Rob Pelinka Discussion: BBall Ops Pres + GM (AKA: Lucky Rob)

feel like you have to put a lot of stock in whatever stat they're using AND its theoretical conversion rate to salary to put much stock in this stuff. like, kon knueppel is worth 50m by their count, while reaves is worth 33. ok bro.


edit: and as far as the FA rewind stuff goes, i think we paid more to get our targets locked up. like, was sexton going to go for the tpmle had we not signed him? maybe. but not with us. mamu at room? again, maybe but not with us. when you're trying to compete and using cap space, you can't just hold your money and wait. sometimes there's nothing left. and if you're the nets or the tanking era thunder, ok, you just eat salaries for picks, but not if you're the lakers.

 

Your case proves the opposite point. Buyers pay premiums all the time to buy a house based on ROI projections. You’re not paying what it’s worth in 10 years, but may up the offer based on what you believe the future returns will be.

The 2nd part about a dilapidated old house isn’t really relevant. Our free agents are turnkey, not fixer uppers. If they continue to be who they’ve been, the AAV is right around market value. Might need a new analogy.

 

You made my point for me. "May up the offer based on expected returns" is not the same as paying the full projected value or close to it, which is what I asked. The gap between those two is the entire argument.

And you can't have turnkey both ways. If they're finished products rather than fixer-uppers, then what they produce now is the right pricing basis, which is exactly what the model that was posted on the previous page is saying. If they're improvement projects, then you demand a substantial discount for the risk that they never improve.

Which was what we didn't really do here. Rob paid starter salary money to guys who were never more than backups in their teams, which like I said may work out, but doesn't seem like a very good decision today, particularly when the contracts are long, and have player options, so the biggest chunk of the risk is on the Lakers, not on the players.

 

false. sub mle contracts are bench player contracts. the only guys getting paid starter money on the lakers are luka, reaves, and kessler.

we're only projecting grimes as a starter, and in previous spot starting roles, he's performed well. if he's a credible starter, we're underpaying him by about 10m per. huge value.

 

You’re making assumptions that are rooted in fiction. These contracts are at market value. This gap you speak of doesn’t exist. We’re not paying a full projected value that they haven’t already met. The only argument for a premium paid is the PO, not the AAV.

And you’re twisting the turnkey concept. The product may be ready to go, but the bigger discussion here is on the subject of value and there are other factors playing into that such as location ( neighborhood vs. the team situation). The product itself doesn’t have to change in order for the value to change.

Again, poor choice for analogy.

 

What about Bob?

 

was saying in the other thread you better hope he's safe.

 

You wrote "the only argument for a premium paid is the PO, not the AAV." That is you conceding the argument. Options are compensation. Teams trade dollars for options constantly because options cost money. So we agree a premium was paid, we are just disagreeing about which line it sits on. Mine is the line where the player captures the upside and we absorb the downside.

On market value: repeating it isn't evidence. Name the other team that offered 4/$60 for Grimes and 4/$52 for Mamu, or for a similar career arc player. If there wasn't one, we didn't meet the market, we were the market, and "market value" just means "the number we picked."

And actually when we see the money more established guys like Tari Eason went, or guys at roughly the same level as Mamu like Dean Wade, the other transactions disagree with what you just said, so essentially you're just making stuff up to suit your argument.

And you and abeer3 are running opposite defenses. You say we're not paying for anything they haven't already met. He says, one post up, that we're projecting Grimes as a starter and that IF he's credible we're underpaying by 10m. That "if" is the gap you say doesn't exist. He named it while defending the deal.

 

Forget the analogy. One question nobody's answered.

$13m a year for a backup big. No starting four. Every defense so far argues the first number was fair and skips the second entirely.

Fair value and right allocation aren't the same question. Assuming that you're right and that every contract was market price. A GM still should be graded on whether the money went to the biggest hole. SmoothOperator already showed the alternative: Grimes at 4/$36, bi-annual to Mamu instead of Sexton, and there's room for a Collins, Eason or Rui.

Long years plus POs means it will be difficult to undo it. We couldn't move Vando in over a year with him out of the rotation, and there's barely any draft capital left to sweeten anything.

so it this just me picking on Rob, or do those A/B grades need to be revised after injecting some rationality and common sense?

 

i should have italicized "we". as in "we" on the forum are projecting grimes as a starter. for all we know, rob imagines him as a bench player. his salary is that of a 6th/7th man.

you said we paid starter money for backups. we didn't. we paid backup money for backups. one of the only starting quality players to switch teams this summer via FA was...the other guy we got (kessler). and that wasn't even via FA (though would have been impossible without the cap space.

we had holes at both starting guard and starting forward. nobody on the FA market was a clear starter there. i guess we could have consolidated a good chunk of mamu/grimes for kuminga, but then we'd have had less than the room exception to fill the other hole.

yeah, i meant to answer that: it's pure speculation that grimes was going to go for 4/36 and mamu was going to go for room. prior to FA, mamu was being projected by some as full mle, actually. they certainly weren't going to commit on day one of FA to those prices. so you're risking being left holding the bag. if your valuation of those guys was 14 and 12 million, you sign them to it and don't worry about it.

i agree here. the length/PO is what i don't understand. well, i guess i do--it means you were confident. but we were confident in gabe and vando, too.

think you have a pattern of calling your opinions common sense and implying others aren't.

two posts back, you claimed we paid starter money for bench players using your brand of common sense.

 

I don't mean to insult anyone (even though snide remarks are made every time I push back on the forum narrative), but I think it's pretty obvious most people who post here let their fandom influence their opinions a bit too much.

 

again, you're claiming bias and irrationality for the majority, but clear thinking and logic for you.

i would say a team-serving bias should be expected on fan forums. cheerio-pissing isn't going to be rewarded.

 

I don’t know, maybe arguing that Austin isn’t a legit 2nd option for 6 months when he’s a fan favorite is going to be an unpopular take and people heard you the first 1,0000 times, hence the pushback.

Or repeating that we overpaid for free agents when their AAV aligns with market value. If Eason, whose shooting disappeared for 1/2 a season gets 5 years $80M, then 4 years $60M is reasonable for Grimes. If John Collins gets 3 years $51M and Tobias gets 2 years $30M, then 4 years $52M for Sandro seems reasonable. Sexton is below market value. I said it “could be argued” that the PO is a premium. Still think that’s being way overblown and both Grimes & Sandro will be trade-able unless an unforeseen injury, but I was simply keeping an open mind to the discussion.

Anyways, the repeated posts of playing the victim while said victim makes condescending, snide remarks is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

But then below you go ahead and do exactly THAT. While playing the martyr role yet again. "Snide remarks". You wailed about that back earlier before Reaves signed when people pushed back on the "we're doomed" if he gets above a certain amount. It was noted, in case anyone felt they got personal. You can get over it now. If someone derides (as you seemingly have no problem doing to others' opinions) something you have said now ..... it's because they don't view your generally negative opinions on everything the FO has done .... as sacrosanct as you seem to hold them. They're opinions. They're not always "common sense". There's definitely a touch of some "better than you" in the way you post.

 

~~

~
Every one of those is an opinion, same as mine. The vast majority of the media and NBA experts happen to land where I land, for whatever that's worth.

I'm not fishing for sympathy. I'm pointing at a pattern. Any pushback on Rob turns into you ganging up, and you're doing it in real time while accusing me of playing victim. Like I pointed that out that it's likely going to happen on last page, and here we're at because you can't deal with differing opinions.

like we were just talking about basketball decisions, and the focus becomes attacking the opinions of the dude you disagree with.

Look at what happened to the guy in the Austin thread. Personal attacks over a basketball take. That's disgusting, and it's not an isolated thing.

You're not winning arguments, you're hounding out anyone who disagrees. If you want a board full of sycophants nodding along, you're well on your way. People are leaving because they're sick of being disrespected for having an opinion, and eventually the only ones left will be the ones who already agree with you. Hope that's fun.

 

How is claiming someone lets their fandom influence their opinions too much, an insult, but accusing me of playing the victim isn't? You're really reaching here LOL

or the dude that just said "You’re making assumptions that are rooted in fiction.", then stated his own opinion as justification.

Do you have anything to say about the topic we were discussing or you're just joining the conversation to get off on the drama?

 

Nope not an armchair GM to argue how much better or not better the acquisitions “should have been done” with none of the facts behind the scenes known, that impacted the players they targeted and landed. Just a comment on your style of posting here and continuing to claim you’re being personally attacked. And yes with the touch of “better than you” attitude about your opinions. Just the way I see it since you’ve been here.

And FYI at Clublakers and here at Lakers all it’s always been said (not always achieved …. so the Mods “will” step in) …. attack the post not the poster. You’re not being ganged up on …. multiple people just don’t share all your opinions. I’ve given you likes for agreement multiple times.

 

so you are literally admitting you saw an angle to attack me and did, even though you had no interest in the conversation.

 

I quoted your post and its hypocrisy. Don’t be dense. It was a broad brush indictment of “most” posters here on the forum.

 

"it's not an attack; it's merely quoting your post and its hypocrisy".

Alright, call it what you want. It's my bad for engaging with you and wasting my time.

The Lakers sale today, which spells possibly not so great news for the franchise, is my line to leave and stop fighting the prevailing herd mentality here.

enjoy your echo chamber.