2014-15 Official Lakers Season Thread, Vol: We Love Each Other

[senorroboto2k5]

About Lowry in the article:

At least Kyle Lowry was willing to go on record with his concerns about the Lakers. Here’s what Bleacher Report’s Jared Zwerling wrote:

In the case of the Lakers, Lowry was concerned because there wasn’t a coach in place, the structure of the team was unclear and winning right away didn’t seem likely.”

The only problem with Lowry’s statement is that he agreed to stay with the Raptors on the second day of free agency. I have a hard time believing that the Lakers would have been willing to offer him that much money or been willing to offer it on the first or second day of free agency. The Lakers were not going to make an offer to Lowry before getting answers from LeBron and Carmelo and those guys took their sweet time before announcing their decisions.

That means the roster too. The fact that the Lakers had room for another max contract isn't the end of it.

If the roster sucks, what good player is gonna wanna take the rest of the remaining money and play with a roster that sucks? That's what I mean by the extra money coming into play and increasing the chances of changing minds: grab another good player or two (doesn't have to be a second max guy) and bigger names might see the talent and potential, vs one that had an old Kobe/Nash, Sacre, and no coach.

The fact you can't name a player we didn't get because of it proves there's no real meat on the bone imo.

And you keep missing the point because you wanna discredit the argument/criticism.

It's useless to point out specific players. Then it gets into a mess of if the guy would've been a good fit, if he would've gotten the same $ from the Lakers, and a bunch of other **** that doesn't matter.

I don't need to name specific players to say that ~$35 million in cap space could do more than $28 or whatever the Lakers had this summer (on which specific players? I don't know, I haven't figured out how to look into alternate realities yet). I don't need to name specific players to say that the Lakers shouldn't have spent money needlessly like little kids who get allowance on the weekend and don't know what a savings account is.

The contract put a limit on what the Lakers can do. Limits make things tougher. That's my point.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

View media item 1206934

 

[mjsaver]

Good point bro but I understand the concept, it's not trigonometry more money for more players but the players didn't want us.

Kyle Lowry wasnt coming here, dude signed the second day of free agency so he knew exactly what he was gonna do.

Melo , Bron, Bosh wasnt coming and everybody else got overpaid imo....except Lance but I didn't trust him anyway dudes a loose cannon.

I really want IT but I was one of the few that did and still the contract didn't keep us from getting him.

So what you're saying is you wanted enough to sign another max player, AND a few other good pieces to go along with said player ?

Sounds a bit unrealistic imo

 

[MVP]

Kobe's contract is part of the problem, we can all agree on that, it isn't the sole or biggest problem going into this past free agency or into the future.

We literally didn't have anyone on the roster, no coach, or any type of direction. Those had more to do with the lack of movement in signing people and also some of the delusion of management that still believes the Laker brand is good enough to trump everything else. Different breed of players now, they have to change with the times, or even when Kobe is done or making a lot less after 2016, they still won't be able to pull the guys they want and are available.

Even if Kobe had shown that he could play at an elite level and not get injured again after coming off an Achilles injury, I think that could have helped a good bit in trying to get guys to come. But just too much uncertainty surrounding this franchise to expect any kind of splash the next couple years. We have to hope the young guys we have develop and there's some semblance of a turnaround to entice guys to want to come here.

 

[senorroboto2k5]

So what you're saying is you wanted enough to sign another max player, AND a few other good pieces to go along with said player ?

Sounds a bit unrealistic imo

Not exactly. For this summer specifically, I just didn't want anything that set us back anymore. I think they did that - this year's product isn't that great, but they didn't put us further into Knicks territory.

The Lowry example - he signed quick but who knows if a better built Lakers roster (while still offering him the same $) would've changed his mind. There would have been a better chance based on his quote, which is my gripe. And that's not to say I wanted Lowry or thought he would've been a key guy, just the effect the KB contract can have.

 

[pumpfake]

i hate nick young so ******* much. his best friend scammed my friend outta $2500 too on those stupid red october yeezy 2s. so **** em

 You have to elaborate on this. So Nick Young got someone to scam your friend for those red shoes that got stolen from him anyway 

??? 

So it was your friend who robbed it. It all makes sense.

 

[pmatic]

Having cap space =/= Using it on FAs

Could have used that extra cap space for another Lin-like trade to stockpile assets.

 

[pmatic]

For those that missed the training camp yesterday.

 

[CP1708]

Having cap space =/= Using it on FAs

Could have used that extra cap space for another Lin-like trade to stockpile assets.

Ding, ding, ding.

 

[kingjaffejo]

But none of you guys know that...
I keep seeing you guys say we coulda used the money for this...we coulda used the money for that...
But in all reality you just don't know. It's easy for you to sit in front of a computer screen and make guesses on what the salary could of been used for in different imaginary transactions

 

[pmatic]

Well, yeah. None of us are sitting with Mitch and Jim everyday. I (I am not speaking for anyone else) am just saying the more flexibility, the better.

 

[grandtheftbike]

Mitch with the chubbies

He's a bro

33:51 - ~35:00

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

[sea manup]

But none of you guys know that...
I keep seeing you guys say we coulda used the money for this...we coulda used the money for that...
But in all reality you just don't know. It's easy for you to sit in front of a computer screen and make guesses on what the salary could of been used for in different imaginary transactions

its not so much saying we could have used money for this or that, no one here actually knows what the FO wants to spend money on

but the difference between kobes current contract and one where he would take less money is simply having that extra money to spend (or not spend)

and extra money/cap space is never a bad thing

you can argue all day about how much of a difference it would have made but you cant argue that we would not be better off if he took a bigger paycut

the main issue here is that the front office gave him that contract, making him the highest player in the NBA when the FO had all the leverage, just not a smart business decision 

 

[mjsaver]

Actually it was a very smart business decision because Kobe is basically the MJ of this generation and why take the risk of insulting him with a lowball offer and he leaves for another team, it's highly unlikely but why take the chance.

It was a great business decision because as bad as we were the Lakers still made ridiculous money last year, that contract was a drop in the bucket....they're printing money because of the culture that he's been a part of for almost 20 years.

If Kobe was to leave that team would lose value without a doubt, staples would be a ghost town....people don't buy season tickets to watch cap space run up and down the court they wanna see the legend even if he isn't what he once was.

It hurt them in the sense they couldn't form a super team with multiple max players and good role players.

But money is the bottom line, and they're going to continue selling out staples and making ridiculous cash until he retires and that can't be argued.

Pay Kobe 20 mill to keep making 100 mill year in year out, seems like an easy decision business wise....of course a lotta gm fans don't like it because it limits the dream scenarios they can dream up which are longshots anyway.

You don't risk 100s of millions for flexibility and the chance to sign other players...on the court it hurt but in the bank account no freakin way.

 

[CP1708]

Well then let's sign 40 year old Kobe for 15 million a year and keep printing money.......

Cuz that's what matters.

 

[sea manup]

only way kobe leaves is to go to a championship team and no championship team is paying him more than 14 mil a year

there was no way kobe would ever leave unless he was okay with taking a HUGE paycut

kobe had no leverage in the situation

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

There is still about 3 weeks left until the season starts. Maybe if we discuss this enough kobe will restructure his contract and lebron/melo will default on their deals in order to sign with the lakers

 

[pdino]

Here's the Lakers contract situation: http://hoopshype.com/salaries/la_lakers.htm

This year they're using up 73 mil in Cap. Next year Lin (15 mil), Nash (10 mil), others (booze 3.25 mil) are the big ones that are up and they're slated to use 36 mil if no one is signed next year.

After next year (2 years), and Kobes contract is up, the only two people under contract are Julius randle and Nick young totaling 8.5 million. This is where the Lakers will have tons of flexibility.

I think it would be good game-plan to tank, get a top pick, pick up a great rook. Sign em to rookie contract.

Randle with two years of experience, one top draft pick with a year of experience, and nick young to be under contract with huge cap-space in two years.

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Welcome to the thread pdino

 

[pdino]

Welcome to the thread @Pdino

Thank you sir. I could be tarred and feathered for my first post suggesting tanking 

 

[mjsaver]

Well then let's sign 40 year old Kobe for 15 million a year and keep printing money.......

Cuz that's what matters.

I'm not even saying they should do that, I don't think they should.....I'm just speaking from the money side which is what business is all about.

To call it a bad business decision when they're reaping truckloads of money right after doesn't make sense, a bad business deal will lose money not make money.

only way kobe leaves is to go to a championship team and no championship team is paying him more than 14 mil a year

there was no way kobe would ever leave unless he was okay with taking a HUGE paycut

kobe had no leverage in the situation

Obviously he did, superstars run sports and even tho Kobe's old he's still a superstar so he definitely had some leverage.....they started Jodie Meeks while he was hurt....without Kobe they had absolutely nothing.

I like to deal in facts not speculation , there's no way you know for sure where Kobe would go or who would offer him a contract...these owners are nuts with cash Dirk was offered a max contract by two other teams and he's old as dirt too

Maybe he didn't have the leverage he's used to have, but to say he didn't have ANY leverage is going to far imo.

 

[CP1708]

You're confusing the two.

Business of making money is not the same as business of winning basketball.

The Los Angeles Lakers are SUPPOSED to be about winning championships. Kobe, is SUPPOSED to be about winning championships.

I get Kobe taking the money in his final days, I understand him maxing his career earnings.

So from the Laker side, to say, eh, no big, we suck, we'll just waste potentially getting a top 3 pick AND waste two more years by taking almost 35% of their cap on a 36-37 year old player who was coming off a huge injury..........

To print money.

Cuz that matters.

Good for Jim's wallet. Terrible for the franchise maintaining their image of doing anything and everything to win Championships.

 

[mjsaver]

I don't think I'm confusing the two at all, teams wanna make money first and win secondly otherwise they'd be knee deep in the luxury tax year in and year out signing whoever they could to get a ring. Those penalties are hefty so they're bad for business and owners want no parts of that every year.

Since when do you care about the Lakers image ?

If you had it your way they'd lose every game for 3/4 years and be the laughing stock of the league , that can't be good for their image can it ?

The Lakers image is excellence and winning so tanking would ruin that too, can't have it both ways.....can't run around screaming tank tank tank and then talk about maintaining an image of winning championships.

Not saying your theory is wrong , it's just not consistent with their image either.

 

[grandtheftbike]

CHRIS MIHM

 

[CP1708]

True, but tanking can acquire the type of resource you need to win titles. (If done right)

I don't want to lose games for enjoyment, I want the assets it provides.

Spending needless money on an old injured guy is wasting money, resources, and as we've been saying, potential other moves.

There can be an on court benefit to tanking. No real on court benefit to paying the 37 year old. (Lest we forget paying the 40 year old 10 million as well)