Lakeshow

[sandiego17]

Last I heard, the Lakers' future was bright because of all the cap room they would have next year. LBJ and all the big names were just biding their time.

Lakers have a chance for a bright future, because they have the resources, play in LA and elevate a stars brand in a way no other team can. Who thought LBJ was going to come to LA and play with Kobe?

As for aging/declining stars who took less to help the team, Duncan, Wade and Garnett come to mind. LBJ made accomodations, as well.

I could buy Duncan, but not the others. You think LBJ takes less money to help the team if he's sitting in Kobe's spot? I don't agree that any of those guys were/are more willing to help the team than Kobe. Garnett?

Of course, Kobe has had a great career but he's aging and coming off a brutal injury. Under almost no circumstance does it make basketball sense to make Kobe the league 's highest paid player or to pay him double what anyone else would and tie their hands vis-vis the cap. But hey, the Giants paid a declining Linecum $14m for past performance as well. So the Lakers dont have that market cornered.

Disagree that nobody would offer Kobe more than 12.5MM per year, we won't find out because he's signed, but I think that's ridiculous. Nobody would offer Kobe more than Ben Gordon and Al Jefferson are making? On the higher end, even today, would you rather have Melo or Kobe? Lincecum shouldn't be mentioned with Kobe. Not the same class of player, career or athlete. Has Lincecum been as productive as Kobe for as long and did Kobe not start in a championship series the way Freak Boy got removed from the rotation in the WS? How is that a valid comparison?

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I could buy Duncan, but not the others. You think LBJ takes less money to help the team if he's sitting in Kobe's spot? I don't agree that any of those guys were/are more willing to help the team than Kobe. Garnett?

All of those guys either took less or restructured.

Many people speculated on LBJ to LAL. As well as other prime FA's. Unlikely to happen now. Betting the ranch on a player in decline and paying him for past performance. No sense on a basketball level.

As for dollars, say whatever you like but the Kobe wasn't going elsewhere. So the Lakers bid against themselves. I see no reason they couldn't have given Kobe a great salary and been able to retain a lot more cap room to add supporting cast so that they could be competitive as he rides off into the sunset. For whatever reason (Kobe's or the Lakers') they chose not to do that. Foolish.

I wasn't comparing anything about Kobe and Lincecum other than the fact that the franchises chose to pay ridiculous salaries for past performance rather than prevailing market rates that reflect their current skill sets and the franchises' need to add better players.

[sandiego17]

All of those guys took less than what? The max? So did Kobe. None of those guys (except Duncan) took as large a decrease as Kobe.

I get your opinion but disagree. The Lakers did overpay, but I don't think they overpaid by nearly the factor you suggest. If the Lakers offer Kobe a 50% paycut and he's a free agent, I do think that he would consider other options, I would. I do agree that it would never happen because the Lakers weren't going to offer him a 50% pay cut. I don't think any realistic Laker fan truly believed the team had a great chance to get James, especially with Kobe on the team. Speculation will happen because the Lakers have the cap room and they are the Lakers.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

If the Lakers win a championship with Kobe it is a good deal. If they don't, it's not. But I don't really see it happening.

[sandiego17]

Pretty tough criteria. Does the same hold true for the Clips hiring Doc Rivers? If they don't win a championship in the Doc Rivers era, he wasn't worth the unprotected pick? From a purely financial standpoint, the Kobe deal will give the Lakers a much higher ROI than the Doc deal does the Clips.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Apples and oranges for many reasons, but most obviously that the Rivers hiring has nothing to do with the Clippers' salary cap management.

Perhaps you care about the Lakers' finances, but I don't. I care about basketball. And the Kobe signing would seem to preclude surrounding him with enough talent to win a championship, the thing you claim he most wants in the world and the thing that the Lakers are supposedly all about. Does not compute.

[sandiego17]

Apples and oranges for many reasons, but most obviously that the Rivers hiring has nothing to do with the Clippers' salary cap management.

Perhaps you care about the Lakers' finances, but I don't. I care about basketball. And the Kobe signing would seem to preclude surrounding him with enough talent to win a championship, the thing you claim he most wants in the world and the thing that the Lakers are supposedly all about. Does not compute.

Once they traded an unprotected first round pick for Rivers, it does make it a more valid comparison. It affects the ability to acquire talent.

I claim he wants to win a championship as much or more than anyone in the league and the Lakers have proven beyond a doubt that championships are what they are about. Nothing offered disputes that. Also, Laker finances are an important factor in the teams quest for a 17th, I could easily argue it does matter.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Once they traded an unprotected first round pick for Rivers, it does make it a more valid comparison. It affects the ability to acquire talent.

I claim he wants to win a championship as much or more than anyone in the league and the Lakers have proven beyond a doubt that championships are what they are about. Nothing offered disputes that. Also, Laker finances are an important factor in the teams quest for a 17th, I could easily argue it does matter.

The Clippers have less need to acquire talent than the Lakers, to begin with. They have little need for a late (or even mid-first round pick). They are dealing with cap management issues given where they are. Coaching hires vs players. Not at all comparable. I know that there's an obsession with comparing with everything the Clippers do (which in my mind means you've already lost LOL), but not a valid comparison.

The Lakers' finances don't matter insofar as they have more than enough to buy whomever they want. ROI on Kobe isn't money that's needed to allow them to compete. Get real. They have a $3B TV deal. If Kobe was all about championships, he would have taken less to get more talent in to help him. In the past he's been quick to run down the team's talent acquisition, so one would think he'd be willing to do more. He obviously is not. The Lakers, if they were all about championships, would do everything they could to get the most talent around Kobe so they would have a chance at a Finals appearance. That means not overpaying. That means not paying for past performance. They chose not to do that. Their choices, but it's obvious that winning was not primary to this discussion.

I think we've exhausted this, however. You (like most Lakers fans I encounter) seem really dug in on looking at things through purple and gold lenses. That's fine, there's a long history to justify that, I suppose. But I prefer a more balanced way of looking at things. You same tomato, I say tomahhto.

[sandiego17]

Fair enough, although I do think its not so much as looking at things through purple and gold lenses, but rather anti-Laker hoop fans views clouded by the potent Kobe Hate and Laker Hate combo. Agree to disagree here.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Fair enough, although I do think its not so much as looking at things through purple and gold lenses, but rather anti-Laker hoop fans views clouded by the potent Kobe Hate and Laker Hate combo. Agree to disagree here.

I don't have an issue with the Lakers per se nor do I hate Kobe. I respect both team and player, for sure. In fact, I don't now many Clippers fans that straight up hate the Lakers. In this discussion, I separate Lakers finances from pure basketball, knowing one influences the other.

[oneinchpunch]

Jason Kidd in over his head

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Nothing like McCoy, though.