# Plan C: Go young (I don't mean nick)



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Plan A: Bring in Nash/Howard to add to Kobe/Gasol...didn't work !

Plan B: Make cap space. Bring in big time FA to add to Kobe/Gasol...didn't work either.

Plan C: Let the old vets go. Sign Kobe and the youngsters to 1/2 yr deals and be patient.

When is the last time we have a young hustling team ?? Can you remember it ever happening ??

No gimmicks, triangles or 7 secs or less. Lakers are meant to run and gun. Not pass and chuck. We had a nice run. Now is time to recharge, take inventory and start something new. 

I am happy with all that happened. At least they gave it a shot. And they do have a strategy to pile up draft picks and cap space. That can work.


----------



## Wilmatic2 (Oct 30, 2005)

I'm on board with rebuilding. Sound like a broken record but, I want the Lakers to build a team like the Spurs, Thunder, or Blazers and develop young talent. Throughout history, Lakers always trade for established stars, whether it be Lew Alcindor, Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O' Neal, Pau Gasol, Glen Rice, etc. Time to change history.


----------



## ceejaynj (Oct 9, 2005)

I'm okay with that also. I would rather us rebuild through the draft and by acquiring young FA prospects. I don't want us to "buy" a team of established superstars.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

plan b hasn't failed - Melo was due diligence but half the board here was against signing him in the first place - this is still plan b, it's just some people are losing their heads


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Wilmatic2 said:


> I'm on board with rebuilding. Sound like a broken record but, I want the Lakers to build a team like the Spurs, Thunder, or Blazers and develop young talent. Throughout history, Lakers always trade for established stars, whether it be Lew Alcindor, Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O' Neal, Pau Gasol, Glen Rice, etc. Time to change history.


I agree with this. Given the current CBA it's much harder to just sign free franchise changing free agents.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Majority of the teams in the league have no choice but to build through the draft and develop young talent. You're the ****ing Lakers, you don't have to do that. You guys get to steal the talent. Embrace it, cause it's worked for this long and everyone else wishes they could win that way too.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

The lakers haven't stole a star player in almost 20 years. They've made some good trades over this period and signed some over the hill star players but they haven't outright signed any superstar in his prime since Shaq.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

seifer0406 said:


> The lakers haven't stole a star player in almost 20 years. They've made some good trades over this period and signed some over the hill star players but they haven't outright signed any superstar in his prime since Shaq.


mostly true of the entire league though - signing game changers is rarely the way things happen


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

e-monk said:


> mostly true of the entire league though - signing game changers is rarely the way things happen


exactly, that's why building through the draft and stocking young talent is the way to go in terms of team building.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I do think that the new CBA makes it more likely since it limited contract lengths and made it more difficult for capped teams to perform sign and trade transactions


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Honest question.. have the Lakers ever truly put together a multi year build through the draft tank effort?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The lakers don't need to just suck for multiple years or steal superstars. Look when magic retired. Vlade was a late first rounder, elden was a late first rounder, Cedric was traded for a non lottery first rounder, jones was a lotto pick, van exel was a second rounder. Peeler and George lynch were non-lotto picks. 

That was a 50 win team. I've said it before, more teams are built with some shrewd moves and luck while maintaining a winning culture versus just suck tanking for five years. Look at the current Sacramento kings.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

Yeah, I mean, the plan is basically try again next year. 

It's not tank fest and get good draft picks; we only own one of our next three anyway. 

So you acquire some assests, don't lock yourself into any long term deals with marginal players, and take a swing at the trade deadline or FA next summer. 

I don't have an issue with it. I would've had a much bigger issue with giving Lance Stephenson 4 years, or going after Deng at $11 mil plus. Even if it would've made us a slightly better team next year.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

I think Laker fans should get ready to send apologies to Jim Buss. 

Laker fans got so caught up in FA hunt, they forgot its not over, its never over for the Lakers. Even with Pau they tried to steal a player or two in a S&T. 

Love is still in play. Minn. has botched this so badly, he should have been dealt by now. Now, there is only one team he will agree to be traded to, take a wild guess who it is ??

Salaries have to match hence, Jordan Hill's new deal. Nick Young's new deal. Btw what position does Randle play again ? What position will Minn have to replace Love with ?

You can't ask your team to swing for the fences everytime then moan because they struck out. Lakers just keep swinging until something works.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I just hate that this will be another year of rebuilding. That's what I figured last year was for. Nothing is guaranteed. We don't know that we'll be good next season. All we know is we won't be good this season.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Basel said:


> I just hate that this will be another year of rebuilding. That's what I figured last year was for. Nothing is guaranteed. We don't know that we'll be good next season. All we know is we won't be good this season.


Now you know what it feels like to be a fan of a perennial lottery franchise. It's not that fun.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Indeed.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Basel said:


> I just hate that this will be another year of rebuilding. That's what I figured last year was for. Nothing is guaranteed. We don't know that we'll be good next season. All we know is we won't be good this season.


that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works (even for the Lakers)


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

I pretty much hate what we did this offseason, but I do love our draft picks and I like that we were able to sign Young to a reasonable contract. He's a good player and should be easy to move, if need be. What I hate is that we have $17.3M in cap room this season locked up in Jeremy Lin and Jordan Hill. When you factor in Steve Nash, that's $27M in total cap room tied up in those three players. I would have rather us not complete the Lin trade, and instead pursue players like Isaiah Thomas and Lance Stephenson. In my opinion, if we had locked up those players then we could have convinced Gasol to re-sign and we'd have a lineup of Thomas/Stephenson/Kobe/Randle/Pau. Whatever the case, we're stuck with what we have for now.

Until Hill signs, we essentially have three better-than-minimum chips with which to acquire players...
- $2.5M in cap room (this goes away once Hill signs)
- $2.8M Trade Exception (Steve Blake trade)
- $2.7M Room Exception

Ideally, we could use those assets to add a couple wings (Henry, Johnson, Turner, Rush) and a big man like Ed Davis or Andray Blatche. Then, we'd re-sign Ryan Kelly and be set. Assuming that Kelly signs for somewhere in the range of $1M-$2M per year, this year's roster would be about $9M over the cap, but below the luxury tax.

Our team will essentially be built like it was last year, but we'll have to hope that the return of Kobe, better coaching, and swapping Farmar/Gasol for Lin/Randle will do the trick. My guess is that it won't.

In all likelihood, we'll head into Kobe's last season with only Kobe, Young, Randle, Clarkson and Houston's 2015 First Round Pick under contract, along with ~$26M in cap room. We'll see how that works out for us...


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

As far as i can see it, until Kobe's contract comes off the books, the Lakers will be in the Twilight Zone: best case scenario, first-and-out playoff appearence; worst case scenario: sucking, but not enough to get a Top-5 pick.

So the Lakers will probably just stand pat for the next couple of seasons. Meh.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Meanwhile, Dirk signs for 3-years/$25M...


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Anybody who criticizes Kobe for signing that deal is a POS. Kobe has done more for the Lakers than Dirk has the Mavs, Duncan the Spurs. He's the most valuable athlete marketing wise of the last twenty years. LeBron and Ronaldo are more valuable now, but Kobe's been around for 1996. The Lakers will make more than double off Kobe in the next two years then they will pay him.

Plus Buss and Mitch offered it to him early. There wasn't even really negotiation.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

In the words of Jurgen Klinsmann, you don't give contracts based on prior performance. You give them based on anticipated future performance, especially in a salary cap league. Coming off of a torn achilles, it was *absurd* of the Lakers to offer $24M/yr to Kobe. The fact that it "wasn't a negotiation" just further proves that point.

You can defend Kobe all you want but the fact of the matter is that that deal will prevent us from being relevant for the next two seasons. I don't care whether Kobe is "rewarded appropriately" for his work as a Laker. I'm a Lakers fan, not a Kobe fan. The Lakers have bent over backwards for Kobe time and time again. I want the Lakers to win, and right now that contract greatly hinders our ability to build a winning team. 

So again, I don't care about giving him "what he deserves". "What you deserve" doesn't always equate to "what you get". This is a business, and Kobe of all people understands that. I care about building this current team into a contender as soon as possible. Kobe's new contract may not prevent that entirely, but it's certainly a huge bump in the road. Maybe if our management was creative enough then we would be able to get over that bump, but therein lies the problem. The fact that no negotiation whatsoever took place is a testament to how inept our current management has been over the last 8-10 months. You don't just prop a $24M/yr contract in front of a 35-year-old man with a busted achilles and start the negotiations from there. It was a panic move that happened because they were scared of losing him, and you can't run a team based on fear.

I put most of the blame on this contract on the Lakers - about 99% of it. I understand that Kobe believes he should be making $24M/yr because he's the best player on the planet. Sadly, the last part of that statement is just not true anymore. His fiery attitude is what won us five championships, but it will also be the reason that he never wins another one.

For the next two years, we're stuck in a marriage that's doomed to fail, but one side is too afraid to look the other in the eye and call it quits.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Anybody who criticizes Kobe for signing that deal is a POS. Kobe has done more for the Lakers than Dirk has the Mavs, Duncan the Spurs. He's the most valuable athlete marketing wise of the last twenty years. LeBron and Ronaldo are more valuable now, but Kobe's been around for 1996. The Lakers will make more than double off Kobe in the next two years then they will pay him.
> 
> Plus Buss and Mitch offered it to him early. There wasn't even really negotiation.


I'm with you on this. Kobe's deal isn't handicapping us as much as some seem to think it is.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

As I say above, the main problem is that it's indicative of the kind of poor decision-making being made by Lakers management on a regular basis these days.

Does anyone outside of a few super fans and Kobe think that contract was a smart move that puts us in a good place? If the answer to that question was, "YES" then maybe we'd have seen some better Free Agents sign with the Lakers this summer.

The entire league saw that contract as a cry for help by Lakers management, and that's why nobody is running to our aide with the re-enforcements. We're on a sinking ship and we don't know how to stop it from going under...why would anyone else want to jump on board?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> In the words of Jurgen Klinsmann, you don't give contracts based on prior performance. You give them based on anticipated future performance, especially in a salary cap league. Coming off of a torn achilles, it was *absurd* of the Lakers to offer $24M/yr to Kobe. The fact that it "wasn't a negotiation" just further proves that point.
> 
> You can defend Kobe all you want but the fact of the matter is that that deal will prevent us from being relevant for the next two seasons. I don't care whether Kobe is "rewarded appropriately" for his work as a Laker. I'm a Lakers fan, not a Kobe fan. The Lakers have bent over backwards for Kobe time and time again. I want the Lakers to win, and right now that contract greatly hinders our ability to build a winning team.
> 
> ...


This is an awesome post.
Agree 100%


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Jamel Irief said:


> Plus Buss and Mitch offered it to him early. There wasn't even really negotiation.


this is the question isn't it - from the accounts I've heard they came to him with the offer as is - why did they do that?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> In the words of Jurgen Klinsmann, you don't give contracts based on prior performance. You give them based on anticipated future performance, especially in a salary cap league. Coming off of a torn achilles, it was *absurd* of the Lakers to offer $24M/yr to Kobe. The fact that it "wasn't a negotiation" just further proves that point.
> 
> You can defend Kobe all you want but the fact of the matter is that that deal will prevent us from being relevant for the next two seasons. I don't care whether Kobe is "rewarded appropriately" for his work as a Laker. I'm a Lakers fan, not a Kobe fan. The Lakers have bent over backwards for Kobe time and time again. I want the Lakers to win, and right now that contract greatly hinders our ability to build a winning team.
> 
> ...


I don't think you got the gist of my post.

It's smart business, not just loyalty. If Kobe is worth 100 million in revenue over two years than 48 million is a bargain. Kevin love doesn't make that type of money.

Not to mention the reason the lakers have this "lure" we're complaining that they lost amongst FAs is because of their loyalty and worship of superstars. It means more than just wins or losses. Making magic and Kareem coaches wasn't due mainly to their coaching savvy.

Who would ever come again if Kobe left in a bitter divorce? How long would it take to rebuild the reputation?


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

I'm glad Mitch is running the show instead of overzelous fans.

Do I wish Kobe would've taken a little less money? Sure. 

Do I think his contract is the reason why we didn't net any big fish this off-season? There's literally no evidence of that. Just fantisies of a Lebron-Melo combination that MIGHT have (be never actually would have) happened if he would've just said sure, pay me $15 million a year while you rake in $100 mil plus in profits mainly thanks to me. We didn't lose out on Melo because of money. We didn't miss on Bosh, Dirk, or Pau for that matter, because of money. We didn't go hard after FA that weren't of superstar quality. So please, explain how Kobe's contract cripples us so much besides not putting together a dream team of overpaid semi-stars like Lance Stephenson. 

As Jamel said, making sure Kobe is a Laker for life is not just loyalty, it's good for business. If he didn't retire a Laker, it would be downright catastrophic for business, now and into the future. 

Someday, when the cap is set at 80 or 90 mil, players will remember how the Lakers treat their superstars. Criticize Jim all you want, but this was a page taken directly from Dr. Buss.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Uncle Drew said:


> I'm glad Mitch is running the show instead of overzelous fans.
> 
> Do I wish Kobe would've taken a little less money? Sure.
> 
> ...


Magic Johnsons record breaking 25 year, 25 million dollar deal crippled the franchise.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> Magic Johnsons record breaking 25 year, 25 million dollar deal crippled the franchise.


Educate me old man. 
Or are you being sarcastic? 
Was there even a salary cap back then?

edit: Salary cap re-instated in 1984, three years after the deal.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I think we should have taken on more unwanted contracts (Perkins, Prince, etc) in exchange for picks instead of signing Hill and Swaggy. Might as well pick up some assets.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

one word to describe Lakers and Hollywood this summer: failure


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I think we should have taken on more unwanted contracts (Perkins, Prince, etc) in exchange for picks instead of signing Hill and Swaggy. Might as well pick up some assets.


Exactly I take Boozer and Perkins over anyone Lakers sign.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I think we should have taken on more unwanted contracts (Perkins, Prince, etc) in exchange for picks instead of signing Hill and Swaggy. Might as well pick up some assets.


Hill and Lin are both one year deals like prince and Perkins. Swagger is a different deal, but his contract is not that unappealung relative to his output.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Uncle Drew said:


> Educate me old man.
> Or are you being sarcastic?
> Was there even a salary cap back then?
> 
> edit: Salary cap re-instated in 1984, three years after the deal.


Look like you read up on it, but you should ask @Dissonance if I'm ever sarcastic.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Uncle Drew said:


> I'm glad Mitch is running the show instead of overzelous fans.
> 
> Do I wish Kobe would've taken a little less money? Sure.
> 
> ...


DISCLAIMER: I don't know if Kobe had accepted less, that would mean more money available to sign other players. I'm assuming it would.

For all accounts, Lakers promptly offered Kobe the deal he ended signing.
IMHO, that's bad business any way you look at it: you just don't go ahead and offer 24M/year for a guy whose production will never equal that value AND it cripples (not estinguishes) the chances to bring impact players (not necessarily of James/Melo status) to improve a team that just ended it's most embarassing season ever.

Obviously, i understand the point of "rewarding" players, and showing "loyalty" to a player than meant and means that much to the franchise, but it ticks me off a little bit that the Lakers' brass didn't try something (like many others have done) to gain more money leverage, like say, 18M and a year more on the extension. 
Sure, if Kobe was to respond like "you're gonna pay me 24M/year or i'm leaving" (assuming he wouldn't mind losing many millions - cause no other team would pay him close to that) then MAYBE i would see it a little differently.

As it is, the Lakers are now forced to look for players willing to accept minimum deals to complete the roster... That won't end well... 

Right now, we've got something like

PG: Jeremy Lin - Kendall Marshall - Steve Nash 
SG: Kobe Bryant - Jordan Clarkson (can he play the 2?)
SF: Nick Young (better off the bench)
PF: Julius Randle - Ryan Kelly
C: Jordan Hill - Robert Sacre

That's a best-case-scenario 40 win, IMHO, and so far...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Clarkson has the size and tools to play the 2 Paulo


we clearly need a 3 and it sounds like Wesley Johnson isn't coming back how about Al Farouq Aminu?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> Clarkson has the size and tools to play the 2 Paulo
> 
> 
> we clearly need a 3 and it sounds like Wesley Johnson isn't coming back how about Al Farouq Aminu?


Why isn't he coming back? Even though I like Henry more I kind of thought Wes would be a better fit since a majority of the wings (more like all) are strictly gunners.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why isn't he coming back? Even though I like Henry more I kind of thought Wes would be a better fit since a majority of the wings (more like all) are strictly gunners.


just read that they're not interested in bringing him back 

http://www.lakersnation.com/lakers-rumors-team-unlikely-to-keep-wesley-johnson/2014/07/15/

For what that's worth - article also says they may be interested in having Henry back


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> Clarkson has the size and tools to play the 2 Paulo


Thanks, bro. Just read that he has 3 point range, too (although not a great 3point shooter).



> we clearly need a 3 and it sounds like Wesley Johnson isn't coming back how about Al Farouq Aminu?


That's probably the sole defender available out there at the SF position... But his last paycheck was 3.7M... Lakers will probably just sign Xavier Henry or someone like that...


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Thanks, bro. Just read that he has 3 point range, too (although not a great 3point shooter).



He's looked pretty damn good from 3-point range in summer league. Said he's been working on his shot a lot.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Basel said:


> He's looked pretty damn good from 3-point range in summer league. *Said he's been working on his shot a lot*.


I hope so.
He's shooting .5003P% on summer league play, but sample size too small (3 games, 7-14). And, by b-r, not a good shooter in College.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> Look like you read up on it, but you should ask @Dissonance if I'm ever sarcastic.


Wait, so there's someone on this board that understands you?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Lakers brethren, in these dark times let us not bicker amongst ourselves, tis unseemly


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Uncle Drew said:


> Wait, so there's someone on this board that understands you?


Just legoat06, and they banned him


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> DISCLAIMER: I don't know if Kobe had accepted less, that would mean more money available to sign other players. I'm assuming it would.
> 
> For all accounts, Lakers promptly offered Kobe the deal he ended signing.
> IMHO, that's bad business any way you look at it: you just don't go ahead and offer 24M/year for a guy whose production will never equal that value AND it cripples (not estinguishes) the chances to bring impact players (not necessarily of James/Melo status) to improve a team that just ended it's most embarassing season ever.
> ...


I think we're going around in circles here. The last point I'll make on the FA front is that if we'd landed Melo and kept Pau, would you have still looked at Kobe's contract as crippling? We certainly didn't miss on that for lack of effort nor lack of money. It was possible, it didn't happen for other reasons. 

I understand when something doesn't go our way, as a spoiled fan base, we think there must be something wrong with the universe. Jim Buss is running us into the ground, Mitch is losing it, we don't have the lure that we used to, blah blah blah the sky's falling. Or maybe Melo knew all along he wanted to stay in NY and take the most money he could (no problem with that). We took a swing at Bosh and Dirk (tf?) but they were never seriously considering us and it wasn't about money. We chose not to take a swing at mid-level FA because we swing for the fences, dammit, that's what we do and we'll try again at the trade deadline (Love) or next summer. 

As for leverage on Kobe; what leverage? The Lakers can't afford for him to retire in another uniform. Do I think he might've signed a 2 year $40 mil deal? Maybe. But they wanted to keep him the highest paid player in the league, and the point was that he was never to sniff free agency. You can say it's bad for putting the best competitive team out there (though not _that_ bad), but saying it's bad for business is false. We're going to be bad next year, but people will watch because of Kobe. His farewell tour alone will probably make them double what that contract is worth. So tell me again how it's bad for BUSINESS when he doubles your investment?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

@Uncle Drew is a wise man.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Uncle Drew said:


> I think we're going around in circles here. The last point I'll make on the FA front is that if we'd landed Melo and kept Pau, would you have still looked at Kobe's contract as crippling? We certainly didn't miss on that for lack of effort nor lack of money. It was possible, it didn't happen for other reasons.
> 
> I understand when something doesn't go our way, as a spoiled fan base, we think there must be something wrong with the universe. Jim Buss is running us into the ground, Mitch is losing it, we don't have the lure that we used to, blah blah blah the sky's falling. Or maybe Melo knew all along he wanted to stay in NY and take the most money he could (no problem with that). We took a swing at Bosh and Dirk (tf?) but they were never seriously considering us and it wasn't about money. We chose not to take a swing at mid-level FA because we swing for the fences, dammit, that's what we do and we'll try again at the trade deadline (Love) or next summer.
> 
> As for leverage on Kobe; what leverage? The Lakers can't afford for him to retire in another uniform. Do I think he might've signed a 2 year $40 mil deal? Maybe. But they wanted to keep him the highest paid player in the league, and the point was that he was never to sniff free agency. You can say it's bad for putting the best competitive team out there (though not _that_ bad), but saying it's bad for business is false. We're going to be bad next year, but people will watch because of Kobe. His farewell tour alone will probably make them double what that contract is worth. So tell me again how it's bad for BUSINESS when he doubles your investment?


I probably didn't get my point across: what i didn't apretiate was the Lakers brass offering *up front *that mammoth of a deal. I don't think it was wise. 
Yes, if Kobe had put the foot down and demanded they up the offer to 24M, i would probably feel otherwise. But that was not what happened (at least as far as i know).
And if the Lakers offered that up front because "they wanted to keep him the highest paied player in the league", well, that's just plain stupid. Let's remember Kobe is coming from major injuries and we don't know how he will play next season. Let's just hope nothing wrong happens, because if Kobe skips part of the season with injuries and/or never regains a similar form to "Old Kobe" (let's say he ends up putting 20ppg on .400FG%, no defense), it will bite the Lakers in the ass.
That's what i'm complaining about.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Hill and Lin are both one year deals like prince and Perkins. Swagger is a different deal, but his contract is not that unappealung relative to his output.


Yes, but we didn't get any draft picks for signing Hill and Swaggy.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> I probably didn't get my point across: what i didn't apretiate was the Lakers brass offering *up front *that mammoth of a deal. I don't think it was wise.
> Yes, if Kobe had put the foot down and demanded they up the offer to 24M, i would probably feel otherwise. But that was not what happened (at least as far as i know).
> And if the Lakers offered that up front because "they wanted to keep him the highest paied player in the league", well, that's just plain stupid. Let's remember Kobe is coming from major injuries and we don't know how he will play next season. Let's just hope nothing wrong happens, because if Kobe skips part of the season with injuries and/or never regains a similar form to "Old Kobe" (let's say he ends up putting 20ppg on .400FG%, no defense), it will bite the Lakers in the ass.
> That's what i'm complaining about.


I got you man. I enjoy your insight, we're just gonna disagree on this one. 

I think they overpriced a bit, but I liked the gesture. Sends a clear message to future players. We take care of our stars. We'll be happy that we have that reputation when the cap jumps 30% and the rest of the league was telling players "not only can we not pay you what you're really worth to us, but you have to take an even bigger paycut if you want to win."


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Yes, but we didn't get any draft picks for signing Hill and Swaggy.


not yet


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

e-monk said:


> not yet


True. But I don't see us trading Hill for picks though. His value would come from being an expiring and serving as salary ballast in a deal for a high priced player. Picks could be just as valuable in such a scenario, but time will tell.


----------

