You mean the facts that speak against your own point. I can just quote your post to prove my point.
You posted people with inferior numbers saying you would rather pay them the max over a player who is out producing all of them while hobbled
Why don't you make it meaningful
Ok, I'll connect the dots for you. There are 3 or 4 guys I would rather pay max $ to than Dwight. "Max" $ is a relative term, depending on: 1. length of NBA tenure, 2. whether a player is switiching teams and 3. current salary.
If the Lakers were to sign Dwight, "max" $ I believe is $117m for 5 years. That's 23m+ annually. For a 16 and 12 player.
"Max" for other guys the Lakers might be interested in is a DIFFERENT NUMBER and alot lower. For a "veteran" big man changing teams, it is basically $14.5m for 4 years. It can be more, and I fully confess that I dont completely grasp all the subtlties of the calculations.
So, my posts above note other big men with different numbers ... some are similar to Dwight's, some are less. That's only part of the analysis. The other part is what you have to pay to get the production.
So, let's put it together now. Assuming we could trade for any of these big men with their current deals in place (or Monroe with a "max" deal):
Horford: similar production, 1/2 the price
Monroe: slightly less production, 2/3 the price
Asik: 2/3 the production, 1/2 the price
Gasol: 2/3 the production, 2/3 the price