That makes sense to me. It just comes down then, to -- his value (in terms of salary) -- how much he'd improve the team over other players we've got on the roster, and -- what the opportunity cost of acquiring OTHER players would be if we "overpaid" for him The Magic, in many respects, overpaid for Rashard Lewis... and they already had a pretty good player in Hedo on their team. Would they have been better off NOT spending that money, though? I dunno what the answer is, but I hope that Ariza is someone that is on the Blazers' radar. Ed O.
The opportunity cost is the main thing to me. I'd prefer that the trade/signing assets the Blazers have were used to acquire a serious upgrade at point guard. If acquiring Ariza prevented getting a good point guard, I wouldn't be in favour of that, because I like what Batum brings at small forward. I'm a lot more ambivalent about Blake, and unsure of what Bayless will provide next season. Now, if Ariza is their only possibility...either they sign him or don't use the cap space...then I'd absolutely rather sign him. The unused cap space really won't roll over to next season. In a use-it-or-lose-it situation, I'd love to add Ariza. I like him as a player and I'd rather have him than no one.
Chris Sheridan also said Ariza is looking for $10 million per. Turk-man is looking $12-13 million per.
Wow. Insane given the current economic climate. Some will overpay for Ariza at seven/per, and Hedo just may get his twelve. I really hope KP doesn't fall for their limitations, but I'm guessing he won't do it.
Trevor Ariza for $10 mil per? Geez.. talk about trying to cash in based on just a good playoff performance. The guy is not worth that much at all, especially for someone who has not averaged at least 9 points and 4.5 boards in his career. Ouch! The only GM I'd think would be stupid enough to bite is Chris Wallace.
I'm not sure if I have a problem with this, but I know all the other fans would..due to the Rudy incident, you cant tell me it wouldnt be akward for him and even us..
I don't think that one play would be that big of a deal... to the players. Some fans might see it differently, of course. Ed O.
I've let it be known (via this post) that I'm asking for a mere $5m or so a year... in other words I'd settle for the MLE. I think we've all got about an equal chance of getting what we're looking for. Ed O.
lol i still think they will only have one of the two next year...they might keep odom because of versatility..
Except no one is going to offer him $8M per over 5 because virtually no one has the cap space to blow their load on Ariza this summer and the teams that do certainly aren't going to bust their cap nut on a very solid role player, especially not in this economy with the cap likely going down this season. No one is going to offer him any more than the MLE and that'll be more than enough to keep him in LA. Odom is another story, and even then, what team with cap room is going to break the bank on Odom with, say, Boozer out there in FA? The Pistons? And given the economic climate, why not just wait until 2010 when the big FAs are available; LeBron, Bosh, etc.
I think it's likely that some team offers him a bit more than the MLE, just to out-price most of the NBA. I'm not sure that he'll get a deal starting at $8m, but starting at $6m or so seems reasonable and attainable. Ed O.
i would love to sign ariza to a 2 year deal with a player option on the third...year one 6 mill, year two 7 mill, and player option of 8 mill....if he wants to opt out his third year to get more money, then batum should be ready by then.
GM's can be unpredictable; look at the deals Baron Davis/Elton Brand and Corey Maggette all got. Every offseason there are a few of those where we can't believe how much some GM or Owner overpaid but every year they keep making those same stupid offers.
That sounds reasonable in maybe some other year/offseason, but once you actually go through the teams that would need a solid 2-way role player at SF that have the cap space to offer a starting deal at $8M in the 2009 offseason, you realize you're down to virtually no one. Odom is a different story, I could see one team offering him $9M-$10M starting, and that would still be somewhat surprising given the economic climate. And it wouldn't even mean he's gone since the Lakers could easily afford $8M per.
For what? Did you predict that Phil Jackson would say there was a chance of both players re-signing with the Lakers? If so, that's really going out on a limb and I commend you...... The article doesn't say that both players have been re-signed. It doesn't say that they will both be re-signed. It doesn't even say that Phil Jackson expects both to be re-signed. How is this a fulfilled prophecy? Still waiting, BTW, for a response to my post in the other thread. If you can show me a reason why Jerry Buss' historical pattern of "I'll spend as long as I make at least $20 million in profit" doesn't apply suddenly, then I'll consider the idea that he might see his profit expectation drop into single digits in order to re-sign both players.
It will happen, dont doubt the Nostradamus...Sorry I dont have a time machine to get to the FA signing period or it already would have happened. ....and where the hell did you get the 20mil figure from? I heard Buss made an extra 50+million cause of all the Lakers home playoff games so that will cover all the luxury tax and some...Buss is in the twilight of him having direct control of the Lakers, he is gonna try to squeeze as many 'ships as possible out of this group.
I had the numbers in my other post, but I'll re-post them here for you. If you look at the historical record, over the last decade, Jerry Buss has been willing to pay as long as he makes at least $20 million in profit. The Lakers have never been allowed to drop below that figure. It makes sense, since the Lakers are Dr. Buss' primary source of yearly income. He wants (needs?) them to make a substantial profit each year for cash flow purposes. OK, in 2007-08, the Lakers made a profit of $47.9 million while paying out $78 million for player salaries ($72.9 million to players and $5.1 million in tax). That's playing 11 home playoff games. In 2008-09, the Lakers will pay out about $85.3 million for player salaries ($78.2 million to players and $7.1 million in tax). The Lakers had one more playoff game than last year. If you want to believe that one playoff game will add an extra $50 million in revenue.....the estimates I've seen are that Buss will pull about $37 or $38 million in profit for the year. So onto 2009-10. If the Lakers re-sign both Ariza and Odom, they'll pay out about $117 million for player salaries ($93.5 million to players and $23.5 million in tax). The Lakers have already announced no increase in ticket prices for next season. League-wide revenue is expected to be down. But even if a miracle happens and the Lakers have the exact same revenue amount in 2009-10 that they did in 2008-09, Buss' profit for the year will be single digits, hovering at around $5-6 million. That goes against every previous indication of what Buss is and is not willing to spend. So my question is, given this historical trend of evidence, why are we now supposed to believe that Buss will take an 86% drop in income for the year? If it's just your opinion that he will, that's one thing. But there's no way I personally will believe it until I see it.
Thats a compelling argument you gave there if your stats are correct ...before I fully respond could you link me to where you got those stats for Dr. Buss's profits. Its pointless to argue this if those numbers are bunk. Also, what is the the salaries for Odom and Ariza you are assuming into your argument?
