- 86,714
- 114,155
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
I'll be shocked if he gets more than the MLE from a team. Taxpayer or non-taxpayer (lol).
**LA LAKERS THREAD** Sitting on 17! 2023-2024 offseason begins
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by licensed to ball,
- Start date
- 4,595
- 5,335
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
IF Lakers plan to use their non-taxpayer MLE (12.2mil) they'll have to stay below the first apron (170mil total) is my understanding.
Currently under contract 2023:
Bron 47mil
AD 41mil
Vando 4.7mil
Shaq Harrison 2.4mil
Max Christie 1.7mil
=96.8mil
Malik Beasley Club option 16.5mil + Mo Bamba 10.3mil= 26.8mil
96.8 + 26.8mil = 123.6mil
AR should be able to get on the books for 12mil first 2 years before his contract goes way up
123.6mil + 12mil = 135.6mil
DLo reportedly wants 25mil+
135+25mil = 160mil
Would have to get Rui on a paycut and then can use Bi-annual/Mid level and veteran minimums around the rest. Lakers have very little flexibility and can't miss on their mid-level signing. Will have to scour the bargain bin for nice veteran minimums, hands are tied
Currently under contract 2023:
Bron 47mil
AD 41mil
Vando 4.7mil
Shaq Harrison 2.4mil
Max Christie 1.7mil
=96.8mil
Malik Beasley Club option 16.5mil + Mo Bamba 10.3mil= 26.8mil
96.8 + 26.8mil = 123.6mil
AR should be able to get on the books for 12mil first 2 years before his contract goes way up
123.6mil + 12mil = 135.6mil
DLo reportedly wants 25mil+
135+25mil = 160mil
Would have to get Rui on a paycut and then can use Bi-annual/Mid level and veteran minimums around the rest. Lakers have very little flexibility and can't miss on their mid-level signing. Will have to scour the bargain bin for nice veteran minimums, hands are tied
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
So much will be revealed in 3 weeks when we have to make decision on Bamba and Beasley. Until then we don’t know anything.
If picked up, they prob have a trade lined up with 17th pick. If not then they are still in play for going the cap space route
If picked up, they prob have a trade lined up with 17th pick. If not then they are still in play for going the cap space route
- 57,262
- 60,535
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
I just hope we land either Myles Turner or Buddy. We need shooting.
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
- 86,714
- 114,155
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
Been fiddling around with Excel and the salaries, and there's so many possibilities.
MIKE LOWERY
formerly chuck finster
- 7,226
- 4,143
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
I think Buddy's a real possibility this offseason. Myles not so much. Getting him on that extension, plus his play last year leads me to believe they'll keep him.
IND has like 8 guards and with Buddy expiring and all the youth their trying to bring up, I wouldn't be surprised if he's gone on draft night.
IND has like 8 guards and with Buddy expiring and all the youth their trying to bring up, I wouldn't be surprised if he's gone on draft night.
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Way too many possibilities.Been fiddling around with Excel and the salaries, and there's so many possibilities.
Will know more once we decide on Bamba and Beasley. That’s huge domino to fall. That decision tells us if we are gonna have option for cap space or not.
dontsteponmyshoes
Supporter
- 12,025
- 13,513
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
So are the new cap rules in effect this year, or years coming?
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Some now some later.
Cap rules are so dumb. They will be revised in a few years is my prediction. The unintended consequences is gonna cause a lock out of sorts. Medium tiered players gonna get squeezed. In years past they woulda just picked up Bamba and Beasley option to trade it but now they might be reluctant bc of alll these tax aprons etc.
Draft picks will be more valuable bc of cost controlled contracts. Less trades. Less hype about trades. That’s the NBAs bread and butter. Nobody watches the actual games lol
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
How would you feel about having either Jaden Mcdaniels, Desmond Bane, Ayo Dosinmu, Quentin grimes, hyland or herb jones on a rookie deal?
Those the players lakers gave away or passed on when they traded their first rounder for shroeder and Russell westbrick.
Point is: don’t trade your pick.
Those the players lakers gave away or passed on when they traded their first rounder for shroeder and Russell westbrick.
Point is: don’t trade your pick.
- 7,369
- 3,871
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
Lakers are in win now mode, they don’t have time to develop players
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Lol Reaves was a 2nd year player who we trusted with the ball more than our superstar players.
Times are different. Young is the new old.
who’s gonna help you win now that you can get with the pick?
Win now means 1-3 years.
Had we had that mentality since the bubble we woulda been in better shape vs hail marrying every summer
- 15,498
- 16,398
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
Time for AR to back it up next year and play at an All-Star level cause the league has taken notice
dontsteponmyshoes
Supporter
- 12,025
- 13,513
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
Its a lemon party 
- 24,713
- 23,059
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
with the way the new cBA is, they have no choice but to stash and develop if they want to compete.
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
This is what “win now mode” looks like
Hijo Del Promo
formerly xxhu5sl1npnoyxx
- 9,324
- 6,637
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
Looks like Bron ate 4 and 5
- 86,714
- 114,155
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
ESPN's latest mock draft:
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Question is. Can Malik and Bamba be traded between now and June 29th and waived by new team?
- 22,173
- 16,062
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
If so that’s an incredible trade chip. Teams without cap space and make it immediately
- 86,714
- 114,155
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
What are the chances LeBron doesn’t return to Lakers? Plus, free-agent targets and other LA notes.
It’s been a little over a week since the Lakers’ season ended.
What’s the latest with LeBron James’ future? Who could the Lakers target in free agency? What are some of the various offseason paths? Is there a walk-away point with Rui Hachimura? What does D’Angelo Russell’s free-agent market look like?
Let’s dive into part one of a two-part Lakers mailbag.
What’s the percentage chance LeBron James either retires or isn’t on the Lakers next season? – @AdamKoffler
Based on conversations I’ve had over the past week or so, I’d say there’s about a 10 percent chance LeBron James isn’t back as a Laker next season, either due to retirement or playing for another team. Everyone with and around the team I’ve spoken to believes he’s returning.
James’ recent Instagram story, in which he stated, “I’m suppose to be #1 on everybody list/We’ll see what happens when I no longer exist,” referencing lyrics from Jay-Z’s “What More Can I Say,” was intriguing. Remember: Jay-Z announced he was retiring, only to return a few years later and make multiple albums since then. Could James be hinting he needs a break? Maybe a year away from the game, only to return to play alongside his son, Bronny, in 2024-25? That could be the case.
But the assumption remains that James will return. The Lakers are approaching this offseason as if he’ll be a part of the 2023-24 squad.
What potential feasible options would there be to get a solid 5 or traditional big man through free agency or trades? – @RichStapless
Realistically, what big man can the Lakers go after in free agency? – @shawnymoe2531
Let’s start with trades because those are always more fun.
The obvious candidate is Myles Turner, who the Lakers have been tied to for years. They could acquire the Pacers’ center by combining the salaries of Malik Beasley ($16.5 million) and Mo Bamba ($10.3 million), along with either their 2023 first-round pick (No. 17), a future first or multiple second-round picks. (More on the specifics of trading Beasley and Bamba below.)
Turner checks a lot of the boxes the Lakers need. He’s one of the few 3-and-D centers in the league, which would allow Los Angeles to remain big defensively, with Turner and Anthony Davis patrolling the paint, while also maintaining their spacing offensively (Turner shot 37.3 percent on four 3-point attempts per game last season). There are some within the Lakers that remain skeptical of the way a Turner-Davis frontcourt fits in the playoffs. I understand their skepticism, but I think Turner and Davis are skilled and versatile enough to make the partnership work. Turner took a leap last season and looks to be a legitimate “16-game player.”
Beyond Turner, there aren’t many, if any, difference-making centers available within the confines of what the Lakers could realistically offer (Beasley, Bamba and a first-round pick or multiple seconds).
Now, let’s look at free agency. Some realistic names Los Angeles could sign with its non-taxpayer mid-level exception ($12.2 million) or taxpayer mid-level exception ($5 million):
Reid, 23, is a hot commodity in NBA circles and would likely cost all or most of the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, which would trigger the hard cap ($169 million) for the Lakers.
Those aren’t the most appealing players, obviously, but each has shown they can eat innings in the regular season and at least provide spot minutes in the playoffs over the past couple of postseasons. Reid, Powell and Tillman would be clear upgrades over the trio of Bamba, Wenyen Gabriel and Tristan Thompson. Landale, Drummond and Biyombo are bigger bodies that the Lakers could use in certain matchups.
Who are the realistic options for the taxpayer midlevel exception? Is the bridge burned with Brook Lopez? – @batesjai_
Is Brook Lopez a realistic target? – @todii10
What real free-agency options are possible for the Lakers? – @MiguelJosSotoA2
The bridge isn’t burned with Brook Lopez after his rough 2017-18 season in LA, but the fact of the matter is that the Lakers aren’t going to get him for the non-taxpayer mid-level exception ($12.2 million). Lopez has earned more than that. He’d be an ideal fit for the Lakers, but I just don’t see it happening unless he’s set on playing in Los Angeles at a discount.
Here are some realistic targets for the Lakers on the wing (I don’t see them signing a point guard with their MLE):
Brown would almost certainly cost the Lakers’ entire non-taxpayer mid-level exception based on his play during the Nuggets’ Finals run. Several players on this list could certainly earn at least that much as well, since this free agent class is subpar.
In addition to the aforementioned bigs, some additional bigs that aren’t traditional 5s could include P.J. Washington (restricted), Grant Williams (restricted), Jeff Green and Georges Niang. Washington and Williams would likely cost all or most of the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, triggering the hard cap. Each big could play the five in super-small lineups – Green fared reasonably well against the Lakers as a center in the Western Conference finals – and would provide the requisite floor-spacing around James and Davis that Los Angeles needs from its frontcourt players.
Can the Lakers use the non-guaranteed contracts of Bamba and Beasley before the new league year to take on a contract (with the new team being able to waive those players)? – @scotty_mac26
Yes to the first part of the question — and no to the second part. (Technically, a player can always be waived, but not in a way that would save money, which is what you mean.)
If the Lakers exercise Beasley’s 16.5 million team option and guarantee Bamba’s 10.3 million contract, they can combine the salaries, along with their 2023 No. 17 draft pick (or other picks), for a draft night trade. The potential issue for a rival team would be that Beasley would be locked into his salary for next season and Bamba would have his contract guaranteed. (The Lakers could guarantee it for less than the full amount, but his outgoing salary would only count for the guaranteed portion).
Therefore, any team taking on the tandem would only be doing so because they either want Beasley and/or Bamba in their rotation, want to salary-dump a player on the Lakers, need the cap flexibility of having two contracts that expire after the 2023-24 season and/or want the draft equity that the Lakers are offering.
If the Lakers made a draft-night deal, it’ll likely feature one of these two players given the Lakers’ needs and their above-market-value contracts. Los Angeles could also trade back in the draft, though with their track record of drafting so well, I’m skeptical of them passing on a mid-first-round pick.
What do you think the Lakers’ walking away point is on the Rui Hachimura contract? $20 million? – @jojobones28
Rui Hachimura is priority 1B for the Lakers behind Austin Reaves. Both players are restricted free agents, meaning the Lakers can match any contract sheet they sign with another team. As I reported last week, the Lakers plan to match any offer sheet Hachimura signs this summer (just like with Reaves).
But is there a walk-away number for Los Angeles? It feels like $20 million annually — something in the four-year, $80 million range — is where things might get a bit dicey. Anything at or below that $20 million threshold means Hachimura is probably back.
The new luxury tax penalties (more on that below) deter teams from spending too far above the first luxury tax band (projected at $162 million). If the Lakers roll back the same group, or flip Beasley, Bamba and/or D’Angelo Russell for bigger pieces, the matter of millions with Hachimura could come into play.
But the expectation is that the Lakers are going to re-sign him, be it agreeing to terms on a new deal themselves or matching another team’s offer sheet.
If the Lakers operate as an over-the-cap team and re-sign Reaves and Rui, then their only free agent spending option is the taxpayer mid-level, correct? Who fits and fills their biggest need at that price? – @ganoble8
With Austin and Rui’s cap hold, how much cap space can the Lakers create will retaining them both? – @Kdubb213
The answer to the first question is nuanced. The Lakers could use their bi-annual or non-taxpayer mid-level exception, but it would hard-cap them at around $169 million – $7 million above the first luxury tax line.
With James, Davis, Max Christie, Vanderbilt and the No. 17 pick, they’re at $97.5 million. Add in Reaves (if he signs for his Arenas-provision Bird Rights maximum of four years, $50.8 million, his base salary for 2023-24 will be $11.3 million) and Hachimura (let’s say his 2023-24 salary is $16 million), and that puts the Lakers at nearly $125 million with just seven players. Now, add in the $12.2 million for the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, and they’re up to just over $137 million before factoring in any cap holds or empty roster charges. To use the full non-taxpayer MLE, they’d probably have to renounce the cap holds of Russell and Lonnie Walker IV.
To your point, the most realistic scenario is Los Angeles using the taxpayer mid-level exception, which is roughly $5 million and up to three years. In that case, I think the Lakers have three holes (in order of importance): starting point guard, rotation wing and backup center. The point guard spot will likely be solved by either re-signing Russell or sign-and-trading him (less likely). Therefore, for about $5 million, some of the top targets could include the aforementioned Craig, DiVincenzo, Crowder, Lee, Tillman and Landale. (Craig possibly priced himself out of this range with his two-way play for Phoenix.)
To the second question, if the Lakers were to sign Hachimura to the aforementioned deal ($16 million annually), keep Reaves on his cap hold ($2.2 million) until signing him last, renounce the rights to Russell and Walker, waive Vanderbilt and Bamba, decline Beasley’s player option and trade away Christie and the No. 17 pick, they could create about $15-20 million in cap space when factoring in their eight empty roster charges (cap holds worth about $7.5 million total). That doesn’t get them much, particularly considering the cost of losing so much depth (Vanderbilt, Russell, etc.).
Are the Lakers more interested in using DLo in a sign and trade or to play next season? – @LakersSupply
My read on the situation is that the Lakers would prefer to use D’Angelo Russell in a sign-and-trade, but I’m not sure the market is there.
Landing Kyrie Irving for Russell is shaping up to be a pipe dream, especially with Dallas unlikely to help Los Angeles out. Fred VanVleet, a Klutch client, looms as a possibility, but adding him would require Toronto to agree to terms with Russell (or take on the Beasley and Bamba contracts).
Where, exactly, is the free-agency and trade market for Russell? I just don’t see it.
The Lakers don’t have a lot of leverage. Scouring the league, how many other teams would use Russell as a starter? If we’re being generous, maybe 10. But that’s with most of those teams starting another point guard (and those backcourts having serious defensive concerns). More realistically, it’s more like a few teams. Are any of those clamoring to pay Russell more than $20 million annually.
If ranking the probabilities for Russell’s future, I’d go: 1) The Lakers re-sign Russell; 2) The Lakers renounce his cap hold and let him walk; 3) The Lakers sign-and-trade him.
The Denver series was a significant blow to his reputation, which was already relatively low in comparison to his 2022-23 salary (over $31 million) and his pedigree (former No. 2 overall pick and an All-Star). Russell is still a useful player and, at worst, a sixth-man-type. But paying him anything more than $18-to-$20 million annually seems unreasonable, based on his clear limitations that were present throughout the Lakers’ playoff run.
The way Golden State and Denver played Vando off the floor concerned me. Are the Lakers concerned about his ineptitude on one side of the floor? – @LetRussBeRuss
Vanderbilt’s offensive limitations are a concern for the Lakers, but they weren’t surprising. The Lakers knew the reservations with Vanderbilt and were ultimately prepared with contingency plans (phasing him out of the rotation, playing Hachimura more, etc.). It helps that Vanderbilt is only making $4.7 million next season. He’s not on a ridiculous contract that would make the Lakers second-guess his place in the rotation or on the roster.
Retaining Hachimura is important as a counterbalance to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt is a versatile defender and a good rebounder. Hachimura plugs in the holes of Vanderbilt’s game with his finishing, jump-shooting and ability to bang with bigs in the post.
Vanderbilt needs to improve as a cutter and catch-and-shoot threat for next season. He also needs to work on catching and finishing through traffic. But given his defensive prowess and the generic way most teams will approach him in the regular season, he still has a lot of value even if he remains the same player.
Did the Lakers’ second-half run to the Western Conference finals save Darvin Ham’s job? Or do you think he was coming back either way? – @RoemelloV
I don’t think Ham’s job was ever in jeopardy this season, even with the 2-10 start and 13th place seeding through late February. Most coaches are afforded at least two years in a new situation. The Lakers are still paying Frank Vogel after firing him after the 2021-22 season. They aren’t the type of franchise to pay three coaches at the same time.
That said, I think Ham bought himself some security in future seasons with this playoff run. I’d posit that he probably has at least two more seasons, regardless of the results, before the Lakers would consider going in a different direction. For as rough as his rookie coaching season started, Ham went farther than many coaches go in their career, let alone in their first season. He had an impressive year.
What’s your gut feeling on if the Lakers are willing to reach the second apron status? – @bersonwong
Is there a chance that the Lakers will enter the luxury tax? – @PatBevBR
I think the Lakers will try their best to stay under the second apron (projected at approximately $179.5 million – $17.5 million above the luxury tax at $162 million), as there are severe penalties, including the loss of their midlevel exception, a ban on including cash in trades, the inability to accept more salary in a trade than they send out, the inability to sign bought-out players, the inability to aggregate contacts in trades, limitations on trading their picks (including not being able to trade a first-round pick seven years in the future) and harsher tax penalties.
There’s a shrewd argument to be made that the costs outweighs the benefits in this case. Is the difference between, say, Dennis Schröder and a veteran’s minimum point guard worth those penalties? Almost certainly not.
What’s more, I think the Lakers try to avoid the tax entirely, considering they’d be repeaters after going over the tax this season. It’s going to be difficult to do so, given how hefty their cap sheet can become with the free agencies of Reaves, Hachimura and Russell, as well as the decisions with Bamba, Beasley and Vanderbilt. The new tax rules also levy additional penalties on teams above the first apron, but below the second. Teams above the first apron (a projected $169 million) would have a limited taxpayer midlevel exception, can’t take back more salary than they trade out and would also be unable to sign buyout players.
The Lakers have a lot to weigh as free agency approaches in the next few weeks, including, most notably, the benefits and costs of the new CBA.
It’s been a little over a week since the Lakers’ season ended.
What’s the latest with LeBron James’ future? Who could the Lakers target in free agency? What are some of the various offseason paths? Is there a walk-away point with Rui Hachimura? What does D’Angelo Russell’s free-agent market look like?
Let’s dive into part one of a two-part Lakers mailbag.
What’s the percentage chance LeBron James either retires or isn’t on the Lakers next season? – @AdamKoffler
Based on conversations I’ve had over the past week or so, I’d say there’s about a 10 percent chance LeBron James isn’t back as a Laker next season, either due to retirement or playing for another team. Everyone with and around the team I’ve spoken to believes he’s returning.
James’ recent Instagram story, in which he stated, “I’m suppose to be #1 on everybody list/We’ll see what happens when I no longer exist,” referencing lyrics from Jay-Z’s “What More Can I Say,” was intriguing. Remember: Jay-Z announced he was retiring, only to return a few years later and make multiple albums since then. Could James be hinting he needs a break? Maybe a year away from the game, only to return to play alongside his son, Bronny, in 2024-25? That could be the case.
But the assumption remains that James will return. The Lakers are approaching this offseason as if he’ll be a part of the 2023-24 squad.
What potential feasible options would there be to get a solid 5 or traditional big man through free agency or trades? – @RichStapless
Realistically, what big man can the Lakers go after in free agency? – @shawnymoe2531
Let’s start with trades because those are always more fun.
The obvious candidate is Myles Turner, who the Lakers have been tied to for years. They could acquire the Pacers’ center by combining the salaries of Malik Beasley ($16.5 million) and Mo Bamba ($10.3 million), along with either their 2023 first-round pick (No. 17), a future first or multiple second-round picks. (More on the specifics of trading Beasley and Bamba below.)
Turner checks a lot of the boxes the Lakers need. He’s one of the few 3-and-D centers in the league, which would allow Los Angeles to remain big defensively, with Turner and Anthony Davis patrolling the paint, while also maintaining their spacing offensively (Turner shot 37.3 percent on four 3-point attempts per game last season). There are some within the Lakers that remain skeptical of the way a Turner-Davis frontcourt fits in the playoffs. I understand their skepticism, but I think Turner and Davis are skilled and versatile enough to make the partnership work. Turner took a leap last season and looks to be a legitimate “16-game player.”
Beyond Turner, there aren’t many, if any, difference-making centers available within the confines of what the Lakers could realistically offer (Beasley, Bamba and a first-round pick or multiple seconds).
Now, let’s look at free agency. Some realistic names Los Angeles could sign with its non-taxpayer mid-level exception ($12.2 million) or taxpayer mid-level exception ($5 million):
- Naz Reid
- Dwight Powell
- Xavier Tillman
- Jock Landale
- Andre Drummond
- Bismack Biyombo
Reid, 23, is a hot commodity in NBA circles and would likely cost all or most of the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, which would trigger the hard cap ($169 million) for the Lakers.
Those aren’t the most appealing players, obviously, but each has shown they can eat innings in the regular season and at least provide spot minutes in the playoffs over the past couple of postseasons. Reid, Powell and Tillman would be clear upgrades over the trio of Bamba, Wenyen Gabriel and Tristan Thompson. Landale, Drummond and Biyombo are bigger bodies that the Lakers could use in certain matchups.
Who are the realistic options for the taxpayer midlevel exception? Is the bridge burned with Brook Lopez? – @batesjai_
Is Brook Lopez a realistic target? – @todii10
What real free-agency options are possible for the Lakers? – @MiguelJosSotoA2
The bridge isn’t burned with Brook Lopez after his rough 2017-18 season in LA, but the fact of the matter is that the Lakers aren’t going to get him for the non-taxpayer mid-level exception ($12.2 million). Lopez has earned more than that. He’d be an ideal fit for the Lakers, but I just don’t see it happening unless he’s set on playing in Los Angeles at a discount.
Here are some realistic targets for the Lakers on the wing (I don’t see them signing a point guard with their MLE):
- Bruce Brown (player option)
- Torrey Craig
- Donte DiVincenzo
- Dillon Brooks (yes, I know)
- Jae Crowder
- Josh Okogie
- Alec Burks (team option)
- Max Strus
- Josh Richardson
- Damion Lee
- Terrence Ross
- Yuta Watanabe
- Joe Ingles
- Seth Curry
Brown would almost certainly cost the Lakers’ entire non-taxpayer mid-level exception based on his play during the Nuggets’ Finals run. Several players on this list could certainly earn at least that much as well, since this free agent class is subpar.
In addition to the aforementioned bigs, some additional bigs that aren’t traditional 5s could include P.J. Washington (restricted), Grant Williams (restricted), Jeff Green and Georges Niang. Washington and Williams would likely cost all or most of the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, triggering the hard cap. Each big could play the five in super-small lineups – Green fared reasonably well against the Lakers as a center in the Western Conference finals – and would provide the requisite floor-spacing around James and Davis that Los Angeles needs from its frontcourt players.
Can the Lakers use the non-guaranteed contracts of Bamba and Beasley before the new league year to take on a contract (with the new team being able to waive those players)? – @scotty_mac26
Yes to the first part of the question — and no to the second part. (Technically, a player can always be waived, but not in a way that would save money, which is what you mean.)
If the Lakers exercise Beasley’s 16.5 million team option and guarantee Bamba’s 10.3 million contract, they can combine the salaries, along with their 2023 No. 17 draft pick (or other picks), for a draft night trade. The potential issue for a rival team would be that Beasley would be locked into his salary for next season and Bamba would have his contract guaranteed. (The Lakers could guarantee it for less than the full amount, but his outgoing salary would only count for the guaranteed portion).
Therefore, any team taking on the tandem would only be doing so because they either want Beasley and/or Bamba in their rotation, want to salary-dump a player on the Lakers, need the cap flexibility of having two contracts that expire after the 2023-24 season and/or want the draft equity that the Lakers are offering.
If the Lakers made a draft-night deal, it’ll likely feature one of these two players given the Lakers’ needs and their above-market-value contracts. Los Angeles could also trade back in the draft, though with their track record of drafting so well, I’m skeptical of them passing on a mid-first-round pick.
What do you think the Lakers’ walking away point is on the Rui Hachimura contract? $20 million? – @jojobones28
Rui Hachimura is priority 1B for the Lakers behind Austin Reaves. Both players are restricted free agents, meaning the Lakers can match any contract sheet they sign with another team. As I reported last week, the Lakers plan to match any offer sheet Hachimura signs this summer (just like with Reaves).
But is there a walk-away number for Los Angeles? It feels like $20 million annually — something in the four-year, $80 million range — is where things might get a bit dicey. Anything at or below that $20 million threshold means Hachimura is probably back.
The new luxury tax penalties (more on that below) deter teams from spending too far above the first luxury tax band (projected at $162 million). If the Lakers roll back the same group, or flip Beasley, Bamba and/or D’Angelo Russell for bigger pieces, the matter of millions with Hachimura could come into play.
But the expectation is that the Lakers are going to re-sign him, be it agreeing to terms on a new deal themselves or matching another team’s offer sheet.
If the Lakers operate as an over-the-cap team and re-sign Reaves and Rui, then their only free agent spending option is the taxpayer mid-level, correct? Who fits and fills their biggest need at that price? – @ganoble8
With Austin and Rui’s cap hold, how much cap space can the Lakers create will retaining them both? – @Kdubb213
The answer to the first question is nuanced. The Lakers could use their bi-annual or non-taxpayer mid-level exception, but it would hard-cap them at around $169 million – $7 million above the first luxury tax line.
With James, Davis, Max Christie, Vanderbilt and the No. 17 pick, they’re at $97.5 million. Add in Reaves (if he signs for his Arenas-provision Bird Rights maximum of four years, $50.8 million, his base salary for 2023-24 will be $11.3 million) and Hachimura (let’s say his 2023-24 salary is $16 million), and that puts the Lakers at nearly $125 million with just seven players. Now, add in the $12.2 million for the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, and they’re up to just over $137 million before factoring in any cap holds or empty roster charges. To use the full non-taxpayer MLE, they’d probably have to renounce the cap holds of Russell and Lonnie Walker IV.
To your point, the most realistic scenario is Los Angeles using the taxpayer mid-level exception, which is roughly $5 million and up to three years. In that case, I think the Lakers have three holes (in order of importance): starting point guard, rotation wing and backup center. The point guard spot will likely be solved by either re-signing Russell or sign-and-trading him (less likely). Therefore, for about $5 million, some of the top targets could include the aforementioned Craig, DiVincenzo, Crowder, Lee, Tillman and Landale. (Craig possibly priced himself out of this range with his two-way play for Phoenix.)
To the second question, if the Lakers were to sign Hachimura to the aforementioned deal ($16 million annually), keep Reaves on his cap hold ($2.2 million) until signing him last, renounce the rights to Russell and Walker, waive Vanderbilt and Bamba, decline Beasley’s player option and trade away Christie and the No. 17 pick, they could create about $15-20 million in cap space when factoring in their eight empty roster charges (cap holds worth about $7.5 million total). That doesn’t get them much, particularly considering the cost of losing so much depth (Vanderbilt, Russell, etc.).
Are the Lakers more interested in using DLo in a sign and trade or to play next season? – @LakersSupply
My read on the situation is that the Lakers would prefer to use D’Angelo Russell in a sign-and-trade, but I’m not sure the market is there.
Landing Kyrie Irving for Russell is shaping up to be a pipe dream, especially with Dallas unlikely to help Los Angeles out. Fred VanVleet, a Klutch client, looms as a possibility, but adding him would require Toronto to agree to terms with Russell (or take on the Beasley and Bamba contracts).
Where, exactly, is the free-agency and trade market for Russell? I just don’t see it.
The Lakers don’t have a lot of leverage. Scouring the league, how many other teams would use Russell as a starter? If we’re being generous, maybe 10. But that’s with most of those teams starting another point guard (and those backcourts having serious defensive concerns). More realistically, it’s more like a few teams. Are any of those clamoring to pay Russell more than $20 million annually.
If ranking the probabilities for Russell’s future, I’d go: 1) The Lakers re-sign Russell; 2) The Lakers renounce his cap hold and let him walk; 3) The Lakers sign-and-trade him.
The Denver series was a significant blow to his reputation, which was already relatively low in comparison to his 2022-23 salary (over $31 million) and his pedigree (former No. 2 overall pick and an All-Star). Russell is still a useful player and, at worst, a sixth-man-type. But paying him anything more than $18-to-$20 million annually seems unreasonable, based on his clear limitations that were present throughout the Lakers’ playoff run.
The way Golden State and Denver played Vando off the floor concerned me. Are the Lakers concerned about his ineptitude on one side of the floor? – @LetRussBeRuss
Vanderbilt’s offensive limitations are a concern for the Lakers, but they weren’t surprising. The Lakers knew the reservations with Vanderbilt and were ultimately prepared with contingency plans (phasing him out of the rotation, playing Hachimura more, etc.). It helps that Vanderbilt is only making $4.7 million next season. He’s not on a ridiculous contract that would make the Lakers second-guess his place in the rotation or on the roster.
Retaining Hachimura is important as a counterbalance to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt is a versatile defender and a good rebounder. Hachimura plugs in the holes of Vanderbilt’s game with his finishing, jump-shooting and ability to bang with bigs in the post.
Vanderbilt needs to improve as a cutter and catch-and-shoot threat for next season. He also needs to work on catching and finishing through traffic. But given his defensive prowess and the generic way most teams will approach him in the regular season, he still has a lot of value even if he remains the same player.
Did the Lakers’ second-half run to the Western Conference finals save Darvin Ham’s job? Or do you think he was coming back either way? – @RoemelloV
I don’t think Ham’s job was ever in jeopardy this season, even with the 2-10 start and 13th place seeding through late February. Most coaches are afforded at least two years in a new situation. The Lakers are still paying Frank Vogel after firing him after the 2021-22 season. They aren’t the type of franchise to pay three coaches at the same time.
That said, I think Ham bought himself some security in future seasons with this playoff run. I’d posit that he probably has at least two more seasons, regardless of the results, before the Lakers would consider going in a different direction. For as rough as his rookie coaching season started, Ham went farther than many coaches go in their career, let alone in their first season. He had an impressive year.
What’s your gut feeling on if the Lakers are willing to reach the second apron status? – @bersonwong
Is there a chance that the Lakers will enter the luxury tax? – @PatBevBR
I think the Lakers will try their best to stay under the second apron (projected at approximately $179.5 million – $17.5 million above the luxury tax at $162 million), as there are severe penalties, including the loss of their midlevel exception, a ban on including cash in trades, the inability to accept more salary in a trade than they send out, the inability to sign bought-out players, the inability to aggregate contacts in trades, limitations on trading their picks (including not being able to trade a first-round pick seven years in the future) and harsher tax penalties.
There’s a shrewd argument to be made that the costs outweighs the benefits in this case. Is the difference between, say, Dennis Schröder and a veteran’s minimum point guard worth those penalties? Almost certainly not.
What’s more, I think the Lakers try to avoid the tax entirely, considering they’d be repeaters after going over the tax this season. It’s going to be difficult to do so, given how hefty their cap sheet can become with the free agencies of Reaves, Hachimura and Russell, as well as the decisions with Bamba, Beasley and Vanderbilt. The new tax rules also levy additional penalties on teams above the first apron, but below the second. Teams above the first apron (a projected $169 million) would have a limited taxpayer midlevel exception, can’t take back more salary than they trade out and would also be unable to sign buyout players.
The Lakers have a lot to weigh as free agency approaches in the next few weeks, including, most notably, the benefits and costs of the new CBA.
Also, looks like they have to guarantee the contracts of Beasley and/or Bamba to trade them. BOO.
Last edited:
