# Lakers decline Rush's option



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1913529


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Not surprised. He is maddeningly inconsistent and for someone who is a shooter, he sure misses a lot of open shots. He's extremely one-dimensional IMO. His defense is atrocious too.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

No surprise.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Not surprised. He is maddeningly inconsistent and for someone who is a shooter, he sure misses a lot of open shots. He's extremely one-dimensional IMO. His defense is atrocious too.


True. The only good things Rush has ever done were the game-winner against Denver and the 6 3-pointer outburst against the Wolves last season. Other than that he hasn't been reliable at all even when he's wide open, he never takes the ball to the basket and he's got zero ball-handling and playmaking skills. Now since the Lakers have basically said that he doesn't fit into their long-term future I wonder if they'll be trying to shop him around.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Rush isn't that bad. The guy's defense improved tremendously last season, he's definitely adequate, or average, however you label it. He's a one dimensional spot up shooter, but he does that extremely well. 

This almost certainly means that Rush is on the trading block. Expect him to be traded by the deadline. Or maybe, Bobbitt will make the team? That would be very nice.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The Chicago Bulls could use Rush. Do you have any interest in Frank Williams or Pargo?


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> The Chicago Bulls could use Rush. Do you have any interest in Frank Williams or Pargo?


No way on Pargo. Personally I like the guy but we waived him last year, so apparently management isn't too high on him..... ehh, well actually that could've been another Phil Jackson move. But still, he's about on the same level as Tierre Brown.

Frank Williams, I can't say, I'm not really familiar with him.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> Frank Williams, I can't say, I'm not really familiar with him.


He's a big, strong kid. A natural PG. He handles the ball well and is a decent playmaker. He's a tough defender but a poor shooter. Basically, he's Derek Fisher without a jumper. He's probably a better playmaker, though. I still don't want him. If he were a backup, yes but not as a starter.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

I'm not happy at all about this decision. A shooter like Rush is quite a bargain for the salary he would be receiving in his 4th year. Yeah, he is inconsistent, but last year was only his 2nd year in the league and he showed GREAT improvement.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

This is a bonehead move. His 4th year option was a pile of beans and about what half his salary for next year will be wherever he goes. He's an athletic shooter, teams give a good part of their MLE to guys that can't move but can still shoot. He averaged 12 ppg as a starter last year and continue to shake his timidness. What did they have to lose by picking it up? Seeing Rush lose motivation for this season? 

Again, I still think he's the next Peeler and will have a better season than Butler, George, Jones, Walton, Atkins or any Laker peremiter player outside of Odom and Kobe..


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> I'm not happy at all about this decision. A shooter like Rush is quite a bargain for the salary he would be receiving in his 4th year. Yeah, he is inconsistent, but last year was only his 2nd year in the league and he showed GREAT improvement.


I tend to agree. So what if we don't need him? Bring him back because he's young, relatively cheap, and can shoot. He has some trade value because of those qualities. We can still trade him but we also need shooting on this team. At worst we could have kept him around just to stretch defenses. I don't think it hurts us at all to pick up his option.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm completely astounded at the number of talented players (who were high draft picks) whose options are not getting picked up. Rush, Nachbar, Wagner, and others. 

Are the owners and GM's really thinking the new CBA is going to be very different and it's best to cut all ties and have the most flexibility?


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> This is a bonehead move. His 4th year option was a pile of beans and about what half his salary for next year will be wherever he goes. He's an athletic shooter, teams give a good part of their MLE to guys that can't move but can still shoot. He averaged 12 ppg as a starter last year and continue to shake his timidness. What did they have to lose by picking it up? Seeing Rush lose motivation for this season?
> 
> Again, I still think he's the next Peeler and will have a better season than Butler, George, Jones, Walton, Atkins or any Laker peremiter player outside of Odom and Kobe..


I just don't get it. Are the Lakers getting cheap again or something? If they are, Kareem's salary isn't enough to warrant not picking up his option. It's moves like this that make me question Mitch's ability to handle this job. We re-sign Slava who is probably the 3rd or 4th best player at his position but we don't re-sign the best shooter on our team?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> I just don't get it. Are the Lakers getting cheap again or something? If they are, Kareem's salary isn't enough to warrant not picking up his option. It's moves like this that make me question Mitch's ability to handle this job. We re-sign Slava who is probably the 3rd or 4th best player at his position but we don't re-sign the best shooter on our team?


Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, not picking up his option does not = not resigning him. Mitch didn't pick up Georges option either but signed him when he felt he proved he was a piece to the Lakers rotation. Is Mitch lighting a fire under Rush? That's the only thing I can think of because the money is nothing. Who knows, but he can easily get burned here. 

I mean at the very least Rush is our second best guard right?


----------



## Lakerman33 (Oct 16, 2004)

i like rush and its sad that another part of the phil era is gone. Watch rush sign with sum1 else in the offseason and come on strong.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*only problem, conditioning and jumper?*



> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> He's a big, strong kid. A natural PG. He handles the ball well and is a decent playmaker. He's a tough defender but a poor shooter. Basically, he's Derek Fisher without a jumper. He's probably a better playmaker, though. I still don't want him. If he were a backup, yes but not as a starter.


FWill is starter worthy at least on the Lakers, he's definitely better than what Atkins can bring to the table. Is a better playmaker than anybody else you could start at point while playing better D to boot, the guy is a good solid player, hope your front office looks into picking him up.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

So now we have to use the MLE on Rush if we want to keep him. I'd rather use it on a big man. It's the same mistake we made with George; spending our MLE on an average player instead of picking up his option and having the MLE for somebody we need.

I like Rush, (I think we should have picked up his option) but I really don't want to give him the mid-level to stay on as Kobe's backup.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Let's be real. Kareem Rush, is too inconsistent to be the best shooter on the team. He came out of college after ESPN foolished lauded him the "Perfect Weapon" and has looked like he was picked exactly where he should be. He was a top 10 pick before his junior year and fell into the twenties. If this doesn't motivate him to actually stop being inconsistent and step it up, then he should be taking a long walk and go play somewhere else. 

Look at how different Brian Cook is, in one off-season. That should have been Kareem a year ago, but I have seen nada improvement. EHL, he is still not a very good defender, case in point, watching Lindsey Hunter muscle him around, was very disturbing (considering Hunter gives up 5 inches and can't seem to shoot a lick anymore). 

I think Kareem is soft personally. Too much glitz in his mind and not enough grit.


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

damn.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

kareem rush and devean george for eddy curry...



face it the bulls are to cheap to give what eddy wants in a contract so they could do that trade so they could get something back for him


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Nuts. 

With Suckchap as GM, you can expect worse. No relief in sight. :no:


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, not picking up his option does not = not resigning him. Mitch didn't pick up Georges option either but signed him when he felt he proved he was a piece to the Lakers rotation. Is Mitch lighting a fire under Rush? That's the only thing I can think of because the money is nothing. Who knows, but he can easily get burned here.
> ...


He is dirt cheap, not picking up his option is plain stupid. At the very worse, keep this option for trade value.

so what if he busts out and "proves himself" we'd be paying him more then we could have for a year... if he doesn't improve his value for his salary is still a slight bargain

This is completely idiotic, especially considering he wanted slava back. Rush is inconsistant, but a bargain for what he is getting paid.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> 
> 
> He is dirt cheap, not picking up his option is plain stupid. At the very worse, keep this option for trade value.
> ...


Exactly. We didn't pick up the option on Devean's contract and ended up paying far more for his services than was warranted. Just pick up the optioon for next season and see how his development goes. Worst case scenario is that he doesn't develop as expected and you cut him loose at the end of the year. If he breaks out this year, we're not going to be able to re-sign him. If we can, we'll end up paying 4-5 times more than we would have if we picked his contract up.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

STUPID!!! We have an idiot as a GM. This is going to make rebuilding very difficult. Why can't we have a guy like R.C. Buford? Oh wait, we did have one in West!


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Why are people calling Kupchak stupid? At least wait until the February deadline to see if Rush is traded for a 1 or 4 before you go calling him stupid. Yes, I'd agree, if Rush leaves for nothing or is given the MLE this summer, he's made a bad move. If Rush (and others most likely) are traded for a quality 1 or 4, it's a great freaking move. 

Sheesh.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Why are people calling Kupchak stupid? At least wait until the February deadline to see if Rush is traded for a 1 or 4 before you go calling him stupid. Yes, I'd agree, if Rush leaves for nothing or is given the MLE this summer, he's made a bad move. If Rush (and others most likely) are traded for a quality 1 or 4, it's a great freaking move.
> 
> Sheesh.


Lets look at possible trades for a second. Wouldn't Rush have more trade value if his salary was guaranteed for next season? I'd imagine any team that wants him would want him for more than a few months. I think that not picking up his option hinders some possible deals.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Lets look at possible trades for a second. Wouldn't Rush have more trade value if his salary was guaranteed for next season? I'd imagine any team that wants him would want him for more than a few months. I think that not picking up his option hinders some possible deals.


That would be the case *if* the Lakers didn't have roster glut. Unfortunately, the Lakers roster is packed to the brim with 15 *guaranteed* contracts, the max allowed. If Rush is guaranteed for next season, that _forces_ the Lakers to trade him, otherwise the Lakers have 15 players next offseason and can't add any players to address skill set holes. If Buss had Cuban or Allen deep pockets, he could simply buy out contracts of players he didn't want. But those are his millions, not ours. Ideally, he'd just buy out George, and use Atkins, Slava, Walton and/or Rush as trade bait for one or two players (preferably a 1 or 4), which kills two birds with one stone by addressing skill set holes and trimming roster space. But will he eat George’s contract? $10M? Not likely.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> That would be the case *if* the Lakers didn't have roster glut. Unfortunately, the Lakers roster is packed to the brim with 15 *guaranteed* contracts, the max allowed. If Rush is guaranteed for next season, that _forces_ the Lakers to trade him, otherwise the Lakers have 15 players next offseason and can't add any players to address skill set holes. If Buss had Cuban or Allen deep pockets, he could simply buy out contracts of players he didn't want. But those are his millions, not ours. Ideally, he'd just buy out George, and use Atkins, Slava, Walton and/or Rush as trade bait for one or two players (preferably a 1 or 4), which kills two birds with one stone by addressing skill set holes and trimming roster space. But will he eat George’s contract? $10M? Not likely.


I don't understand what you mean by HAVE to keep him. It's not like it will be any problem at all to trading this guy. Trading him for something very good may be hard, but worse case scenario you trade him for a future 2nd round draft pick. Plenty of teams would love to have him on their bench for what 2 Million or something? it might even be less then that.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

I seriously can't see a scenario in which the Lakers would try to use their MLE on Rush next year. He's not going to be getting much time anyway. Kobe will be playing about 40 minutes a game, if not more, and there won't even be any room for Kobe to play the 3 to buy Rush some time at the 2 since we have so many SFs to play as well.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> This is a bonehead move. His 4th year option was a pile of beans and about what half his salary for next year will be wherever he goes. He's an athletic shooter, teams give a good part of their MLE to guys that can't move but can still shoot. He averaged 12 ppg as a starter last year and continue to shake his timidness. What did they have to lose by picking it up? Seeing Rush lose motivation for this season?
> 
> Again, I still think he's the next Peeler and will have a better season than Butler, George, Jones, Walton, Atkins or any Laker peremiter player outside of Odom and Kobe..


Totally agree here. 

Rush can do something a ton of players can't do in the league which is shoot. 

I'd be temtped to staret Rush at pg. he has become a solid defender.

When hot he could have multiple 25+ point games. Very stupid move by the lakers. 

Gonna get caught in the George situation all over again. 

Rush is one of my favorite Lakers next to Kobe and odom. 

He is a good scorer and with minutes with Kobe's kick-outs could excel. 

Typical Mitch, mismanagement.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Rush's value is going to be that of a pile of beans after this season. The only way he becomes worth the MLE is if he improves significantly. I just don't see it.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I have noticed improvment in Rush's game so I am not so sure. I think he has a chance to be a great boost off the bench, come in for a few 10 minutes stretches a game and knock down 2-3 jumpers, maybe a few 3's as well. 

IMO his shot has gotten more consistent in the last half year or so.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be temtped to staret Rush at pg. he has become a solid defender.


There is no way on earth Rush could be a PG. In short, he does not have the skills or abilities to be one.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by HAVE to keep him. It's not like it will be any problem at all to trading this guy. Trading him for something very good may be hard, but worse case scenario you trade him for a future 2nd round draft pick. Plenty of teams would love to have him on their bench for what 2 Million or something? it might even be less then that.


Trading him is hardly easy, and trading him for a pick is useless, because it forces you to give a guaranteed contract to an unproven player or try to find a team that'll take that on a project. Rush either walks this summer or gets traded with several other Lakers (George, etc.) for a solid PG or PF before the deadline.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Trading him is hardly easy, and trading him for a pick is useless, because it forces you to give a guaranteed contract to an unproven player or try to find a team that'll take that on a project. Rush either walks this summer or gets traded with several other Lakers (George, etc.) for a solid PG or PF before the deadline.


A 2nd round pick does not get a guaranteed contract. In other words we can dump him if we want to anytime by trading him for a 2nd. Or we can keep him for another year with a tiny contract.

You don't think it'd be easy to trade rush for a 2nd, feel free to make a poll of whether people on this board would trade their 2nd round pick for rush, I thinking 75% or more will pick rush.

More importantly, trading rush for a 2nd is just a backup plan if you don't want him, if you want him, you can keep him for cheap or package him for a better deal.

Your acting like it'd be harder to package him if he's signed on for another year that's around 2 Million.

This is no disadvantage to taking that option because worse case scenario you can trade him for a 2nd which would be equivlent of letting him go.


----------



## Kapono2Okafor (Oct 20, 2004)

bobcats will take him lol!!!!:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## Kapono2Okafor (Oct 20, 2004)

bobcats will take him lol!!!!:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> 
> There is no way on earth Rush could be a PG. In short, he does not have the skills or abilities to be one.


I'm not talking about the Lakers starting Rush to be our pg in a traditional sense but to guard the pg defensively, and have Odom and Kobe be the playmakers Rush could be a spot up shooter. 

You didn't catch that.


----------



## luizmelo (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kapono2Okafor</b>!
> bobcats will take him lol!!!!:yes: :yes: :yes:


 The bobcats will take any BAD player whit a small contract...:angel:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> 
> 
> A 2nd round pick does not get a guaranteed contract. In other words we can dump him if we want to anytime by trading him for a 2nd. Or we can keep him for another year with a tiny contract.
> ...


You're oversimplifying the process of trading NBA players. It's not easy to do, period. Even if the Lakers really wanted to trade him for a pick, they'd have to find a team with 1) a need for a backup 2, 2) a team who doesn't plan on developing their draft pick this year, and 3) a team that wants to take a chance on Rush's chronic foot problem. A lot of things have to come together, not including all the intricacies of the CBA that we don't know about. Not only that, but there will be a new CBA after this season, and the owners may know something about the new CBA that we don't. 

All in all, if it were _that_ easy to trade Rush for a pick, wouldn't George have already been traded? The Lakers definitely don't want him, right, so why not trade him for a pick? Gee, could it be because it's not easy to trade players that aren't that good to begin with?


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

bye bye K. Rush


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about the Lakers starting Rush to be our pg in a traditional sense but to guard the pg defensively, and have Odom and Kobe be the playmakers Rush could be a spot up shooter.
> ...


I've been calling for this as well. Derek Fisher has done that for the past 5 or so years. Watch tapes of old Laker games. Kobe brought the ball up against pressure, Kobe was the one driving and creating for others. Fisher usually launched 3s. Same thing Rush would be doing.

The fast break might be hurt a little by having one less ball handler out there though.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> You're oversimplifying the process of trading NBA players. It's not easy to do, period. Even if the Lakers really wanted to trade him for a pick, they'd have to find a team with 1) a need for a backup 2, 2) a team who doesn't plan on developing their draft pick this year, and 3) a team that wants to take a chance on Rush's chronic foot problem. A lot of things have to come together, not including all the intricacies of the CBA that we don't know about. Not only that, but there will be a new CBA after this season, and the owners may know something about the new CBA that we don't.
> ...


Maybe you didn't notice George's contract, he is getting paid over 5 million a year over an extended period of time.

It is a lot different then picking up the option of a player on his rookie contract who is getting paid less then 2 M a year.

Trading Rush is a lot easier then trading George.
If you can't understand that there is no point in arguing with you.

Also funny you mention George, because it is an example of why it was stupid not to extend Rush. If Rush has a good year you are forced to pay more for him. George's option was not extended, which is why we are stuck with his contract now to begin with. He had a decent season and Lakers were forced to extend him, rather then get him on a rookie salary for one more year and realize he wasn't that good.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe you didn't notice George's contract, he is getting paid over 5 million a year over an extended period of time.
> ...


Fine, then let's use Walton as an example. The Lakers have had 5 SFs since August, why hasn't Walton and his $700,000 contract been traded? It's easy to trade players, right?

Come on now, this is simple stuff.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Because we can't get something of equal value for him, unless trading him improves the team, why do it.

You think Walton can't be traded or something?

It's difficult to to trade for optimal value. But we could trade walton for a 2nd rounder to dump his contract at any time if we wanted too, same goes for Rush.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> Because we can't get something of equal value for him, unless trading him improves the team, why do it.
> 
> You think Walton can't be traded or something?


Walton for Marcus Banks is still on the table. That's an SF for one of the best defending PGs in the league (though he isn't capable of much else). You do that deal in heartbeat, knowing how loaded the Lakers are at SF. So no, the Lakers can indeed get a player back for Luke Walton that isn't a 2 or 3 (the Lakers' loaded positions). Plus, the Lakers will probably do a package if they can, like Walton and Rush for a 1 (or a 4). But again, that's not easy to do.



> It's difficult to to trade for optimal value. But we could trade walton for a 2nd rounder to dump his contract at any time if we wanted too, same goes for Rush.


And again, no, the Lakers couldn't do it any time they want to. If they could, why the heck haven't they?


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Walton for Marcus Banks is still on the table. That's an SF for one of the best defending PGs in the league (though he isn't capable of much else). You do that deal in heartbeat, knowing how loaded the Lakers are at SF. So no, the Lakers can indeed get a player back for Luke Walton that isn't a 2 or 3 (the Lakers' loaded positions). Plus, the Lakers will probably do a package if they can, like Walton and Rush for a 1 (or a 4). But again, that's not easy to do.
> ...


alright we are getting off topic.

The point of the thread is that declining the option is stupid.

The points addressed are

A) If Rush plays well his value increases, and thus we pay more for him then we would have if we just kept the option

B) EHL, you argued Rush could not be easily dealt and we would be "stuck" with him for another year w/ too many players

C) I said Rush could be dealt anytime for a 2nd round pick if we don't want him.
This means if Rush doesn't improve at all, we can trade him any time for a 2nd round pick easily. If he plays well, we have him for another year cheap.

D) EHL, you brought up deaven george not being able to be traded

E) I stated this is a bad comparison, Rush option was for 1.8 Million for one year, George's contract has more years and is over twice as much annually. It is a bad comparison because of: size of contracts, length of contract, age of players.

If you disagree, I'd love to have a poll on this on the general board, I am sure most teams would be willing to take on Rush's contract for one year if we picked him his option and traded him for a future 2nd.

There are 296 players being paid more then Kareem Rush at the moment according to realgm. His option was for 1.8 million for 1 year, I don't think we would have problems. 

However, it seems like none of this matters, because you are set on defending mitch for some reason, so this will be my last post on this thread.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> However, it seems like none of this matters, because you are set on defending mitch for some reason, so this will be my last post on this thread.


Well then I guess there isn't much point in responding. Still, this has nothing to do with Mitch or defending Mitch and everything to do with trading players in the NBA not being an "easy" task. It just isn't. Of course, waiting to see if Rush is actually traded for good players is also another reason I don't see how anyone here can *conclude* Mitch made a mistake by not picking up his option.


----------

