Frank Dux wrote: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.
Chillbongo wrote: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: $18MSavory 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.
Savory Griddles wrote: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
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.
Barnstable wrote:My argument is that Kobe did exactly what every other NBA Super Star has done other than Duncan in taking a good contract offered to him. If you're going to blame Kobe, why don't you blame almost every single player in the NBA for not offering to take a reduced contract? If Kobe chose money over winning, then virtually every NBA player in history chose money over winning.
Rooscooter wrote:Barnstable wrote:My argument is that Kobe did exactly what every other NBA Super Star has done other than Duncan in taking a good contract offered to him. If you're going to blame Kobe, why don't you blame almost every single player in the NBA for not offering to take a reduced contract? If Kobe chose money over winning, then virtually every NBA player in history chose money over winning.
I see it this way for the most part. Where I differ is that I'm not sure we're a 6 or 7 million contract away from contending in Kobe's time remaining. FA just isn't the same under the new CBA. I don't see us getting back to that level in the term of this contract even if it had been for 15 million. I think we're that far away and even if we have the personnel (a remote possibility) it takes a year or two to gel as a team..... So that's 3 to 4 years from this off season at the earliest.
Could Carmelo Anthony rocket off to Houston?
According to a league source, the Rockets will make a bid for Anthony this summer, even though they probably won’t have cap space and would have to orchestrate a creative sign-and-trade. The source said Houston asked the Knicks about Anthony before February’s trade deadline.
The Knicks have held discussions with the Rockets about power forward Omer Asik. Even though Rockets president Daryl Morey is the pioneer of advanced statistics and Anthony has never fared well in some efficiency categories, Morey’s old-school instincts believe he could form a terrific Big 3 with Dwight Howard and James Harden. Rockets management also believes Anthony has made advancements in the grit department the past two seasons.
The only way the Rockets can get under the cap is by dealing the expiring contracts of Jeremy Lin, who is entering the poison-pill year of $15 million, and Asik, also scheduled to make $15 million.
But even if the Rockets don’t, a desperate Knicks team could take on Lin or Asik and draft picks if Phil Jackson doesn’t believe in building around Anthony. The Knicks still would be set for 2015’s free agency and Lin wold be a drawing card during a season the Knicks may want to tank and fall into the lottery.
Howard has been most outspoken in encouraging Anthony to consider smaller markets than New York, just like Howard did in eschewing Los Angeles. Plus, Anthony said he’s willing to take “a pay cut’’ — which would be less severe in Houston. There are no state income taxes in Texas.
Howard told USA Today last month the Big Apple is only good for a player’s brand if the team is winning.
“If you don’t win, you’re not going to get all the [off-court] stuff you want anyway,” Howard said. “I saw that last year [in Los Angeles]. I was in the biggest market for the NBA, and we lost, so those [companies] aren’t going to be coming to you for losing.
“When I was in Orlando, a small market, and we were winning. I was very popular with a lot of different deals on the table. So it’s more so about winning, and you’ve got to put yourself in a position to where you’re winning basketball games and you’re having fun doing it. Losing is not fun, and Melo wants to win.”
The Lakers, Clippers and Bulls are other potential destinations for Anthony, who said his “first priority’’ is to remain a Knick if he likes their future blueprint.
Weezy wrote:Melo and Harden trying to share one ball? Yeah good luck with that. Whatever though, as long as he doesn't come here.
Jerry Buss wrote:One of the biggest reasons I bought the Lakers was to beat the Celtics …..you just got it into your soul that you couldn't stand the Celtics anymore
pound4pound1 wrote:Weezy wrote:Melo and Harden trying to share one ball? Yeah good luck with that. Whatever though, as long as he doesn't come here.
i wanna see how much fun Dwight has with 4 touches a night
Savory Griddles wrote:pound4pound1 wrote:Weezy wrote:Melo and Harden trying to share one ball? Yeah good luck with that. Whatever though, as long as he doesn't come here.
i wanna see how much fun Dwight has with 4 touches a night
i wanna see how much fun Dwight has with 4 touches a night
wcsoldier81 wrote:Melo should go to Chicago ... that's the obvious choice for him B-Ball wise ... if you add a reliable scorer to the Bulls strong team D , they can contend in the East .
Overall any big name who currently plays in the Leastern would be crazy to go West ... this conference is and is going to be stacked for years ...
Houston ? It would be a disaster with their chucking threes/iso down the stretch offense ... AND little principles on D
kenzo wrote:^ Naw. I think Phil to NY will save us from the Melo mistake. Good job Jeanie ...
LTLakerFan wrote:Phil will just "Jedi" him. Carmelo won't be able to resist his power…..
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], TIME and 27 guests