Carmelo Anthony Free Agency Watch

Carmelo Anthony: Yah or nay?

1) Yah
20
28%
2) Nay
28
40%
3) Not only no but hell no
22
31%
 
Total votes : 70

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Barnstable on Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:52 pm

wcsoldier81 wrote:
Sure I'm a Kobe hater ... not saying amen to everything Kobe does will give you this "title" here ..

I should have said " I'm a Lakers fan first" ... a significant amount of members are Kobe fans 1st ( some openly said it) so they worry more about his career than the Lakers success ...

You can defend Kobe all you want ... you can't say you put "winning over everything else" and then sign this contract ...


You have the Kobe hater rep because you only have bad things to say about him.

I'll take it all back and apologize if you can find just one post in which you say something complementary without putting him down in the same post.
"league getting mitch-slapped"
User avatar
Barnstable
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 14327
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Queens NY

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby laakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:29 pm

It's as if people have no respect for what Kobe did for this organization. He was the constant that brought us into the modern, current era as continuing to be one of the best two organizations in the league (obviously the best :man12: ). The Lakers decided that he deserved this extension, and they did have in mind that this is his last contract. Kobe also probably went in thinking he deserved the max, but might take less if they offered it due to the circumstances. When he was offered the max, why would it have to be up to him to say that he should take less for the benefit of the team? If anything, it's the organization's fault for not offering him less.

This thread has clearly derailed, and that's because it's disgusting that we're even having a 200+ post conversation about Melo coming to the Lakers. He plays no defense. Can't/doesn't pass the ball. And pairing that with Kobe at this age would be absolutely ludicrous. I see there as little reason to have a "Carmelo, yay or nay" thread as there is to having a "Lebron, yay or nay" thread in the LAKERS Discussion.
User avatar
laakers

 
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: My home

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby LTLakerFan on Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:07 am

He was offered far less than what his "max" after this year's salary would have been, but that's not the point. 20 million or under still would have been more than generous and left us in a much better position. I kind of wonder, if they had pushed hard to get him to sign for say 18-20 instead to give them that much better of a position to work with, how he really would have responded.
LTLakerFan

 
Posts: 6372
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby wcsoldier81 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:39 am

Barnstable wrote:
wcsoldier81 wrote:
Sure I'm a Kobe hater ... not saying amen to everything Kobe does will give you this "title" here ..

I should have said " I'm a Lakers fan first" ... a significant amount of members are Kobe fans 1st ( some openly said it) so they worry more about his career than the Lakers success ...

You can defend Kobe all you want ... you can't say you put "winning over everything else" and then sign this contract ...


You have the Kobe hater rep because you only have bad things to say about him.

I'll take it all back and apologize if you can find just one post in which you say something complementary without putting him down in the same post.


I got plenty good to say about Kobe , Doc can check my posts history :man10: ... no need to apologize , it's just conversations ..
wcsoldier81

 
Posts: 6427
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:20 am

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Savory Griddles on Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:07 pm

Barnstable wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:Kobe chose money over rings. Period. End. of. Discussion.


Lol, no not end of discussion.

This is a terrible argument. Every player in the NBA could take a pay cut to essentially give the money they would have made to another player to increase their chance at winning. Seems like people looked at Tim Duncan make a poor gamble on his contract to try to win another ring (unsuccessfully) and now this is the poor decision you wanted Kobe to make in doing business. By you guys standard, Tim Duncan chose rings over money... how's that working out for him? I'm sure he's happy with all the rings the Spurs won. He gave up 10 million+ dollars per year for nothing so far :man10:

I understand thinking with your heart, I do it all the time in regards to the Lakers, but the reality is that Kobe made the correct decision. You don't give away 10 million+ dollars for a chance at a title. That would be a dumb decision no matter how much you want it because:

A. You're not guaranteed any thing even if you do give up the money.

B. Why should you give up the money just so another player gets it? Why can't they take a pay cut too so your team can sign yet another star?

C. Who is to say you definitely won't win a title even after you take a full contract?

Let me offer a few other scenarios that are just as plausible "Player X could have" scenarios:

* An NBA player could offer to play for virtually nothing. After all if they're a great vet, they already made millions. If they really wanted to win, they could essentially give all their salary to another player.

* Embiid, Wiggins, Parker, Exum, Randle, etc... could all get together, forgo the draft, and walk on to the same team of their choice together with no NBA franchise tampering involved. Sign as walkons and try to create a dynasty. Get paid the big bucks later.

* LaBron, Durant, George, Love, Paul, and Howard, etc... could all get together, decide to retire from the game, to get out of their contracts, and rejoin the league by walking onto the team of their choice, what a year or two after retirement per the CBA? Boom! You have a super team!

All three above are ridiculous, but "could happen" if only the players wanted to win a ring bad enough.

You guys need to stop acing like your fantasy "he could have" scenario is in any way based in reality. A poor decision by Duncan is not precedent for how superstars are supposed to conduct business.


15 million would have been fair and a TON of money for a 35 year old. And I'm not saying it was a bad or dumb decision by Kobe. All I'm saying is he chose money over a legit chance at a title. Whether it's dumb or not is a personal matter as to what Kobe has decided to put more importance on. And how is it a poor decision by Duncan? He too has more money than he will spend in a lifetime. He wanted to win and that was more important to him than money, so it wasn't a dumb decision, no more so than it would have been a dumb decision to give 10 million to a charity if he found that to be more important than further padding his bank account. Did he come up short? Yep. but he's got another legit shot this year.

No one is telling Kobe to do something asinine like accept a vet minimum deal. But why be the highest paid player at a point where you are clearly not even close to the level of Durant or Lebron. It's an obvious decision of taking money over a legitimate chance to win, unless he is so delusional that he thinks he can single-handedly lead this group over Lebron.

This isn't a question over smart or dumb. I was simply stating: Kobe chose money over winning.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9038
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Chillbongo on Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:28 pm

Dude just stop. Unless you have the power of foresight he didn't choose s*** over anything.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Barnstable on Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:35 pm

Savory Griddles wrote:
Barnstable wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:Kobe chose money over rings. Period. End. of. Discussion.


Lol, no not end of discussion.

This is a terrible argument. Every player in the NBA could take a pay cut to essentially give the money they would have made to another player to increase their chance at winning. Seems like people looked at Tim Duncan make a poor gamble on his contract to try to win another ring (unsuccessfully) and now this is the poor decision you wanted Kobe to make in doing business. By you guys standard, Tim Duncan chose rings over money... how's that working out for him? I'm sure he's happy with all the rings the Spurs won. He gave up 10 million+ dollars per year for nothing so far :man10:

I understand thinking with your heart, I do it all the time in regards to the Lakers, but the reality is that Kobe made the correct decision. You don't give away 10 million+ dollars for a chance at a title. That would be a dumb decision no matter how much you want it because:

A. You're not guaranteed any thing even if you do give up the money.

B. Why should you give up the money just so another player gets it? Why can't they take a pay cut too so your team can sign yet another star?

C. Who is to say you definitely won't win a title even after you take a full contract?

Let me offer a few other scenarios that are just as plausible "Player X could have" scenarios:

* An NBA player could offer to play for virtually nothing. After all if they're a great vet, they already made millions. If they really wanted to win, they could essentially give all their salary to another player.

* Embiid, Wiggins, Parker, Exum, Randle, etc... could all get together, forgo the draft, and walk on to the same team of their choice together with no NBA franchise tampering involved. Sign as walkons and try to create a dynasty. Get paid the big bucks later.

* LaBron, Durant, George, Love, Paul, and Howard, etc... could all get together, decide to retire from the game, to get out of their contracts, and rejoin the league by walking onto the team of their choice, what a year or two after retirement per the CBA? Boom! You have a super team!

All three above are ridiculous, but "could happen" if only the players wanted to win a ring bad enough.

You guys need to stop acing like your fantasy "he could have" scenario is in any way based in reality. A poor decision by Duncan is not precedent for how superstars are supposed to conduct business.


15 million would have been fair and a TON of money for a 35 year old. And I'm not saying it was a bad or dumb decision by Kobe. All I'm saying is he chose money over a legit chance at a title. Whether it's dumb or not is a personal matter as to what Kobe has decided to put more importance on. And how is it a poor decision by Duncan? He too has more money than he will spend in a lifetime. He wanted to win and that was more important to him than money, so it wasn't a dumb decision, no more so than it would have been a dumb decision to give 10 million to a charity if he found that to be more important than further padding his bank account. Did he come up short? Yep. but he's got another legit shot this year.

No one is telling Kobe to do something asinine like accept a vet minimum deal. But why be the highest paid player at a point where you are clearly not even close to the level of Durant or Lebron. It's an obvious decision of taking money over a legitimate chance to win, unless he is so delusional that he thinks he can single-handedly lead this group over Lebron.

This isn't a question over smart or dumb. I was simply stating: Kobe chose money over winning.


What you're doing in saying "Kobe chose money over winning" is spin. It's ignoring certain facts in order to present a situation in a negative light on Kobe's part. I could just as easily spin the wording of Kobe's contract signing to be "Kobe asks for no special treatment, and signs first contract offered by the Lakers". Neither quote properly represents the situation.

What Kobe did is what every other Superstar not named Duncan has done. It was normal to take a good contract offered to you. It was normal to not ask for your offer to be reduced.

If you want to blame someone, blame the FO. Yeah, I agree it looks like a bit too much, but players generally take what is offered to them if it's a good deal, so how is this Kobe's fault again?

But using your own argument.... if we don't know that Duncan made a bad gamble in signing for less and not winning a chip yet, we also don't know Kobe made a bad gamble in signing what was offered till his contract is up and we see what the FO did with the rest of the Cap money. So even under your own logic "Kobe chose money over winning" doesn't hold up.
"league getting mitch-slapped"
User avatar
Barnstable
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 14327
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Queens NY

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby laakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:26 pm

Savory Griddles wrote:All I'm saying is he chose money over a legit chance at a title.


Okay. Let's see where we when he retires, if he ever does get a "legit chance at a title" let ALONE winning it. Maybe you're right, we'll see, buddy. For now I think I'll screenshot this. :)
User avatar
laakers

 
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: My home

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Congo Cash on Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:54 am

Ok, Duncan took a paycut, but somebody else got paid (Splitter :man3: and Ginobili), so big whoop... With the Lakers being way too generous on giving contracts (Walton, Divac, McKey, Nash, Fisher, etc.), they would probably overpay Jordan Hill or whoever with the money they "saved"...
- insert signature here -
User avatar
Congo Cash

 
Posts: 4533
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Barnstable on Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:39 am

wcsoldier81 wrote:
Barnstable wrote:
wcsoldier81 wrote:
Sure I'm a Kobe hater ... not saying amen to everything Kobe does will give you this "title" here ..

I should have said " I'm a Lakers fan first" ... a significant amount of members are Kobe fans 1st ( some openly said it) so they worry more about his career than the Lakers success ...

You can defend Kobe all you want ... you can't say you put "winning over everything else" and then sign this contract ...


You have the Kobe hater rep because you only have bad things to say about him.

I'll take it all back and apologize if you can find just one post in which you say something complementary without putting him down in the same post.


I got plenty good to say about Kobe , Doc can check my posts history :man10: ... no need to apologize , it's just conversations ..

I'm offering an apology if you can produce such a post. I'd love to be wrong about you and Kobe, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. If I were, just one post shouldn't be too hard to find.
"league getting mitch-slapped"
User avatar
Barnstable
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 14327
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Queens NY


Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:02 am

Chillbongo wrote:Dude just stop. Unless you have the power of foresight he didn't choose s*** over anything.


The proof is in the pudding. Kobe chose money over rings. I don't see how anyone can see different. It doesn't matter if the team put that offer on the table. If Kobe was dead set on wanting a legit shot at more rings, he would've taken a pay cut. But he didn't. So he did choose money over rings.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:05 am

Kobe is a smart guy. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he signed that contract and how it would affect the team's ability to add more talent. It surprised me because I honestly believed he wanted to catch MJ more than anything and completely expected him to take a pay cut. I can't blame him for signing because it was offered but I just thought he wanted to win more than anything else.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Barnstable on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:39 am


wcsoldier81 wrote:Tough to compare games from different eras ...

I think we can all agree Kobe "in the zone" >>> every other player in the league history "in the zone" though


Well, you proved me wrong and I apologize.

I must have been thinking of someone else cause I was damn sure it was you :man10:
"league getting mitch-slapped"
User avatar
Barnstable
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 14327
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Queens NY

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Savory Griddles on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:57 am

Barnstable wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:
Barnstable wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:Kobe chose money over rings. Period. End. of. Discussion.


Lol, no not end of discussion.

This is a terrible argument. Every player in the NBA could take a pay cut to essentially give the money they would have made to another player to increase their chance at winning. Seems like people looked at Tim Duncan make a poor gamble on his contract to try to win another ring (unsuccessfully) and now this is the poor decision you wanted Kobe to make in doing business. By you guys standard, Tim Duncan chose rings over money... how's that working out for him? I'm sure he's happy with all the rings the Spurs won. He gave up 10 million+ dollars per year for nothing so far :man10:

I understand thinking with your heart, I do it all the time in regards to the Lakers, but the reality is that Kobe made the correct decision. You don't give away 10 million+ dollars for a chance at a title. That would be a dumb decision no matter how much you want it because:

A. You're not guaranteed any thing even if you do give up the money.

B. Why should you give up the money just so another player gets it? Why can't they take a pay cut too so your team can sign yet another star?

C. Who is to say you definitely won't win a title even after you take a full contract?

Let me offer a few other scenarios that are just as plausible "Player X could have" scenarios:

* An NBA player could offer to play for virtually nothing. After all if they're a great vet, they already made millions. If they really wanted to win, they could essentially give all their salary to another player.

* Embiid, Wiggins, Parker, Exum, Randle, etc... could all get together, forgo the draft, and walk on to the same team of their choice together with no NBA franchise tampering involved. Sign as walkons and try to create a dynasty. Get paid the big bucks later.

* LaBron, Durant, George, Love, Paul, and Howard, etc... could all get together, decide to retire from the game, to get out of their contracts, and rejoin the league by walking onto the team of their choice, what a year or two after retirement per the CBA? Boom! You have a super team!

All three above are ridiculous, but "could happen" if only the players wanted to win a ring bad enough.

You guys need to stop acing like your fantasy "he could have" scenario is in any way based in reality. A poor decision by Duncan is not precedent for how superstars are supposed to conduct business.


15 million would have been fair and a TON of money for a 35 year old. And I'm not saying it was a bad or dumb decision by Kobe. All I'm saying is he chose money over a legit chance at a title. Whether it's dumb or not is a personal matter as to what Kobe has decided to put more importance on. And how is it a poor decision by Duncan? He too has more money than he will spend in a lifetime. He wanted to win and that was more important to him than money, so it wasn't a dumb decision, no more so than it would have been a dumb decision to give 10 million to a charity if he found that to be more important than further padding his bank account. Did he come up short? Yep. but he's got another legit shot this year.

No one is telling Kobe to do something asinine like accept a vet minimum deal. But why be the highest paid player at a point where you are clearly not even close to the level of Durant or Lebron. It's an obvious decision of taking money over a legitimate chance to win, unless he is so delusional that he thinks he can single-handedly lead this group over Lebron.

This isn't a question over smart or dumb. I was simply stating: Kobe chose money over winning.


What you're doing in saying "Kobe chose money over winning" is spin. It's ignoring certain facts in order to present a situation in a negative light on Kobe's part. I could just as easily spin the wording of Kobe's contract signing to be "Kobe asks for no special treatment, and signs first contract offered by the Lakers". Neither quote properly represents the situation.

What Kobe did is what every other Superstar not named Duncan has done. It was normal to take a good contract offered to you. It was normal to not ask for your offer to be reduced.

If you want to blame someone, blame the FO. Yeah, I agree it looks like a bit too much, but players generally take what is offered to them if it's a good deal, so how is this Kobe's fault again?

But using your own argument.... if we don't know that Duncan made a bad gamble in signing for less and not winning a chip yet, we also don't know Kobe made a bad gamble in signing what was offered till his contract is up and we see what the FO did with the rest of the Cap money. So even under your own logic "Kobe chose money over winning" doesn't hold up.


The above is NOT a good argument. If we are talking about the gamble of winning rings and rings is the "jackpot" then Duncan made a gamble that could at least pay off. Kobe didn't really take a "gamble." He took the sure thing which is the money, and if they somehow manage to win it, that's icing on the cake. I know you are an astute basketball fan, Barns. You know Duncan took a calculated risk to win. He made it to the Finals once and I'd say has a real good chance of getting there again. Kobe didn't take a calculated risk. He took a lot of money and handcuffed the team.

It's like if they played roulette and Duncan bought 15 chips and placed them all over the board. Kobe bought one chip and placed it on Black 24. It cost Duncan more money, but he has a much better chance of winning. Could we draft a player that turns into an all-star his first or second season? Yes. We COULD. Could we sign Lebron in the offseason? Yes. We COULD. But you and I both know they are unlikely scenarios.

You are technically correct. We don't "KNOW" if one was a good gamble and one was a bad one (if you base knowing on ultimate outcome and not at the standard deviation at the time of the actual gamble). We won't know until they are both retired. But we do know who has far, far better odds, because he paid to have better odds. We know who has far worse odds because he wasn't willing to pay for those odds.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9038
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Chillbongo on Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:09 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Chillbongo wrote:Dude just stop. Unless you have the power of foresight he didn't choose s*** over anything.


If Kobe was dead set on wanting a legit shot at more rings, he would've taken a pay cut.
According to this logic if Kobe was dead set on wanting a legit shot at a title, he wouldn't be a Laker.

Do you really think Kobe willingly handcuffed himself from an opportunity to win a ring just to stay a Laker? No. It's not in his DNA regardless of the injury situation.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Savory Griddles on Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:02 pm

Chillbongo wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Chillbongo wrote:Dude just stop. Unless you have the power of foresight he didn't choose s*** over anything.


If Kobe was dead set on wanting a legit shot at more rings, he would've taken a pay cut.
According to this logic if Kobe was dead set on wanting a legit shot at a title, he wouldn't be a Laker.

Do you really think Kobe willingly handcuffed himself from an opportunity to win a ring just to stay a Laker? No. It's not in his DNA regardless of the injury situation.


I don't see how you extracted your "logic" from what he said. The logic is taking a significant paycut and allowing us to bring in quality players would improve his chances of winning. In doing so his chances of winning a title would have been just as great here as any other team (unless he signed with the Heat or Thunder for the vet minimum or something like that.) What's that have to do with him leaving to win? The fact of the matter is if he were to leave the Lakers, he would have gotten at most 12-13 million or so, the amount most of us wanted him to get. An amount that would have allowed us to go after a Chris Bosh AND Lance Stephenson AND Kyle Lowry. Maybe add Gasol for a hometown discount. Instant contender.

As it stands we can only afford a Bosh and Lowry, at most. If Kobe is making only 13 million, all of a sudden Lebron may look at the Lakers and realize we can add Lowry and Monroe to him and Kobe. Is that better than a broken down Wade and MAYBE Bosh if he doesn't bolt? Yes.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9038
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby charvin on Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:07 pm

Barnstable wrote:

wcsoldier81 wrote:Tough to compare games from different eras ...

I think we can all agree Kobe "in the zone" >>> every other player in the league history "in the zone" though


Well, you proved me wrong and I apologize.

I must have been thinking of someone else cause I was damn sure it was you :man10:


I'm pretty sure you were thinking of odom1year, perhaps? I don't have the free time to check post histories, but I do remember that a few CL members harped on him never having anything good to say about Kobe.
charvin

 
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:53 pm

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby juninho on Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:57 pm

We should willing to take dunleavy and snell's contract with a first rounder. Both expire in 2015
User avatar
juninho

 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Chillbongo on Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:11 pm

Savory Griddles wrote:
Chillbongo wrote:Do you really think Kobe willingly handcuffed himself from an opportunity to win a ring just to stay a Laker? No. It's not in his DNA regardless of the injury situation.


I don't see how you extracted your "logic" from what he said. The logic is taking a significant paycut and allowing us to bring in quality players would improve his chances of winning. In doing so his chances of winning a title would have been just as great here as any other team (unless he signed with the Heat or Thunder for the vet minimum or something like that.) What's that have to do with him leaving to win? The fact of the matter is if he were to leave the Lakers, he would have gotten at most 12-13 million or so, the amount most of us wanted him to get. An amount that would have allowed us to go after a Chris Bosh AND Lance Stephenson AND Kyle Lowry. Maybe add Gasol for a hometown discount. Instant contender.

As it stands we can only afford a Bosh and Lowry, at most. If Kobe is making only 13 million, all of a sudden Lebron may look at the Lakers and realize we can add Lowry and Monroe to him and Kobe. Is that better than a broken down Wade and MAYBE Bosh if he doesn't bolt? Yes.


Are we really going back to this again?

So you want Kobe to take $12M so that we can pay other players who have done nothing for the franchise. Ok. That in itself is atypical and more or less unheard of but I will entertain your theory.

1) Which free agent players are we now out of the running for due to Kobe's contract? Name names. I want to know who we are legitimately f***** of signing due to this contract.

Melo? 30 year old Melo? You want the Lakers to pay Carmelo Anthony more money than Kobe Bryant, so Carmelo can join the Lakers? You listed Chris Bosh. You want the Lakers to pay Chris Bosh more money than Kobe Bryant, so the 30 year old Chris Bosh can join the Lakers? The same Chris Bosh who has an opt-in for next year along with Dwayne Wade and Lebron James of the Miami Heat who are currently ROLLING in the eastern conference? You would give Bosh a 4 year max deal that would have him earning $18-20M at age 34. Chris Bosh. Okay.

2) Lance Stephenson. The dude currently earns $980,000. Yes he will get an enormous raise. The max he can earn is a 4yr/$60M. That's Derrick Rose money. That's Russell Westbrook money. I think Stephenson is a great player but he is not all-NBA level. If a team wants to pay him $15M, by all means but this guy wasn't even an all star (albeit he should have been one). I think 4yr/$40M is reasonable and the Lakers can pay him that much if they want to.

3) Kyle Lowry. Same situation, a little more proven IMO. But he does not deserve the max will likely get around $10M a year. We are also stacked with 3 point guards on the roster. I don't think we necessarily need another point guard. We need a center and a 3. So really, Stephenson and Lowry aren't on MY radar. Nonetheless we could acquire them along with another max-level free agent.

4)A guy I want (i.e. Greg Monroe) will earn the max. 4yr/$60M. We sign Monroe and potentially Deng or a guy like Stephenson and we still have money to some of our current guys. That's with 2 max level free agents. It would be tight but it is definitely possible.

However I think we won't go for 2 max guys. Just one. And then go for someone with a smaller name and get them for less money so we can retain our guys. That's a potential contender if Kobe is Kobe.

So again. Short of signing LeBron and Bosh to max deals we still have the opportunity to build a contender.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Savory Griddles on Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:11 pm

Chillbongo wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:
Chillbongo wrote:Do you really think Kobe willingly handcuffed himself from an opportunity to win a ring just to stay a Laker? No. It's not in his DNA regardless of the injury situation.


I don't see how you extracted your "logic" from what he said. The logic is taking a significant paycut and allowing us to bring in quality players would improve his chances of winning. In doing so his chances of winning a title would have been just as great here as any other team (unless he signed with the Heat or Thunder for the vet minimum or something like that.) What's that have to do with him leaving to win? The fact of the matter is if he were to leave the Lakers, he would have gotten at most 12-13 million or so, the amount most of us wanted him to get. An amount that would have allowed us to go after a Chris Bosh AND Lance Stephenson AND Kyle Lowry. Maybe add Gasol for a hometown discount. Instant contender.

As it stands we can only afford a Bosh and Lowry, at most. If Kobe is making only 13 million, all of a sudden Lebron may look at the Lakers and realize we can add Lowry and Monroe to him and Kobe. Is that better than a broken down Wade and MAYBE Bosh if he doesn't bolt? Yes.


Are we really going back to this again?

So you want Kobe to take $12M so that we can pay other players who have done nothing for the franchise. Ok. That in itself is atypical and more or less unheard of but I will entertain your theory.

1) Which free agent players are we now out of the running for due to Kobe's contract? Name names. I want to know who we are legitimately f***** of signing due to this contract.

Melo? 30 year old Melo? You want the Lakers to pay Carmelo Anthony more money than Kobe Bryant, so Carmelo can join the Lakers? You listed Chris Bosh. You want the Lakers to pay Chris Bosh more money than Kobe Bryant, so the 30 year old Chris Bosh can join the Lakers? The same Chris Bosh who has an opt-in for next year along with Dwayne Wade and Lebron James of the Miami Heat who are currently ROLLING in the eastern conference? You would give Bosh a 4 year max deal that would have him earning $18-20M at age 34. Chris Bosh. Okay.

2) Lance Stephenson. The dude currently earns $980,000. Yes he will get an enormous raise. The max he can earn is a 4yr/$60M. That's Derrick Rose money. That's Russell Westbrook money. I think Stephenson is a great player but he is not all-NBA level. If a team wants to pay him $15M, by all means but this guy wasn't even an all star (albeit he should have been one). I think 4yr/$40M is reasonable and the Lakers can pay him that much if they want to.

3) Kyle Lowry. Same situation, a little more proven IMO. But he does not deserve the max will likely get around $10M a year. We are also stacked with 3 point guards on the roster. I don't think we necessarily need another point guard. We need a center and a 3. So really, Stephenson and Lowry aren't on MY radar. Nonetheless we could acquire them along with another max-level free agent.

4)A guy I want (i.e. Greg Monroe) will earn the max. 4yr/$60M. We sign Monroe and potentially Deng or a guy like Stephenson and we still have money to some of our current guys. That's with 2 max level free agents. It would be tight but it is definitely possible.

However I think we won't go for 2 max guys. Just one. And then go for someone with a smaller name and get them for less money so we can retain our guys. That's a potential contender if Kobe is Kobe.

So again. Short of signing LeBron and Bosh to max deals we still have the opportunity to build a contender.


I did layout what could be done with him as opposed to without him in my post, but to answer the whole,
"So you want Kobe to take $12M so that we can pay other players who have done nothing for the franchise." argument, Kobe has BEEN paid. This franchise has paid him LITERALLY hundreds of millions of dollars to play basketball. At the end of the deal they just signed him to, they will have paid him about 325 million dollars over the course of his career to play a game he loves. What do the Lakers really owe him? They have always paid him the max possible until the next two seasons start. They stood by him after Colorado. They built not one, but two dynasties around him. His personal brand is worth millions upon millions more because he's a Laker. This thought that the Lakers need to pay him more than he's worth as recompense for his career is asinine and will keep the Lakers in purgatory for an extra couple years.

I'm thankful for all Kobe has provided us. Believe me I am. But good God, what exactly do the Lakers still owe him? Why are the Lakers obligated to pad his bank account so his great grand kids don't have to ever get a job as opposed to going out and getting an extra 10 million a year player that can put them over the top and make millions of Laker fans happy?
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9038
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Chillbongo on Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:36 pm

I am not disputing that he's been paid. But you fail to see the other side of the coin. How much money HAS KOBE GARNERED FOR THE LAKERS? I'll leave that out of it because that is not what I am debating.

You didn't answer my question.

Why should the Lakers pay the maximum possible salary to someone who has accomplished SIGNIFICANTLY less than Kobe has in his career? And on top of it none of it was accomplished in a Laker uniform?

1)If Kobe took less the only thing that changes is our ability to add 2 max guys and potentially put a team around those 3. Potentially. A la Miami. But that was because of LeBron. Short of us getting LeBron (which is still financially possible), that wasn't going to happen.

2)The Lakers don't want to go that route IMO and I don't blame them. When we've had star studded teams, it never led to rings. We succeeded with a Kobe/Shaq duo and a Kobe/Pau duo. We have Kobe and we can get a Pau/Shaq level impact player and still add an LO type 3rd option with room to fill out the roster.

3)LeBron, Lowry, Monroe & Kobe? Have you even thought thru what that would look like on the floor? You'd split ball handling duties between Kobe, LeBron, and Lowry. Interesting. With that scenario you listed, did you calculate the numbers? Because you'd need Kobe to take the vet min if you want to have more than 6 players on that team.

That scenario is out the window but you think the only way to win a title is to have some combination of Kobe/max/max/above average talent? I already mentioned that the Lakers have failed with big names.

4)So what else? You wanted Kobe to take $12M so we can pay Jordan Hill $7M a year? So we can pay Pau another $10? What is it because it doesn't make sense to me.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Savory Griddles on Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:47 pm

Chillbongo wrote:I am not disputing that he's been paid. But you fail to see the other side of the coin. How much money HAS KOBE GARNERED FOR THE LAKERS? I'll leave that out of it because that is not what I am debating.

You didn't answer my question.

Why should the Lakers pay the maximum possible salary to someone who has accomplished SIGNIFICANTLY less than Kobe has in his career? And on top of it none of it was accomplished in a Laker uniform?

1)If Kobe took less the only thing that changes is our ability to add 2 max guys and potentially put a team around those 3. Potentially. A la Miami. But that was because of LeBron. Short of us getting LeBron (which is still financially possible), that wasn't going to happen.

2)The Lakers don't want to go that route IMO and I don't blame them. When we've had star studded teams, it never led to rings. We succeeded with a Kobe/Shaq duo and a Kobe/Pau duo. We have Kobe and we can get a Pau/Shaq level impact player and still add an LO type 3rd option with room to fill out the roster.

3)LeBron, Lowry, Monroe & Kobe? Have you even thought thru what that would look like on the floor? You'd split ball handling duties between Kobe, LeBron, and Lowry. Interesting. With that scenario you listed, did you calculate the numbers? Because you'd need Kobe to take the vet min if you want to have more than 6 players on that team.

That scenario is out the window but you think the only way to win a title is to have some combination of Kobe/max/max/above average talent? I already mentioned that the Lakers have failed with big names.

4)So what else? You wanted Kobe to take $12M so we can pay Jordan Hill $7M a year? So we can pay Pau another $10? What is it because it doesn't make sense to me.


Easy to answer the bold part, and I thought I alluded to it by saying Kobe has been paid for his work. Kobe has been paid and the reason you pay another player that money rather than Kobe is because of what the players will provide during their contract. If Kobe's worth is 13 million, isn't a player like Lance Stephenson worth 10-12 at this point in his career? Who do you think has a better chance of fully realizing their contract over the next two years? The 24 yr old entering his prime or the 36 year old coming off of a season where he played less than ten games and is recovering from two injuries?

As for the LBJ/Lowry/Monroe/Kobe team - LBJ 23, Lowry 8, Monroe 12, Kobe 12 = 55 million. The cap is supposed to be around 63. Add in Nash's stretch you have another 3 million so you are at 58. Sign a couple guys for two million each then vet minimum guys to fill it out. Do you think you would have trouble getting players like what we got this year to take the vets minimum with those guys? And that team would work well together I think. But whatever. it's all moot now.

I'm not saying Kobe/max/max. I'm saying Kobe/max/solid player(Lowry)/real good player(Monroe). I personally don't think Monroe or Stephenson will get the max. Maybe I'm wrong, but teams can't afford to give those types of contracts to anyone but legit stars. Stephenson is not a star. Monroe is certainly not a star.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9038
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Chillbongo on Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:08 pm

Savory Griddles wrote:Easy to answer the bold part, and I thought I alluded to it by saying Kobe has been paid for his work. Kobe has been paid and the reason you pay another player that money rather than Kobe is because of what the players will provide during their contract. If Kobe's worth is 13 million, isn't a player like Lance Stephenson worth 10-12 at this point in his career? Who do you think has a better chance of fully realizing their contract over the next two years? The 24 yr old entering his prime or the 36 year old coming off of a season where he played less than ten games and is recovering from two injuries?


You're still addressing why Kobe DOESN'T DESERVE his deal. I'm not arguing that. I'm asking you why one should "take a pay cut" over another. Why a Laker legend should take less money when it doesn't really inhibit our chances to put together a team. For what Kobe has done for the franchise, the message it sends to players, and the fact that it is a 2 year deal.....it all checks out to me.

Also have you heard of back loaded contracts? We can offer someone the max, and back load the contract. Example. Greg Monroe's max is 4yr/$60M. Year 1: $12M Year 2: $14M Year 3:$16M Year 4: $18M

Savory Griddles wrote:As for the LBJ/Lowry/Monroe/Kobe team - LBJ 23, Lowry 8, Monroe 12, Kobe 12 = 55 million. The cap is supposed to be around 63. Add in Nash's stretch you have another 3 million so you are at 58. Sign a couple guys for two million each then vet minimum guys to fill it out. Do you think you would have trouble getting players like what we got this year to take the vets minimum with those guys? And that team would work well together I think. But whatever. it's all moot now.


I think that's a terrible team given that 3/4 of the starters need the ball in their hands to be effective. Also Monroe is getting the max. If he takes $12 in your scenario it's only to join a team of LBJ & Kobe. Which is highly unlikely to begin with. Monroe is looking to get paid. Lowry might roll with $8M but again only to join LBJ/Kobe/Monroe. He's worth $9-10M if 40 year old Steve Nash is. Still lets say your hypothetical (yet highly unlikely) scenario pans out. The cap should be about $63M. You listed those guys together at $55. Add another $2M for Sacre & Marshall. That's $57M. Which leaves us with $6M with only 6 guys on the roster. Problematic. Nash Stretch and we're at $60M. You get the idea.

We can get vet min guys but we're not going to get Jordan Hill's, Nick Young's and Jodie Meeks. Again this scenario playing out (LBJ/Kobe/Monroe/Lowry) is highly unlikely to begin with and the big sell is LeBron. If we get LeBron people will take all kinds of pay cuts anyways just to play with Kobe & LeBron. We can still sign LeBron outright, BTW.

Savory Griddles wrote:I'm not saying Kobe/max/max. I'm saying Kobe/max/solid player(Lowry)/real good player(Monroe). I personally don't think Monroe or Stephenson will get the max. Maybe I'm wrong, but teams can't afford to give those types of contracts to anyone but legit stars. Stephenson is not a star. Monroe is certainly not a star.


If you don't think Monroe or Stephenson are max players then we can definitely sign them both. In which case we are actually in agreement. I guess you just feel like we need to have LeBron as well to win a ring. I disagree. I think Kobe/max/LO-level player is a great core if we bring back a handful of our current guys. I also think the Lakers FO knows more about the free-agent market, new CBA, back-loaded contracts, and potential interested free-agent targets than us and I believe they had a plan when they offered Kobe the contract. Yes. Kobe is getting paid a handsome sum. More than I would have expected. It makes things look difficult on paper but I think they know how to do their job better than we do.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Carmelo Anthony: prefers Bulls over Lakers - Woj (6)

Postby Frank Dux on Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:35 pm

I can't believe people are still defending Kobe's next contract. That contract handicaps the franchise over the next following two seasons. I love Kobe, and everything he's done for the franchise, but I don't even think Lebron James deserves that kind of money in relation to the salary cap. Before you call me an idiot for saying that, Miami wouldn't be able to afford Bosh, AND Wade if Lebron is making 25 million a season, and we all know Lebron wouldn't have won without those two. This is the best player in the league we're talking about, let alone a 35 year old who's coming off of a very serious injury. It doesn't make any sense, and it's impossible to build a winner with a contract like that on the books in the current CBA.

You guys can say Kobe "deserved" that contract all you want. But I don't believe in handicapping my favorite franchise for a few years as his career winds down just to give Kobe a going away present at the expense of the team, and the fans.
User avatar
Frank Dux

 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.