Jump to content




Photo

Metta to opt out of his contract after 12-13 season?


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • 4,035 posts
  • Joined: Dec 10, 2011
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted March 26, 2013 - 04:20 PM

He is not playing at a good level, don't know what he's smoking. 



#22 ace™

ace™

    Most Interesting

  • 10,126 posts
  • Joined: Aug 08, 2009
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Name:Ray Donovan
  • Fan Since:1997
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted March 26, 2013 - 04:25 PM

If he opted out and went somewhere else, that'd be awesome. I'd be ecstatic. If he opts out and takes less money to stay here, then I hope he has a lesser role on the team and most definitely comes off the bench.

Would prefer to see him go one way or another tho.

#23 gque24

gque24

    Sixth Man

  • 4,143 posts
  • Joined: Sep 03, 2009
  • Location:Sky High
  • Fan Since:1985
  • Fav. Laker:KOBE

Posted March 27, 2013 - 05:32 AM

I think Metta coming off the bench 4 or Hill starting over him could work when Clark is the 3.

This is why I want to go for Martell Webster next year.

 

Hip surgery is no joke - Hill could be worthless forever. I wouldnt waste the time bringing him back & watching him get reinjured again. SMFH he should go also


Never Wrong Always Right Like Freeway Exits!!

#24 UKUGA

UKUGA

    All-Star

  • 5,924 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:28269
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted March 27, 2013 - 11:15 AM

I bet his financial situation is so screwed up that he would be willing to take less money over a 2-year deal than he would make next year if he didn't opt out.

 

The ability to get a steady pay check for 2 years may actually be worth more to him than getting $7 million next year.

 

Of course, taking $7 million from the Lakers (amnesty) and signing a 2-year deal some place else for $2 million per would be much better.


www.twitter.com/ukuga


#25 Japago

Japago

    Sixth Man

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2010
  • Name:Pat
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 27, 2013 - 09:28 PM

I bet his financial situation is so screwed up that he would be willing to take less money over a 2-year deal than he would make next year if he didn't opt out.

 

The ability to get a steady pay check for 2 years may actually be worth more to him than getting $7 million next year.

 

Of course, taking $7 million from the Lakers (amnesty) and signing a 2-year deal some place else for $2 million per would be much better.

 

He would probably get picked up from the initial bidding process, meaning he wouldn't get any extra money. He only has one year left and the team who gets him only has to pay what they bid out of his current salary. The Lakers would still have to pay the rest. His salary is completely taken out of luxury tax calculations though.


Edited by Japago, March 27, 2013 - 09:31 PM.

Posted Image


#26 DanishLakerFan

DanishLakerFan

    Starter

  • 4,469 posts
  • Joined: May 27, 2011
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 28, 2013 - 03:26 AM

Normally i would think that Metta opting out would be crazy, but in his case it may be possible - him being crazy and all.

 

If we lose both Jamison and Clark and manage to keep Dwight, i think there could be a few scenarios where using the amnesty on Blake and re-signing Metta could be more realistic - especially if we land a good PG in a Pau deal.



#27 UKUGA

UKUGA

    All-Star

  • 5,924 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:28269
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted March 28, 2013 - 04:38 AM

He would probably get picked up from the initial bidding process, meaning he wouldn't get any extra money. He only has one year left and the team who gets him only has to pay what they bid out of his current salary. The Lakers would still have to pay the rest. His salary is completely taken out of luxury tax calculations though.

 

Interesting.  I had forgotten about that aspect.

 

So, back to my original thought.  Obviously, I believe he is thinking 2+ years at $5 mil/per, but truth be told, I do think he would just plain be better served with a multi-year deal.    Short-term, I realize that makes no sense, but longer-term, it actually has some value, especially to a guy that I can almost guarantee you has not saved his money.


www.twitter.com/ukuga





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users