04-10-2021, 03:38 PM
(04-10-2021, 03:11 PM)omahen Wrote: Well, Nets added them, not Lakers. Lakers got Drummond. Betting on a buyout market might not be a very safe strategy.
Please tell me which vet ring chasers they got. I listed them to you. Matthews, Dudley, Morris, Gasol. And they are not getting much from any of them. Why am I just repeating myself. Last year it were Rondo, Howard and JaVale. Your min salary vet chasers are mostly fantasy.
He is a 15 mil contract they can trade. Without him they don't have a 15 mil contract to trade. And if you guys assume there are teams wiling to offer 15 mil to THT this also means there are teams willing to trade for THT. Just one example - one would imagine Houston would gladly trade Gordon to LAL for THT. So Lakers get a guy who is far better than vet min vet chasers. There is absolutely no way Lakers can trade for a guy like Gordon, unless they give up one from their core rotation.
SnT is best option for Lakers, unless they believe THT is able to produce NOW. If not SnT, keeping him still beats letting him walk for nothing, imho. Some here certainly think he is able to produce now, so I don't know why it would be so terrible for Lakers to keep him.
I’m really confused by your response. You said if they were over the cap, their hands would be tied and they wouldn’t be able to sign anyone. The Nets are well over the cap but just added a lot of talent, so that obviously isn’t true.
And then you ask me who my hypothetical vet ring chasers are and list 7 of them over the last two years, so you make my point for me.
I’m really struggling to understand your logic on either of your first two points.
I agree that if they want something in return, a trade would be best. I also think that time for them is now. The only reason people are talking about overpaying him now is because he is a restricted free agent. If the Lakers match and he doesn’t pan out to be the player people think he is, then he is just another player on a bloated contract; not necessarily the trade asset you are making him out to be. The only way matching works out is if he shows his value, and in that case they would want to keep him. So either way, matching him comes down to whether they think he is worth what it will cost them.
and let’s say I even concede your point that he would be a trade asset, is ownership going to be willing to pay $51M per year for a $15M “trade asset”?