# Lakers Re-Sign Walton - 6 Years, $30 Million



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2922663



> Luke Walton reached agreement Sunday with the Los Angeles Lakers on a six-year, $30 million contract after general manager Mitch Kupchak placed a call one minute after midnight to express the team's interest in retaining its best unrestricted free agent.
> 
> They called at the earliest possible moment, and we worked on it all day," agent Lon Babby said. "They wanted him back, and Luke wanted to be there. We wanted to make every effort to get an agreement.before we went out and looked at any other teams."


Sounds good to me! :cheers:


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

:clap:


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Welcome back!


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

is paying luke 5 million a year worth it? towards the end of the season and including the playoffs, he wasn't playing all that hot. his defense is another liability too.

this is not to mention that kobe may be leaving soon, the team could be in rebuilding mode.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

wasn't he recovering from an ankle injury during the playoffs? Good signing and i think that it's worth it. Welcome back Luke!


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

Finally a good day for Laker fans.....


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Drk Element said:


> Finally a good day for Laker fans.....


those wont last long...a


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

I knew it!


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

Cris said:


> those wont last long...a


Why must you do this to me?


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> is paying luke 5 million a year worth it? towards the end of the season and including the playoffs, he wasn't playing all that hot. his defense is another liability too.
> 
> this is not to mention that kobe may be leaving soon, the team could be in rebuilding mode.


He wasn't playing all that hot... because he was badly injured... but sucked it up and tried to play through it.

Glad to have Walton back. :yay:


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I'm not thrilled about this. I realize that we are over the cap, but 6 years is too many for a bench player like Walton. And combine that with his salary and you have a very untradeable player if we ever wanted to trade him.

I can accept either he or Radman as our backup small forward, but not both. We now have two guys with long expensive contracts and both are average starters at best.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

exactly. 

we already have radman making more money than he's contributing, and he plays the same position as luke. to add to that, if we don't trade lamar, that's 3 small forwards who are taking about 23 million a year from our cap space. suddenly, we're starting to look like a crappier version of the sonics.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

We overpayed for him plain and simple. Luke himself said he was going to explore all the options, and yet he signs on the first day possible. Why is that? Because we gave him a lot more than anyone else would have.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

exactly. our front office/management has gone to ****. still can't blame it all on mitch, but all i know is.. since he's been here, the team has gone downhill.

we need a new gm, and a new owner.


----------



## g-dog-rice#2 (Jan 29, 2006)

I actually don't have a big problem with the amount of money he is getting. The problem is the length of the contract, which some posters have already alluded to. 

Walton is a decent role player, but you have to be crazy to give him a deal like this. I would have talked him down to about $4 mil/3 years.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

now you guys wouldnt be saying this **** if we walton was signed from another team

did we ever ***** about radman getting 6 years? no, we were glad he signed with the lakers at a bargain price (atless thats what we thought)


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

well that's the problem. when we signed radman, we didn't have luke signed to a 5 year contract.

3 small forwards. luke isn't even much of a starter level player.


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

meh, it is fine, the money is even below the league average MLE. 6 years is a little long but should not be the problem.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> We overpayed for him plain and simple. Luke himself said he was going to explore all the options, and yet he signs on the first day possible. Why is that? Because we gave him a lot more than anyone else would have.


Strongly disagree. This is a great signing barring future injuries. Luke is a SoCal boy so he wants to stay here. Also 5mil a year for a quality role player is the norm. Luke IMO has one of the highest IQ's in the NBA. You can count on one hand actual "bonehead" plays he has in an entire season. Every single year he has improved, he was lethal this season with his little fade away 15 footer. Lastly, prices for players are only going up this deal will be considered a steal in two years. Luke Walton won't win you a championship, but you'll never win one without smart role-players like Luke. Great signing.:yay:


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> Strongly disagree. This is a great signing barring future injuries. Luke is a SoCal boy so he wants to stay here. Also 5mil a year for a quality role player is the norm. Luke IMO has one of the highest IQ's in the NBA. You can count on one hand actual "bonehead" plays he has in an entire season. Every single year he has improved, he was lethal this season with his little fade away 15 footer. Lastly, prices for players are only going up this deal will be considered a steal in two years. Luke Walton won't win you a championship, but you'll never win one without smart role-players like Luke. Great signing.:yay:


strongly disagree. 1) he isn't a proven role player 2) he has no shooting touch 3) he can't play defense 4) though he's a great passer, he can at times be a turnover machine 5) as i said a billion times before, we have too many small forwards (and radmanovic will be hard to unload)


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

I'm shocked there are actually people disagreeing with this sign, and are complaining. It was a great sign... as long as he doesn't get injured. Luke makes everyone else better, and can't wait to see how he improves this year, just like he made a huge improvement last year.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> strongly disagree. 1) he isn't a proven role player 2) he has no shooting touch 3) he can't play defense 4) though he's a great passer, he can at times be a turnover machine 5) as i said a billion times before, we have too many small forwards (and radmanovic will be hard to unload)


He has no shooting touch? Did you see how well he was shooting before all the injuries occured? He also shot 47% even with all the injuries.

Walton has been fantastic the past two years... and seems to keep improving.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

oh please, stop making excuses for him. he shot well in the first half of the season, then his shot was totally off. he had no confidence. didn't he injure his leg anyways? legs have an impact on your shot, but generally speaking luke doesn't even jump that high anyways.

i'm not sold on him being a consistent player. i still like him as a player, but at 5 million a year for 6 years.. im not sure about that.



Eternal said:


> I'm shocked there are actually people disagreeing with this sign, and are complaining. It was a great sign... as long as he doesn't get injured. Luke makes everyone else better, and can't wait to see how he improves this year, just like he made a huge improvement last year.


you should give me your insight on what i've argued then. if i feel you're right, i won't be hardheaded about it.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> oh please, stop making excuses for him. he shot well in the first half of the season, then his shot was totally off. he had no confidence. didn't he injure his leg anyways? legs have an impact on your shot, but generally speaking luke doesn't even jump that high anyways.
> 
> i'm not sold on him being a consistent player. i still like him as a player, but at 5 million a year for 6 years.. im not sure about that.
> 
> ...


So your saying shooting 47% from the field isn't good along with 39% from 3 pt range?


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

he shot 50% through the first 30 games from the 3 point line... from that time to the end of the season, his shooting percentages had taken big dips. that's not very consistent to me. you can throw as much stats at me as you like, but i remember many moments when luke would pass on wide open 3 point shots. 

his FG % is pretty good and he's an underrated finisher around the basket. but that's not the shooting im talking about.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

Kapono got more money than even Walton did. The signing is great.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> he shot 50% through the first 30 games from the 3 point line... from that time to the end of the season, his shooting percentages had taken big dips. that's not very consistent to me.
> 
> his FG % is pretty good and he's an underrated finisher around the basket. but that's not the shooting im talking about.


He shot 48% in April and 44% in March, as well as 42% in March and 32% for 3pt % in April. The only off month he had was in January.

I'd say he's pretty consistent, but to each their own. You have your opinion as it wasn't a great signing, which I disagree with.

I'll agree to disagree with you.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i dont know how much kapono got, but keeping him is a good idea. miami needs shooters. 

at the moment, im not sure if the lakers need a player like luke.

can u give me a link to where you got those stats? i forgot when luke got injured, but i think it was in february or march.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> i dont know how much kapono got, but keeping him is a good idea. miami needs shooters.
> 
> at the moment, im not sure if the lakers need a player like luke.
> 
> can u give me a link to where you got those stats? i forgot when luke got injured, but i think it was in february or march.


Just look it up on espn. He was injured late January, and didn't come back til March.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

afobisme said:


> i dont know how much kapono got, but keeping him is a good idea. miami needs shooters.


Kapono is now with the Raptors, not the Heat.

Anyway, continue your debate.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

yeah i just noticed that. just read the headlines. i dont know where to find the stats by the month.

i don't get why toronto would sign him for 24 million..


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> yeah i just noticed that. just read the headlines. i dont know where to find the stats by the month.
> 
> i don't get why toronto would sign him for 24 million..


Under splits tab in his profile.


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

as many have already stated, six years is too long. I wouldn't have minded 4 years/$20 mil, but six freakin years?! you really don't want to be tied to anybody that long unless he's one of your top 2 or 3 players, and it makes him very hard to move should we need to do so. on the other hand, we couldn't afford to loose him, so I kinda thought we would over-pay him. good signing, not great, but good.

and yes, he was having a career year before the injuries and if he plays like that for 6 more years, he will earn every penny. he's improved almost every year as a laker, and we'll see if he can keep it up. he'll never be a stellar defender, but he can easily keep improving his shooting, that's the easiest thing to improve.

and I can't remember who made the comment on his injury not effecting his shooting. dude, an ankle injury effects EVERYTHING you can or can't do on a basketball court. not to mention taking the greatest thing luke had going for him; confidence.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

that was me. im not saying injuring any part of your leg doesn't have an impact on your shooting. i said that he doesn't really jump that high, so he probably doesn't rely on his legs that much. but as i said, i could be wrong.


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

no worries, but it does. I have a pretty "set" shot, and any injury to your torso and/or either of your legs throws off your balance and your 'pop', and you begin to over-compensate. add in game slipage and you can make an average shooter a bad one. the only injury you can really "play through" and not expect any drop off is mabye a bum weak hand. but even that cuts your offensive weapons down, especially if the defense knows it.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

afobisme said:


> that was me. im not saying injuring any part of your leg doesn't have an impact on your shooting. i said that he doesn't really jump that high, so he probably doesn't rely on his legs that much. but as i said, i could be wrong.


What? Surely you've shot a basketball and know that most of the leverage that goes into your shot comes from your legs, no matter how high you're jumping. Even on free throws, when you don't jump at all, the leverage on your shot starts with your legs.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> Luke IMO has one of the highest IQ's in the NBA.


 Walton does not have one of the highest iq's in the NBA. He has good court vision, but he is not always a good decision maker. There is a difference.



> You can count on one hand actual "bonehead" plays he has in an entire season.


Not even close. He made several of them every game.



> Every single year he has improved, he was lethal this season with his little fade away 15 footer.


His improvements have only come on the offensive side. He always has and always will be a terrible defender. And I would hardly call his fade-away "lethal."



> Luke Walton won't win you a championship, but you'll never win one without smart role-players like Luke.


How many championships have we won with Walton on the team?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Eternal said:


> He has no touch? Did you see how well he was before all the injuries occured? He also shot 47% even with all the injuries.
> 
> Walton has been fantastic the past two years... and seems to keep improving.


Outside of the month of November, he shot 32% from behind the arc. That's not good by any means. He had one hot month that boosted his average for the whole year. And as always, he made no improvement on the defensive side.

And how in the world was his '05-06 season "fantastic"


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

dannyM said:


> now you guys wouldnt be saying this **** if we walton was signed from another team
> 
> did we ever ***** about radman getting 6 years? no, we were glad he signed with the lakers at a bargain price (atless thats what we thought)



speak for yourself about being happy about VRad. I want a PG, not another SF.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

I thought 6 years was too much as well.

Luke Walton is a good roleplayer, but do you consider him better then Rick Fox? Rick Fox was the one of tbe better roleplayers we ever had, not sure what he made in $$$.


5 mil a year ain't that bad, but 6 years is too much. 
Lakers management is ****. 


Luke works great with teams that would appreciate his abilities, but the Lakers are a one-man show it seems.


The problem is this team has no identity. Where does Luke fit in?


----------



## L.A. Guy (Jun 8, 2007)

Luke is one of those players that the FO doesnt want to let go, and neither do the fans want to see him leave. But cmon 6 years? These are the kind of signings that sank us in the first place...Cook, Vlad and now Luke. We could have used that money for Francis or another free agent. Atleast give him 3 or 4 years. If the Lakers FO makes decisions like this, dont count on any big trades or signs to happen this year guys.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Walton does not have one of the highest iq's in the NBA. He has good court vision, but he is not always a good decision maker. There is a difference.
> 
> Not even close. He made several of them every game.
> 
> ...


Maybe if you actually read my opinion instead of trying to put your twist on it you will agree. He was leading in 3pt% before he got injured, his % on 15 footers at the top of the key I would say was around 65% this season. Your a fool if you don't think he is a good decision maker...he was the only one to consistantly give the ball to Shaq in the post.Everybody has turnovers but his always seem to be reasonable decisions that just happened to not work. He is an amazing passer. Gee...you're right, we haven't won a championship with Luke and that is soooo his fault. Uh...no Like I said before if you actually read it...Luke will not win you a championship, but you need quality role players like him to even have a chance.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

This trade will be considered a relative steal in two years....mark my words


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

compsciguy78 said:


> I thought 6 years was too much as well.
> 
> Luke Walton is a good roleplayer, but do you consider him better then Rick Fox? Rick Fox was the one of tbe better roleplayers we ever had, not sure what he made in $$$.
> 
> ...


Rick Fox joined the Lakers in the 97-98 season, and here's what he made while with the Lakers:

1997-98	$1,000,000
1998-99	$1,750,000
1999-00	$3,033,000
2000-01	$3,400,000
2001-02	$3,791,250
2002-03	$3,892,350
2003-04	$4,550,000
2004-05	$4,800,000


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> This trade will be considered a relative steal in two years....mark my words


What trade? We re-signed him.


----------



## West44 (Jun 29, 2005)

Slam dunk no brainer. He's a free agent. Argue about his skills all you want. Many, if not most, teams would offer their MLE to Luke and a 5 yr contract. He's very popular around the league and one of our few tradeable assets. If I'm not mistaken, our advantage is that we can offer him a longer contract than other teams to retain him. We did...kudos to our crummy FO. Great team guy, great passer, uses his body extremely well, high bball IQ, offense much improved before the injury. His skills aren't dependent on great physical gifts which means he's likely to age better than most. I'll bet they regret not doing the same thing with Fisher a few yrs back.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Basel57 said:


> What trade? We re-signed him.


Oops...sorry, my bad, brain fart...signing


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

West44 said:


> I'll bet they regret not doing the same thing with Fisher a few yrs back.


Only because of our PG's since (chucky, smush). Fisher was/is not worth that contract. 


I'm amazed at you guys. It's either: "Luke is a brilliant passer, with great shooting touch, and he never makes mistakes" or "Luke is worthless, he can't defend a chair, and he's severely overrated on the offensive end". obviously I'm exagerating a bit, but com'on. you guys are entitled to your opinion, but the truth is somewhere in between. Luke is a nice player, with above-average offensive ability and below average defensive ability. this was a good signing, not great, but good.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Fair deal in today's league. Somebody would have given him MLE money.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> He was leading in 3pt% before he got injured,


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/luke_walton/season_splits.html

In November he shot 63% from 3pt range. 
In December he played every game, but only shot 30% from 3pt range. 
In January he was 26% from 3pt range and then got hurt.

The one month he shot well was a fluke. 



> his % on 15 footers at the top of the key I would say was around 65% this season.


That number is completely made up and has no basis in fact.



> Your a fool if you don't think he is a good decision maker...he was the only one to consistantly give the ball to Shaq in the post.


What does Shaq have to do with anything? He isn't on the team anymore. But your wrong about that as well.



> Like I said before if you actually read it...Luke will not win you a championship, but you need quality role players like him to even have a chance.


You can't say he is needed to win a championship when he has never won one, and the team won several before him.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Fair deal in today's league. Somebody would have given him MLE money.


First, who would have given him 6 years $30 million? Second, he's very replaceable so it doesn't matter if he was lost anyways.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

with the money we spent on walton and vrad, we could have had someone like Nocioni, but instead have two players that can't play defense.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

KennethTo said:


> with the money we spent on walton and vrad, we could have had someone like Nocioni, but instead have two players that can't play defense.


word. not to mention that lamar odom and maurice evans are also small forwards. 24 million bucks of our salary cap is being eaten up by the small forward position. i'd be okay with this deal if we hadn't signed radmonavic last year.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Walton is better than Nocioni. He's played in the tri before. And he led the league in 3pt shooting for a month.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> First, who would have given him 6 years $30 million? Second, he's very replaceable so it doesn't matter if he was lost anyways.


Ever heard of Brian Cardinal? Austin Croshere?


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

Basel57 said:


> Rick Fox joined the Lakers in the 97-98 season, and here's what he made while with the Lakers:
> 
> 1997-98	$1,000,000
> 1998-99	$1,750,000
> ...


Rick Fox > Luke Walton for less money


Thats what happens when you have Shaq on your team. 
People would play with Shaq for less money...

Look at GP, the Shaq following clown...


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Ever heard of Brian Cardinal? Austin Croshere?


Oh yeah, Austin Croshere and Brian Cardinal. Fan favorites who were nothing more than solid bench players but were signed to a massive contracts and ended up doing nothing for their teams. Gee, who does that remind me of.....

I bet the Pacers and Grizz were sure glad they signed those two.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Oh yeah, Austin Croshere and Brian Cardinal. Fan favorites who were nothing more than solid bench players but were signed to a massive contracts and ended up doing nothing for their teams. Gee, who does that remind me of.....
> 
> I bet the Pacers and Grizz were sure glad they signed those two.


Looks like you answered your own question. Other teams would have signed him to the same deal, if not more. Whether Luke is worth it or not is debatable. Although not starter caliber, Walton does have value to this team. And no, we could not have just used this money to sign someone better. The Lakers are over the salary cap, but have Bird rights to Luke, so why the hell not sign him? It is not detrimental in any way.


----------



## L.A. Guy (Jun 8, 2007)

Yes it is, if we have to trade him no team is going to want his massive 6 year contract.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Looks like you answered your own question. Other teams would have signed him to the same deal, if not more. Whether Luke is worth it or not is debatable. Although not starter caliber, Walton does have value to this team. And no, we could not have just used this money to sign someone better. The Lakers are over the salary cap, but have Bird rights to Luke, so why the hell not sign him? It is not detrimental in any way.


Actually I didn't answer the question, and neither did you. Just because Croshere and Cardinal got big deals does not mean that Walton would have. It's a different year with a different set of free agents, different set of teams with different set of needs. You still haven't offered a team that would have given him the same deal we did.

I never said we would have used it on someone better, but that is not a reason to sign him. If the time comes that we want to trade him, we won't be able to. And Buss does not have an unlimited amount of money to spend.


----------



## L.A. Guy (Jun 8, 2007)

Bottom line: Lakers FO *edit* up again! Another bonehead move to sign Luke to 6, yes 6 freakn years.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

L.A Guy said:


> Bottom line: Lakers FO f-ked up again! Another bonehead move to sign Luke to 6, yes 6 freakn years.


You are so very wrong. This is a great deal now and an even better one in a couple of years. If the Lakers choose to trade him in the future I think he has a good contract to trade. The only problem would be that we wouldn't get as much quality in return because Luke will be getting underpaid. And "Wilt the Stilt" all I can say is you dont know what you are talking about. I guess only time will prove me right...which I am.


----------



## L.A. Guy (Jun 8, 2007)

Who cares what he'll be worth in 2 or 3 years. We need to win now, and get Kobe some immediate help.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

I could easily see a team like Washington giving Luke the MLE to come be a rotation player in their motion offense. You bring up the trade point. How would we be able to trade Luke if he walked this offseason? Either we get nothing for him, or we bring him back and hope for a healthy, productive season. Trading Luke's multiyear deal is a more feasible task than trading someone who doesn't even play for the team. Buss has indicated that he would be willing to pay the luxury tax if it were to come to that.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

L.A Guy said:


> Who cares what he'll be worth in 2 or 3 years. We need to win now, and get Kobe some immediate help.


Im not sure you understand what I meant there. A player like Luke is a required piece of the puzzle the Lakers need on top of top tier talent. I am in no way saying Luke is the answer to the Lakers problems. With this signing we don't have to worry about getting a great role player who will do anything you ask of him for the next six years. This is a good signing for the present and will get only better with time.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/luke_walton/season_splits.html
> 
> In November he shot 63% from 3pt range.
> In December he played every game, but only shot 30% from 3pt range.
> ...


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

L.A Guy said:


> Luke is one of those players that the FO doesnt want to let go, and neither do the fans want to see him leave. But cmon 6 years? These are the kind of signings that sank us in the first place...Cook, Vlad and now Luke. We could have used that money for Francis or another free agent. Atleast give him 3 or 4 years. If the Lakers FO makes decisions like this, dont count on any big trades or signs to happen this year guys.


Pretty sure the Lakers still have the MLE. They can still get Francis or another free agent.

I don't get why people are up in arms about this. Lakers will be over the cap until Kobe is gone or retired at least. They still have the MLE this year. This only impacts Buss' wallet, nothing else.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

I don't love Walton but as long as he doesn't start, I'm happy. $5 mill per season for his numbers is quite reasonable. The key now is getting KG. I think a package of Odom, Bynum, and a cap filler might eventually be enough to sway Minnesota if Garnett pressures management a little. I'd probably bring Walton off the bench for his consistency and start Vlad because of his shooting touch. Vlad could actually thrive at SF playing alongside KG and Kobe. He's not a creator but if he's open and there's no pressure on him to score 25 a night, I think he'll be pretty good. Walton would give us the flexibility of being able to play either forward position off the bench.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

elcap15 said:


> You conveniently forgot to mention that he shot 43% in Feb.


The poster I quoted had said that Luke was leading the NBA in 3pt percentage until he got injured, but I was pointing out he was already starting to slip before he got injured (and he was injured all of Feb btw. He shot 43% in March) But if you want to play that game..then you "conveniently forgot to mention" that Luke shot 32% in April.



> Luke is not going to be the greatest three point threat in the league. He isnt going to be the biggest threat at anyhting in the league. But he can do a everything pretty well, and that is a good fit for the triangle. Versatility is key.


He can do everything well except defend. And his good at everthing great at none means he is more suited for the bench.




> And the truth is, 5 mil a season for a player who gives you 10 pts/ 5 reb/ 4.5 ast/ 1 stl a game isnt a bad contract. Plus everyone in the world seems to like him. I also dont think he is as bad a defender as everyone here thinks he is.


History shows that paying big money for good character, fan favorite, role-players doesn't work out.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Pretty sure the Lakers still have the MLE. They can still get Francis or another free agent.
> 
> I don't get why people are up in arms about this. Lakers will be over the cap until Kobe is gone or retired at least. They still have the MLE this year. This only impacts Buss' wallet, nothing else.


We still have the MLE. 

But the biggest issue here is that we are stuck with a bench player as our starter and now that he has a big contract, he isn't going to be moved and Buss isn't going to spend more to acquire a player to send him to the bench.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I could easily see a team like Washington giving Luke the MLE to come be a rotation player in their motion offense. You bring up the trade point. How would we be able to trade Luke if he walked this offseason? Either we get nothing for him, or we bring him back and hope for a healthy, productive season. Trading Luke's multiyear deal is a more feasible task than trading someone who doesn't even play for the team. Buss has indicated that he would be willing to pay the luxury tax if it were to come to that.


Like I said earlier, it's no big deal if he walks because he is very replaceable.

Buss has said he will pay if it will make us contenders.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

I'm curious, who would you suggest that we bring in to replace him? And don't use the MLE. Which scenario would be better? The Lakers have:

1. MLE player

2. MLE player + Walton


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> We still have the MLE.
> 
> But the biggest issue here is that we are stuck with a bench player as our starter and now that he has a big contract, he isn't going to be moved and Buss isn't going to spend more to acquire a player to send him to the bench.


You are making a lot of assumptions.

First, I think you are saying Buss won't sign a player better than Luke because Luke is making too much money to go to the bench. You mean to tell me if Buss could get Carmelo Anthony for 10 million a year (hypothetically speaking) he wouldn't because that sends Walton to the bench? There are multiple teams in this league with three or more bench players earning over 5 million a year.

Or are you saying Walton signed some deal guaranteeing him a starters spot?

Second Walton's deal doesn't make him untradeable. Mike Dunleavy Jr got dealt last year. Walton has skills and isn't severely overpaid, he has a market out there.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions.
> 
> First, I think you are saying Buss won't sign a player better than Luke because Luke is making too much money to go to the bench. You mean to tell me if Buss could get Carmelo Anthony for 10 million a year (hypothetically speaking) he wouldn't because that sends Walton to the bench? There are multiple teams in this league with three or more bench players earning over 5 million a year.
> 
> ...


Preach it! Amen!


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions.
> First, I think you are saying Buss won't sign a player better than Luke because Luke is making too much money to go to the bench. You mean to tell me if Buss could get Carmelo Anthony for 10 million a year (hypothetically speaking) he wouldn't because that sends Walton to the bench? There are multiple teams in this league with three or more bench players earning over 5 million a year.


The Walton signing means the Lakers aren't going to be looking for another small forward. If a player like Melo was available, then yes Buss would get him. But Melo isn't available and the Lakers aren't going to be adding another quality small forward unless a star becomes available for cheap. Meaning either Walton or Radman (both bench guys) is going to be starting.



> Second Walton's deal doesn't make him untradeable. Mike Dunleavy Jr got dealt last year. Walton has skills and isn't severely overpaid, he has a market out there.


Dunleavy got dealt in an 8 player trade in which the Pacers were pressured to get rid of the bad character guys. Chances of that happening again are slim.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I'm curious, who would you suggest that we bring in to replace him? And don't use the MLE. Which scenario would be better? The Lakers have:
> 
> 1. MLE player
> 
> 2. MLE player + Walton


First let me explain that it appears to me that the Lakers don't want to use the full MLE, but want to split it on several players (see the Steve Blake article)

That said I would rather have a guy like Pietrus (and he would come for a smaller mle contract) and 2 vet min players, than Luke Walton and two 1/2 MLE guys.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> The Walton signing means the Lakers aren't going to be looking for another small forward. If a player like Melo was available, then yes Buss would get him. But Melo isn't available and the Lakers aren't going to be adding another quality small forward unless a star becomes available for cheap. Meaning either Walton or Radman (both bench guys) is going to be starting.
> 
> 
> Dunleavy got dealt in an 8 player trade in which the Pacers were pressured to get rid of the bad character guys. Chances of that happening again are slim.


**** you're right 

since we signed luke, now we can't sign guys like lebron and melo.

it's so sad cause LBJ just called me last night and told me he was planning to sign with the lakers in two years but said he's going to cancel that plan because the lakers signed walton. :whoknows:


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

dannyM said:


> **** you're right
> 
> since we signed luke, now we can't sign guys like lebron and melo.
> 
> it's so sad cause LBJ just called me last night and told me he was planning to sign with the lakers in two years but said he's going to cancel that plan because the lakers signed walton. :whoknows:


Read my post. It was in reference to Jamel asking if Melo was available would Buss do it (knowing Luke would be sent to the bench)

I had never said anything about getting LeBron or Melo prior to that. But there are other players at his position (for the MLE) I would rather have than Luke.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> The Walton signing means the Lakers aren't going to be looking for another small forward. If a player like Melo was available, then yes Buss would get him. But Melo isn't available and the Lakers aren't going to be adding another quality small forward unless a star becomes available for cheap. Meaning either Walton or Radman (both bench guys) is going to be starting.


Maybe this year you are right, but as this Walton signing proves (since they just signed Vladi last year) the Lakers would be more than willing to acquire a SF as soon as next season if they can get a good deal on a better one.

Plus I'm not sure if I fully buy that. Your whole logic is based on the premise that retaining talent means the Lakers won't seek improvement at that position. I would rather have Walton + superior small forward than just superior small forward.



> Dunleavy got dealt in an 8 player trade in which the Pacers were pressured to get rid of the bad character guys. Chances of that happening again are slim.


I can sit here and name other examples if you wish. Wally Sczerbiak. That's not the point. Bad contracts get dealt all the time and you know it.



> First let me explain that it appears to me that the Lakers don't want to use the full MLE, but want to split it on several players (see the Steve Blake article)
> 
> That said I would rather have a guy like Pietrus (and he would come for a smaller mle contract) and 2 vet min players, than Luke Walton and two 1/2 MLE guys.


The only way the Walton signing affects the MLE is now the Lakers probably won't shot as heavily for a SF. The fact that they want to split it up isn't Luke's fault.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> First let me explain that it appears to me that the Lakers don't want to use the full MLE, but want to split it on several players (see the Steve Blake article)
> 
> That said I would rather have a guy like Pietrus (and he would come for a smaller mle contract) and 2 vet min players, than Luke Walton and two 1/2 MLE guys.


How about Pietrus AND Luke?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Maybe this year you are right, but as this Walton signing proves (since they just signed Vladi last year) the Lakers would be more than willing to acquire a SF as soon as next season if they can get a good deal on a better one.


In this case, they actually need a sf. If they didn't sign Walton (or some other sf) than we would be left with only Radman. So we needed some depth there, but my problems is that neither guy is actually starter quality.



> Plus I'm not sure if I fully buy that. Your whole logic is based on the premise that retaining talent means the Lakers won't seek improvement at that position. I would rather have Walton + superior small forward than just superior small forward.


You'd rather have that, but you aren't the one paying 3 guys at the same position $20-30 million each.




> I can sit here and name other examples if you wish. Wally Sczerbiak. That's not the point. Bad contracts get dealt all the time and you know it.


It happens on occasion, but I would say there are many more times that a players contract has stopped a deal from happening. There is no way for me to prove it, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.



> The only way the Walton signing affects the MLE is now the Lakers probably won't shot as heavily for a SF. The fact that they want to split it up isn't Luke's fault.


Right, but I'd still rather sign a superior player for the mle and then 2 guys for the min than Walton and two 1/2 mle.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> How about Pietrus AND Luke?


Fine. But I don't see them using an asset like the mle on a quality wing when we already have Walton, Rad, Kobe, Evans and Sasha.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Fine. But I don't see them using an asset like the mle on a quality wing when we already have Walton, Rad, Kobe, Evans and Sasha.


What's the problem then? We have alot bigger holes to fill in this roster then our SF spot. Mainly, Center and the Point Guard positions.

If we didn't resign Walton, we'd gain nothing this year other then Buss losing money out of his pocket, and lose a good roleplayer.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

afobisme said:


> is paying luke 5 million a year worth it? towards the end of the season and including the playoffs, he wasn't playing all that hot. his defense is another liability too.
> 
> this is not to mention that kobe may be leaving soon, the team could be in rebuilding mode.



He was injured. 

And if the team is rebuilding with the possibility of Kobe being traded, Luke's young enough to be apart of a building team.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

afobisme said:


> exactly.
> 
> we already have radman making more money than he's contributing, and he plays the same position as luke. to add to that, if we don't trade lamar, that's 3 small forwards who are taking about 23 million a year from our cap space. suddenly, we're starting to look like a crappier version of the sonics.



Last year before Luke was hurt, as well as the year before the second half of the season leading into the playoffs, Luke played better than Radman has EVER played in his career consistently.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Eternal said:


> What's the problem then? We have alot bigger holes to fill in this roster then our SF spot. Mainly, Center and the Point Guard positions.
> 
> If we didn't resign Walton, we'd gain nothing this year other then Buss losing money out of his pocket, and lose a good roleplayer.


Another great point. The SF position isn't the spot we should try to big time upgrade in. While Vlad Rad is a space cadet he has one year in the triangle, chose not to play in the Euro-championship(or whatever the hell its called)this summer instead choosing to work on his NBA game, and biggest of all...he doesn't have torn ligaments in his shooting hand. While I was fed up just as everyone else was with Vlad you gotta reserve your final opinion until halfway through this upcoming season. He is/was considered a "sharpshooter" and played all season with a major shooting hand injury. Also IMO Luke IS of starter quality. You give him the playing time and he will produce. I think he is a great THIRD (see Garnett) option for a shot and he sets everybody else up very well. He knows his limitations and everyone elses on the team and uses this info to his advantage. Very very very smart player.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

afobisme said:


> strongly disagree. 1) he isn't a proven role player 2) he has no shooting touch 3) he can't play defense 4) though he's a great passer, he can at times be a turnover machine 5) as i said a billion times before, we have too many small forwards (and radmanovic will be hard to unload)



Your posts are odd to me sometimes.

You say Luke hasn't shown he is worth the money.

Yet you defend bringing in Brown as well as signing his third year option (in secret) as being a good thing? I'd rather over pay for a smart Role player ho has far more dimensions to his game, than a Brown who is an extremely pathetic and poor mans version of Ben Wallace. 

The truth is, this amount of money rather people like it or not, is standard pay. What superstar were the Lakers going to land with 5 million, 6 year contract? No one. Hell Brian Cook the pile of trash got a 3.5 million a year deal with a player option, not even a team option, and he doesn't do crap even when he is healthy. 

Luke is intelligent, more athletic than given credit for, and a great play maker for the triangle offense, and now even has a respectable three point jump shot. He's like a smart version of Radman (at least last year before he was injured.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

This is getting frustrating.



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> In this case, they actually need a sf. If they didn't sign Walton (or some other sf) than we would be left with only Radman. So we needed some depth there, but my problems is that neither guy is actually starter quality.


Ok, but two non-starter quality is better than one.



> You'd rather have that, but you aren't the one paying 3 guys at the same position $20-30 million each.


EXACTLY! Neither are you. Or any of us. Like I said in my very FIRST post on this thread, the only person this affects is Buss. Unless you are arguing he WON'T get another SF, which you can't be since you already agreed to my Melo example.



> It happens on occasion, but I would say there are many more times that a players contract has stopped a deal from happening. There is no way for me to prove it, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.


I think if the Lakers wanted to deal Walton today (again hypothetically) there would be a couple takers.



> Right, but I'd still rather sign a superior player for the mle and then 2 guys for the min than Walton and two 1/2 mle.


Argh. This has been said to you already but I'll repeat it again, Luke signing is an independent decision to the Lakers getting two players for the 1/2 mle.

Why not sign Luke + superior player for the mle and then 2 guys for the min?


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> This is getting frustrating.


I agree. how can people not want luke on this team? I was against the length of the contract, but 5 mil a year is more than reasonable for a great sixth-man. I know we have him penciled in as a starter, but is that his fault? geez, people act like we traded away a good player to get him. I think it's a personal thing with luke not being the sexiest player (average athlete/defender). It's the same reason people hate on Lamar cause he's not a 22 PPG scorer.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> EXACTLY! Neither are you. Or any of us. Like I said in my very FIRST post on this thread, the only person this affects is Buss. Unless you are arguing he WON'T get another SF, which you can't be since you already agreed to my Melo example.


I am arguing that he won't get another sf. Melo is an extreme example. That won't happen. If he was available for dirt cheap, then yes. But he's not. So it won't happen. WILL NOT HAPPEN. That is what I already said. 



> I think if the Lakers wanted to deal Walton today (again hypothetically) there would be a couple takers.


Fine. Agree to disagree.



> Argh. This has been said to you already but I'll repeat it again, Luke signing is an independent decision to the Lakers getting two players for the 1/2 mle.


If Luke had signed with another team, they might have been more likely to use the full mle to replace him.



> Why not sign Luke + superior player for the mle and then 2 guys for the min?


Because like I said, they won't use the MLE on another wing. If Luke had signed with someone else, then maybe. But not now. We are stuck with two bench players who don't play defense.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I am arguing that he won't get another sf. Melo is an extreme example. That won't happen. If he was available for dirt cheap, then yes. But he's not. So it won't happen. WILL NOT HAPPEN. That is what I already said.
> 
> 
> Fine. Agree to disagree.
> ...


Who exactly do you have in mind that we sign to start over Walton and/or Radman?... I can't think of anyone that we could pickup this year that is better then those two. If there is let's say an available wing... the Lakers can always make a trade if they see a better wing player... that is available to upgrade the team. The Lakers aren't just going to sit there and say "okay we have two decent players at that spot, no need to upgrade."

If there is an available player out that that will make this team better, I'm sure the Lakers will try and upgrade the team. As far as I know, there isn't anyone right now better then Luke Walton or Radman that we can go after.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

^
Stackhouse, Pietrus, Hill just off the top of my head.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> ^
> Stackhouse, Pietrus, Hill just off the top of my head.


Okay, but why would you want to go after those guys with the MLE, when we have bigger spots to fill for instance... Center, and PG? Even if we didn't sign Luke... we'd still have Radman there, and is alot stronger then anything we have for our Center position or PG spot.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Amen


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Eternal said:


> Okay, but why would you want to go after those guys with the MLE, when we have bigger spots to fill for instance... Center, and PG? Even if we didn't sign Luke... we'd still have Radman there, and is alot stronger then anything we have for our Center position or PG spot.


Spot on.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

CDRacingZX6R said:


> Your posts are odd to me sometimes.
> 
> You say Luke hasn't shown he is worth the money.
> 
> ...


maybe what im saying is odd becuase you misinterpret what i say. i didn't support the kwame trade or his third year option. i don't think i ever said it was a good thing. i just said that, at the time, it was probably the right choice to make (i loved caron. didn't want to see him go). we had no depth at the 4/5 position, and too many small forwards. something had to be done. 

luke is a good player, i'm not debating that. it's just that we have both radmonavic and luke signed to long contracts now. yeah, we're not going to get a superstar for 5 million a year, but later on in the future we're going to handicapped (if we are going into rebuilding mode, or if we're trying to get another superstar).


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Eternal said:


> Okay, but why would you want to go after those guys with the MLE, when we have bigger spots to fill for instance... Center, and PG? Even if we didn't sign Luke... we'd still have Radman there, and is alot stronger then anything we have for our Center position or PG spot.


Tell me what center or point guard you are going to sign for the mle and I will show you an overpaid player.

The crop is very weak at those two positions. Magloire? Ely? Blake? Hart?

Aside from Francis, there isn't much value for the mle at those positions. I'd rather just sign a cheap vet at both positions and let the young guys (Bynum, Farmar, Javaris) play than have money tied up in guys like Magloire, etc. who won't get us anywhere.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Eternal said:


> Who exactly do you have in mind that we sign to start over Walton and/or Radman?... I can't think of anyone that we could pickup this year that is better then those two. If there is let's say an available wing... the Lakers can always make a trade if they see a better wing player... that is available to upgrade the team. The Lakers aren't just going to sit there and say "okay we have two decent players at that spot, no need to upgrade."
> 
> If there is an available player out that that will make this team better, I'm sure the Lakers will try and upgrade the team. As far as I know, there isn't anyone right now better then Luke Walton or Radman that we can go after.


Nocioni, Pietrus, or Hill. 

None of the PG or C available on the market are better then the ones we have now, the only ones that would be better have to be obtained through trades.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

I read Morris Peterson is on the block, as well as Grant Hill.

Those guys would have been better then Luke.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

Luke Walton isn't that good. 

He would fit well on a team like Phoenix where everyone passes, because that is Luke's main weapon and the 
Lakers don't utilize his ability to pass like they should. That really is the only reason the guy is worth anything.
Shooting, defense, and athleticism are all subpar.
If you aren't going to use Luke Walton's passing ability he is basically a bench player at best.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

KennethTo said:


> Nocioni, Pietrus, or Hill.
> 
> None of the PG or C available on the market are better then the ones we have now, the only ones that would be better have to be obtained through trades.


Nocioni isn't available for the MLE, and Hill is a Sun now.

Nocioni is either going to be a Bull or join Memphis.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Tell me what center or point guard you are going to sign for the mle and I will show you an overpaid player.
> 
> The crop is very weak at those two positions. Magloire? Ely? Blake? Hart?
> 
> Aside from Francis, there isn't much value for the mle at those positions. I'd rather just sign a cheap vet at both positions and let the young guys (Bynum, Farmar, Javaris) play than have money tied up in guys like Magloire, etc. who won't get us anywhere.


Doesn't matter if their going to be overpaid or not... We need positions filled, and don't need the SF spot filled. Maybe you'd rather let the young guys play, but I don't believe the organization has that kinda time to waste right now... The best player on this team wants to win now... and I believe the Lakers organization isn't going to stand around and keep letting all these young guys develop, but rather go out there and trade some of our young pieces to help us win now.

Seems the only player that we could really sign that would have any impact on the SF spot would be... Pietrus, with the MLE. That's not a big improvement over... Walton, if any at all. 

Stackhouse is getting more then the MLE, Hill is off the table, and I don't see anyone else that could help us at that spot.

Blake would help us quite a bit with his passing, and Magloire would give us another big, who can actually catch the ball down low.


----------



## Dominate24/71 (Oct 15, 2006)

Eternal said:


> Doesn't matter if their going to be overpaid or not... We need positions filled, and don't need the SF spot filled. Maybe you'd rather let the young guys play, but I don't believe the organization has that kinda time to waste right now... The best player on this team wants to win now... and I believe the Lakers organization isn't going to stand around and keep letting all these young guys develop, but rather go out there and trade some of our young pieces to help us win now.


+1. Well said.

Man, there really hasn't been much buzz lately. I'm dying for some news; I'd even read something from hoopsworld!


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Eternal said:


> Doesn't matter if their going to be overpaid or not... We need positions filled, and don't need the SF spot filled. Maybe you'd rather let the young guys play, but I don't believe the organization has that kinda time to waste right now... The best player on this team wants to win now... and I believe the Lakers organization isn't going to stand around and keep letting all these young guys develop, *but rather go out there and trade some of our young pieces to help us win now*.


I'll believe that when I see it.

If they actually do bring in another star then I'm more willing to use the MLE on a vet player. But if it doesn't happen then we might as well let the young guys develop for the future, because we won't be going anywhere in the next few years.

But Pietrus at the sf spot would fit in the rebuild mode as he is younger and has more room to develop, and in the win now mode as he is already better than Walton or Radman.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I'll believe that when I see it.
> 
> If they actually do bring in another star then I'm more willing to use the MLE on a vet player. But if it doesn't happen then we might as well let the young guys develop for the future, because we won't be going anywhere in the next few years.


Then why do you have a problem with the signing of Walton? He is young and can develop in our organization.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Eternal said:


> Then why do you have a problem with the signing of Walton? He is young and can develop in our organization.


I must have edited my post at the same time you were replying. Here is what I wrote.

But Pietrus at the sf spot would fit in the rebuild mode as he is younger and has more room to develop, and in the win now mode as he is already better than Walton or Radman


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I must have edited my post at the same time you were replying. Here is what I wrote.
> 
> But Pietrus at the sf spot would fit in the rebuild mode as he is younger and has more room to develop, and in the win now mode as he is already better than Walton or Radman


While I agree I'd probably rather have Pietrus over Walton, we have other spots to fill though that are bigger problems. Pietrus over Walton is a upgrade maybe.

Right now though we need someone for the PG spot badly. We don't know how Farmar is going to be, and probably need a year or two to develop more. I don't expect to see much playing time out of Jarvis at all this year, and we basically have a bunch of questions with the PG spot. Getting Fisher or Blake, we'd immediately receive veteran presence something that we need, and would know more what to expect from these guys.

The center spot will also be a huge hole if we go and trade Bynum and/or Kwame, and would need to use the MLE there if those guys go.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Who is to say that we wouldn't get a center or point guard back in a trade? The star players the Lakers have been interested in are at the big (KG, JO) and point guard (Kidd, Bibby) spots. There is more talent to be had for the mle at the wing spots which means there isn't as much incentive to trade for one.

Keep in mind this is hypothetical as Walton is already signed, but here's the bottom line to me. If we are going to go all-out and bring in star players, then it would have made more sense to get guys like Jerry Stackhouse, Mo Pete, and Pietrus than Walton because they are simply better players.

If we are going to rebuild it would have made more sense to let Walton go and bring in a young prospect or even a guy like Pietrus as they are younger and have more room to grow.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Walton's resigning over Pietrus is quite simple, really.

-The Lakers are still holding onto rebuilding around Kobe
-Lakers would need a player who knows the system
-Luke knows the system
-Luke made some noise last season just in time for a huge payday.

Though Luke is not a player of great capabilities (skill wise), he's the type of player you should keep because of all the intangibles that he carries with him. (unselfishness, familiarity with the game plan, good morale character).

Luke over Pietrus is a no brainer, if you're the Lakers.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Who is to say that we wouldn't get a center or point guard back in a trade? The star players the Lakers have been interested in are at the big (KG, JO) and point guard (Kidd, Bibby) spots. There is more talent to be had for the mle at the wing spots which means there isn't as much incentive to trade for one.
> 
> Keep in mind this is hypothetical as Walton is already signed, but here's the bottom line to me. If we are going to go all-out and bring in star players, then it would have made more sense to get guys like Jerry Stackhouse, Mo Pete, and Pietrus than Walton because they are simply better players.
> 
> If we are going to rebuild it would have made more sense to let Walton go and bring in a young prospect or even a guy like Pietrus as they are younger and have more room to grow.


Stackhouse isn't available for the MLE, and it sounds like the other players you mentioned are all going to get more then the MLE as well.

Walton also knows the triangle system more then any of those players, and would waste another year of those players getting familiar with the triangle system.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Walton's resigning over Pietrus is quite simple, really.
> 
> -The Lakers are still holding onto rebuilding around Kobe
> -Lakers would need a player who knows the system
> ...


Well put, I'm with you on this one 100%. Luke is an integral part of this offense and deserved to be rewarded for the role he plays on the team. The contract is significant, but very reasonable considering what some of today's players get paid.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i wish it would have been a 3 or 4 year deal. and i hope we can get rid of vlad, but i doubt it.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I still have faith that Vlad can turn into the starting calibur sharpshooter we envisioned when Mitch signed him. Hes got a full year of Tri 101 under his belt and he should be healthy.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Vlad is retarded, but at the same time he was signed to be a sharpshooter and had torn ligaments in his SHOOTING HAND. I'll give him another chance...not that the Lakers have a choice


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

It was a mistake to sign walton for this long and everyone will realize this within the next 4 years.


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

I am actually happy that we got him back, but I am hoping he learns to play defense.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

SoCalfan21 said:


> It was a mistake to sign walton for this long and everyone will realize this within the next 4 years.


Why is this a mistake? The contract is not overwhelming, so even if 2 or 3 years down the road the team decides to move him they wouldn't have a problem doing so. Also, if he continues to raise his game and puts up even better numbers this year, 5 million per will look like a bargain. If you're not buying this argument, take a look at the Lakers record last season with and without Walton in the lineup. *Without* Luke (6-15), *with* him (36-25).


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Man we should have let Walton go, or have traded Vlad, having 2 wing guys making a total of 60 mill and neither is tough or that athletic and neither makes you a better team. 

Who takes the hit for the Vlad signing a total nightmare. 

Then we draft the Chinese wing player who is just like Walton and Vlad again anoher soft player, when Byars was sitting there. 

Got get away from the so called skilled soft guys and start drafting a couple athletic less skilled slightly ignorant tough guys.


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

if he improves his defense its a smart move, otherwise i dont like, there were better players available for that kind of money


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

*Press conference Q & A*

July 12, 2007

*Mitch Kupchak Opening Statement*
I’d like to welcome everyone this afternoon, thanks for coming out. As you know the NBA moratorium ended yesterday, however, what we’re going to do today shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone in this room. Luke indicated his intentions to sign back with the Lakers last week and since we are now able to sign the formal agreement we’re going to do that here today. In fact we’re going to sign the contract right here.

*Luke Walton Opening Statement*
I’d just like to start off by saying how happy I am to be back in LA. This is where I wanted to be when the whole free agency started and the fact that we could agree on a 6 year long term deal is very exciting to me. I’m looking forward to helping this team and getting back to the playoffs and eventually back to the championships and bringing some more championships back to Los Angeles where the trophies belong.










*Q:* Was there ever any doubt in your mind that you’d come back?

*Luke Walton:* Like I said this is where I wanted to be. There’s always a possibility that you might not be back, but I was very happy when I got the phone call that first day and that we were able to agree early so I didn’t have to go and meet with other teams. It’s very exciting for me to be back and playing with the Lakers. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* Was it a relief that the Lakers called right away?

*Luke Walton:* Ya it was a huge relief. The whole thing was kind of stressful and I’m not normally a guy that gets stressed out so I don’t like to be stressed out. Like I’ve been saying all along the Lakers are one of the best organizations, not just in basketball, but in all of sports and for me to be here for my first four years and now for six more years is awesome. They were the team that gave me the chance coming out of college and I’m glad I don’t have to go anywhere else. I can stay here. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* Did your dad help you at all with the process?

*Luke Walton:* Not really. He knows it’s kind of my choice and he trusts me. He trusts my agent, Lon Babby, who did a great job. He’s been the one telling me the whole time, ‘You don’t want to leave LA’. He knows what a great place it is and what great people are here. He says there are a lot of teams around the league that aren’t serious about winning and the Lakers aren’t one of those. The Lakers are always a team that will do whatever they can to win championships. That’s what’s most important so he was very happy to hear that I wasn’t going anywhere. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* What did Phil have to tell you when he called you early that day?

*Luke Walton:* It wasn’t a long conversation. He just told me that he’d like to see me back. He thinks that I’m a person that can help this team win. He understood that this is a free agent market and that you do talk to other teams but he wanted to ensure me that he expected me back and wanted me back. That was nice to hear. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* That’s not much of a sales pitch.

*Luke Walton:* He doesn’t have to sell. It’s not a secret how much I respect Phil and how much I like playing for him. It’s just nice that he actually called. I don’t think he thought he really had to sell me that much. I love playing here in the triangle offense, I love the coaching staff here and all that, it was more just if we could agree on terms that both sides were happy with. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* What other cities were remote possibilities for you?

*Luke Walton:* Lon and I discussed other cities, teams that I would play for, mainly just teams that were competing for NBA titles. Didn't really have any one or two singled out, I don't really want to go into specific names, but the teams that are in the hunt for the championship each year and those were the teams we were going to talk to if for some reason we couldn't work something out with the Lakers. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* A lot of teams in the west have improved, what else do you think the Lakers need to do to improve itself?

*Luke Walton:* Obviously every team wants to improve, that's what they're trying to do, but I think we have a great core. Like I said, the people upstairs and the coaches and players, before we got hurt we were a team right in the hunt for things and then we hit the injury bug and that just killed us. We're a young team too. One thing about having young guys is just having the experience and time will make our team that much better next year. There's been a ton of rumors about other players and whatnot, but I don't think we need to do that much. I think we're pretty close to being able to compete. Those aren't decisions I have to make, that's up to Mitch. That's his job to do all that and I'm just here to play basketball and help win with whoever we do have on the court. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* You're close with Fish, if he does come here, what do you think he might bring?

*Luke Walton:* I love Fish. He's a great player, he's a great teammate, and he's a great leader. If we're lucky enough that he comes back here, then I think that not only will he help our team just from being the type of player he is, but we have a lot of young guards, the guy we drafted this year (Javaris Crittenton), Jordan, Sasha, we've got a lot of young guards that could learn by playing under Fish. I know from my rookie year playing under Fish he was great for me. He taught me a lot and he knows the offense in and out and I think he'd really be a great addition. But I know there's so much going on with that, all I can do is play. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Q:* Having been with the team a while now and having your new contract and being a little older, does it allow you to assert yourself more as a leader of the team or to try to establish yourself as a leader?

*Luke Walton:* I feel like I've been slowly becoming more of a leader on this team, as our team has gotten younger and as we've been rebuilding. Besides B Cook and Kobe I think I might have been here the longest. I definitely feel myself stepping more into a leader role with the young guys on the team. And knowing that I'll be here long term . . .

I don't think it's about asserting me more on the court. I think I'm the kind of player that lets the game come to me and makes the right play as opposed to going out there and trying to score 20 every night. I'm going to go out there and play the game the way that I play, but as far as being a leader, I'll try to assert myself more.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> You are so very wrong. This is a great deal now and an even better one in a couple of years. If the Lakers choose to trade him in the future I think he has a good contract to trade. The only problem would be that we wouldn't get as much quality in return because Luke will be getting underpaid. And "Wilt the Stilt" all I can say is you dont know what you are talking about. I guess only time will prove me right...which I am.


Classic.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Classic.


hindsight's a bitch and so are back injuries


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

The best part of it is that he pm'd me while this discussion was happening to tell me that he had talked to other posters and they all agreed that I didn't know anything about the Lakers and my opinions were horrible.

And Luke was always a backup caliber player. Injured or not he never deserved that contract.


----------



## Shaolin (Aug 6, 2004)

Welfare.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Classic.


rofl....as soon as I saw this thread I thought "Oh shit, did I post in that thread because I was soooo wrong about Luke" I didnt see a blue checkmark indicating I had so I was relieved....lo and behold...

Yeah I was wrong but injuries did play a big part. Remember when he led the league in 3pt% with the new ball? lol

let me get some garlic for that crow


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

lot of wrong in this thread jamel was wrong Da rizzle was hitting the pipe during that period lol . Walton was totaly untradeable useless signing.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Walton is the best player ever. Period.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

**** you Vlad....


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Does anyone remember if Walton even had interest from other teams when he signed this deal?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Laker Freak said:


> Does anyone remember if Walton even had interest from other teams when he signed this deal?


We signed him at 12:01am on the first day you could sign players


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Luke is not untradeable. Off the top of my head I can name about 5 trades we could do for him today. He's only got one year left after this year and that's an attractive contract for a lot of teams.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Please list these trades.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Please list these trades.


Beyond easy.

1) Gasol and Luke for Rashard Lewis

2) Luke for John Salmons straight up

3) Luke for Marvin Williams straight up

4) Luke and McRoberts for Hedo

5) Luke and McRoberts for Tyrus Thomas


----------



## Shaolin (Aug 6, 2004)

Luke ain't no fool. He's gonna have a sore back..or ankle...until the trade deadline passes.


----------

