Lakers Now

Round-the-Clock Purple and Gold

« Previous Post | Lakers Now Home | Next Post »

Shannon Brown to re-sign with Lakers

Shannon Brown Blocks Mario West Against Atlanta  So reports Yahoo!'s Adrian Wojnarowski.  Two years.  4.2 mil.  Assuming these figures are reliable, I'd label the contract a "win-win" deal for both parties.

Shannon Brown gets the chance establish himself over the next couple of seasons, then sign a longer deal at the still-very-young age of (almost) 26.  Or, should he enjoy a killer 2009-2010, exercise a player option and sign a longer deal at even younger age of (almost) 25.  The Lakers get an extended, inexpensive look at an uber-athletic guard who flashed some nice potential during his short stint in L.A.  It's a mite early to declare him the Derek Fisher's heir apparent for "starting point guard of the future"- SB is nothing if not raw- but he could emerge a valuable rotation player.  At the very least, you can chalk this up as a victory for good attitude and a willingness to learn, traits of Shannon's that were deservedly praised since his February arrival.  Not bad for the self described "throw in." 

I'll try to track down some further confirmation, but for now, it appears we have some good news in Laker Land as "Lamar Odom Watch" continues.  Well, it's good news for most people.  BK and I, on the other hand, owe the kid 75 bucks apiece.  Dude, everything is coming up "Shannon Brown" today.

(UPDATE: The Times' Broderick Turner has confirmation of the news from Brown's agent, Mark Bartelstein, who says SB turned down a more lucrative deal with the Pacers to remain a Laker.)


AK

 
Comments () | Archives (185)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Glad to see Shannon coming back, love his attitude and raw athleticism. He is raw, but we will get to see what he can do with a full camp and full season. Hopefully he can carve out a role.

When SAS traded their frontline away, I felt the Spurs had to have a plan. They did, it was Sheed.

They would have been a formidable opponent but, Plan A didn't work.

One of the Spurs reporters was on the radio and was sick Sheed wasn't coming. He had inside info that Sheed more than likely would sign, they were confident it would happen, and traded accordingly, but he chose the C's instead.

Be glad he went East, Spurs would have been very tough with him and Duncan up front.

>>>Remember T.J. Simers ridiculous article about how Los Angeles reveres the Lakers too much? I want to know where all the articles are about Los Angeles and America reveres this lunatic too much.

I guess Simers is on vacation, probably aiding his beloved troops in Iraq, whom he uses as a prop when he wants to whine about the Lakers winning. Ha, ha. Seriously, he is probably someplace annoying the hell out of anyone who has the misfortune of being in the vicinity.

Nate Robinson is a bad idea. He strikes me as being very immature, how is he going to handle limited PT and limited touches? We already have one guy we have to worry about in this area, two will take over.

Laker Tom

Please read the Kobe interview on the Ariza/Artest deal.

It will add quite a bit to your comments. According to Kobe, it didn't go down the way you have been perceiving and presenting it.

Benjamin,

>>> I'm not ready to pass judgment yet. Why is it so easy for you?

LOL. It’s easy for me because it’s just my opinion based on the information out there and common sense. And I have no problem sharing it my opinion. It’s not a judgment or pronouncement. If I learn more tomorrow, then I may change my mind.

I don’t keep score of being right versus wrong although I am confident that I am right most of the time. But if I’m wrong, no big deal. It’s just a blog, Benjamin. The Lakers and Trevor don’t care what I think other than in a general marketing sense.

Nor do most of the readers and posters. That’s why I try to tell them the same thing so many times. LOL. I figure eventually they can’t help but listen. But hey, it just my friggin’ opinion, worth a shout our shrug depending on what you think.

When you look at the Artest/Ariza situation business-wise, it’s a common problem. A company has a great employee or supplier but suddenly has an opportunity to get a better employee or supplier whom they have coveted for years and can now get at the same salary or cost. Businesses can value loyalty, which I think the Lakers clearly do, but they still cannot just ignore obvious opportunities to upgrade the franchise.

In the end, it was just business. Nothing more or less. Well, it was also a dumb move by Trevor and Lee to not have an idea what was happening and understanding the climate and situation. They gave the Lakers the perfect foil to deflect the damage and Jerry and Mitch, being smart businessmen, took advantage. They knew how popular Trevor was. He was the hometown hero. They were committed to signing Artest anyway and Trevor and Lee basically played right into their hands and smoothly shifted the blame to the greedy player and agent. Sometimes, business is not pretty. I don’t think the move was wrong or unethical but definitely not comfortable but sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to whether you are running a family or a business.

Tom

SB should start at PG this season. Especially Fisher could be retirng next year. This would be a good time to see if SB is up for the job while Fish is still on the sidelines.

There is no other way to find out unless he gets the job.

SHANNON BROWN for starting PG bandwagon.

Did you guys watch Fish in the ESPN interview, he looked like he is ready to run for vice mayor of Los Angeles or be a GM of the Clippers.

Can someone post a link of the Ariza interview. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth. Thanks.

Too bad we won't get to settle this once and for all next season. Orlando's gonna kick y'all's @$$. Again.

Posted by: utzworld - THE BANNER HOLDER | July 06, 2009 at 07:30 PM

LMAO .... next season? LOL ... How bout the last time we played in the Finals? Better yet ... How bout the last 11 times settling it? You wanna settle it next season? Just throw away the previous 11 and play one winner take all series! LOL ... you sound like the gambler who keeps losing and wants to keep going double or nothing till he finally wins one and gets even.

Sorry ... the only thing the next one will settle is if we are 10-2 or 9-3 vs the Lakers ... your gonna have to win your money back 1 bet at a time. You reached your credit limit and Im cutting you off ... you gotta settle up before you can play again!

Tom - the Ariza situation is one of the rare times that I find myself disagreeing with you. It seems that you're saying that the Artest situation pre-empted any negotiations with Ariza, that that negotiations were already underway with the Artest camp before any substantive conversations took place with David Lee.

David Lee has been Ariza's agent for a while. He has an existing and contentious relationship with Mitch stemming from the Bynum extention. While free agency hadn't officially commenced until Tuesday, it's safe to assume that some level of discussions had taken place prior to that - perhaps not in the way of active negotiations, but players' agents are always on the GMs' call sheets... especially when your client's on that GM's roster.

At the same time, Artest has been on the Lakers' radar for a while. They obviously were thinking about him - how could they not have? Yet, I believe there was also a genuine interest in bringing Trevor back. David Lee went to multiple press sources almost immediately after free agency opened and by doing so, sealed his client's fate. It's hard to say whether there WOULD have been a different final outcome under different circumstances but I think it's safe to say that Rob Pelinka, Jeff Schwartz, Mark Bartelstein, Bill Duffy or any number of other guys would have given their client a better chance of success.

The timeline seems a bit murky and for good cause - agents spend the entire year working for their clients. Or, in the case of some, working against them.

What about the Birdman Andersen to the Lakers, heard he's in LA.......IS THAT A POSSIBILITY?

We desperately need Lamar to re-sign with us because if he doesn't we don't have a back-up PF unless we want Powell to come off the bench. As much as I love Powell, he is not meant to be the 2nd option at PF for a championship team. If we can't sign Lamar and he goes else where then we can only sign a backup PF to hte veteran's minimum. There aren't any formidable guys at the PF for the vets minimum...

Laker Tom-

Finally someone who gets the Trevor Ariza situation!

Can anybody post the Kobe article of his reaction towards ariza's sigining, that fatty was talking of?
thanks

>>>The fact is the Lakers NEVER made an offer to Trevor. He
>>>himself said that exact thing. All of the key reports say the
>>>same thing.

There are two things that lead me to believe differently. One
is that Ariza's agent on July 1 commented that the Lakers wouldn't
agree to give Trevor more than MLE level money. If they didn't
talk about numbers, then where did that come from? How did
he know they wouldn't offer more than the MLE if he didn't discuss
how much the Lakers would or wouldn't be willing to pay?

Second, there was another "insider information" thing on one
of the sites (espn? hoopshype? hoopsworld? don't remember)
that said that Mitch's Plan A was to hire Trevor for 5 years of
MLE level money with 10.5% raises, and plan B was to make
an offer to Artest.

None of us was in the room, so we don't know exactly what
was said. Let's imagine for a minute.

-----

Mitch: So how much were you hoping to get for Trevor

David Lee: we were thinking 5 years starting at 8 million

Mitch: No way, we aren't willing to pay Trevor more than
the amount of the MLE.

DLee: Screw you. We can get more than that anywhere.

Mitch: Then if you want to get more, I suggest you test the
market and show us what other teams are willing to pay.
I doubt you'll get a better offer than an MLE.

DLee: We'll do that. Only when we get an offer more than
the MLE, we're taking it. That'll teach you not to respect Trevor.

-----

In that imaginary dialog, has Mitch offered a contract or not?

If two parties discuss numbers, but the numbers are so far
apart that they never get down to making a formal offer, then
that accounts for all the statements by David Lee & Trevor
and
all the "insider said X" type comments.

If Trevor had told David Lee to accept whatever the Lakers
were offering, would there have been a contract offer the
first day? We'll never know.

After the whole Kobe debacle of two summers ago, the Lakers
clearly don't want to discuss any of their contract negotiations
with the press. But David Lee was squealing like a stuck pig, trying
to make the Lakers look bad. What he didn't realize is not only
does that piss off the Lakers (who as I said had to go through
the Summer of Kobe), but it also turns off other teams. Would
you want to negotiate with an agent who has overinflated values
of his clients and is going to try to paint you in a negative light
if you don't open the coffers and give his client more than they're
worth?

ESPN's Chris Broussard is reporting that the Cavs made a last ditch full court press to get Ariza. Even Lebron and Shaq reached out to him.

In the end, Trevor wasn't convinced Lebron would stay in Cleveland after next year, despite telling him otherwise. Also, Houston's promising a starting role that the Cavs can't, and he still wants to be close to his family in LA.

At least the guy can feel good that there are quality players that respect his game in this league.

Again, I wish him the best.

Dallas Raines Hair,

Thank's for the quote:

>>>"Agent David Lee said Kupchak did not make a firm
>>> contract offer, nor were the Lakers willing to pay him
>>> more than the $5.6 million mid-level exception."

What that sounds like to me is that Mitch offered 5.6 million,
David Lee said 8 million, Mitch said if you want more than 5.6
million, then go find some other team that's willing to offer more
and then come talk to us and maybe we'll match.

Am I completely off base on this. There's a difference between
Mitch saying, "We don't want Trevor, go talk to some other team"
and Mitch saying, "We're only willing to offer 5.6 million".

If Mitch didn't mention any number he'd be willing to pay to
keep Trevor, then why did David Lee mention a number that
the Lakers weren't willing to pay more than.

I think David Lee is pissed off that his little Lord Fontleroy
ploy failed, so now he's trying to save face by trying to
make the Lakers look like bad guys in the situation.

I would love it if the Lakers organization was recording the
phone conversation and someone leaked it out, but that's just
not going to happen.

dave,

No problem agreeing to disagree. Would have been fun to have been the proverbial fly on the wall as the Lakers front office was discussing the situation. I still think I am right but you could also be right. One thing for sure is everybody is spinning it to make them look better. I hope we will learn more but I think the Lakers like where the situation is right now so I think there position will remain steady.

Two things seem clear though:

1. The Lakers never made an offer to Trevor.
2. The Lakers signed a contract with Ron.

It seems to me pretty obvious that if they really had wanted Trevor back, they would have made an order. However, I could also see a scenario where they felt guilty about dumping Trevor so they decided to talk to him and he and Lee put their feet in their mouths. I just think Artest was too important to end up coming as a result of a fluke in negotiating with Trevor. That is too naïve. They wanted Artest and went after him. That’s what it looks like to me. That makes more common sense than the agent offended us. I mean, come on. Mitch got offended so he turned to Ron. Tell me if that sounds like the Mitch Kupchak we have gotten to know? We probably will never know exactly what happened but to me everything hinges on whether or not they made an offer to Trevor – and I have not seen one credible report from Mitch or Trevor that there was ever an offer on the table that Trevor could have accepted. That never happened. So no matter how you spin it, that says it says the Lakers were set on Artest. .

Throw in the resulting strengthening of the Lakers future bargaining position with their own players and free agents and it is just another benefit from trading up to Artest. As we saw with Shannon agreeing. How much you want to bet that Lamar will come to terms like tomorrow or Wednesday. I would say there is a 95% chance that will happen now after the Artest/Ariza “trade.” JMO

:)

Tom

The reason Lee said that Mitch and he didn't talk figures is that Mitch used the expression "MLE". Lee is technically correct, but he is being disingenuous.

They both knew exactly where they were. And Mitch, correctly, told him to go explore what was out there that could top "MLE".

At the same time, Mitch, seeing more Bynum-like drama from Lee turned to his crew and said: "let's explore where we are or could be with Artest."

Mitch isn't guilty of anything other than being vigilent and aggressive. Which is exactly what he needs to be to protect his organization. It also, as I indicated earlier, sends great signals around the league which reaps rewards in the future; as in: "whoh, we had better no screw around with these guys in the future without a decent back-up plan."

jxel24 - Denver's in very active negotiations with the Birdman, they've made him their number 1 priority. I don't think there's a prayer that he could come here - all we could offer is the bi-annual exception. Last summer, before he signed with Denver, I brought up Birdman a lot on this blog, to many's annoyance I'm sure. I really wanted to Lakers to sign him. In retrospect, he probably made the right choice - it's a lot harder to stay clean in L.A.. Denver's been a good place for him, he's never lost his fa base there (from his first go-round).

It is awesome that Shannon Brown is coming back. Can't wait for the season to start.

Jon K., thanks for the info on MSNBC, i'll be sure to watch.


What does Jon K. drink? CRAZY JUICE!!!!!

>>>Sorry ... the only thing the next one will settle is if we are
>>>10-2 or 9-3 vs the Lakers ... your gonna have to win your
>>>money back 1 bet at a time. You reached your credit limit
>>>and Im cutting you off ... you gotta settle up before you
>>>can play again!

Celtics fans are so delusional. 82-101 is convinced that if the
Celtics don't play in the finals then it doesn't count and it could
never be the Celtics fault if they suck too bad to even MAKE
it to the finals.

A year ago 82-101 was all obsessed with the most recent
title. The Lakers made it back for the rematch, but the C's sucked
so hard that they couldn't even make it back to the finals. Typical
Celtics.

You know what, 82-101? The Lakers aren't just playing for
championships vs the Celtics. When the Celtics are too inferior
to actually make it to the NBA finals, the Lakers are perfectly
happy to defeat whatever team knocked the Celtics out.

This century, the Lakers are 4-1 vs Boston in championships.

We can't help it if your team sucks so hard that they couldn't
even make it to the finals to face the Lakers and take their lumps
the other 4 times.

But enjoy your delusion. We'll see you back in the finals
the next time you make it there... in 2027.

LOL.

Artest vs. Ariza is turning into Kobe vs. Shaq. No matter how much logic and fact gets put out there, people will spin it to meet their own predetermined point of view. And defend it until they have no leg to stand upon.

LTLF is even trying to sell a quote that says NO OFFER WAS MADE to really mean that AN OFFER WAS MADE. Let me tell you what any lawyer will tell you is even more important: NO OFFER WAS ACCEPTED. That is likely your proof that no offer was made. The Lakers did NOT want Trevor. They wanted Artest.

Now, It may be that the Lakers “intended” or “planned” to make an offer to Trevor and decided not to because he and his agent were asking for too much. I could buy that as what happened even though I don’t believe it. But to claim that there was an offer made is a lot different from planning or talking about making an offer as any lawyer will tell you.

And people wonder why I keep posting the same thing over and over? It’s because no matter what the facts are, there will always be people who don’t know, believe, trust, or even care about them. It’s like 800 numbers. You have to tell them it a dozen times. And even then they don’t get it. You disagree? Fine, Trevor has already said there was no offer so find me where Mitch says he made an offer. Otherwise, accept the truth.

Tom

Here is the article from ESPN on the Ariza-Cleveland situation: http://tiny.cc/Snnb9

Two things strike me about this story. If Ariza already committed to Houston why talk to the Cavs at all? I mean you already gave them your word that you were signing with them. Second, why do we get all of these "sources" from anything having to do with Ariza? Sure we get some after the fact for other stories, but it seems to me that with Ariza it seems we get ever little thing leaked out to the press.

Big Baby to Spurs? Man - even though SAS are going to be our biggest competition in the West, I always thought they were a classy org with Pop, Duncan, - great competitors - most of the players are likeable. But now they're going after Davis? Is it just my hate of the celts that I don't like this trade? Actually, I dislike sheed to so didn't want to see him go there either.

Well - I guess they could be saying the same about us getting Artest.

Oh well - going to be an interesting year!!!

Now if the NBA could clean up their act with the refs - should be a memorable season.

It's childish to expect these players to put the team's best interest ahead of their own, at least in contract negotiations. Remember, this is their livelihood and future security. It's business not some goddam romance novel!

That being said, it's not all about salary. If Brown turned down a more lucrative offer it was probably because it didn't include a player option for the second year. Lacking that would be an opportunity cost lost, it's all about the value of the contract to the individual player not just the salary numbers. Just like you shouldn't buy products and services based on price alone, the bottom line is value, which includes not just cost but also product quality, company reputation and customer service, among other things.

I have to believe that second year player option has a large marginal return value to Brown. As LTLF ably described it in a previous post, it amounts to a guaranteed return on next season's performance. If he performs well above expectations then he can opt out and get more money. If he doesn't perform up to expectations next year then he can still opt in and try again the following year without taking a pay cut. Not a bad perk.

LeBron 0 Rings shirt for sale on eBay.. harsh...

http://tinyurl.com/LeBronZeroRings

PJ loves big guards that play tough defense, which is why I think Brown has a real good chance of getting a lot of playing time next season. I already like his defense and if he can continue to improve his offense he's got a good chance of being the starting PG in a year or two. The only question is if he can track those smaller, quicker PGs and keep them from penetrating the paint.

I know this is heresy around here but I actually think resigning Brown was more important that resigning LO. That's because I already know what Odom's capable of and it doesn't usually involve tough defense. His skills are undeniable but so are his shortcomings, which often include intensity and focus as well as defense. Brown, on the other hand, is a work in progress and it's kind of hard to tell right now exactly what kind of player he's capable of becoming. I tend to think he's gonna be real, real good in a couple years. If he can develop a better perimeter game and improve his passing skills then he'll be a keeper.

Odom's a known quantity and has a deservedly loyal following but it's not clear that the economics of signing him are sound for the Lakers long-term best interests. Brown is mostly still potential at this point, so while he's more of a gamble, the marginal return on the investment could well be much greater. I think the gamble is worth the risk. I still expect the Lakers to sign LO to a one-year deal for about half of what he made last season. Unless someone else makes him a better offer, in which case I expect the Lakers will let him go.

Ariza got a better deal from Houston than he could have gotten from Los Angeles or any other team. Remember that in Texas, he pays NO STATE INCOME TAX. That would be like getting an extra $3-million total from his contract. NICE.

Ron Ron is a huge addition to the Lakers. He has much more talent than Ariza. He gives the Lakers a second power player next to Kobe. We now have a weapon and defender against Lebron, Carmelo, Pierce, etc.

Shannon Brown has the chance with the Lakers to become a star, a power player. He has the length, talent, power, and desire. It is there for the picking for him. All has has to do is work on it. In 2 years he has a chance for a huge contract if he pans out. He's very smart to stay with the Lakers where he can thrive.

I hope Bynum is working hard on his game and strength this summer. He still needs a lot of work to become a polished player.

Lakertom is David Lee. Duh.

There is no other possible explanation.

Thank you everyone for all the Ariza insight and the link to the Ariza radio interview on 570.

I'm beginning to believe the Lakers had decided very early on that they wanted Artest and did everything to "spin" the Ariza negotiations! Artest in his ESPN interview even gave a shout out to Ariza....now I know why. Basically he took a great guy's spot who worked his tail off to win a championship for the Lakers.

It's also obvious that Trevor's agent is not that great! He has very few clients (I think someone said he has FOUR active NBA players and two of them are Bynum and Ariza.)

It's sad to see Ariza go! I truly believe this decision may come back to bite the Lakers (I hope I'm wrong). I'm hoping that one day we get to have Trevor back in a Laker uniform. It is evident that this is one player that is loved by LA.

I REALLY believe that if the Lakers had offered a FIRM take it or leave offer of the MLE of 5 years to Trevor he would still be a Laker today.

Trevor was so nice on the radio interview and you can tell he has a lot of love for the Lakers and his teammates.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE TREVOR...SIGN WITH LA!! Great to see Shannon Brown signed! He is another favorite!

Please post the Kobe interview on the Ariza/Artest signing that is referred to.

Thanks

To me it sounds like an offer was not made, but by saying they would pay him MLE plus the incremental raises, that's kinda like an implied offer, and maybe Lee wouldn't let Mitch get to the point of making an offer...the "go see what you can get elsewhere and bring it back to us" is not a kick out...It's an offer to let him bring his bargaining chips back if he has a bigger offer...FACE IT....It's Lee's fault, however, it's Trevors fault, because you should never put your destiny into the hands of someone else.

As for Nate Robinson, I don't get it, and I don't want him. Look Sun Yue is still in the picture, and although they don't play the same type of game, I saw the film clip on his shooting, and it implied he's up around the skill of 11 AM Sasha, not gametime Sasha...His English has improved tremendously, I think, and I'd rather have him as one of my ball distributors than a guy who is probably a foot shorter, in Nate....He may not be as quick as Trevor, but he does have a knack for blocking shots....Time will tell, I don't think he will wow anybody next year either, but think about him for 2-3 years from now...Hope his shot release is quick.....

In the picture it shows Shannon still has his UPS, as the rim is 120 inches above the floor, and SB is about 76 inches tall, the difference....44 inches....Having a player like Shannon on the floor will allow Kobe to stay more on the floor, prolonging his career.

Welcome back Complex. Keep it simple, as they say.

Wes

Hello Laker Fans,

As I said before this is a business.Lets keep it real.

LakerTom,

you wrote: It will be a battle between the younger, more versatile Lakers forwards and the older, more experienced Celtics forwards. Will Pau Gasol be able to handle KG’s physicality? Will Ron Artest be able to shut or slow down Paul Pierce? No disrespect to Kobe Bryant but the winner of these two matchups would most likely be the winner of the series.

my response. re: Pau. Yes. Go back
& look at the number.

Re: Pierce & Ron. Yes! Trevor would
have worked also.

This is what I said last year ~ november.

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

The negotiations b/n SB & Mitch:

Shannon to his agent: All right. I spoke
to Mitch extensively in my closing
exit interview. All you got to do is say
"yes".

Agent: Baby, I got this. I'm gonna get
you max $$. I'll make you an ... "urgkh".

Shannon has lept across the table.
Grabbed his agent by the tie and pinned
him to the wall with a forearm across
the throat.

Shannon: Listen to me you miserable
excuse for an agent. If you screw this
up, I will duck-tape your behind. Toss
you into my trunk & throw your butt
into Nickerson Gardens with a sign
around your neck that says: I "heart"
Boston! You walk into that office
as meek as a mouse. Yes sir. No sir.
Whatever you want sir. You accept, in
principle WHATEVER they offer. You
got me?

Agent: "urgkh"

Shannon: Good! *I* ain't going out like
Trevor. Go get that contract!

Agent: "urgkh"

Long Time Laker Fan -- Good post. I think you've got it right.

TIMEOUT

Well, this is just a suggestion to allow Lakers fans to post memorial tribute to the King of Pop whose funeral will be held today. It will be held at the home of the Lakers at Staples Center where a billion people throughout the world in different time zone will focus on this event. It is just proper for our blog to do the same. I'm sure we have devoted 99.9% time to the Lakers in the last 4 years, however there are also social events that happened around us especially in our City. While all of the media attention will be on this event, I just think it is proper for the Lakers Blog to blend with memorable events of times that happened in our City. There is no need to encourage debates, arguments in giving tributes to a deceased. This is a memorial coverage. Kobe and Magic will be there, no other NBA players were invited to this event except ours.

Laker Tom,

We rarely disagree, but I have trouble buying your take on the Ariza situation. As soon as an agent takes the negotiating process public -- for any reason -- it is over and should be over.

Whether Artest was Plan A or Plan B doesn't matter. A GM in Mitch's position is likely to have both in his pocket (a) because he can, and (b) because he should.

As I've stated before, two years ago, Trevor was languishing in obscurity. He wasn't in the Lakers starting rotation last season until the mid way point. He was part of the team's success, but not the reason for it. Anything more than the MLE was not warranted.

Both Trevor and his agent lacked a firm grip on reality. That either one or both thought anyone would or could over-pay for a role player in these times was delusional. An MLE deal with the Lakers now would have given Trevor a chance to truly establish himself as a top tier player, and be worth significantly more later. Both Lee and Ariza missed the VALUE of being a Laker. That Trevor says he will retain Lee for the future speaks volumes about his poor judgment.

David Lee should have known that Mitch was holding all the cards. He should have told that to Trevor in advance, in case Trevor didn't know. Like I said, whether Artest was plan A or plan B doesn't matter.

Now the Lakers move forward with a proven commodity. Next up, retaining Lamar. Go Lakers!

Dave M,

As Jack Nicholson said: "You can't handle the truth."

To rehash, twist, spin the Lakers-Lee negotiation is just mind boggling. There is too much sensationalism on anything that has to do with the Lakers. Well, it sells and suckers buy. Why not just stick with the truth and leave it there? Since you are one of my favorites who is not too a-holic blogger, I think you know what I mean.

thanks t_sensei for the link. in that interview, what i heard was a sad voice. i feel bad Trevor feels this way. he deserves more than this.

This debate over Ariza is interesting -- I think LakerTom is technically correct that an offer was never made (see links from AK's initial post back on July 1), but other links indicate a broad understanding that the MLE was there for Trevor. So it becomes an issue of intent.

I think my only question concerns the level of planning involved -- did the Lakers go into free agency planning on getting Artest? If so, then LakerTom's scenario is probably pretty accurate and everything fell into place perfectly.

I tend to think it was a bit more fortuitous -- Ariza's agent could have told Mitch that the MLE sounded great. Then what? I suspect Mitch saw events unfolding around the league and knew he had to upgrade at SF -- despite Ariza's outstanding playoffs, there were times when he was outmuscled defensively. This probably was taking place in his mind before any "official" discussions with Lee. Of course, who knows -- I'm just making stuff up!

The first thing I thought of when the Lakers signed Shannon Brown for 2.1 million is great, but if 2 million is the difference between keeping Odom and not keeping him, I would rather that money go to Odom than Brown. I don't get it, Odom wants 10 million, the Lakers are balking and offering somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 mil. How do you think Odom feels about this? Brown is a luxury, Odom is a necessity and is needed to win a title, whereas Brown is not. To me this two million was haggle money, if the Lakers fall short by a couple mil in getting Odom, they will only have themseles to blame.

So the Celts homers are here again to visit us.... welcome back guys.

let's keep something in perspective during your visit. The last time you won a game against us, Vlade Radmonovich was our starting small forward. Most of us felt that Vlade had no chance of matching up against Paul Pierce. We replaced Vlade in the games with an injured Walton who was also ineffective. This situation hurt us in a lot of ways and in effect put too much pressure on Kobe to be a miracle worker.

After that series, we dramatically upgraded Vlade's position with Ariza. Of course we had Ariza for the Champinonship series, but Ariza was still new with us and he was coming back from a serious injury. He just wasn't ready for that series. Ariza showed us that he was ready for the challenge and we were off and running the next year.

NOW, we have again upgraded the 3 spot. As you know, Ron Artest is here with us. Ron will have the entire season to learn our team game (I'm pretty sure that Artest already knows the triangle from playing in Chicago).

When we see you again, you can expect that the intensity you play with will be met with equal force. All the match ups will be good and we will play with a healthy (God willing) Bynum. Even with Bynum at 75% during our recent finals, he provided the necessary fouls and a much needed big body.

I wish you the best this upcoming season. I hope to see you in the finals so we can pick this up again. I know we will be there, it's just I have lost confidence in you.

You guys remind me of Notre Dame. Of course I'm a USC guy. At the USC sites, we get occaisional visits from Notre Dame about their hopes and asperations. They brag about their tradition and their new great hope Jimmy Clausen. It's just hard for us because Notre Dame was a joke for so many years that we really HOPE they get good so we can demolish them. Demolishing them the way they are now just isn't fun anymore.

So, in the sense of fairness, you have a great past. A 10 year span of greatness that still gives you that good feeling about yourself. But from our perspective, we value a good Laker team every year. We would be upset if the Lakers stunk for 20 years.

Welcome back to the discussion. You had one good year. We gave you ample opportunity to enjoy it. Now come back to earth and realize that if you can make it back to the finals, we will beat you soundly. I am hoping that all of your guys hold up for the season as I hope all of ours do too. If that happens, I believe you know in your greedy little heart what will happen. Just please keep in mind that we know this too. We will beat you and we have little doubt about this.

Now, do your job and beat Clevland and Orlando, so we can see you there. Shooo.... you have lot's to do.

aztronut,

Good posts, particularly the first. Brown's agent appears to have done a very good job.

I respectfully disagree with your second post regarding Odom and Brown for two reasons:

1. The very player option you mention in your first post. Assuming Brown does well next year and exercises his option, the Lakers may be unable to reap the long term rewards.
2. The Lakers have built strength in their frontline -- letting Odom go now would, in my opinion, severely impact that strength. In turn, that would limit their ability to succeed now. While I agree the team needs to think about investments over the longer term, sports teams are defined by championships (at least for fans). Odom gives the Lakers a better chance to win next year.

I do agree with you that a one year deal seems like a compromise. I could imagine something along $8m.

Hobitmage,

Love your version on how Shannon handled his contract negotiation. It is a relief to read comedy posts like yours, very creative, keep it up.

LakerTom,

Dude wow ... must I always be the one to come check you?? ...

First off you're the last person to be talking ... save all your energy for next season when you'll be defending bynum's contract ... and lord help you if we dont get odom back ... actually lord help us all

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but this is a period of verbal commitments. Even as we speak Artest contract was rumored at either 3 or 5 years ... nothing is set in stone ... even as we speak the cavs still made a play on Ariza ... So why are you so gung ho about the fact that Mitch didnt have something in writing? ...

Oh it ain't that you want it in writing? It's the nature of the words ... Mitch said "hey MLE is the best we can do, will you guys take it?" As oppossed to "dude please oh please take the MLE, we're ready to give it to you, all you gotta do is say you'll sign" ...

and for all the talk about how Mitch was courting Artest, wasn't Ariza doing the same with houston? ... did you see how quick Artest was to twitter I'm coming to LA ... it's all about attitude yo ... you can claim "if LA wanted Ariza they'd have courted him harder" ... but you've got to be willing to admit that if "Ariza wanted LA, he'd have courted LA harder too" (similar to how eager Artest was)

This whole blog has said we got love for Ariza ... but bottom line he did what he felt was best for himself ... if he'd kept the same humble attitude and didn't have a jerk for an agent (the same jerk that got us to overpay for bynum, or do u honestly think bynum could get that money on the open market today???) Ariza would still be a laker

And oh speaking of tacky ... how tacky is it that Ariza's camp would break the news that Lebron said he's staying in cleveland? ... like on da real riza, tell your people to hush the f up

Let's move on y'all we love ariza but he aint one of us no more ... and if y'all think this puts our championship hopes in jeorpardy ... understand this ... as long as we've got kobe and gasol we've got to be reckoned with ... if Bynum shows a third of the promise lakertom preaches, we're good ... if we get odom back, we're great ... so stop all the ariza talk, call your senator and ask them to bring odom back!!!

hobbitmage,

>>> Shannon: Good! *I* ain't going out like
>>> Trevor. Go get that contract!

LMAO. I just hope Lamar has learned the LESSON:
DFWM! (Don’t @#$% With Mitch!)

Tom

Listening to that interview with Trevor and his tone of voice, this is the conclusion I've come to:

1. David Lee approached the Lakers in a very aggressive, possibly insulting fashion, demanding "respect" in the form of money.

2. Being more seasoned and savvy than Lee, the Lakers organization did not show their cards nor that they were offended by Lee's brashness and said, "Hey, well, if that's the case, go out and get an offer and we'll see if we can match it."

3. During that period, Artest and his agent basically said, "We will do anything to make Ron Artest a Laker, including taking less money." This offer was supported by several Lakers including Kobe, Lamar, and Phil.

4. Mitch and Dr. Buss talked among themselves and concluded, "This David Lee guy is a lunatic and he's just going to cause problems. We dealt with him through the Bynum negotiations, we don't want to have to deal with him again. Artest will take less money than Lee is willing to Trevor take. It's just too good an opportunity to pass up."

5. Ergo, Artest was signed and Ariza was let go.

What do we play for? RINGS!!!!

Lakers Today... Lakers Tomorrow... Lakers Forever.

GO LAKERS!!!

"LMAO .... next season? LOL ... How bout the last time..."

Blah blah blah. Get past Orlando before you speak again. Vince & Jameer will be slamming buckets on your parquet floor by the time your old @$$ geriatric starters drag themselves across the court to play defense. All night long.

Once again...why did it take the signing of Sheed to make you grow a pair? Such punkassery....

Here is the person to call to complain about there being NO LAKERBLOG ICON on the front of the sports page. I've already called.

Readers' Representative Office
E-mail: readers.rep@latimes.com
Telephone message line: (877) 554-4000

Call people call. The man is trying to keep us down and I for one won't stand for it. If we all call, they're bound to put the darn lakerblog icon back on the front of the sports page.

Wes

Wes

Jon K,

I'm finishing up a quick post about the interview, but in a nutshell I'd give your suspicions a...

Ding, ding, ding!!!

Quite similar to how I've suspected stuff played out from the very start.

AK

Rick,

>>> We rarely disagree, but I have trouble buying your take on the Ariza situation.
>>> As soon as an agent takes the negotiating process public -- for any reason –
>>> it is over and should be over.

No problem disagreeing, Rick. It’s all just opinions and spins no matter what. My take is that it was over BEFORE the meeting and the decision had been made to go with Artest. An alternative that I could buy would be that the Lakers were still considering what to do when they met with Ariza and then made their decision. That is also a possibility. Why I keep posting on this issue is because there is NO evidence at all that an offer was made. LTLF and other keep trying to say that there was but the every comment from Trevor, David Lee, or Mitch said no offer was tendered. Thus, Ariza never had a chance to accept the MLE because it was only talked about and not offered. That is the only thing that seems to be clear from all of the comments. No matter how you spin it, Ariza and Lee fell right into a trap and by complaining gave the Lakers the PR spin they needed to justify trading a young popular playoffs hero. I doubt it will ever become clearer.

I noted that somebody suggested I read Kobe’s comments about the deal but I have not seen them. If anybody has a link, please post it. Kobe’s take would be interesting since he supposedly was texting Artest before the Mitch/David Lee meeting. Did he admit that in his interview? I seriously doubt it so he too may have a reason to spin this tale.

Bottom line, it’s just business for the Lakers and an opinion from me.

Tom

About Ariza saving 3M by not having any state income tax in Texas...

Even if Trevor establishes an official Texas residence, this only helps with Texas games and games played in other states with no state income tax. In games played in states with state income tax, he will have to pay tax to the state where the income is earned.

The income tax return of an NBA player looks like a Tolstoy novel.

teamn,

>>> Of course, who knows -- I'm just making stuff up!

That’s fine. The only question is whether Mitch or Trevor are doing the same. LOL.

Tom

re: if the Lakers offered Ariza a contract.

A source tells HOOPSWORLD that Kupchak was prepared to give Ariza an offer equivalent to the full MLE but at 10.5% raises, totaling at approximately $33.8 million over five years.

LA's ceiling might have been a $6 million starting salary for $36 million over five but before negotiations progressed after 9:00pm Pacific on Tuesday night, the source says that Ariza's agent, David Lee, took a confrontational approach with Kupchak.

Lee wanted a deal in the $50 million range and took offense to the team's stance that Trevor should test the market first for that level of compensation.

from: http://tinyurl.com/no9krn

So. This indicates that Ariza's agent, in fact, did blow it.
Whether or not the Laker's put a formal offer on the
table is sort of beside the point isn't it?

If you price yourself out of the contract before it's
offered, why would someone make an offer?

Consider the two approaches:

1. Mitch, my client would like to remain a Laker. What
offer do you have ready?

2. Look, you *NEED* to show Ariza some love after all
he's done. We're not going to accept anything less than
50 million. If you going to low-ball us, we'll go to
another team.

BTW, consider Odom:

I want to stay in LA. I'll take less to stay in LA.

Any news on Lo?

>>>1. The Lakers never made an offer to Trevor.
>>>2. The Lakers signed a contract with Ron.

You positive of that LakerTom?

Because if that's true, then the Lakers have violated the CBA.
They're not actually allowed to sign a contract with Ron until
Wednesday.

I'll reiterate. What does "make an offer" mean? Mitch and
David Lee supposedly had a long conversation. Do you
think all they discussed was the weather?

In Trevor's interview, HE ALSO says that the Lakers said that
his work effort was worth an MLE.

How is it that both player and agent could hear "MLE" and
neither of them could perceive it as an offer?

Did Mitch say, "We think Trevor is worth and MLE, but we
don't want him."?

If Mitch said that he thought Trevor's ability is worth the MLE,
that is an implicit offer of the MLE. David Lee is just trying to
spin this so that he doesn't look like such a putz.

If Trevor is sad, he can fix it (or at least try) qs.

According to my understanding, it was not an either/or situation, which would imply the possibilty of having BOTH RA and TA. When the agent became beligerant, they pursued RA all-out, and then RA ran his mouth about agreeing to a deal.

For all we know, this is how the situation was left off. TA put his fate in the hands of David Lee, an over emotional, under equipped agent.

Now, depending on what's happening with LO, TA could still sign with the Lakers - for how much remains to be seen but we know for sure that it's not any more than MLE - and it's likely less because of Artest coming in.

The guy doesn't have to settle until he's exhausted his options, and I don't think he has because his agent left the negotiating table expressing extreme dissatifaction that Mitch wouldn't budge on going over the MLE for TA.

TA is different enough that he'd fit in well even with Artest on the floor... the Lakers would make TA's payday when the economy improves, but oh well - he chose to live or die with David Lee

I'm starting to think we need to look elsewhere for a PF / 6th man we can plug into Lamar's spot.

Lamar's looking for another big payday I have a feeling we're not going to pay him. I hope Buss doesn't pick a bad time to tighten the wallet; I hope it doesn't cost us Lamar.

We'll see.

Wes

Oh, listen to more of the Ariza interview. He wasn't in on
the meeting between Mitch and David Lee.

In the intrerview, he says that it's his understanding that the
Lakers never made an offer.

In other words, just like us, Trevor is dependent on David Lee's
spin to determine what happened.

hobbitmage,

lmao @ d sb skit yo ... and oh congratz on ya boi kobe getting his 'ship ... i kno u've always had mamba's back

on d real tho ... folks need to leave ariza alone ... he ain't 1 of us no more ... and if i was a player i'd want d same agent that got bynum his ridiculous contract ... datz only good business ...

LTLF,

Right on the money.

Lee is only correct in the technical sense. Obviously a verbal number (MLE) was thrown onto the table while a different number ($50 for 5) was also thrown on the table... these weren't offers, they were discussions. At the time, they couldn't even negotiate all the terms, but with the gaping hole between the two, Mitch correctly told him to go test the market and get back to him. Mitch may very well be still waiting for him to get back to him... but make no mistake about it, David Lee is the major person that messed this up.

And for Traitor Ariza to stay with David Lee speaks volumes - the guy just doesn't know what's going on.

Taliq,

>>> First off you're the last person to be talking ...
>>> save all your energy for next season when
>>> you'll be defending bynum's contract.

LOL. For the record, I am NOT David Lee. And Drew’s contract will seem like a bargain after next year.

>>> Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but this is a period of verbal commitments.

Yes, we are talking about verbal offers but the Lakers never made one. They may have said they were willing to make one but they never made a verbal offer. That is the main point I am really arguing about here. No one will ever know if the Lakers intended to sign Artest or went there after the meeting with Trevor and Lee. The one thing that is clear is the Lakers did NOT make Trevor a verbal offer during the meeting or at any other time. Talking about what you might do is not the same thing.

>>> do u honestly think bynum could get that money on the open market today???)

Probably not because he was injured and missed half the year and was still hobbled in the playoffs and there were very few teams with cap space. Hindsight makes all decisions look easy. After next year, hindsight may tell us that the deal was a bargain.

>>> how tacky is it that Ariza's camp would break the news that Lebron
>>> said he's staying in cleveland?

How is that tacky. In trying to sell Trevor, LeBron says he will be staying. Trevor is just trying to show that he made a smart decision by NOT going to Cleveland. Can’t blame him after getting dumped by the Lakers without an offer or opportunity.

Tom

wesjoenixon

I suspect there might be a deal in the room. It was like that with Vlad/Mihm, Ariza/Cook and Brown/Gasol.

Good morning Mamba24 & Laker morning CRUE!!

Still no word on Lamar?? C'MON MAN - GET IT DONE. There's nothing like being a Laker. Who wants to toil in obscurity with nothing but money to keep you happy? Lol!
__________

Is Jon K a revolutionary?
He's against "King James"
He's against "The King of Pop"
Just wondering...
Posted by: Scott

Scott - lmao! Sign me up on the:

"Viva la revolution" Bandwagon
JonK - owner
justanothermambafan - driver

LTLF,

You’re right. I should have said the Lakers reached a verbal agreement for a contract with Ron. Look, I am not a lawyer but I did complete one year of law school and got an Honors grade in Contracts 101. “Make an offer” means clearly stating that we offer you this or that. Talking about what you might or would be willing to offer is NOT the same thing as making an offer. You need to understand that from a legal standpoint. Maybe there is a real lawyer on the blog who can clarify this better for you.

In the case of Ariza, for whatever reasons, the Lakers never made an offer. In the case of Artest, the Lakers did make an offer and Ron said we accept. Because of the CBA, of course, none of these verbal deals are binding because teams cannot sign contracts until the 8th. So like Turkoglu, Trevor could change his mind and not sign with Houston. Or the Lakers could change their mind and not sign Artest. But neither is going to happen.

Tom

MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST:

Now that we've got Ron-Ron and Shannon, we don't need to re-sign Odom because:

A) We already have a great back-up for Bynum and Pau at the 4/5 who can also start and play many minutes if one of them goes down with an injury.
B) We already have a multi-threat scorer and rebounder who can come off the bench and make sure our second unit can hold the leads our starters will build.
C)We already have a long time close friend of Artest who can help him blend into the team and not cause disruption.
D) None of the above and WE NEED TO RE-SIGN LAMAR!

So the only teams left that can pay Lamar any amount of money over the MLE are OKC, Memphis, and Portland.

Aside from a sign and trade, I can't see Lamar going to any of those teams for more than what the Lakers would likely be willing to pay him. He is about a 8.5 million a year player, and that's probably what the Lakers will pay him.

The Lakers are good at this business and getting value for their dollars. That's why they told Trevor's people to go out and test the waters. You allow a player to assess the market and the business will tell you whether or not they feel you're that valuable. It's pretty simple economics. Lamar isn't likely to get offered enough elsewhere that the Lakers won't match to keep him around.

It might take some waiting though.

Jay Jay

D)

Banner Folder,

Give me a break .... Do you really believe that I need to grow a pair to come in here .... LOL! I think you might be overestimating yourself. Get over yourself ... you take yourself to seriously.

Not worried about Jameer and Vince. Exactly what have they ever done for me to worry about. How about who they have lost? Heido, Rafer, Lee and maybe Gortat! I think its a net loss in that exchange for them but since you think your such a genius Ill wait to hear your opinion before I make up my mind. You fancy yourself as a sportswriter but never tell both sides of the story when it comes to the Celtics. If your gonna mention who they picked up then mention who they lost as well.

So at the end of the day I dont think they are better then they were since last time we meet them. And did I mention we will have added KG, Sheed and maybe Hill since then? Yes I know we might lose Baby and Powe but as much as I like them they are undersized. Hard to win with 2 backup pfs that are 6-7. Dont forget that we can match any offer that Baby gets so we have control there and Powe I doubt will get a big offer since nobody knows when he will come back ... especially when guys that are healthy are not getting the offers they thought they would.

BTW we were 2-0 against them in the regualar season before KG went down. I know me mentioning KGs injury is an excuse but Im willing to bet you that the Lakers would not have won the Tiltle without Kobe ... afterall they didnt win the year before without Bynum. Unless you expect me to believe Bynum is more important to the Lakers than Kobe.

I know we are old and gonna get injured but Im willing to take that chance afterall who has missed the most games due to injury the last 2 seasons on the Lakers/Celtics roster?

The Lakers may have upgraded a bit signing Ron Ron aka Dribble Dribble but they may have disrupted chemistry. It remains to be seen how Dribble Dribble will fit in. Especially as he dribbles the clock down and launches bad 3s after bad 3s. Laker fan gets upset when Kobe takes bad shoots ... I can only imagine when Dribble Dribble starts launching. But thats not our problem ... he is your problem now but Im sure your gonna try and spin it now that Dribble Dribble is a great guy who has been misunderstood his whole career!ENJOY DRIBBLE DRIBBLE!

I listened to Ariza's interview again and it is obvious that he did not want to say anything that would show disrepect to the Lakers.

Nice guys really do finish last! Good luck Trevor, have the kind of year that makes LA regret the day they did not sign you.

Disappointed in LA and the way this went down.

Taliq,

you wrote: lmao @ d sb skit yo ... and oh congratz on ya boi kobe getting his 'ship ... i kno u've always had mamba's back

on d real tho ... folks need to leave ariza alone ... he ain't 1 of us no more ... and if i was a player i'd want d same agent that got bynum his ridiculous contract ... datz only good business ...

my response:

1st. thanks.
2nd. re: wanting the same agent that got bynum his
contract.

I see why you'd want that from a $$ standpoint, but do
you honestly believe that Trevor is bettor financially than
if he'd taken a similar offer from the Lakers?

My understanding is that he would have made slightly
more $$ as a Laker. Furthermore, he had a *STRONG*
chance of product endorsements in LA. Can't you just
see him endorsing lo-jack or Brinks Security or some
such security product?

He's gone from being a cog in the possible *next Lakers
dynasty* and being one of the best feel good stories
of basketball, to being a footnote in NBA history. I make
the assumption that most winning basketball players are
uber-competitive. How do you accept going from
World Champions to playoff fodder? That Sucks!

I can't think of anything better, than playing in front of
friends and family, with the best player & coach in the
world and getting MILLIONS of dollars to do what I love,
&&& WIN! Alas, no he only gets millions and he's a
smear on Mitch's boot, because of his knuckle-head agent.

LakerTom,

"How is that tacky. In trying to sell Trevor, LeBron says he will be staying. Trevor is just trying to show that he made a smart decision by NOT going to Cleveland."

It's tacky because I dont think his camp should be the one breaking news about Lebron staying in cleveland ...

Anywho mr. lakertom, we hear you on the "oh mitch said we can give you MLE" but he didn't say "we will give you MLE" ... you can take your 1 year of lawschool and run with that and start imagining all the things you want ...

The rest of us have David Lee's quote from the latimes where he says MLE is an insult (way before artests name popped up) ... and now the great lakertom is blaming Mitch for not going ahead and insulting David Lee by going "I hear the fact that anything less than 8 mil is ridiculous, but here's our ridiculous offer anyway, you know just in case the fact that i said i'm willing to offer the MLE is interpreted as me not actually offering it ... so i am officially stating we're offering you the MLE"

It's weird how the same dude asking kobe to take a paycut gets all hissy pissy about the lakers not bending over backwards to make it clear to ariza that they were offering the MLE ... nah him saying he'd be insulted by it doesn't count ... i mean after all with the benefit of hindsight we see he accepted the MLE in houston so he would have accepted the lakers MLE, Mitch just wasn't clear enough ...

yuk

Jay Jay

E.) To not bring Odom back would be like spitting into the wind

LakerTom,

If Mitch is making it up, he's doing a pretty good job!

Different issue -- I know you were an advocate of the triple tower experiment (Drew/Pau/Lamar/Kobe/Trevor). I have to say I was intrigued by the thought in the preseason and was disappointed that it never happened. Are you as interested with Artest as a replacement for Trevor? Or would you accept Shannon as the fifth guy on the floor?

I know lots of folks objected to this idea, which is fine, I just think it would be interesting to see the Lakers play "really big ball."

Thanks!

Taliq,

>>> you can take your 1 year of lawschool and run with that and start
>>> imagining all the things you want ...

You are out of your jurisdiction, Sherriff. Talking about or intending to make an offer is NOT making an offer. Check with any attorney if you do not believe me.

>>> and now the great lakertom is blaming Mitch.

I don’t blame Mitch or Trevor or Lee. It was just business. It was just my opinion.
If you don’t like it, just scroll by instead of trying to make mountains out of molehills.
No need for the Sheriff to get all nasty and insulting.

Tom

teamn,

I think the addition of Artest has killed the Triple Towers because there is no question that Ron is a better small forward than Lamar. As the year went on, I also felt that Trevor should be a 2 rather than a 3 considering the problems he had with Melo, LeBron, and Paul with their more physical bodies at small forward.

As for Shannon, I love his defense and think he will be a very valuable role player against teams with big point guards like Deron Williams. I doubt he will ever become a starter because he is not a good ball handler or playmaker, much like I wonder if Farmar will ever be a starter because of his defense. Bottom line, at least we have two guys who combined have the skills we need. Not as good as if one guy had all those skills but better than not having the skills on the team at all.

Tom

teamn,

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you found my opinions interesting enough to comment on. It's no surprise to me that you disagree with my opinion vis-a-vis Brown/Odom. I realize that mine is the minority position around here but that's okay. I accept and understand your disagreement, after all it is a very subjective value judgement.

I will speculate that perhaps you don't fully understand the economic implications of the luxury tax situation that the Lakers find themselves in. They ran out of financial wiggle room some time ago and every dollar they spend right now triggers an equal amount of tax penalties to the league. Now, this is fine if the Busses don't mind being the Steinbrenners of the NBA and money is no object, but I don't think this is the case. Assuming that they have a fixed operating budget then they've got to stop the bleeding somehow.

One reason I think signing Brown was more important than resigning Odom is because Brown is a relative bargain right now. He's a good value because he hasn't yet realized his potential and he's very likely to be worth more than they're going to pay him next year. If he has a great season and demands more money next year, so much the better for our championship hopes. If he proves he deserves more money then he should get it and hopefully he'll end up getting it from the Lakers.

However, overpaying on Odom's contract right now will make keeping Brown in such a situation, or adding new personnel including draft picks very difficult. Hence the selling of our picks this year. I'd like to see Odom return but I think that it's critical that the Lakers get the best value for their buck that they can right now. I only hope that if they decide LO is asking too much that they then package him in a sign-and-trade deal so that we at least get something for him.

"Banner Folder,

Give me a break .... Do you really believe that I need to grow a pair to come in here ...."

Blah blah blah. If Sheed hadn't signed, you'd still be in self imposed exile. Pathetic...every last one of you.

aztronut,

Thanks for the response. With regards to your second paragraph (the economic implication of the cap), I am aware of the luxury tax and dollar for dollar penalty, although I am sure there is much I don't understand beyond that.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are essentially saying the Lakers must balance near and long term investments, given the potentially competing goals of championships and fiscal responsibility. So, Brown becomes somewhat more valuable given his low cost and future potential while Odom may cost far more and not contribute much more than he already does. Is that an accurate summary?

Obviously, much of this depends on Buss' willingness to pay. I posted a few days ago wondering what the Lakers do if they don't sign Odom -- that would be a clear indication that Buss does not want to pay more tax and is potentially willing to risk a championship next year. I personally think they need Odom to repeat; after that, I'm not sure. That is why a one or two year deal may be ok. Also a short deal would provide the room to accommodate Brown's option. But, since it is a player option, it could put the Lakers in the same situation next year! I'm not sure which contracts expire after next season, so I don't know what wiggle room they have then.

Interesting issue to wrestle with. I think most fans simply expect owners to pay whatever it costs and players to accept less to win the ring. Unfortunately, it is never that easy.

teamn,

I think you probably summarized my position better I did. It's not just about getting everything you want for Christmas, even if that's how most fans tend to look at it. The economic aspect adds a lot of complexity to the problem. The question, as you so appropriately framed it, is what is the amount of risk to a championship next season of not signing Odom. I don't consider it a substantial risk but I do think it limits the Lakers options in the event of serious injury to Bynum or Gasol, heaven forbid.

Unlike most here, I don't think signing LO is a requirement for winning a championship next season. Not only that but I believe giving Odom an overly generous long-term contract right now would adversely impact the chances for continued championships beyond next year. Obviously, the Lakers will be a better team next season if they resign Odom, I'm just not sure that they'll optimize their future potential for winning championships by doing it in the wrong way.

There may be a major realignment of the top players after next season, not on the Lakers but throughout the rest of the league. The Lakers need to be able to adapt to a changing environment in the future and they're not going to be able to do that if they tie their hands financially by making poor economic decisions this off-season.

When one chooses GLORY over MONEY... it is a Universal truth that MONEY always follows.

CONGRATULATIONS SHANNON FOR MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICE.

LAMAR, YOU ARE NEXT!!!!

GOOOOOOLAKERS!!!!!

Hey! It's Chris Brown...yeeeah-eee-yeah! Oh-oh. Ee-yeah!!!
Cause it's pretty boy and Nappy Boy! Lmao. Shannon Brown does look like Chris tho.

 
« | 1 2

Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

All Things Lakers »

Your database for all things purple and gold.

Find a Laker

Search a name

Select a season

Choose one of our lists



Categories


Archives
 

About the Bloggers


Bleacher Report | Lakers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Lakers on Bleacher Report »



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists:


In Case You Missed It...