Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Nile River
    Posts
    676
    vCash
    1500

    Lakers likely to keep Nash next season

    So it looks like old man Nash will be back...most of the article is speculation, but it looks like Nash is under the impression he will be back.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...1PVVMxMzFfMQ--

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,095
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by egptnwarrior22:28089576
    So it looks like old man Nash will be back...most of the article is speculation, but it looks like Nash is under the impression he will be back.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...1PVVMxMzFfMQ--
    Good! Don't use the stretch and get his money off the books as fast as possible! I don't want his contract to stain this franchise for an extra two years.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    22,311
    vCash
    1500

    Lakers likely to keep Nash next season

    Really? What is the point? To play 9 games?

    I really don't understand this front office. They need to accept reality! He's 40 years! He can't play anymore. Cut your losses and move on!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,095
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by still1ballin:28090066
    Really? What is the point? To play 9 games?

    I really don't understand this front office. They need to accept reality! He's 40 years! He can't play anymore. Cut your losses and move on!
    We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    9,665
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?
    what? That isn't what the dude is saying... he is saying fcuk nash... he isn't in the long term plans so lets bring someone else in and see what they can do...

    jesus Christ this **** is simple ... why do people make it so hard.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    15,678
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    what? That isn't what the dude is saying... he is saying fcuk nash... he isn't in the long term plans so lets bring someone else in and see what they can do...

    jesus Christ this **** is simple ... why do people make it so hard.
    Agree, nash can GTFO, he already has done enough damage.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,056
    vCash
    1500
    Nash can go **** himself. Piece of ****.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,095
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman:28090488
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?
    what? That isn't what the dude is saying... he is saying fcuk nash... he isn't in the long term plans so lets bring someone else in and see what they can do...

    jesus Christ this **** is simple ... why do people make it so hard.

    Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.
    Last edited by bleedprple&gold; 03-06-2014 at 02:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    22,311
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by still1ballin:28090066
    Really? What is the point? To play 9 games?

    I really don't understand this front office. They need to accept reality! He's 40 years! He can't play anymore. Cut your losses and move on!
    We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?
    I want him to retire

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,439
    vCash
    1500
    I doubt

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,095
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by still1ballin:28090824
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by still1ballin:28090066
    Really? What is the point? To play 9 games?

    I really don't understand this front office. They need to accept reality! He's 40 years! He can't play anymore. Cut your losses and move on!
    We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?
    I want him to retire
    He doesn't want to retire and the Lakers can't force him. So the options are keep him and pay him. Waive him and pay him. Waive him and stretch pay him. no matter what we are stuck paying him. Personally I'm not a fan of paying guys to go home and do nothing. If you're gonna pay him might as well make him earn some of his money. I don't care if he only plays 5 games I want to see him working his *** off rehabbing because he's already stolen enough money from the lakers he doesn't deserve any more of a free ride.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    9,665
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.
    jesus dude... the guy is not talking about the money... everyone knows we have to pay him his money unless he takes a buyout...

    what he is saying is we need to MOVE ON from him and quit wasting our time talking about him as someone who will play next... even if he CAN play next year there is no point in playing him as all it will do is keep other PG's from getting playing time

    Yet, in your next post after this you think even if he only plays 5 games that isn't a bad thing...

    The Lakers need to move on from the Steve Nash distraction because that is all he is at this point...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,095
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman:28091096
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.
    jesus dude... the guy is not talking about the money... everyone knows we have to pay him his money unless he takes a buyout...

    what he is saying is we need to MOVE ON from him and quit wasting our time talking about him as someone who will play next... even if he CAN play next year there is no point in playing him as all it will do is keep other PG's from getting playing time

    Yet, in your next post after this you think even if he only plays 5 games that isn't a bad thing...

    The Lakers need to move on from the Steve Nash distraction because that is all he is at this point...
    What they should do is keep him on the team and not play him. Put him on the end of the bench as the 4th string PG. Only play him in garbage time. Make him practice. Make him travel with the team. Don't just let him go home and see his kids and count his money. Make him work! He owes us at least that. If you really want to **** Nash over this would be the best way. But we all know DAntoni would never do that.
    Last edited by bleedprple&gold; 03-06-2014 at 03:49 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    22,311
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.
    jesus dude... the guy is not talking about the money... everyone knows we have to pay him his money unless he takes a buyout...

    what he is saying is we need to MOVE ON from him and quit wasting our time talking about him as someone who will play next... even if he CAN play next year there is no point in playing him as all it will do is keep other PG's from getting playing time

    Yet, in your next post after this you think even if he only plays 5 games that isn't a bad thing...

    The Lakers need to move on from the Steve Nash distraction because that is all he is at this point...
    Yes!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    15,590
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedprple&gold View Post
    He doesn't want to retire and the Lakers can't force him. So the options are keep him and pay him. Waive him and pay him. Waive him and stretch pay him. no matter what we are stuck paying him. Personally I'm not a fan of paying guys to go home and do nothing. If you're gonna pay him might as well make him earn some of his money. I don't care if he only plays 5 games I want to see him working his *** off rehabbing because he's already stolen enough money from the lakers he doesn't deserve any more of a free ride.
    Play him until he falls!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •