over the cap (assuming something like the current $58M cap) with just 4 players on the roster at approximately $61.5M when 13/14 hits (Bryant, Gasol, Peace, Blake). That's without extending Bynum who's deal ends next year. When they amnesty Peace (I can't imagine them continuing to pay him after this season), they'd be at $53.7M with three guys on the roster. Basically there's very little possibility they won't pay luxury tax when the new CBA hits, they'll be lucky just to keep it in the manageable 5-10M over range unless they're going to run Bryant, Gasol and scrubs. Maybe that's the end game, run the team into the ground so the FMV tanks and they'll owe less tax when Jerry kicks it (I doubt it).Anyway, you know they're pinching pennies when they turn down the Beasley offer. Even though he'd cost them $12.4M in real money this year and probably $14.4M next (I'm not sure what qualifying offer means, but that's what his contract states for commitment level this offseason), he comes off the books before the new CBA goes into full effect for luxury tax.This is another reason why the #### job Stern pulled with the Paul deal was so huge. It hit the Lakers hard in the finance department as well as on the court. They mitigated somewhat by dumping Odom.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Anyway, you know they're pinching pennies when they turn down the Beasley offer.

It might be premature to say that this was solely a financial decision. As I found out yesterday with moops, using this exception properly in multi-team deal is gonna involve a bunch of steps and creative negotiation with 3 or maybe even 4 teams going. They may not be ready to just blow two of their cards (the exception and a first rounder) on a Beasley trade until they find out if they can somehow utilize these pieces in a larger deal to get themselves a legit PG.

 

[Gr00vus]

Anyway, you know they're pinching pennies when they turn down the Beasley offer.

It might be premature to say that this was solely a financial decision. As I found out yesterday with moops, using this exception properly in multi-team deal is gonna involve a bunch of steps and creative negotiation with 3 or maybe even 4 teams going. They may not be ready to just blow two of their cards (the exception and a first rounder) on a Beasley trade until they find out if they can somehow utilize these pieces in a larger deal to get themselves a legit PG.

I'd like to believe that's the case too.However, recent events are starting to add up to thinking saving money has become s driving factor in their decision making. The offseason layoffs, the Odom deal, this non-deal...

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Anyway, you know they're pinching pennies when they turn down the Beasley offer.

It might be premature to say that this was solely a financial decision. As I found out yesterday with moops, using this exception properly in multi-team deal is gonna involve a bunch of steps and creative negotiation with 3 or maybe even 4 teams going. They may not be ready to just blow two of their cards (the exception and a first rounder) on a Beasley trade until they find out if they can somehow utilize these pieces in a larger deal to get themselves a legit PG.

I'd like to believe that's the case too.However, recent events are starting to add up to thinking saving money has become s driving factor in their decision making. The offseason layoffs, the Odom deal, this non-deal...

Yeah the string of decisions is starting to add up...plus stories like this one are making it pretty clear that the Lakers as we know them are probably done and gone without Jerry Buss running the show.

 

[Shrugs]

Every team is going to have to get closer to the cap over the next few years because of the collective bargaining agreement. But it's hard to believe the Lakers are that concerned about money when they just signed a TV contract for $3 billion over 20 years. I guess we'll know for sure in two weeks.

 

[timschochet]

Every team is going to have to get closer to the cap over the next few years because of the collective bargaining agreement. But it's hard to believe the Lakers are that concerned about money when they just signed a TV contract for $3 billion over 20 years. I guess we'll know for sure in two weeks.

Not necessarily. They may end up not making a trade because, frankly, there aren't any good enough trades. Everyone knows the Lakers' weaknesses, so teams are demanding high prices. The Lakers may have to wait until free agency to get what they want.

 

[Shrugs]

Every team is going to have to get closer to the cap over the next few years because of the collective bargaining agreement. But it's hard to believe the Lakers are that concerned about money when they just signed a TV contract for $3 billion over 20 years. I guess we'll know for sure in two weeks.

Not necessarily. They may end up not making a trade because, frankly, there aren't any good enough trades. Everyone knows the Lakers' weaknesses, so teams are demanding high prices. The Lakers may have to wait until free agency to get what they want.

There's a good chance the Lakers won't be able to make a big trade. But we know that they can't win as currently constituted. If they don't use those first rounders to bring someone in at PG/SF, you know it's about money.

 

[Daywalker]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

 

[JMon348]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

Exactly, people slamming the franchise and Jim Buss forget that if not for one of the shadiest moves in NBA history, we probably have 3/5ths of the West's All Star starting lineup, all making max type deals.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

The salary disparity played the major role in the veto.

 

[bryhamm]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

The salary disparity played the major role in the veto.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

The salary disparity played the major role in the veto.

It most certainly did. The major thing the owners of the Hornets were against was all the salary they were taking on. The Lakers were getting the best player, dumping the most salary, and taking on virtually no salaries. The deal made even less business sense than it did basketball sense for the Hornets.

 

[Gr00vus]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

The salary disparity played the major role in the veto.

It most certainly did. The major thing the owners of the Hornets were against was all the salary they were taking on. The Lakers were getting the best player, dumping the most salary, and taking on virtually no salaries. The deal made even less business sense than it did basketball sense for the Hornets.

You're sort of right, but are missing a key component. There was a ton of whining about how the Lakers would not only have ended up with Paul, but also taken huge steps to fix their financial situation in preparation for the new CBA coming into full effect. Cuban was one of the main whiners in that regard. It wasn't just about making sure the Hornets looked attractive (i.e. cheap) to prospective buyers - there was a healthy amount of animosity at letting the Lakers "off the hook" financially.It was a brilliant deal by Kupchak all the way around, and Stern ####ed the Lakers sideways with a 2 by 4 by vetoing it.

 

[the moops]

How much better would the Lakers be with a Paul and ####ty PF compared to a Gasol and ####ty PG?

 

[Gr00vus]

How much better would the Lakers be with a Paul and ####ty PF compared to a Gasol and ####ty PG?

At the time I wasn't sure how I felt about that trade off this year talent/team composition wise. But for the future it was a great deal for the Lakers.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Goudelock is a keeper. Kid had confidence, a damn good jumper, and just enough shake to create room to get it off. Very glad to have him on board.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How much better would the Lakers be with a Paul and ####ty PF compared to a Gasol and ####ty PG?

At the time I wasn't sure how I felt about that trade off this year talent/team composition wise. But for the future it was a great deal for the Lakers.

I believed then, and I believe now, that the dynamics Paul brings would absolutely be a big plus both now and in the future. #### David Stern.

 

[Shrugs]

How much better would the Lakers be with a Paul and ####ty PF compared to a Gasol and ####ty PG?

At the time I wasn't sure how I felt about that trade off this year talent/team composition wise. But for the future it was a great deal for the Lakers.

I believed then, and I believe now, that the dynamics Paul brings would absolutely be a big plus both now and in the future. #### David Stern.

And it would have been a better trade for NO, both now and in the future.

 

[JMon348]

Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant has always been lauded for his self-motivation and drive to be the best. It's a good thing he had that internal ambition, because according to Bryant, he's gone through his 16-year career without a true rival on the exterior to push him to succeed.

"I didn't have one," Bryant said after scoring 38 points in the Lakers' 115-107 win over the Sacramento Kings on Friday.

"I get up for everybody just the same, to be honest. It's hard for me to turn my meter up any higher than it normally is."

OK, Bryant was asked, how about Dwyane Wade? After all, Wade plays shooting guard just like Bryant, Wade has one Finals MVP trophy to Bryant's two and Wade has to be at least close to as competitive as Bryant is or else he wouldn't have given Bryant that hard foul across the face in the All-Star Game.

"He's too young," Bryant said. "He's too young. When I came into the league, he was in elementary school."

Bryant is three years older than Wade, but was already a seven-year veteran when Wade was drafted into the NBA in 2003.

Bryant said it is "a little late in the game" for him to develop a rivalry with any current NBA player, so instead he is chasing guys' names who can be found in the record books rather than in box scores from the 2011-12 season.

"At this point my rivals, in terms of what I have left to accomplish in my career, [left the game] when Magic [Johnson] and Michael [Jordan]retired in '98," Bryant said, referring to the second of Jordan's three retirements that came after he won his sixth and final championship with the Chicago Bulls. "That's it. In terms of what I'm looking to accomplish, that's about it."

Bryant is one championship behind Jordan, with five, which ties him with Johnson, who also won all five of his rings with the Lakers. Earlier in the season Bryant said he was "obsessed" with adding another championship to his collection.

"What I have left to accomplish, those players retired a long time ago," Bryant said.

The San Antonio Spurs' Tim Duncan won four championships to Bryant's five throughout their shared careers, but Bryant said while the Spurs might have qualified as a team rival to his Lakers, Duncan's individual rivalry came against Shaquille O'Neal as a fellow big man.

"He was never in my position," Bryant said. "He was more Shaq's rival than mine. As a team, the Spurs were always a team that we had to go through. So from that standpoint, yes, but in terms of personally, no. I've outgrown them all, from A.I. [Allen Iverson] when I first came in to [Tracy] McGrady to Vince Carter and so forth and so on."

Bryant said that he developed the desire to win multiple championships from an early age.

"It's always what I want to accomplish," Bryant said. "That's what you set your goals at. Growing up, watching them, they've always won multiple championships and that was always something that I felt like must be done. So, my goal originally when I was a kid and so forth, and when I was a teenager, always started from gauging them."

 

[Gr00vus]

Goudelock is a keeper. Kid had confidence, a damn good jumper, and just enough shake to create room to get it off. Very glad to have him on board.

He's really struggling with his shot right now.

 

[Daywalker]

Jim Buss still has a lot of rope IMO. Franchise-altering moves don't come around every season. He had a deal in place to acquire Paul and shed salary. That was masterful. We are all singing a different tune if that played out like all parties expected.

The salary disparity played the major role in the veto.

It most certainly did. The major thing the owners of the Hornets were against was all the salary they were taking on. The Lakers were getting the best player, dumping the most salary, and taking on virtually no salaries. The deal made even less business sense than it did basketball sense for the Hornets.

You're sort of right, but are missing a key component. There was a ton of whining about how the Lakers would not only have ended up with Paul, but also taken huge steps to fix their financial situation in preparation for the new CBA coming into full effect. Cuban was one of the main whiners in that regard. It wasn't just about making sure the Hornets looked attractive (i.e. cheap) to prospective buyers - there was a healthy amount of animosity at letting the Lakers "off the hook" financially.It was a brilliant deal by Kupchak all the way around, and Stern ####ed the Lakers sideways with a 2 by 4 by vetoing it.

The owners wanted the new CBA to help small-market teams keep their own superstars from dictating to the team where they would go (major markets). They were horrified by the Lebron/Cleveland situation. Then right out of the gate the superstar player in Paul goes exactly where he wanted. That struck a nerve with the owners and they flipped out on Stern. Perhaps they thought early on that the new CBA had/should have changed things which apparently it hasn't.

 

[timschochet]

World Peace has played much better of late, both in Wednesday's game against Minnesota, and especially yesterday when he was key to beating the Heat. A local commentator put it: "that wasn't World Peace out there; that was Ron Artest.".

If only this would continue...