Some Ronny 411, some Crawford background and some Kobe praise
As the adage goes, "Did he or didn't he?" Such is the question surrounding whether Ronny Turiaf has indeed signed an offer sheet with Golden State, a "rumor" Mitch Kupchak had acknowledged but hadn't seen the accompanying concrete evidence or confirmation. According to Turiaf's agent, the papers could be hitting Mitch's desk sometime today, should things go to plan. The four-year/17-mil salary rumored to be in play would far outweigh the dollars coming second-round draft pick Joe Crawford's way, should he end up making the squad. If the kid gets cut, it won't be because his hide is chaffed at having to prove his worth. The Ax might come, however, because the powers that be don't think he's ready to provide even limited minutes in relief of Kobe Bryant, whom, in an argument laid out by Hoopsworld's Travis Health, is... the best ... around.
Which presumably means nothing's gonna ever keep him down.
My thoughts on Ronny's situation (outside of what BK already said): Like my brother, all things being equal (and by "equal," I mean, "me not footing the bill"), I'd just as soon the Lakers match the offer. As much as the price tag could at times mean paying reasonably big ducats for limited minutes, the guys theoretically in his place (Andrew Bynum, Chris Mihm, a more injured than not over the course of his career Lamar Odom) aren't slam dunks for healthy seasons. Thus, the need for Turiaf could present itself. Plus, depending on what happens with Odom past this season (or even this offseason, perhaps), we could be looking at a situation where Ronny plays more backup minutes in 2010 and beyond than next season. Plus, he's a great teammate and person (and often a productive player, especially when given the minutes or at his natural spot), which is always a plus.
That being said, I do understand the negatives. If Turiaf doesn't have a defined role, the salary could feel exorbitant. His limitations were also exposed a lot as the season wore down, definitely in part because of the grind of playing undersized and out of position so often, and perhaps a little because of conditioning (which Ronny said he's looking to improve during his exit meeting). And in the world of luxury tax implications, four mil means eight, a sizable number for a bench player not named "Manu," "Leandro" or "Mike M." The flip side, however, is that basically anyone replacing Turiaf sparks that tax, so you have to think about whether the dude replacing him (and the list of free agent big men outside of Kurt Thomas ain't impressive) is worth 4-5 mil (double a 2-3 mil salary) is a better option than just paying a little more to Ronny. Or if you're going to be as happy with a 31-year old James Posey three years into a 4-5 year deal (as he's said to want) as you are next season. Or if it's easier to replace a big than an admittedly more productive shooting guard (like, say, Sasha Vujacic). Lot o' questions and I can't say I envy Mitch Kupchak.
At any rate, my gut says that, assuming the papers ever arrive and the numbers are correct, it's about 70-30 Ronny plays up north. But I'm also a terrible prognosticator at times (Lakers in 5 over the Celts???) so what do I know?
AK
One note on the luxury tax issue...
It's only there for one year.
In other words, if they match an offer to pay Ronny 4 million a year,
it's only guaranteed to be doubled next season. And if they
match an offer to pay Sasha 5 million and up, it's only guaranteed
to be doubled next season.
For the 2009-2010 season, the Lakers currently have about
56 million on the books.
That would leave them around 25-27 million below the luxury
tax, depending on how much it goes up by then.
As long as they keep the combined contracts of Bynum,
Odom, Turiaf, Vujacic, and Ariza under 25-27 million
per year total, they're under the luxury tax. Or if they're
willing to go 10 million into luxury tax, then they'd have
around 35 million to split between those 5 contracts.
So let's throw in guesstimates (Yes, I know LakerTom and
others are going to insist that Bynum will be paid max $,
but I'm basing it on his performance to date, not perceived
max potential value).
Turiaf - 4 million
Sasha - 6 million
Odom - 8 million
Ariza - 4 million (this is a WAG - I haven't seen enough of
Ariza to estimate accurately)
Bynum - 10 million
That's 32 million total, which would put them something
like 5-8 million into luxury tax territory in 2009-10 while
retaining most of the current core players. This also ignores
the possibility that Kobe gets really magnanamous and opts
out of his contract to re-sign for less so that they can keep the
team together and they can all get paid.
The year after that, they'd have to extend Farmar.
So basically, the Lakers could conceivably keep the whole
current core set of players together for 3 or 4 more years
without getting up into Knicks stupid levels of luxury tax.
Admittedly Ronny is the only accurate estimate there...
Sasha may be offered full MLE money or Bynum may prove
worthy of a max contract or Kobe may opt out and ask for
MORE money.
But I just wanted to make the point that the big luxury tax
doubling penalty for matching Ronny &/or Sasha's contracts
need not apply every year of the contract. If Odom is willing
to take a cut to an appropriate pay level and if Bynum doesn't
improve to All-Star level this season, then they may be able
to pay everybody what they're worth and only pay a little bit
of luxury tax each year.
BTW. The Lakers only have one player under contract
for 2011-12... Luke Walton.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 03:36 PM
From Hoopsworld Fellas:
>>>>The Lakers are willing to move Lamar Odom to the Kings for Artest, but that's hardly doing the Kings a favor. Odom's $14 million will come off the books next summer, but it also means basically throwing away the 2008-09 season. Artest is a much better player than Odom, and has been someone who has pushed his teammates to be better at every level. Kevin Martin will be the first to tell you that Artest's constant pressure made him a better defender, worthy of the $53 million contract he signed last summer.
It's highly likely that Artest will get dealt this summer, but you can bet it will be a package deal where the receiving team eats a bad contract. That team won't be the Lakers unless they wind up losing Ronny Turiaf and feel Thomas or Abdur-Rahim can help fill that void.<<<<
Posted by: HmrHed | July 10, 2008 at 03:36 PM
So Ronny is all heart for the team the Laker Team...he will be missed
Posted by: Em | July 10, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Tom,
You beat me to it. The article expresses the opinion that "Artest is a MUCH bettter player than Odom". Do you agree with that? I'm not so sure Artest is as versatile.
Posted by: HmrHed | July 10, 2008 at 03:47 PM
From Hoopsworld Fellas:
>>>The Lakers are willing to move Lamar Odom to the Kings for
>>>Artest, but that's hardly doing the Kings a favor. Odom's $14
>>>million will come off the books next summer, but it also means
>>>basically throwing away the 2008-09 season.
The hoopsworld writer is playing it like Odom is as useless as Kenny
Thomas on the court.
What he neglects to notice is that the Kings are the second worst
rebounding team in the league, and that Lamar Odom is the
7th best rebounder in the league, and would greatly improve
the team in one of their weakest areas.
I'm not saying Lamar is going to turn the Kings into the favorite
in the West or anything like that, but there are some ways in
which he is exactly what they need.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 03:58 PM
if the lakers are truly serious about getting artest, this is the deal:
lamar odom
jordan farmar
for
ron artest
shareef abdul-rahim
it would suck to lose jordan farmar, but he isn't making or breaking this roster. coby karl or crawford would have to step up asap.
or better yet, bring back jannero pargo to back up dfish.
another alternative would be:
lamar odom
luke walton
for
ron artest
kenny thomas
i just have a strong feeling that the queens do not want to do the lakers any favors.
most likely, no deal.
Posted by: tha show | July 10, 2008 at 04:01 PM
>>I'm not so sure Artest is as versatile.
Actually, I think he is.
Maybe the only thing that Lamar could do that Artest couldn't is guard
a big PF or C. Artest could guard almost any PG, SG, or SF in the
league and maybe half of the PF's as well. I don't think of Lamar
as "soft", but Artest is defintely hard. In the way that the Celtics were
hard.
If the Lakers had had Artest this season and had put him
on Pierce, you can cut at least 5 points off of Pierce's scoring for
each game. But then again, you could also reduce the Laker's
rebound count by a few without Lamar on the floor.
I'm not sure if an Odom for Artest trade would be an improvement
for the Lakers or not. It would definitely give them an impressive
starting 5 (Fisher-Bryant-Artest-Gasol-Bynum), but I'd worry about
chemistry (which was never a concern last season).
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 04:04 PM
LTLF or LAKER TOM or anyone who knows, AK - BK
How does trading a for a base salary player?
Ex: Billups for Vlad. (For example only!)
Lets say Billups is paid $10 mill a year and Vlad is paid $5 mill. Would that trade work since Billup's value would only be considered for half if he is a Base paid?
Please advise,
Posted by: Charles | July 10, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Long Time.
Drew’s extension (1st will be around $12M IMO)
would not start until year after next.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 10, 2008 at 04:08 PM
HmrHed
>>>>> You beat me to it. The article expresses the opinion that
>>>>>"Artest is a MUCH better player than Odom".
>>>>>Do you agree with that? I'm not so sure Artest is as versatile.
IMO Lamar is a better ball handler, rebounder, and passer. They are similar as far as shooting goes, both 30% from long range, both better driving to the hoop. The only thing that Artest has going for him is he is a better defender as a 3 or 4 than Lamar, although Lamar is underrated as a defender in my opinion. Personally, I wouldn’t make the trade but understand why the Lakers might and trust whatever decision they make.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 10, 2008 at 04:13 PM
Yes, basketball is about winning, but it's also about entertainment. Because of this, Ronny must stay. There is no one in the league as entertaining.
Posted by: Marty | July 10, 2008 at 04:17 PM
There's a funny article on the Onion that Mark Cuban has bought
sports -
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/mark_cuban_buys_sports
My favorite quote from it:
"he Union Cycliste Internationale, Formula 1 Racing, the International Rugby League, and all their affiliate and associate leagues in perpetuity.
"I want to assure fans and athletes around the world that very
little will change now that you are all my fans and athletes,"
Cuban said. "Of course, there will be a review and streamlining
of all the rules as soon as possible, so I can settle certain things
once and for all, like what is and isn't a foul, and where the
Cubs will be playing after they leave Chicago, and what
Dwyane Wade will be doing now that he's banned from
basketball."
lol
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Long Time Laker Fan wrote:
“For the 2009-2010 season, the Lakers currently have about
56 million on the books.”
“That would leave them around 25-27 million below the luxury
tax, depending on how much it goes up by then.”
Interesting LTLF;
But where or how did you compute only a $56 million payroll before the 2009-10 season?
How many players will the Lakers have under contract for this $56 million?
Hummm...this would technically place the Lakers slightly below the salary cap after next season before any signing or resigning of players.
Posted by: LoveTheLakeShow | July 10, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Long Time,
>>>>> I'm not saying Lamar is going to turn the Kings into the
>>>>>favorite in the West or anything like that, but there are some ways in
>>>>>which he is exactly what they need.
I agree, which is why there might be something to the rumor. The only deal the Kings and Lakers could ever make would HAVE to be a deal that helped both teams. Lamar would be great in Petrie’s offense and would help make the Kings a better running team while Artest’s toughness and ability to defend the 3 and even the 4 due to his size (260#) fill a weak area for the Lakers. If we do the deal, it’s all about guarding Paul Pierce.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 10, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Artest
I don't like seeing LO go, but like the article in hoopsworld said, Artest is a much better player than LO. If we can get Artest for LO and Kenny Thomas I think we should do it. Thomas will replace Turiaf, Artest will solve our problem at SF and will instantly turn LA into a defensive team. Artest will be Phil's new Dennis Rodman. He will behave under Phil.
Bynum Center
Gasol Power Forward
Artest Small Forward
Bryant Shooting Guard
Fisher Point Guard
If we can put that lineup on the floor in 2009 it gets us a ring.
John
Posted by: john_in_houston | July 10, 2008 at 04:23 PM
If we lose Ronny over $4 million a year it'll make chocking on Radmanovic's $5 mil/year even more difficult...
Posted by: SG | July 10, 2008 at 01:04 PM
and don't forget Luke's remaining $26.5 mil contract.
Posted by: passionate Lakers fan | July 10, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Von Wafer will be playing for the Knicks in the summer league.
You know that Isaiah has to be drooling over all that talent.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Good-Bye Ronny..............Hello RonRon
Posted by: BD | July 10, 2008 at 04:37 PM
HmrHed,
I think Artest is better than LO, though I don't know if I would say he's MUCH better. He's a far superior defender, and a better scorer (unfortunately, he takes far too many bad shots), and he'd give us toughness and the size to guard guys like Lebron and Pierce.
If he weren't a headcase I'd trade LO for him 100 times out of 100. If trading LO is the plan, I think we should match Ronny's offer sheet.
Posted by: Xodus | July 10, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Skip Kenny Thomas, make the move for Brad Miller or Mikki More and a player that can be waived like Douby or Garcia.
Posted by: Najja aka Bonus | July 10, 2008 at 04:39 PM
AK,
Still wondering what you think of a straight up trade of Lamar for Shawn Marion.
Yeah, I'd rather not do a Lamar for Artest deal.
Posted by: Najja aka Bonus | July 10, 2008 at 04:44 PM
It's not going to be fair if you guys get Artest.
Kobe and Artest on the wings then you have to get past Pau and Bynum 10 ft wingspan. It's not fair to the rest of us.
This is a conspiracy against the weaker teams that can't compete against the Big Cities and Stern trying to stick it to Boston.
This sucks if you get him. We know Artest hates KG and thinks hes a fraud. Why not just keep Luke and his IQ.
Are you sure you guys you don't want to keep Lamar who is know for his shooting and consistency and who is considered a good guy. I hear Artest is crazy.
IT'S NOT FAIR!
BD
Posted by: BD | July 10, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Am I the only person present who hopes the Lakers can get Shawn Livingston into camp on a minimum deal. I'd rather take a a chance on him than the kid we drafted in the 2nd round.
Posted by: Najja aka Bonus | July 10, 2008 at 05:03 PM
LO for Artest?
I thought the ron sweeps were over when he spaced out and didn't opt out. But yes the Kings are going to move him. If the Lakers can get him I think they should do it as long as they only have to give up LO and maybe a bench player. Buss would have to eat one of those bad contracts, and it'll cost big time, but I think it would like buying a championship. He is definitely the missing piece. Posey would have been good too, but Artest is much more of an impact player.
The starting 5 would be the best in the league. Yes even better than Boston's great lineup of this year. Not only that, this move would instantly turn our starting lineup into a tough lineup. The soft label could no longer be used, not that I thought it was really true. But compared to Boston we were soft.
Not anymore.
Do it Jerry Buss. Do it Mitch Kupchak.
Trade for Artest!
John
Posted by: john_in_houston | July 10, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Charles,
>>>Lets say Billups is paid $10 mill a year and Vlad is paid $5
>>>mill. Would that trade work since Billup's value would only be
>>>considered for half if he is a Base paid?
It's only considered half for outgoing salary.
So using your rough numbers, that trade appears to the Lakers
as 5 million for 5 million, but it appears to the Pistons as 10 million
for 5 million.
Thus it fails to meet the CBA salary matching rules (125% + 100K)
on the Pistons side of the deal.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 05:25 PM
LakerTom,
>>>Drew’s extension (1st will be around $12M IMO)
>>>would not start until year after next.
Yep. That's the year that all my gross estimate numbers were for...
In other words, the Lakers would be waaaaay over the luxury tax
next season, but with a little moderation (and assuming Lamar
takes a big pay cut), they could be just a bit over the luxury tax
for 2009-10
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 05:27 PM
LoveTheLakeShow,
>>>But where or how did you compute only a $56 million payroll
>>>before the 2009-10 season?
>>>
>>>How many players will the Lakers have under contract for
>>>this $56 million?
(these are 2009-10 salaries from hoopshype)
Kobe Bryant - 23 million
Pau Gasol - 16.5 million
Vlad Rad - 4.5 million
Derek Fisher - 5 million
Luke Walton - 4.8 million
Jordan Farmar - 1.9 million
Total - 55.7 million
>>>Hummm...this would technically place the Lakers slightly
>>>below the salary cap after next season before any signing
>>>or resigning of players.
Wellllllll. Actually, there's also a 3.7 million dollar qualifying
offer associated with Andrew Bynum. If you add that in, they're
probably over the salary cap. They could also waive Jordan
Farmar to cut 1.9 million.
The problem is, being under the salary cap by just a little bit
sucks. You can have cap space or you can have the exceptions.
You can't have both. So unless you have 10 million or more in
cap space, it ain't worth being under the salary cap. If you're
3 million under the salary cap, the most you can offer a free agent
is 3 million. If you're over the salary cap, you can offer them the
MLE, which is almost twice as much.
The two real keys are Bynum and Odom. If you can keep those
two guys under 20 million, then you're in fairly good shape. If
they're both expecting huge contracts, then one of them will have
to go whether the Lakers have won the championship next June
or not. I can't see Dr. Buss adding 2 more huge contracts and
having four of them at once. For example, if Bynum expects the
max and Odom expects his salary to keep going up, then that
adds at least 32-33 million to the salaries. And that puts the total
salary for the 6 players listed above plus Bynum and Odom in
the neigborhood of 88-89 million. And that's NOT including the
Turiaf or Vujacic money.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 05:43 PM
No to Artest for LO.
Yes to Artest for Ariza, Farmar and Mihm.
DEFINITELY to Artest for Luke or Vlad :)
Posted by: hariyahu | July 10, 2008 at 05:43 PM
>>>Am I the only person present who hopes the Lakers can get
>>>Shawn Livingston into camp on a minimum deal. I'd rather
>>>take a a chance on him than the kid we drafted in the 2nd
>>>round.
While I agree with you that I'd rather take a chance on Livingston
than Joe Crawford, I doubt the Lakers could get Livingston for a
minimum deal. My guess is that he'll get something in the
neighborhood of what Mihm got last season - 2 years at 2.5 million
per - from some team willing to gamble on him as a backup PG.
Since the Lakers already have Fish and Farmar as a good 1-2
punch at PG and are planning on bringing in Sun Yue (who
they almost certainly can get for the minimum), I can't imagine
them taking a flier on Livingston.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Another thought on the LO for Artest possibility.
We're all thinking in terms of beating Boston, that Artest instead of
LO probably would have made a difference.
But think about the rounds before that...
One of the big reasons the Lakers got past Utah and San Antonio was
because of their size. Neither of those teams had enough big players
to hold off the Lakers rotation of Gasol and Odom and Turiaf (and
even MBenga). If the Lakers trade Lamar for Artest and let Turiaf
go, then some of that size advantage evaporates. Now you'd
have 6'7" Kenny Thomas filling the role of 6'10" Ronny Turiaf
and 6'7" Ron Artest taking the place of 6'10" Lamar Odom.
I think if the Lakers do trade for Artest, they should match Ronny's
offer to keep some of the length in their front court.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Long Time,
>>>>> The two real keys are Bynum and Odom. If you can keep those
>>>>> two guys under 20 million, then you're in fairly good shape. If
>>>>> they're both expecting huge contracts, then one of them will have
>>>>> to go whether the Lakers have won the championship next June
>>>>> or not. I can't see Dr. Buss adding 2 more huge contracts and
>>>>> having four of them at once. For example, if Bynum expects the
>>>>> max and Odom expects his salary to keep going up, then that
>>>>> adds at least 32-33 million to the salaries. And that puts the total
>>>>> salary for the 6 players listed above plus Bynum and Odom in
>>>>> the neighborhood of 88-89 million. And that's NOT including the
>>>>>Turiaf or Vujacic money.
That is one factor that is interesting considering the LO for Artest rumors. Drew, with an extension starting at $10M to $12M plus Artest at $8M would keep salaries under $20M. I doubt Lamar would be willing to sign for that low a figure, maybe not even Artest.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 10, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Long Time,
>>>>> I think if the Lakers do trade for Artest, they should match Ronny's
>>>>>offer to keep some of the length in their front court.
I agree completely. That’s why the entire Turiaf thing may be a smokescreen for the Artest deal. One problem still is the 2 for 1 trade would take up an extra roster spot. I still would stand pat but I have a strange feeling this trade might materialize.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 10, 2008 at 06:19 PM
>>>I doubt Lamar would be willing to sign for that low a figure,
>>>maybe not even Artest.
Actually, I think Lamar would be more likely to re-sign for something
starting at 8 million if it was for several years. It's not unusual
for a player to sign for slightly less than they were making over
several years to try to keep a team together... Garnett did it with
his extension for Boston.
Artest has a bigger ego though, so I think he's thinking more in
the ballpark of 10 million and up per season.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 06:22 PM
Long Time,
"some of that size advantage evaporates"
Bynum would be playing; the Lakers would have Bynum and Gasol instead of Gasol and Odom. Their starting lineup would actually be bigger. And would you rather have Artest or Vlad as your SF? And if Mihm can play, the bench would be bigger as well.
Posted by: exhelodrvr | July 10, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Long Time,
Taking a cut from $14.5M to $8M is probably more than Odom would accept. He may not be able to get a raise in free agency but he would definitely get an offer at least as good as Maggette's $50M for 5 years. You may differ, but I think Lamar is a much better player than Maggette, who basically is just a scorer, although I like how he draws fouls. I think he is a shadow of a player compared to Lamar.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 10, 2008 at 08:01 PM
>>I'm not so sure Artest is as versatile.
Actually, I think he is.
Maybe the only thing that Lamar could do that Artest couldn't is guard
a big PF or C. Artest could guard almost any PG, SG, or SF in the
league and maybe half of the PF's as well. I don't think of Lamar
as "soft", but Artest is defintely hard. In the way that the Celtics were
hard.
If the Lakers had had Artest this season and had put him
on Pierce, you can cut at least 5 points off of Pierce's scoring for
each game. But then again, you could also reduce the Laker's
rebound count by a few without Lamar on the floor.
I'm not sure if an Odom for Artest trade would be an improvement
for the Lakers or not. It would definitely give them an impressive
starting 5 (Fisher-Bryant-Artest-Gasol-Bynum), but I'd worry about
chemistry (which was never a concern last season).
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 10, 2008 at 04:04 PM
-------------------------
I think LO is better player, and more versitile. Ron Artest is overrated and crazy. Heck Luke Walton defended better than RA on Harpring.
RA screws over team chemistry where ever he goes. Even in cow town when he chased Bibby out who was the face of their franchise.
Only take RA as FA and keep LO as then we have players in hand to keep RA tantrums to a minimum. If he acts up bench him and no big deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke8Rxz9TfOs#
Watch the RA flops in this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBx8LSwqRpE#
Keep LO forget Artest unless comes as FA next year.
Posted by: JustaLakerFan | July 11, 2008 at 12:42 AM
HoopsWorld reports that Spurs also trying to sign Garbo.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9441
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | July 11, 2008 at 06:45 PM
good points. we need to keep Ronny Turiaf. the itangibles he brings are what we need and he will become a very tough big man real soon here. he did alright against garnett( better than gasol and odom) and speaking of those two they tanked it bad in the finals and had to be taken out. in order to get tougher physically and mentally we need strong rotation of bigs, bynum and turiaf make us tougher mentally and physically and i believe will not wilt when the do or die pressure is on. why let turiaf go when what you could get to replace him is questionable. you know what he brings to the table and he is gonna get better. your right and i hope kupchak sees that light. but i am not doubting kupchak anymore. after being the architect of this rebuilding, i have full confidence in him. after all, he was trained by the best in the business and is looking like the only man who could come in to replace that legend and keep the show rolling. i think he will see it. at least, i am really hoping he does.
Posted by: md | July 18, 2008 at 06:16 AM