If Lakers want to give IT a max, s+t for ball?

[hodgy03038]

[ThaPreacher]

W-T-F is wrong with some people?

T-A-L-Q- that's a loaded question.

The issue remains, do you invest a max contract- IT will qualify for the 7 year-30% cap hold I believe.  5'9-point guard who is an incomplete player and remains a defensive liability?
Does he get a 4 year deal?
What is the longevity of guards at his size and weight and playing style?

Historically, large deals usually doom the ability of a franchise to make other significant moves.
So when you sign a player to this type of a deal- the player has to be a franchise player for the team to build around.

IT4 deserves a large contract-no doubt.  But I don't know if Danny will pay him MAX money.

2 years- yes
3 years- ahem- maybe
4 years- ?
5 years-  no

When Rondo was considered top 1 or  2 PG in the league, Danny didn't want to give him a max deal- because he wasn't a complete player.  IT is really no different.  What he does- he does exceptionally well. He  is virtually unable to be guarded one-on-one. But he is an incomplete player.  (please review the game tape vs Rondo and Chicago or Wall/Beal and Washington)

So while these wild trade ideas seems like a mad scientist's crazy concoction- there is a valid concern being expressed here.

[Moranis]

Why would the Lakers give us Ball if they want to sign him? He's unrestricted so if they wanted him they would just sign him and give up nothing. This entire idea doesn't make any sense.

I assumed that the Lakers would have used their cap space on someone else and still wanted to bring in that next player and needed to remove Deng's salary to do so, so they attach Ball (or Ingram) to Deng and get that 3rd player.

[KGBirdBias]

The poster should be banned for 30 days for creating this post. LOL Blasphemy!!

Joking but come on...seriously?

[mqtcelticsfan]

Wait, are some of you saying this is insane for the Celtics?