|| LocK Dis Up ||

How Many Games Do You Project The Lakers Will Win This Season?

  • 15-20

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 21-25

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 26-30

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 31-35

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 36-40

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 41-45

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 46-50

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 51-55

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 56-73

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • They Will Break the NBA Record with 74+ Wins

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Show All
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kobe is leading vote getter for All Star Game. Double the amount of votes as KD and LeBron. 200k more than Steph
 
Lakers may benefit by matching a Jordan Clarkson offer sheet this summer
Eric Pincus

The struggling Lakers (5-24) have a long list of issues to resolve before the 2016-17 season.

Among the top items will be the impending free agency of guard Jordan Clarkson, who is currently second on the team in scoring to veteran Kobe Bryant, at 14.9 points a game.

Clarkson is starting for the team at point guard, but in the long term, he will presumably slide over to shooting guard, once rookie D'Angelo Russell acclimates to the NBA.

That's assuming Clarkson does indeed return, and to that end, the Lakers hold a strategic advantage in negotiations. Clarkson will be a restricted free agent, subject to the so-called Gilbert Arenas rule.

After Clarkson's second season in the league, the Lakers will hold his early bird rights, which enable the team to spend up to $6 million, and $26.7 million over four seasons, to retain him.

That figure is presumably below Clarkson's market value, but because he is restricted and the Lakers only hold his early bird rights, the Arenas rule applies -- limiting what other teams can offer Clarkson to just $5.6 million for the 2016-17 season.

While another franchise can pay him up to $5.9 million in the second year, his salary for the third and fourth seasons could jump significantly to $22.7 million and $23.6 million for a total of $57.8 million -- or $14.5 million on average.

The Lakers would have the right to match such an offer, which would result in Clarkson back at a sizable discount in the first two years, followed by a pair at a massive maximum salary.

It may actually be better for the Lakers to match a Clarkson offer sheet, which would give the team increased spending power over the next two summers, despite the hefty price tag down the line.

The Lakers can otherwise use their cap space to offer Clarkson more than the $6 million afforded by their early bird rights. He would be eligible for a maximum of roughly $21 million this summer, but why would the Lakers pay anything close to that when the most a team can offer is $5.6 million?

Instead, the Lakers may choose to pay Clarkson closer to the $14.5 million on average he could seek in free agency, with a four-year deal starting at roughly $13 million.

If so, the team would need to earmark that amount in cap space this summer, and Clarkson would take up $14 million of the team's cap room for the 2017-18 season.

Depending on the timing, if the Lakers matched another team's offer sheet, Clarkson would take up between $2.8 million and $5.6 million in cap space in 2016 and $5.9 million in 2017.

The first step in the negotiations is a qualifying offer from the Lakers to Clarkson this June. As of Thursday, that number would be $1.2 million, but once Clarkson starts 41 games or plays 2,000 minutes this season, he will reach "starter criteria," which will raise his qualifying offer, and the team's cap hold to $2.8 million.

Clarkson can accept the Lakers' one year qualifying offer for what is likely $2.8 million but he'd end up restricted once again in 2017 -- although the Arenas rule would no longer be applicable.

As long as the Lakers slot out $2.8 million for Clarkson, the team can use cap room to sign free agents, and then either bring back Clarkson with their early bird rights at the $6-million figure, or match another team's offer sheet.

The Lakers would have three days to decide, if and once Clarkson signs with another team.

While the Lakers can begin negotiating with free agents on July 1, deals cannot be signed until the end of the NBA's annual moratorium on July 12, which is the earliest Clarkson can sign an offer sheet.

Players can commit to sign during the moratorium, but deals cannot be executed until it is lifted.

The NBA currently projects the salary cap to jump from this season's $70 million to $89 million for 2016-17 and to $109 million for 2017-18.

Before the Clarkson question is answered, the Lakers need to decide by Jan. 10 if they want to lock in the non-guaranteed salaries of Metta World Peace ($1.5 million), Tarik Black ($845,059) and Marcelo Huertas ($525,093) for the rest of the current season.

The Lakers will also be mindful of the Feb. 18 NBA trade deadline, in case an opportunity to improve the team in the long term arises over the next couple of months.

On May 17, the league will hold its annual draft lottery, which will likely determine if the Lakers keep their 2016 first-round pick.

If the Lakers finish the year with the second-worst record, ahead of just the Philadelphia 76ers, they'll have a 55.8% chance of getting through the lottery with a top three selection -- otherwise that pick will go to the Sixers to complete the Steve Nash trade.

Presuming the team lands the second-overall selection, the Lakers can near $56.5 million in cap space in July, although that would entail renouncing the rights to Kobe Bryant, Roy Hibbert and any other impending free agents (except Clarkson). That also assumes that Brandon Bass opts out of the second year of his contract at $3.1 million.

The maximum salary for a player such as forward Kevin Durant, whose contract expires after the season, projects to start at $25 million. The Lakers would still have room to sign another maximum-salaried player.

Other top free agents include Hassan Whiteside, Al Horford, Mike Conley, DeMar DeRozan, Nicolas Batum, Andre Drummond (restricted), Harrison Barnes (restricted) and Bradley Beal (restricted). LeBron James, Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol can also become free agents if they opt out of their respective contracts.

Should the Lakers choose to pay Clarkson with their cap space at roughly $13 million, that would eat into the money they have otherwise available this summer.

In theory, the Lakers could sign two maximum players and still have almost $20 million in spending power the following summer, provided they match Clarkson on an offer sheet -- more if they trade away players such as Nick Young or Lou Williams to open up additional space.

That number would shrink to about $5.5 million in 2017 cap space, if the Lakers add two high-salaried players in 2016 and sign Clarkson to a standard $58-million, four-year contract instead of matching an offer sheet.

The most difficult task ahead for the Lakers is getting a marquee free agent to actually choose the Lakers. There's no reason to expect a player such as Durant to leave the contending Oklahoma City Thunder -- but then player movement can be unpredictable.

Regardless, Clarkson is eligible for a sizable raise over the $845,059 he's making this season.
Click to expand...


Cliff Notes:
-It'd be better for the Lakers to wait for Clarkson to get a max offer and then match as opposed to offering him a contract.
-Because of the Gilbert Arenas provision, a team can only offer him a max of 4 year / $57.8mil. It would be $5.6mil in 2016, $5.9mil in 2017, $22.7mil in 2018 & $23.6mil in 2019.
-If we offer him a contract, we would be inhibiting our cap space in 2016 & 2017.
- We are poised for 2 max deals (30% & 25% max) and almost $20mil more to spend in 2016. And if Clarkson is at $5.9mil somewhere between $15-20mil in 2017.


My take... You offer him the QO which doubles for him after 41 starts this year. And you wait, you wait until a team offers him a contract, even if he hangs in the wind unsigned into September. If nobody makes an offer for him, then you are able to come in slightly lower than the 4 year / $57.8mil. My guess would be 4 year / $45mil.
 
Last edited:
I understand the logic but I highly doubt the lakers will approach jc's contract like that. They will offer him what they feel he has earned and go from there. They've shown that they aren't the type of org that would do something that basically amounts to manipulating a loophole in order to penny pinch and pay the least amount possible. Things like that can leave a bad taste and is more of a sam hinkie thing to do. Going back to signing luke walton at zero hour of free agency, which might end up paying dividends soon. Could be wrong but I think that's how it will play out
 
Last edited:
leemelone said:
I understand the logic but I highly doubt the lakers will approach jc's contract like that. They will offer him what they feel he has earned and go from there. They've shown that they aren't the type of org that would do something that basically amounts to manipulating a loophole in order to penny pinch and pay the least amount possible. Things like that can leave a bad taste and is more of a sam hinkie thing to do. Going back to signing luke walton at zero hour of free agency, which might end up paying dividends soon. Could be wrong but I think that's how it will play out
Click to expand...

If they wait for another team to offer him a contract. That's not penny pinching at all. It would be paying him his value, the absolute maximum he can be paid by other teams.

and if it works like the Lin/ Asik contract, they'd be paying him $14mil a year, but first two it counts for about $6mil on cap.

Not sure where you see them being deceiving to him.

And if they offer him a deal first thing without missing out on better players then this team is doomed.

Thinking that doing that is wrong or "mean" is foolish. and makes us stupid for not taking advantage of something that has all the benefit for us, and hurts Clarkson zero percent.
 
Last edited:
essential1 essential1 maybe I'm not understanding but the scenario you described sounds like letting all the market dry up then telling clarkson to get what's left and they'll match it. The max other teams can pay is less than what the Lakers can pay and potentially under value so yes that would be penny pinching. Not deceiving or mean but unethical would be a good way to describe it. Generally not how the lakers handle their business. I can't even remember them letting the market dictate the price on one of their own guys, even when they really should have (luke). Also other teams might be reluctant to offer a deal knowing the lakers will match and it would really help their cause with cap space and building a team. If that is the reason the lakers would get away with paying 4/45 then Yea that's Hella shady. If I'm not mistaken no RFA got an offer from a competing team this past summer, definitely none whose team indicated they would match any deal.

Another thing is that unless you get kd and one of whiteside/horford who are you really targeting with two max contracts? Give the difference to your homegrown talent if he's earned it.

It's really going to come down to how JC performs the rest of the season. If he earns more than market value they'll give it to him. If he doesn't then it's moot
 
Last edited:
It's more about structure/timing.

He's saying don't lock him up early or first, and take away valuable cap space when you know he's in our control regardless of who/what offers he gets.

If you give him 11-14+ right away, it could limit you if you get a Durant verbal, but he wants more.

Hold off, you can get that KD verbal, sign others, THEN backload JC's deal to help fit the cap best the next two years, then worry about year 3 later.

JC still gets paid well, real well, but also builds his roster the best way.
 
C CP1708 Yea maybe I'm not getting it. What I take from the article is that you can sign two max guys and give clarkson a fair deal but be limited the next summer. And by "limited" meaning you have all star caliber guys locked up at 3 positions and potentially 3 other all star guys under 21 basically locked up for their whole careers. I know it's best case scenario to have all that plus another max guy but it's unrealistic and greedy. And then if/when you don't get two max guys, why not give clarkson his money if he's earned it? The article uses phrases like below market value and discount to describe jc's would be contract so I dont see how he's not getting shafted in this scenario. Maybe I'm missing something but the only scenario I see where it makes sense to shortchange JC is basically if you sign durant and whiteside and know for a fact that you'll sign another max guy the next year. That's complete pipe imo
 
Last edited:
I'd have to re-read his context, my guess is he was simplifying the language by saying under market value, etc. I'll double check.

But the "goal" is to lock up vets, max or otherwise, to fill the roster with talent. JC, Handle, DLo, etc become the kids WE drafted, that we can sign to go above the cap. Sign them first, you can't go over the cap for vets.

I think that's moreso what he meant by waiting, patience, etc signing JC. Why give him 14 now and limit who might join us, when we can sign them first, then pay JC over the top of the cap later. And not years later or anything, matter of months, if that.

JC will get paid, no question, but let's get him help first.

(Again, I'll re-read what Eric was saying to clarify)
 
If the issue is about signing kd first and jc second or signing jc first and tricking off the chance to sign anyone else I don't think we need to worry about it. That would be completely brainless :lol:.

I think the biggest factor is how JC plays for the rest of the year. If he earns the max, the only way you can justify a ~20 mil paycut is if you get both kd and whiteside. I think jc might be amenable to that. Again if he doesn't earn a max then it's moot. But we're really unlikely to even get kd so it's probably all moot anyway.
 
Rereading. 4/60 is basically max other teams can offer him. But payouts 5/6/22/23 (and change each yr)

You're saying let's give JC 20 mil this summer, but why? Max ANYONE else can offer is 5.6

Eric is saying we have total control, he can't leave, why give him an extra 14 mil now when you can spend that on improving roster right away and still keep JC no matter what?

KD, Horford, Whiteside, Batum, etc, I rather land 1-2 of them, then pay JC.

Paying him first, when no one can give him more money anyways, is truly pointless.

It's a business. He's our employee. Our brand/product comes before him.
Win chips, then you get rewarded.

JC was found by Mitch, he's played his *** off for a bad team and can cash out. We will pay him, but other opportunities have to be sought first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

us3less
Healing/Recovering from Anxiety and Panic Attacks - by Allowing the Feelings and Thoughts to Happen
Replies
1
Views
2K
Belgium
Belgium
eracism
Texas ranked worst state for quality of life
5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
10K
Mark Antony
M

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom