Lebron to the Lakers

jterrell · Jul 7, 2018

Corso said:
The Lakers will have about 29 mill right now. That's it, until something changes.

close and that's the common sense number with the guys they value.
numbers can easily change but that's the number you are working off of.

good resources:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/LAL.html
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/los-angeles-lakers/cap/
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/los_angeles_lakers/

A Lakers fan-centric take on it:
https://www.lakersnation.com/how-la...nard-in-nba-free-agency-next-year/2018/07/06/

As presently constructed, assuming the Lakers renounce Stephenson, McGee, Caldwell-Pope, and Rondo when their contracts expire and don’t sign any other players to deals longer than one season this summer, they will be around $6 million short of having the room to give Leonard his max, which would be $32,400,000 next summer (part of the appeal of trading for him now is he only makes $20 million this season).

After renouncing Julius Randle and signing Rondo, the problem now stems from Luol Deng’s bloated contract, which will pay him $18.8 million in 2019-2020. That’s valuable cap space being tied up in a player who appeared in just one game last season.

So what can the Lakers do to finally rid themselves of Deng’s deal?

They may find that the cost of trading him this summer with two years and $37 million left on his deal is simply too great. Teams will want a fortune in assets to absorb that much salary.

It’s possible that next summer when Deng has only a year left on his deal and more cap room is available league-wide, the price may be more palatable. If the Lakers convince a team to take him on without sending back salary then they would have enough cap space to toss a max offer at Leonard and still have a sizeable chunk left over to use on ring-chasing free agents.

If a trade doesn’t materialize, the Lakers could use the stretch provision, which allows a team to waive a player and spread his salary out over several seasons. The number of years the deal is spread out over is calculated by doubling the length of the contract plus one year.

With two years and $37 million on his deal currently, to stretch Deng now would mean that the Lakers would have $7.3 million on their books for the next five seasons, and that would be “dead” money that can’t be moved.

That pill may be too big to swallow.

If they wait one more season and stretch the remaining one year and $18.8 million, the Lakers would instead pay $6.3 million over the following three seasons. This would free up a little over $12 million in cap room, plenty to cover the about $6 million they are short on a Leonard max.

TellerMorrow34 · Jul 9, 2018

I respect him going for the money and he obviously wanted to live in LA. I get that.

I also respect that he didn't go to a team that was stacked and ready to go this year. They aren't going to get near the Finals this season.

But next season? It's possible. Depending on who they wind up picking up when you look at all the people who will potentially be FA.

I think Lebron gave up a shot this year, to potentially be part of building something in the next couple of years. I could be wrong on that, but I think the Lakers can put some pieces around him next year, and maybe the 3rd year as well, to have a real shot for at least 1 championship.

ABQCOWBOY · Jul 9, 2018

jterrell said:
dude.. you have been proven completely wrong now twice.
Not about opinion laden stuff or anything difficult but basic facts essentially found on a million sites.
and your insane tilting and pivoting is just basically lying.

as there is no hard cap any team in the league can spend any amount in theory.
but NO the Lakers can't count anything under 130M as cap space. The cap is 105M now and 109M estimated for next year.
And in fact being under means they lose the ability to go over in many scenarios available to over the cap teams.

1. The Lakers will not have 60M of cap space next year 'even with Deng'.
2. The Salary cap is not 130M.

Those two facts are essentially why you should stop posting and read and learn. LOL.

I do not hate the Lakers.
I think they are the most interesting team to sim-manage right now.

I am not crapping on them.
I am posting common sense stuff that will likely play out sooner rather than later.
No, the Lakers didn't sign LeBron to a 38m a year deal to sit back and play for 5th place in the West next year.

Answer the question. Can they spend up to 130 million next year. Simple question, yes or no? Lets start there, then I'll finish taking this post apart.

jterrell · Jul 9, 2018

TellerMorrow34 said:
I respect him going for the money and he obviously wanted to live in LA. I get that.

I also respect that he didn't go to a team that was stacked and ready to go this year. They aren't going to get near the Finals this season.

But next season? It's possible. Depending on who they wind up picking up when you look at all the people who will potentially be FA.

I think Lebron gave up a shot this year, to potentially be part of building something in the next couple of years. I could be wrong on that, but I think the Lakers can put some pieces around him next year, and maybe the 3rd year as well, to have a real shot for at least 1 championship.

1st SOA was great... can't wait on the Mayans.

It is interesting because LeBron always is but also because it is a complete 180 of his prior two major decisions in FA. He didn't recruit a bevy of players this time which was a first and he didn't make any statements about winning at all.

In ways LAL is such a strange place for him in that his biggest haters have always been Kobe guys. So the LAL faithful that grew up on Kobe are not LBJ guys. See the mural that's already been defaced.
He left a place where he was literally the face of the city/state and would win office if he ran for Governor to a place where he is seen as a hired gun.
And even more he locked both sides into the deal long term.
He doesn't have the yearly opt out power that makes him a de facto GM.
He also took building through youth off the table for LAL. They are obligated for supermax for 4 years to LBJ.
And LAL in a move that suggests both LAL will try to win now but also that LBJ isn't the GM signed some of LeBron's biggest old school nemesis.
I mean those were literally head scratching moves.
They they didn't sign Cousins because they didn't wanna wait a half year???
Or Brook Lopez back at peanuts?
But LeBron doesn't wanna play small ball Center?

It lends one to believe this decision was made a year ago. That he was decided perhaps after the election that he wanted to live elsewhere and do business with different people.
And that beating GSW wasn't likely to happen regardless.

This all feels a bit like winning the lottery but living off credit cards for a few more months until you decide what to do with the money.

I still think LAL could trade for Kawhi and get to 3rd best in WC and 4th best in basketball.
Then use the fact they have more money(large MLE next year) and young, tradable pieces then GSW or HOU to strengthen the team even more over the next 12-18 months.
But the lack of doing so already is puzzling. They paid Rondo and Lance too much money to just release them. Those guys are there for a year at least.
So the young dudes are going to either lose jobs, minutes or you will see the most dysfunctional angry locker room in the NBA.
If nothing else all eyes are on LA again.

jterrell · Jul 9, 2018

ABQCOWBOY said:
Answer the question. Can they spend up to 130 million next year. Simple question, yes or no? Lets start there, then I'll finish taking this post apart.

asked and answered:

as there is no hard cap any team in the league can spend any amount in theory.
but NO the Lakers can't count anything under 130M as cap space. The cap is 105M now and 109M estimated for next year.
And in fact being under means they lose the ability to go over in many scenarios available to over the cap teams.

I am done debating with you until you can acknowledge you understand the salary cap numbers and what the Lakers can actually have free with Deng on roster.
I am not going to debate easily verifiable facts. And it is a waste of time to debate someone who refuses to accept reality.

Once we get that understood we can discuss why the Lakers have to operate as an OVER THE CAP Team next league season to get to 130M which is a lot more work and math but nonetheless still fairly obvious.

ABQCOWBOY · Jul 9, 2018

jterrell said:
asked and answered:

as there is no hard cap any team in the league can spend any amount in theory.
but NO the Lakers can't count anything under 130M as cap space. The cap is 105M now and 109M estimated for next year.
And in fact being under means they lose the ability to go over in many scenarios available to over the cap teams.

I am done debating with you until you can acknowledge you understand the salary cap numbers and what the Lakers can actually have free with Deng on roster.
I am not going to debate easily verifiable facts. And it is a waste of time to debate someone who refuses to accept reality.

Once we get that understood we can discuss why the Lakers have to operate as an OVER THE CAP Team next league season to get to 130M which is a lot more work and math but nonetheless still fairly obvious.

So the answer is yes, we agree on that correct?

Oh, I would try to stop at this point too, were I you but I'm not going to allow you to do that. You started this mess JT. Right now, we are simply getting you on the record for what we agree on. You want everybody to believe that you understand what you are posting and that the numbers aren't in question but that's not true at all and you know this JT. I know it too but it means that you have to admit that you are wrong here and you don't want to do that. That's the truth of it.

If we agree that they can spend up to 130 million, then the math is correct. You know full well that all of the contracts, except a hand full of them are easily disposed of, do we agree?

Here are the players I see them holding onto:

James 37M
Deng 18M
Ingram 7.2M
Wagner 2M
Kuzma 2M
Hart 2M

Do you agree that the list above is solid list of the players the Lakers are interested in keeping? If so, that's 68.2 Million. Ball is gone and everybody knows it. Even if it's not Ball, it's going to be one of the other young kids but I think it's going to be Ball and I would guess that he probably would already be gone if not for the knee issue. Do you agree?

BTW, the links you use in post 241 are not accurate. They either all reflect cap numbers of current year or project Laker Cap before the James contract. Just saying.

jterrell · Jul 9, 2018

ABQCOWBOY said:
So the answer is yes, we agree on that correct?

Oh, I would try to stop at this point too, were I you but I'm not going to allow you to do that. You started this mess JT. Right now, we are simply getting you on the record for what we agree on. You want everybody to believe that you understand what you are posting and that the numbers aren't in question but that's not true at all and you know this JT. I know it too but it means that you have to admit that you are wrong here and you don't want to do that. That's the truth of it.

If we agree that they can spend up to 130 million, then the math is correct. You know full well that all of the contracts, except a hand full of them are easily disposed of, do we agree?

Here are the players I see them holding onto:

James 37M
Deng 18M
Ingram 7.2M
Wagner 2M
Kuzma 2M
Hart 2M

Do you agree that the list above is solid list of the players the Lakers are interested in keeping? If so, that's 68.2 Million. Ball is gone and everybody knows it. Even if it's not Ball, it's going to be one of the other young kids but I think it's going to be Ball and I would guess that he probably would already be gone if not for the knee issue. Do you agree?

The answer is No.
In any real world the answer is No.

When you operate under the salary cap your only means to go over the cap is the Mini MLE of 4.4M.
That takes the team to 113.5M or so.
The minimum salary slots are already weighted against you so you can not supercede the cap there.
They must make trades then under 'over the cap' circumstances if they exceed 109M which means cap matching.
Could they creep up the cap a bit? Yes.to 118 or 120M Possibly. All the way to 130M No.

Your 68.2M number is what? believing that trade Lonzo off for absolutely ZERO return?
Any sensible human is counting Ball as 8.7M right now and understanding even if he leaves they will get a return that counts something on the cap.
The Lakers don't wanna keep Bonga for 1.4M?
That's 78.3 minus 109M Which would make for ~32M EXCEPT you FORGET CAP HOLDS which cost just under 1M PER SPOT. (880K)
9 x 880k=7.92M
78.3+7.92 is 86.2M... actual forecasted cap space of 109-86.2 = 22.8M.
Kawhi is eligble for 32M

ABQ you are just not really that close but I appreciate the fact that at least now you are using online resources and doing math.
My work here is done.

ABQCOWBOY · Jul 9, 2018

jterrell said:
The answer is No.
In any real world the answer is No.

When you operate under the salary cap your only means to go over the cap is the Mini MLE of 4.4M.
That takes the team to 113.5M or so.
The minimum salary slots are already weighted against you so you can not supercede the cap there.
They must make trades then under 'over the cap' circumstances if they exceed 109M which means cap matching.
Could they creep up the cap a bit? Yes.to 118 or 120M Possibly. All the way to 130M No.

Your 68.2M number is what? believing that trade Lonzo off for absolutely ZERO return?
Any sensible human is counting Ball as 8.7M right now and understanding even if he leaves they will get a return that counts something on the cap.
The Lakers don't wanna keep Bonga for 1.4M?
That's 78.3 minus 109M Which would make for ~32M EXCEPT you FORGET CAP HOLDS which cost just under 1M PER SPOT. (880K)
9 x 880k=7.92M
78.3+7.92 is 86.2M... actual forecasted cap space of 109-86.2 = 22.8M.
Kawhi is eligble for 32M

ABQ you are just not really that close but I appreciate the fact that at least now you are using online resources and doing math.
My work here is done.

OK, fine. I know they can go as high as 130 but for the sake of this discussion, lets say 120.

Ball is gone and I don't think that's even a question but it could be one of the others, just depending on the deal. But it will be Ball and no, any sensible person wouldn't make that assumption. Ball could be given release or he could be traded for future picks or he could be traded for players, which the Lakes may or may not keep. You don't know so you cant make any kind of assumption there. What we do know is that the Lakers want to move Ball. We know that for sure because it's already been reported. So no, I don't keep Ball's 8 million plus in the calculation because they are likely not keeping him. What did my post ask you? It asked you if you agreed with the players I listed? You didn't answer because you see where the numbers are taking you if you agree and it doesn't support your argument. Asking again, do you agree with the list of players I listed, as players the Lakers will likely want to keep? BTW, I didn't list Bonga because I don't know if he is in the plan but we can.

They do not have to move Deng's contract this year, or even next. It would be good if they could but they don't have to trade an Ingram to San Antonio for a scrub player to make it work. All of that, is BS.

As far as the cap holds, you know as well as I do that they don't matter with one year deals. They don't matter. The league makes you account for that but the money is still there so you can spend more or less then what is specificed by the league for that. Either way, it doesn't matter. That doesn't prevent you from spending the money. The 68 million doesn't take into account the cap holds but so what? It doesn't change the Laker's ability to sign players. I understand how it works, you act like that's some big deal. It's nothing, it's not even real. It's adjusted as soon as the rosters are filled out so you can take that pretend numbers and say it matters but it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Are you seriously going to deny that?

I don't know if the lakers want to keep Bonga or not. I think it would depend on who they can sign and where they are at, with regards to cap but I have not heard any talk that they view him as a priority so I don't include him. I only included players that I have heard the Lakers have made statements of interest in. But, he is a rookie so it may well be that they decide to try to develop him, if they see something in him. We can add him to the list if you like, that's fair to me.

I don't believe the "mini MLE" is the only way, BTW. I think there is a rookie exception you can take advantage of. I think there is Bird Exception, Early Bird Exception, Minimum Salary Exception, Disabled Player Exceptions, heck, I don't even know why the NBA has cap rules. They create so many ways to get around them, it's ridiculous. Having said all of this, I am uncertain which of these may be applicable or not but I know that all teams are open to these and probably more. I'm just saying.

I'm glad you appreciate me. I, in turn, would appreciate it if you used current links, rather then links that are not up to date or are none relevant to the subject matter, when you are using them as factual basis to support your positions.

So real numbers here, 68.2 plus Bonga's 1.4 brings you to 69.6 Mil. Stretch Deng's 18 Mil over three years and that drops the number considerably. You actually pick up like 12 Mil in the 19-20 cap year so that brings down the number considerably. Even if you use the 120 Mil instead of the 130, that's still 65 to 70 to spend, which is exactly what I said to begin with. The Lakers could have as much as 65 to 70.

I'm not lying, and I understand the cap, I mean, it's not really all that difficult. If it was, lets face it, you or I couldn't even discuss it because neither one of us are rocket scientists JT.

casmith07 · Jul 9, 2018

This is a great move for LeBron to start building his post-basketball life.

jterrell · Jul 10, 2018

ABQCOWBOY said:
OK, fine. I know they can go as high as 130 but for the sake of this discussion, lets say 120.

Ball is gone and I don't think that's even a question but it could be one of the others, just depending on the deal. But it will be Ball and no, any sensible person wouldn't make that assumption. Ball could be given release or he could be traded for future picks or he could be traded for players, which the Lakes may or may not keep. You don't know so you cant make any kind of assumption there. What we do know is that the Lakers want to move Ball. We know that for sure because it's already been reported. So no, I don't keep Ball's 8 million plus in the calculation because they are likely not keeping him. What did my post ask you? It asked you if you agreed with the players I listed? You didn't answer because you see where the numbers are taking you if you agree and it doesn't support your argument. Asking again, do you agree with the list of players I listed, as players the Lakers will likely want to keep? BTW, I didn't list Bonga because I don't know if he is in the plan but we can.

They do not have to move Deng's contract this year, or even next. It would be good if they could but they don't have to trade an Ingram to San Antonio for a scrub player to make it work. All of that, is BS.

As far as the cap holds, you know as well as I do that they don't matter with one year deals. They don't matter. The league makes you account for that but the money is still there so you can spend more or less then what is specificed by the league for that. Either way, it doesn't matter. That doesn't prevent you from spending the money. The 68 million doesn't take into account the cap holds but so what? It doesn't change the Laker's ability to sign players. I understand how it works, you act like that's some big deal. It's nothing, it's not even real. It's adjusted as soon as the rosters are filled out so you can take that pretend numbers and say it matters but it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Are you seriously going to deny that?

I don't know if the lakers want to keep Bonga or not. I think it would depend on who they can sign and where they are at, with regards to cap but I have not heard any talk that they view him as a priority so I don't include him. I only included players that I have heard the Lakers have made statements of interest in. But, he is a rookie so it may well be that they decide to try to develop him, if they see something in him. We can add him to the list if you like, that's fair to me.

I don't believe the "mini MLE" is the only way, BTW. I think there is a rookie exception you can take advantage of. I think there is Bird Exception, Early Bird Exception, Minimum Salary Exception, Disabled Player Exceptions, heck, I don't even know why the NBA has cap rules. They create so many ways to get around them, it's ridiculous. Having said all of this, I am uncertain which of these may be applicable or not but I know that all teams are open to these and probably more. I'm just saying.

I'm glad you appreciate me. I, in turn, would appreciate it if you used current links, rather then links that are not up to date or are none relevant to the subject matter, when you are using them as factual basis to support your positions.

So real numbers here, 68.2 plus Bonga's 1.4 brings you to 69.6 Mil. Stretch Deng's 18 Mil over three years and that drops the number considerably. You actually pick up like 12 Mil in the 19-20 cap year so that brings down the number considerably. Even if you use the 120 Mil instead of the 130, that's still 65 to 70 to spend, which is exactly what I said to begin with. The Lakers could have as much as 65 to 70.

I'm not lying, and I understand the cap, I mean, it's not really all that difficult. If it was, lets face it, you or I couldn't even discuss it because neither one of us are rocket scientists JT.

lol. dude. you literally just wasted both our times to get to what i told you in post 1: getting rid of deng's money has real value and is likely the only way they have supermax money next off-season.

the cap is not rocket science but knowing ...
1. the projected cap amount.
2. that cap holds count against you for empty roster spots.
3. how the exceptions work both for under the cap and over the cap teams
... are crucial.

now we can get to the debatable part.
where I suggest LAL is far better off as an over the cap team sooner rather than later.
obtain a 2nd star in trade this season then operate over the cap next off-season and add a 9m a year piece next year as well as keep anyone they want that has Bird rights going forward and use the bi-annual exception.
that gives them a solid 7-9 man rotation of players they actually want.
staying under the cap reduces to them 5 or 6 and removes valuable ways to add to the rotation.

ABQCOWBOY · Jul 10, 2018

jterrell said:
lol. dude. you literally just wasted both our times to get to what i told you in post 1: getting rid of deng's money has real value and is likely the only way they have supermax money next off-season.

the cap is not rocket science but knowing ...
1. the projected cap amount.
2. that cap holds count against you for empty roster spots.
3. how the exceptions work both for under the cap and over the cap teams
... are crucial.

now we can get to the debatable part.
where I suggest LAL is far better off as an over the cap team sooner rather than later.
obtain a 2nd star in trade this season then operate over the cap next off-season and add a 9m a year piece next year as well as keep anyone they want that has Bird rights going forward and use the bi-annual exception.
that gives them a solid 7-9 man rotation of players they actually want.
staying under the cap reduces to them 5 or 6 and removes valuable ways to add to the rotation.

Dude, kettle black. I never ever said it would be a bad idea to get rid of Deng's contract. Go ahead and find that post, where I say that. I said they didn't have to do that to make it work and then you came up with some terrible trade for Ingram.

This season, there is no reason to make any move unless a suitable FA is available (like Leonard), or they can find a trade partner for Deng. There is no reason to make any moves otherwise IMO.

jterrell · Jul 12, 2018

ABQCOWBOY said:
Dude, kettle black. I never ever said it would be a bad idea to get rid of Deng's contract. Go ahead and find that post, where I say that. I said they didn't have to do that to make it work and then you came up with some terrible trade for Ingram.

This season, there is no reason to make any move unless a suitable FA is available (like Leonard), or they can find a trade partner for Deng. There is no reason to make any moves otherwise IMO.

for the love of god stop willfully lying this isn't even sophistry anymore but pure BS.

you said... Lakers will have 60-70M WITH DENG.
That is not true.

I said they needed to move Deng and offered up a trade of Matthews for Ingram (which clears 26M off LAL cap space next year) and you acted like you had been shot and again stated Deng didn't need to be moved.

The thread is right here, you are lying to yourself but no one else because we can all read what exactly you stated.

ABQCOWBOY · Jul 12, 2018

jterrell said:
for the love of god stop willfully lying this isn't even sophistry anymore but pure BS.

you said... Lakers will have 60-70M WITH DENG.
That is not true.

I said they needed to move Deng and offered up a trade of Matthews for Ingram (which clears 26M off LAL cap space next year) and you acted like you had been shot and again stated Deng didn't need to be moved.

The thread is right here, you are lying to yourself but no one else because we can all read what exactly you stated.

Your story, you tell it.

SkinsandTerps · Jul 15, 2018

jterrell said:
That projection model is why the Lakers absolutely can not play out the season with their roster as is.

Same as the Vegas odds right? Hmmmm.

jterrell · Jul 15, 2018

SkinsandTerps said:
Same as the Vegas odds right? Hmmmm.

Nope. This is an actual statistical model that cares not one iota about fandom.
Betting odds are set by bets placed.
This isn't hard to grasp.

jterrell · Jul 18, 2018

Kawhi to Raps is example 1of why I was suggesting LAL needed to move for KL.
As a fan of a team that has sucked like the Lakers the last few seasons I am far too educated on limitations of under the cap teams, lol.

The West isn't the East. The Lakers can't do what CLE did and suck much of the year but still make the Finals.
In the West a terrible 2 months and you are buried.

Going to be very interesting to see the Lakers approach and how long they can stay patient.

ABQCOWBOY · Jul 19, 2018

jterrell said:
Kawhi to Raps is example 1of why I was suggesting LAL needed to move for KL.
As a fan of a team that has sucked like the Lakers the last few seasons I am far too educated on limitations of under the cap teams, lol.

The West isn't the East. The Lakers can't do what CLE did and suck much of the year but still make the Finals.
In the West a terrible 2 months and you are buried.

Going to be very interesting to see the Lakers approach and how long they can stay patient.

I don't know why. They can sign him for the price of a Max Contract next year, if Leonard really wants to be in L.A., and give up no players or picks. I mean, I told you this a long time ago. Magic said that this might well be what the Lakers do this year. Heck, you might even see a deal worked with Toronto before it's all said and done. Lakers are playing the long game and they are not trying to do things for a season. They are trying to set themselves up for the long term, or at least that what it looks like to me. It's also what Magic said they were trying to do.

Lebron to the Lakers

jterrell

Penguinite

TellerMorrow34

BraveHeartFan

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....

jterrell

Penguinite

jterrell

Penguinite

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....

jterrell

Penguinite

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....

casmith07

Attorney-at-Zone

jterrell

Penguinite

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....

jterrell

Penguinite

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....

SkinsandTerps

Commanders Forever

jterrell

Penguinite

jterrell

Penguinite

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....