i feel like the financial issues in play are poorly understood by the media and leading to distortions here. 1) we know by now that LA's financial advantage is basically a myth. the state-tax differential more than absorbs the year-by-year difference between prospective LAL and HOU contracts ("K"s), and the advantage of the extra year in the LAL K is negated by the likelihood that dwight will want to opt out early to secure one more max K. this is the case even IF Dwight is "sensing his mortality." in that case the smart play (albeit one with some risk) is to get a 4 year K in HOU, opt out as soon as possible while still in late prime (31 or so), then re-up with a new max K that will carry you through 35. if dwight really believes his body will break down in the near-ish term, then a 5 year contract with LA is actually RISKY, in that it will end when the damage to his body is most likely to become apparent and endanger the prospect of an additional max K. Of course, if dwight believes he'll break down by 30, he's better off with LAL, but in that event, HOU fans should thank the good lord he didn't sign here. 2) the luxury tax ramifications to LAL are being dismissed as if they don't matter at all, and I think that's short-sighted. It's my impression that the repeater tax is VERY onerous, even if you're the Lakers. Just because you have a lucrative TV deal doesn't mean you blithely embrace shelling out $100 million on a yearly basis for the uncertain number of additional wins you generate by receiving blake griffin in a SnT. this is particularly the case if you're a franchise like the lakers, who have a much more realistic shot than most of securing elite players via free agency. In other words, the lakers are not just bluffing when they say they will let dwight walk rather than SnT--they may be making a rational decision that will endure even when the prospect of dwight walking for "nothing" materializes.
To a team that had cap space to sign him outright.... Lebron didn't say "trade me to x or I'll go to y", he said "do a s&t with x or I'll just sign with x" The former is very very very very very very very different to the latter, as the latter scenario removes all leverage the team has. How is it that so very few people understand game theory?
Which is why the Lakers may do a s&t with us, but will not do one with the Clippers. Here's the scenario people are purporting played out from the Laker's perspective. Dwight : I'm going to Houston/Dallas/Atlanta, but I'd be willing to accept a sign and trade to the clippers Lakers : So go and sign with them. Dwight : but I said, I would Lakers : we know you did, so go ahead and do it Dwight : But.... Lakers : well? The issue isn't whether Griffin etc would be a better trade package, the issue for the Lakers is that for them it's Dwight or nothing, and if he's coming to them saying "I'll go to x, unless you s&t me to the Clippers, then you call the bluff and assuming he's just posturing and not really wanting to go to x else he would have just signed with them anyway. If Morey was in that exact same position and did it otherwise, we'd have problems, this is why when Jerry West was asked the same question he said "just let him walk", because not only that, but you signal in all future transactions, your no sign and trade position is just posturing that you have no intention to stand by.
That is a misconception. If Dwight signs a 5-year deal with the Lakers, he will almost certainly have an early opt-out clause before Year 5. It'll be like how LeBron signed a 6-year deal with the Heat, but he can opt out after Year 4.
I disagree with this respectfully of course. The Lakers will call his bluff right now, and will up until the final minute. However, there will be a minute, if only a short time for the Lakers to know for a fact that he will sign with a team like Houston unless they S&T him to the Clippers instead. Why do you think the Rockets have leaked stories on back to back days through the Chronicle about "Les spending money to bring in VETERAN TALENT"?? This is convenient timing when considering the well documented KG/Doc trade is well in works with the sole purpose of luring CP3 to stay & to be in a position to S&T Dwight. The truth is the Rockets are shaking in their boots right now because they know at any point they could be used as leverage to force the Lakers to S&T Howard for Blake/Bledsoe... why else would they be trying so hard to endorse themselves as a team that will bring in veteran players right now? My opinion is that they are trying to make Howards decision so obvious that Houston is the best team to sign with so that Howards & his representatives focus soley on getting Howard to Houston because its such an obviously better situation than the Clippers. The threat of a Clippers S&T is very, very real because come July 1st, the Lakers would be stupid to not drop their bluff and open up to a sign and trade. Hell, there have even been reports that the Lakers stance on NOT being open to a S&T are widely overblown. The Lakers will do one if they have to, and the Rockets will be SH$% out of luck.
Dwight: OK, I'm on the flight to HOU now. Lakers: Wait. Dwight: Still think I'm bluffing? Lakers: Fine. We'll send you & Metta to the Clippers for Griffin, Bledsoe, & Butler. Dwight: Okay. Gimme a sec and let me thank the Rockets. None of this would've been possible if not for them.
How do you think the Lakers acquired Dwight in the first place? The Lakers had no cap room to sign him as a free agent. But Orlando sent him to L.A. because Dwight was threatening to sign with teams that did have cap room. Technically, Dwight wasn't even a free agent last season. He had one more year on his contract. This time around he is actually a free agent, so he has even more leverage than he did last year.
While Dwight could potentially wind up playing on the same team as Asik, they wouldn't actually be playing together very much.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the Clippers would give up Griffin in a deal for Dwight. This nonsense needs to stop.
Dwight signing with HOU outright does not leave the lakers with "nothing." It leaves the Lakers hundreds of millions dollars richer. Consider the following from Abbot's write-up of the original Dwight trade: The new CBA, they said, would make owners think twice before uniting superstars. And who's to say it won't? In that regard, the juicy parts of the new deal haven't kicked in yet. ESPN.com CBA expert Larry Coon emails to explain what's in store for the Lakers if they keep this intimidating roster together: The Lakers will have a tax bill of around $30 million next July, and in retrospect, will view this season as their salad days -- it’s the last one where the tax rate is dollar-for-dollar. Starting in 2013-14 the new “incremental” tax takes over, where being $30 million above the tax line will mean paying a whopping $85 million tax bill. And it gets worse. Starting in 2014-15 teams will pay an even higher rate for being repeat offenders -- defined as paying tax in at least three of the four previous seasons. A team $30 million over the tax line will pay -- brace yourself -- an additional $115 million in luxury tax. After adding up their payroll, luxury tax bill and revenue sharing contribution (projected to be $49.4 million in 2013-14), even the Lakers have to stop to consider whether this simply can be written off as the cost of doing business -- and that’s the future if they’re paying players with salaries like Bryant, Howard, Gasol and Nash. I asked Coon to make some rough estimates, and he guessed that salaries, revenue sharing and luxury tax could cost the Lakers close to $240 million in 2013-14. And the season after that is when the especially punitive repeater tax, for perennial high-spenders, kicks in. Even back when players cost the Lakers about a third of that, they made transactions to cut payroll. In the lockout, they laid off video coordinators and the like to save the table scraps. After the lockout, but before facing these kinds of bills, they pointed out that it was tough to make money anymore. In other words: This Lakers roster is barely affordable now and due for a massive day of reckoning when the NBA's real "system" is fully up and running.
The number of teams Lebron met that didn't have the space to sign him outright was zero. When you figure out why that number was zero, you might understand why the lakers will be very unlikely to back down on doing a s&t to a team without space.
I really don't think the Clippers even WANT to give up Griffin for Dwight. They have the younger player with more potential that they're giving away for a guy that just came off back surgery recently and is 2 years away from 30? Clippers had the chance to make this deal with Orlando and passed that time as well. I doubt they go thru with it a second time if they already declined the first.
The Lakers can-resign Dwight, then amnesty Pau Gasol. That would leave them with a payroll comparable to the two teams in New York. Money is not going to be an issue here.
