Steve Nash goes the way of the Nash Rambler

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2242777-unable-to-overcome-ongoing-back-issues-steve-nash-to-miss-2014-15-season?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t2

Both now relics of another era.

He was fun to watch when he was in his prime. Sad way to go out.

Let Linsanity begin.

Can't say I'm surprised, but it's still a shame.

now more than ever the lakers need will Bynum.

I could see Danny, in consideration of the past history with the lakers allowing them to take Will (and Bass to make saleries work) in exchange for a future first.

go get 'em danny!!

Matty wrote:now more than ever the lakers need will Bynum.

I could see Danny, in consideration of the past history with the lakers allowing them to take Will (and Bass to make saleries work) in exchange for a future first.

go get 'em danny!!

Keep dreaming. The Lakers don't need Bynum.
They won't win 30 games with Nash, Bynum or anyone else at pg.
They won't give up any picks to improve this season.
It's a lost season.

tjmakz wrote:

Matty wrote:now more than ever the lakers need will Bynum.

I could see Danny, in consideration of the past history with the lakers allowing them to take Will (and Bass to make saleries work) in exchange for a future first.

go get 'em danny!!

Keep dreaming. The Lakers don't need Bynum.
They won't win 30 games with Nash, Bynum or anyone else at pg.
They won't give up any picks to improve this season.
It's a lost season.

TJ,

I don't think Bynum is worth a 1st, maybe a second (maybe) but the idea of a great franchise like the Lakers just giving up and rolling over before the season even starts smacks of Sixer Sickness. If Bynum isn't a good fit then I'd understand not wanting him but to not even try to replace Nash with any quality at all i sad. I am not a fan of Jim Buss, as you know, but that does not sound like him. If I'm wrong and he's ok with meekly accepting his fate then he really does need to go and soon. That is as much of a cancer on the team as a bad influence in the locker room.



bob



.

bobheckler wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

Matty wrote:now more than ever the lakers need will Bynum.

I could see Danny, in consideration of the past history with the lakers allowing them to take Will (and Bass to make saleries work) in exchange for a future first.

go get 'em danny!!

Keep dreaming. The Lakers don't need Bynum.
They won't win 30 games with Nash, Bynum or anyone else at pg.
They won't give up any picks to improve this season.
It's a lost season.

TJ,

I don't think Bynum is worth a 1st, maybe a second (maybe) but the idea of a great franchise like the Lakers just giving up and rolling over before the season even starts smacks of Sixer Sickness.  If Bynum isn't a good fit then I'd understand not wanting him but to not even try to replace Nash with any quality at all i sad.  I am not a fan of Jim Buss, as you know, but that does not sound like him.  If I'm wrong and he's ok with meekly accepting his fate then he really does need to go and soon.  That is as much of a cancer on the team as a bad influence in the locker room.



bob



.

bob,

Bynum was going to be waived by Detroit.
He is probably going to be waived by Boston.
The Lakers can just wait until he is waived and pay him the veterans minimum if they want.
They have Lin, Ronnie Price and Clarkson to play PG.
The Lakers aren't rolling over.
Picking up Bynum would add virtually nothing to them.
This is not at all like Philadelphia and you should know that.
The Lakers had by far the most games missed last year due to injuries.
They already have injuries and the season hasn't started.
The Lakers have not traded away any players like Philly has, knowing they would get worse.

Maybe they will trade for a more expensive player.
They will be saving $7.75m from Nash's contract, since insurance will pick up 80% of his salary.

It was said in jest.....

So, Nash's contract stays on the books for the season, right?

RosalieTCeltics wrote:So, Nash's contract stays on the books for the season, right?

Rosalie,

Yes, it stays on the books but insurance will pay most of it.

I could see Philly being interested in Nash's contract.
They need to add about $26m in salary to reach the minimum.
They could acquire Nash's contract for $9.7m but only have to pay him $2m.

Not only are they paying him nearly $28 million (towards the cap anyway) for his three years in LA (and only getting 65 total games out of him) but it cost them four draft pics - two first rounders in 2013 and 2015 and two second rounders in 2013 and 2014.  That's beyond steep even if he had been healthy.  Now it's a disaster.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/24/7057117/steve-nash-lakers-career-recap-nba

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-lakers-steve-nash-financial-options-20141024-story.html



Financial options for Lakers and the injured Steve Nash



By ERIC PINCUS



The Lakers have a number of financial options regarding the injured Steve Nash and his $9.7-million contract
Though it wasn't entirely unexpected, the Lakers announced the disappointing news that Steve Nash will miss the final year on his contract due to a recurring back injury.

The Lakers have a number of financial options regarding the injured Nash and his $9.7-million contract.

1. Nash may retire before the end of the season, although he needs a physician to sign off on the fact that he's retiring for medical reasons. A player can retire at any point, forgoing his salary, but Nash isn't going to walk away from nearly $10 million.


If he retires for medical reasons, he'll still receive his money while his salary will come off the Lakers' books a year after his last game played, which would be on Apr. 8, 2015. Had Nash played fewer than 10 games last season, medical retirement (once it was approved by the league) would have removed his salary immediately.

The Lakers could have in the neighborhood of $3 million in cap space if Nash does retire, but in April there may not be anyone worthwhile still available to sign, with the regular season a week from being over. On the other hand, a few million dollars in cap space might be advantageous heading into the 2015 NBA draft. The Lakers also may be able to take on a player in trade, as long as that person is under contract for the 2015-16 season.


2. The Lakers can apply for a disabled-player exception, for up to half of Nash's salary. If granted by the NBA, the Lakers would have until March 10 to add a player, either by signing a free agent ($4.85 million maximum), via trade ($4.95 million maximum incoming salary) or by waiver claim ($4.85 million maximum salary).

Any player the Lakers might acquire with a disabled-player exception must have a one-year deal (and not a multi-season contract).

If the Lakers were granted the exception, they might not be able to gain cap relief should Nash retire for medical reasons at a later date.


3. The Lakers can look to trade Nash, whose contract is big enough to enable the Lakers to take back in the neighborhood of $15 million in salary.

The franchise can look to package other players with Nash to take in even more salary, although some of the team's recently signed players (Jordan Hill and Ryan Kelly) cannot be traded until December or even January.

cComments
@Chris81 Happy this is over - at least there's a silver lining. Now Lakers can move on. and they have some options. If Kobe stays healthy and Scott gets them to play Defense, they will make the playoffs!! Go Lakers!
40 YEAR LAKER FAN
AT 2:24 PM OCTOBER 24, 2014
ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS
2

Any team taking on Nash in trade would be making a financial move with draft and/or youth considerations the fee -- or the Lakers may find a team looking to dump unwanted players who have multiple years left on their deals.

Pau Gasol was once an "unwanted player" by the Memphis Grizzlies. The Lakers would need to find the often-rare mutually beneficial situation.

There's little reason to deal Nash simply to remove him from the roster, even if he takes up one of the team's valuable spots (15 maximum). Throwing away a future draft pick or losing a player such as Jordan Clarkson just to open up roster space, or taking on long-term salary, is not a likely path for the Lakers, unless they can find a player they truly covet.

Complicating matters, Nash has a 15% trade bonus, which would be paid by the Lakers. Before the start of the season, Nash would get an additional $1.5 million. His salary-cap figure for the incoming team would be $11.2 million.

Nash's trade bonus will decrease for every game played by the team. If traded after 41 games, his bonus would be based on the $4.85 million of his remaining salary.


4. The team can buy out Nash's contract, perhaps offering to pay him in the neighborhood of $8 million to $9 million. Would Nash simply walk away, leaving guaranteed money behind?  That's rare in the NBA, and probably unlikely in this situation.


5. The Lakers and Nash can do absolutely nothing, letting the 40-year-old finish his contract. He would become a free agent next summer and presumably call it quits after a Hall of Fame career -- albeit it after three injury-riddled, disappointing years with the Lakers.

The Lakers may choose to shop Nash to other teams up to the Feb. 19 trade deadline. If they don't find a deal, he may then retire for medical reasons. Any team that might acquire Nash would not receive the same salary cap relief in April, given that his is a known condition.




bob



.

I'd like to see each player in the league work on a contract that pays by number of games played.  Give him a reasonable base contract that would almost certainly be more money than 99% of Americans earn, and add a scaled incentive for every 10 games played.  Let him pay for his own insurance that can apply in case of catastrophic long-term injury.

Sam

steve3344 wrote:Not only are they paying him nearly $28 million (towards the cap anyway) for his three years in LA (and only getting 65 total games out of him) but it cost them four draft pics - two first rounders in 2013 and 2015 and two second rounders in 2013 and 2014.  That's beyond steep even if he had been healthy.  Now it's a disaster.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/24/7057117/steve-nash-lakers-career-recap-nba

That wasn't steep at the time.
Steve made the all-star team in his last year in Phoenix in the 2011-12 season.
He also finished 9th in MVP voting that season.
Virtually everyone felt that acquiring Howard and Nash in the same off season was a steal by the Lakers.
The Lakers was going for a championship in a one or two year window.
Steve was hurt in his 2nd game as a Laker and the rest is history...

sam wrote:I'd like to see each player in the league work on a contract that pays by number of games played.  Give him a reasonable base contract that would almost certainly be more money than 99% of Americans earn, and add a scaled incentive for every 10 games played.  Let him pay for his own insurance that can apply in case of catastrophic long-term injury.

Sam

Sam,

What if a player tweaked a body part and missed a week or two and didn't have a catastrophic injury?
Also, do you want to see players asking the coach to go into a game for 1 minute to get paid for that game?
What is wrong with how they are paid now?

tjmakz wrote:

steve3344 wrote:Not only are they paying him nearly $28 million (towards the cap anyway) for his three years in LA (and only getting 65 total games out of him) but it cost them four draft pics - two first rounders in 2013 and 2015 and two second rounders in 2013 and 2014.  That's beyond steep even if he had been healthy.  Now it's a disaster.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/24/7057117/steve-nash-lakers-career-recap-nba

That wasn't steep at the time.
Steve made the all-star team in his last year in Phoenix in the 2011-12 season.
He also finished 9th in MVP voting that season.
Virtually everyone felt that acquiring Howard and Nash in the same off season was a steal by the Lakers.
The Lakers was going for a championship in a one or two year window.
Steve was hurt in his 2nd game as a Laker and the rest is history...

He was going to be 38 years and 9 months old by the time he suited up for his first game of a THREE YEAR deal at the time, which at the time I thought was a huge mistake. Maybe not for his first year, but I felt certain that contract (and the loss of 4 picks) was going to be a drag on that franchise the day they announced it.

steve3344 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

steve3344 wrote:Not only are they paying him nearly $28 million (towards the cap anyway) for his three years in LA (and only getting 65 total games out of him) but it cost them four draft pics - two first rounders in 2013 and 2015 and two second rounders in 2013 and 2014.  That's beyond steep even if he had been healthy.  Now it's a disaster.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/24/7057117/steve-nash-lakers-career-recap-nba

That wasn't steep at the time.
Steve made the all-star team in his last year in Phoenix in the 2011-12 season.
He also finished 9th in MVP voting that season.
Virtually everyone felt that acquiring Howard and Nash in the same off season was a steal by the Lakers.
The Lakers was going for a championship in a one or two year window.
Steve was hurt in his 2nd game as a Laker and the rest is history...

He was going to be 38 years and 9 months old by the time he suited up for his first game of a THREE YEAR deal at the time, which at the time I thought was a huge mistake.  Maybe not for his first year, but I felt certain that contract (and the loss of 4 picks) was going to be a drag on that franchise the day they announced it.  

The Lakers only cared about the first two years with Nash.
If in year 3 they had to waive him, so be it.

The draft picks should have been late first round picks and crappy second round picks.
LA was looking to win the title in 2012-13.
They went for it and it didn't work out.

tjmakz wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

steve3344 wrote:Not only are they paying him nearly $28 million (towards the cap anyway) for his three years in LA (and only getting 65 total games out of him) but it cost them four draft pics - two first rounders in 2013 and 2015 and two second rounders in 2013 and 2014.  That's beyond steep even if he had been healthy.  Now it's a disaster.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/24/7057117/steve-nash-lakers-career-recap-nba

That wasn't steep at the time.
Steve made the all-star team in his last year in Phoenix in the 2011-12 season.
He also finished 9th in MVP voting that season.
Virtually everyone felt that acquiring Howard and Nash in the same off season was a steal by the Lakers.
The Lakers was going for a championship in a one or two year window.
Steve was hurt in his 2nd game as a Laker and the rest is history...

He was going to be 38 years and 9 months old by the time he suited up for his first game of a THREE YEAR deal at the time, which at the time I thought was a huge mistake.  Maybe not for his first year, but I felt certain that contract (and the loss of 4 picks) was going to be a drag on that franchise the day they announced it.  

The Lakers only cared about the first two years with Nash.
If in year 3 they had to waive him, so be it.

The draft picks should have been late first round picks and crappy second round picks.
LA was looking to win the title in 2012-13.
They went for it and it didn't work out.

TJ,


If LA was really trying to win the title in 2012-2013 they should have kept Phil or Brian Shaw.  Once they closed those doors and went with a new coach and a mishmash of players from the old triangle days and new players from the new coach's system it really stopped being a cogent plan, to me.  Expecting Gasol and Kobe to run like D'Antoni's Suns was ridiculous.  Expecting 38 year old Steve Nash to run like he did with D'Antoni's Suns was ridiculous too, for that matter.  I think it was just an attempt to create a little showtime and put butts in the seats.  Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see Buss' approach being one that had a realistic chance of succeeding.  A young Steve Nash and a slightly younger and less fragile Kobe Bryant?  Yeah, they could have, possibly, pulled it all together that first year, but counting on those two senior citizens to make it happen for you was like the Laker plan in 2003-2004, bringing Karl Malone and Gary Payton on their last legs for one last "run for the roses".  When Danny brought in KG and Ray Allen in 2007-2008 it was assumed that we had a solid 3 year window that lasted a few years more than that, but 3 years was not unreasonable nor unrealistic.  A 38 year old Nash NEVER, realistically, had a 3 year window.  As you yourself said, they were thinking one year, maybe two and that, in itself, is not realistic nor good management.

You say "they tried but it didn't work out".  That's obviously true, but it understates the rashness of Laker management to put their eggs for the next 3 years into that single, ancient-in-basketball-years basket.  And now, they've done it again with Kobe by giving him that monster contract for two years after clear evidence of a declining game and deteriorating body.  I don't blame Kobe a bit, not one single bit.  I'd have taken the money too.  I blame the Busses, Jeannie and Jim.  Jeannie is, based upon what I've seen, an excellent back office manager, but I think she blew the Kobe contract (I don't know how much she was involved with Nash).  I'd be fall down shocked if she was even aware of, much less supportive of, the decision to go with D'Antoni instead of her fiance Phil Jackson.  The reports that Phil found out by getting awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night by Jim Buss would suggest she didn't know that was about to happen.  Once Dimbo went with D'Antoni I'm not sure how much input Jeannie provided on how to build the team around him, but I'm sure she was right there in the middle on the Kobe contract decision.

The good news for Laker fans, in my opinion, is that the Lakers are probably going to suck for a few years and, if Jim Buss is a man of his word, he'll quit after 5 years of crappiness like he promised.  That, in itself, would be the first step back to greatness for one of the NBA's great franchises.



bob



.

Bob,

Phil and the Lakers were completely embarrassed and swept out of the playoffs by the Mavericks.
Phil's time as coach of the Lakers had run its course.
D'Antoni never claimed that LA was going to run like the 2005 and 2006 Suns.
He wanted Nash to lead the offense with tons of pick and roll plays with Dwight and Gasol and have Kobe further break down defenses with his slashing or outside shooting.
A one or two year window was what they had.
They were is CAP hell with the contracts of Bynum, Kobe, Gasol, World Peace, Blake, etc.
If you were the Lakers being stuck with no cap space and had the opportunity to get Howard and Nash in the same off season, would you have passed up that chance? If you say yes, I'm calling BS on that. Everyone here and every GM would have done the same thing. This is Monday morning quarterbacking.

The Lakers will suck for a few years.
I'm not putting all of this on Jim Buss.
No coach or GM could easily unravel this mess.
It's been decades since they have hit rock bottom.

Also, when the only premier free agent to change teams is LeBron James, and he went back home for many reasons, it's hard to say the Lakers didn't try to improve. They went after every top free agent. This was a year that guys decided to stay home and take more money.