|
On November 26 2013 14:38 Doraemon wrote:
so in portland's 11 game win streak they only played 1 team over 500 hmmm
Indiana has played 1 team above .500. Spurs have played 2. Heat have played 3. That metric is a bit weak at this juncture because there are so many teams at .500 or only 1-2 wins above.
I don't think they have any chance to reach the finals, but I just do not know what to make of all of the 2-6 teams in the West.
|
On November 26 2013 13:03 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 10:53 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:On November 26 2013 10:48 MassHysteria wrote:
I am sure Kobe has good accountants that know how to funnel his money so he doesn't end up paying that much in taxes. That's just an argument against the Lakers when it comes to signing players, but the truth is that there are ways around it. There is more than one reason Kobe spends so much on the homeless in LA and other charities.
And I am a little undecided on this signing still. I mean in a vacuum it isn't bad (when I look at it in a business sense from the Lakers), they show loyalty, etc. And Kobe really is worth that much and more (he also made $3 mil in his first 3 seasons, so for his career he will still make less than deserved). It also solidifies the Lakers brand. By attaching themselves to Kobe's name in emerging Asian/world markets, it is a good move in that sense.
As for Kobe, I never blame a player for signing for the most he can. I would not hold that against him. And Kobe brings in more $$ than Duncan and Parker combined so not a good comparison in the pure $$ sense, but I see your point about the salary cap Doraemon. I commend players when they take less to make a better team, but in a way they have been stuck by "the man" and I never really like it.
I just don't understand how this all fits into the Lakers' salary-cap plans yet. It might very well be they have a viable plan, it just isn't revealed to us yet. We will have to see how this comes about in the next few seasons. This was definitely not all based on basketball reasons of course. I just dont understand why people are going after Kobe for not taking a pay cut. He did take a paycut. From 31 million this year to 24 million the next 2 years. Its not his fault their is a cap. The issue with Kobe is just that he's clearly not putting winning first anymore. So he's full of it the next time he uses that bullshit cliche. The bigger issue is Lakers' management. I just can't comprehend how you cave to that. Does anyone think another team was going to offer him anywhere close to that? Even accounting for the hype and PR that surrounds Kobe, I think they paid waaay above market value.
I don't think signing an extension was Kobe's idea. We all know that Vanessa wears the pants in that relationship.
|
Kobe did take a pay cut.. he's allowed to sign for 105% as long as he stays with the Lakers and he signs an extension, so projected 32m and 33.6m for the next two years if he took the absolute max. He gave up 8m per year!
|
@Dogfoodboy16- I know there's a joke in there somewhere.
|
United States4471 Posts
The Kobe signing was indeed disappointing for those who were hoping he'd take the Duncan route and take a huge pay cut to give the team more flexibility for the next couple of years. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the Lakers and Kobe could have chose to not sign an extension and simply re-sign Kobe as a FA, with the only concession being renouncing Kobe's Bird rights.
With the Lakers and Kobe certainly being able to agree to him re-signing with them for a discount beforehand (thereby removing any risk of any other team signing him), the only apparent argument against this would be the risk of making Kobe feel "disrespected". I don't buy the PR hit argument, because Lakers fans are savvy enough to know why the Lakers would go with such a move and would not have turned against the team for doing so. The backlash from many Lakers fans for this signing is proof enough that there would have been enough support for the Lakers attempting to sign Kobe for as little as possible to maximize cap space going forward.
The only explanations I can think of for why the extension was signed are:
1. Loyalty and thanks to Kobe for all that he's done for the franchise;
2. Sending a message to potential FA's that the Lakers take care of their stars and reward loyalty;
3. They weren't impressed with the realistic FA options in 2014 and 2015 or at least only saw one good target;
4. They saw something that makes them confident Kobe can still perform like an elite player and believe their chances of attracting a big FA are significantly better with him helping them recruit;
5. They've found some loophole or strategy by which they can circumvent the restrictive CBA and manage to go way over the cap like Brooklyn did to sign two big FA's, and don't care about the potential tax penalties due to the strength of their market and the Time Warner deal;
6. Some combination of the above.
I find it hard to believe that the Lakers management has gone this route without some carefully thought out plan going forward. I highly doubt this was simply a mistake or oversight on their part. I'm sure there's a plan there that allows for the extension. I just can't see it yet, and hope that it pans out in the end.
|
I'd go a combination of one and four.
And I can't believe how badly Minny ended up wasting the Williams asset. He was a terrible pick from the outset by them with K Love already on the squad and never really had much of a chance.
Not that he's a star playing hiding on the bench behind a better player, but if he can be given a proper chance at PF he might be a decent starter. I actually like Malone as a fit for him at Sac.
|
I think a big part of that is showing that the Lakers brand takes care of their franchise players, and also that they value Kobe as a marketable asset. This guy just isn't an NBA star, he's an international icon. I don't think it would be likely that Lakers management would want to write contract extension or negotiations in bad faith by levering their advantage, even if it's the standard practice of most league teams.
Remember. Kobe not just a player, he's the face of the current Laker brand. Clearly Lakers are valuing him for his market worth than his player worth.
|
So they're symbolically conceding the next two years?
Nah, that's harsh. I think Kobe still has a lot left to give if they can retool around him well enough.
|
I was just reading something that's worth mentioning about this whole thing.
This new Collective Bargaining Agreement seems to have turned the public against the idea of any superstar taking what they are actually worth. It's driving the value of star players down.
It's doing exactly what the NBA owners wanted.
It's hard to see what kind of long term ramifications this will have on how the league operates, but it's pretty clear that it's already changed the culture of how the public looks at contracts in the NBA. Perhaps not. Kobe has always been a polarizing figure in the league. Maybe it's only HIS contract that spurs this kind of reaction out of people.
Let's just let it play out. At worst it's a 2 year extension where the Lakers aren't title contenders, only in this franchise is that actually viewed as a bad thing, at best it's simply paying a great superstar what he's worth to the franchise and I dunno, in a league where so many teams are more interested in tanking for the draft than actually playing out the season it's refreshing to see some loyalty to the guy that will have played 20 years for the franchise by the end of this contract. If 2 years is the price of loyalty then so be it.
|
I think he's overpayed but the Lakers still did the right thing.
Loyalty doesn't exist much in professional sports anymore so I'm glad Kobe will retire a Laker. Him and the franchise deserve as much. Sports is more than just about winning sometimes.
|
On November 26 2013 19:43 RowdierBob wrote:
I think he's overpayed but the Lakers still did the right thing.
Loyalty doesn't exist much in professional sports anymore so I'm glad Kobe will retire a Laker. Him and the franchise deserve as much. Sports is more than just about winning sometimes.
Sports is a business 
2. Sending a message to potential FA's that the Lakers take care of their stars and reward loyalty;
Important message I think, especially after Howard left.
|
On November 26 2013 20:00 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 19:43 RowdierBob wrote:
I think he's overpayed but the Lakers still did the right thing.
Loyalty doesn't exist much in professional sports anymore so I'm glad Kobe will retire a Laker. Him and the franchise deserve as much. Sports is more than just about winning sometimes. Sports is a business
The Lakers can completely skip the next two years and still turn a healthy profit. They're the biggest ticket in one of the biggest media markets in the world.
The business aspect is doing just fine.
|
On November 26 2013 20:02 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 20:00 rabidch wrote:On November 26 2013 19:43 RowdierBob wrote:
I think he's overpayed but the Lakers still did the right thing.
Loyalty doesn't exist much in professional sports anymore so I'm glad Kobe will retire a Laker. Him and the franchise deserve as much. Sports is more than just about winning sometimes. Sports is a business The Lakers can completely skip the next two years and still turn a healthy profit. They're the biggest ticket in one of the biggest media markets in the world. The business aspect is doing just fine.
brand reputation doesnt just exist, it has to be groomed. its not only for fans but players as well
|
Keeping Kobe is more important than winning in the next two years IMO.
Not that the two are mutually exclusive. The Lakers could win depending on what they do this off season with all that cap space (and a potential lotto pick).
|
I'm seriously questioning if the Knicks don't wanna play D or really don't know how to play D.
|
On November 26 2013 20:02 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 20:00 rabidch wrote:On November 26 2013 19:43 RowdierBob wrote:
I think he's overpayed but the Lakers still did the right thing.
Loyalty doesn't exist much in professional sports anymore so I'm glad Kobe will retire a Laker. Him and the franchise deserve as much. Sports is more than just about winning sometimes. Sports is a business The Lakers can completely skip the next two years and still turn a healthy profit. They're the biggest ticket in one of the biggest media markets in the world. The business aspect is doing just fine.
If Kobe retired today and the lakers held a losing record for the next 2 years you would definitely see a huge drop in sales. I mean, LA is a pretty good basketball city but still, you couldn't get away with selling tickets at their current price.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 26 2013 19:31 Vindicare605 wrote:
I was just reading something that's worth mentioning about this whole thing.
This new Collective Bargaining Agreement seems to have turned the public against the idea of any superstar taking what they are actually worth. It's driving the value of star players down.
It's doing exactly what the NBA owners wanted.
It's hard to see what kind of long term ramifications this will have on how the league operates, but it's pretty clear that it's already changed the culture of how the public looks at contracts in the NBA. Perhaps not. Kobe has always been a polarizing figure in the league. Maybe it's only HIS contract that spurs this kind of reaction out of people.
Let's just let it play out. At worst it's a 2 year extension where the Lakers aren't title contenders, only in this franchise is that actually viewed as a bad thing, at best it's simply paying a great superstar what he's worth to the franchise and I dunno, in a league where so many teams are more interested in tanking for the draft than actually playing out the season it's refreshing to see some loyalty to the guy that will have played 20 years for the franchise by the end of this contract. If 2 years is the price of loyalty then so be it.
Again, no problem here with paying him like a superstar. But his actual market value was not 25m because no other team would pay him that. You have to agree they could've gotten him back for significantly less and still made him one of the highest paid players in the league.
Even if he brings in way more than 48 million over two years for them (which he will), you still should only be paying him 5-10% more than the next highest bidder. The extra income argument is just a rationalization, IMO.
It might be to send a message, especially after Dwight. But I think players have short memories as long as the check is big enough.
|
wow that Beal injury sucks for the wizards
i have a fucking good time watching him play too 
|
On November 26 2013 20:02 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 20:00 rabidch wrote:On November 26 2013 19:43 RowdierBob wrote:
I think he's overpayed but the Lakers still did the right thing.
Loyalty doesn't exist much in professional sports anymore so I'm glad Kobe will retire a Laker. Him and the franchise deserve as much. Sports is more than just about winning sometimes. Sports is a business The Lakers can completely skip the next two years and still turn a healthy profit. They're the biggest ticket in one of the biggest media markets in the world. The business aspect is doing just fine.
Unlike most of the other NBA owners, the Lakers are actually a family-owned business and actually rely on the team as their main source of income. Other NBA owners make their money in other stuff, but the Buss family makes most of their money from the family-business, the Lakers. So although I also think they would be okay unless they really screw up, it is easy to overlook that about them.
On November 26 2013 23:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 19:31 Vindicare605 wrote:
I was just reading something that's worth mentioning about this whole thing.
This new Collective Bargaining Agreement seems to have turned the public against the idea of any superstar taking what they are actually worth. It's driving the value of star players down.
It's doing exactly what the NBA owners wanted.
It's hard to see what kind of long term ramifications this will have on how the league operates, but it's pretty clear that it's already changed the culture of how the public looks at contracts in the NBA. Perhaps not. Kobe has always been a polarizing figure in the league. Maybe it's only HIS contract that spurs this kind of reaction out of people.
Let's just let it play out. At worst it's a 2 year extension where the Lakers aren't title contenders, only in this franchise is that actually viewed as a bad thing, at best it's simply paying a great superstar what he's worth to the franchise and I dunno, in a league where so many teams are more interested in tanking for the draft than actually playing out the season it's refreshing to see some loyalty to the guy that will have played 20 years for the franchise by the end of this contract. If 2 years is the price of loyalty then so be it.
It might be to send a message, especially after Dwight. But I think players have short memories as long as the check is big enough.
It isn't so much about the short term as much as about how it looks 10 years from now. If anything, the message they have sent about their brand is the biggest positive of this whole thing. The only reason this move sucks, really, is because there is a salary cap. Plain and simple IMO (but I realize I side with deserving players getting their $$).
|
On November 26 2013 21:17 RowdierBob wrote:
Keeping Kobe is more important than winning in the next two years IMO.
Not that the two are mutually exclusive. The Lakers could win depending on what they do this off season with all that cap space (and a potential lotto pick).
Winning? How about being competitive? It works fine until your attendance starts to drop along with ratings. Who is going to be LAL audience in 2015 (unless they somehow manage to stay relevant)? You can sell a brand for as long as it has some value to the fans. Take a look at Red Sox - only one year of sucking and ticket prices become shaky reflecting plummeting attendance. I'm not sure how many jerseys they were selling in 2012, probably not a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
