View Single Post
Old 02-29-2012, 11:28 PM   #3
College star
tamaraw08's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,020
Default Re: lakers turned down Beasley

Originally Posted by lakerfreak
The word is that the lakers do not want to have to pay for his 6.2 million dollars, because it would be an additional 12.4 million to pay in the luxury tax.

When the lakers made the CP3 deal, it was because they were getting a superstar in return while saving 21 million in luxury tax over the next 3 seasons. The lakers are trying to remain competitive without going anymore over, what is already the highest payroll in the NBA.

Ask yourself this question, as an owner of a team, would you want to keep increasing in pay roll if the team isn't even a title contender?

On the other hand, we do have the TE, which seems to me like it is a) being saved for a point guard, or b) is received only to be expired, which sheds about 9 million dollars from the highest payroll in the NBA.

It is clear that the lakers want to shed some salary right now because of these new CBA rules which are going to kill all the big market teams.

You made great points esp saving the $ on a legit PG which is the biggest need but im not sure I like the idea of simply saving money for the sake of saving esp if the rumor about Buss getting a huge payday from Time Warner etc is true. I was bothered by the report/link I shared how they cleaned house, let go of their scouts without replacing most of them. There was also a separate piece where it said Mike Brown really wanted to get his old reliable assistant Mike Malone but was outbidded by Golden State Warriors.
I personally don't like Beasley but he is still an asset whom you can trade later on. For me, if it's obvious they won't get a legit PG, then try to get Beasley again. Dallas did this, collect goodd talent and use them as a trade bait if the need arises.
tamaraw08 is offline   Reply With Quote