[:: LAKERS 2014 THREAD | POLL: Who Should Coach Next Year? ::]

grandtheftbike · Feb 25, 2014

Jimmer is :x

cc: king fans

licensed to ball · Feb 25, 2014

Ska stop holding a grudge. :lol

Seaman. You're funny. But I don't know why, I don't see you as "man up" like others.

I'll always see you as seaman.

View media item 824981

sea manup · Feb 25, 2014

LiCeNseD To BaLL said:
Ska stop holding a grudge.

Seaman. You're funny. But I don't know why, I don't see you as "man up" like others.

I'll always see you as seaman.

thats kind of what i was going for

but "sea man" is already taken in every website i sign up with

just leave swallow out of this!

BIG LEEMELONE · Feb 25, 2014

If the Lakers have a chance to add a player that puts them over the top, they aren't gonna let the tax stop them. and if it does I will gladly say I was wrong. The TimeWarner deal alone covers like 90% of roster expenses for the next 20 years

History tells us the Lakers will never embrace tanking.

Maybe for a year or two they can stomach a bad season that results in a lottery pick. But too much of the team's brand is based on always fielding teams that have a chance to win, or at least trying to.

That's harder to do under the terms of the NBA's new collective bargaining agreement, which uses stiff financial penalties to dissuade teams from building through free agency.

But there are ways for teams to work around those constraints if they are willing to bear the financial burden. Just ask Yankees fans who spent two years listening to management stress the importance of getting below the $189 million payroll threshold to avoid exorbitant luxury taxes, only to see them drop $155 million on Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka on Wednesday.

Two years of responsible restraint is all the Yankees could bear before they went on a $491 million spending spree this offseason to prove they could still bigfoot the rest of baseball.

"This is an exclamation point that's been made today that our work was not complete or finished in terms of trying to put in a team that people could at least talk about having a shot to take a run at qualifying for the playoffs and playing into October," Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said after the Tanaka signing.

Who knows if Tanaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann and Carlos Beltran will be enough to get the Yankees back into the World Series? But they were enough to make the Yankees seem like the Yankees again.

That's really what this moment is about for the Lakers, too. Their model of team building may be challenging under the new CBA. It may even be outdated. Perhaps they will have to do things differently in the future to contend for championships again. But their brand must always remain strong. Seasons can be lost, but losing is unacceptable.

darthska · Feb 25, 2014

sea manup said:
LiCeNseD To BaLL said:

Ska stop holding a grudge.

Seaman. You're funny. But I don't know why, I don't see you as "man up" like others.

I'll always see you as seaman.

Click to expand...

thats kind of what i was going for

but "sea man" is already taken in every website i sign up with

Even the dating sites?

I have a grudge against you, too.

lovehateself · Feb 25, 2014

just saw the thread name change

sea manup · Feb 25, 2014

no need for dating sites here

canadian women come pre-bagged

senorroboto2k5 · Feb 25, 2014

leemelone said:
If the Lakers have a chance to add a player that puts them over the top, they aren't gonna let the tax stop them. and if it does I will gladly say I was wrong. The TimeWarner deal alone covers like 90% of roster expenses for the next 20 years

History tells us the Lakers will never embrace tanking.

Maybe for a year or two they can stomach a bad season that results in a lottery pick. But too much of the team's brand is based on always fielding teams that have a chance to win, or at least trying to.

That's harder to do under the terms of the NBA's new collective bargaining agreement, which uses stiff financial penalties to dissuade teams from building through free agency.

But there are ways for teams to work around those constraints if they are willing to bear the financial burden. Just ask Yankees fans who spent two years listening to management stress the importance of getting below the $189 million payroll threshold to avoid exorbitant luxury taxes, only to see them drop $155 million on Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka on Wednesday.

Two years of responsible restraint is all the Yankees could bear before they went on a $491 million spending spree this offseason to prove they could still bigfoot the rest of baseball.

"This is an exclamation point that's been made today that our work was not complete or finished in terms of trying to put in a team that people could at least talk about having a shot to take a run at qualifying for the playoffs and playing into October," Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said after the Tanaka signing.

Who knows if Tanaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann and Carlos Beltran will be enough to get the Yankees back into the World Series? But they were enough to make the Yankees seem like the Yankees again.

That's really what this moment is about for the Lakers, too. Their model of team building may be challenging under the new CBA. It may even be outdated. Perhaps they will have to do things differently in the future to contend for championships again. But their brand must always remain strong. Seasons can be lost, but losing is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

If they are ever in a position where they have a good team but need another piece... I agree.

Like if they were the Nets this year and had a trade exception, they wouldn't mind using it either (Mitch would probably demand picks like Billy King though

)

But we still gotta get there. The luxury tax is just one restriction teams face in building a team (and one they can choose to pay). Other things like the normal salary cap threshold stop teams from spending whatever they want, even if they have all the extra dough from TWC.

darthska · Feb 25, 2014

sea manup said:
no need for dating sites here

canadian women come pre-bagged

CP1708 · Feb 25, 2014

That article and his point has literally zero bearing on the point.

IF it would put us over the top, buy someone. Sure, no question.

When you are THIRTY games under .500, and can get under the tax to reset the values, you do that.

Paying "10 million" on a 5 million dollar deal is easy.
Paying "20 million" on a 5 million dollar deal is tougher.
Paying "50 million" on a 5 million dollar deal is getting pretty stupid.

And so on.

You can reset the tax when you clearly aren't a good team? You do that, 100 out of 100.

The point is, it will help in 3-4-5-6 years when you hope to be good again. Helps lower the impact a future 5 million dollar contract you may need to put you over the top.

Zero, and I do mean zero reason to carry over the tax threshold for expiring vets when you are a last place team. Key word, expiring.

If Pau, Kaman, Hill were all 3 year deals, fine, don't "give away".

28 ******* games, in last place, ZERO reason to carry their tax penalty. None.

That article had no idea what the hell the issue is.

senorroboto2k5 · Feb 25, 2014

Plus, that article is comparing the Lakers (in a league with a salary cap) to the Yankees (in a league without a salary cap). Both have luxury tax thresholds, but the Lakers just can't decide to spend that amount if they want to put a winner out on the court. The salary cap really limits them from outspending everyone else, unless it's on their own players.

I have a feeling that's the Shelburne or Kevin Ding article from a few weeks back. Blocked it out of my mind.

BIG LEEMELONE · Feb 25, 2014

it's just like the old CBA, if you have cap space sign who you want. only now it's a harsher tax. the way you "work around" the repeater tax, besides avoiding it, is to pay it.

everyone was saying shelbourne is the Lakers mouthpiece. if so then that article was a sign of things to come

lovehateself · Feb 25, 2014

no swaggy p for the roadtrip.

bazemore will start at the 3

senorroboto2k5 · Feb 25, 2014

If they have the cap space they don't need to worry about any taxes. The luxury tax threshold is well above the salary cap threshold.

Once they hit the salary cap threshold, they can only choose to go above it to re-sign their own players with Bird rights (or with minimum contracts). At that point they'll begin coming close to the tax line.

So if the Lakers want to spend (they do), they first need to get their players, then start spending on re-signing their players to jump back over the salary cap threshold.

everyone was saying shelbourne is the Lakers mouthpiece. if so then that article was a sign of things to come

Or it was just a PR spin. It's still misguided.

pmatic · Feb 25, 2014

The playing field ain't leveled anymore.

But I guess you could argue it was never leveled to begin with.

freeze · Feb 25, 2014

can we get jabari? write a scenario where we can get him?

BIG LEEMELONE · Feb 25, 2014

I'm with you on that. but it comes down to this

If they are ever in a position where they have a good team but need another piece... I agree.

senorroboto2k5 · Feb 25, 2014

OK. I don't think anyone doubts they'll pay whatever they need to... if they're even close to being a competitive team.

That dumb article just sidetracked me. It's going to be a long process before the team even gets to that point.

sea manup · Feb 25, 2014

Freeze said:
can we get jabari? write a scenario where we can get him?

lose every game from now till the end of the season

CP1708 · Feb 25, 2014

Freeze said:
can we get jabari? write a scenario where we can get him?

Lose the rest of our games, and try to enter the top 3 of the draft.

Get the #1, draft him.
Get the #2, hope someone takes Wiggins or Embiid, then you can draft him
Get the #3, hope someone takes Wiggins AND Embiid, then you can draft him.

If you fall outside the top 3, hope for a D Rose type come up like what the Bulls had, or even the Blazers the year they won the lottery and passed on Durant.

Even the Clippers, when they landed the #1 pick, but had to hand it over to the Cavs because they traded for Mo Williams. Cavs landed Kyrie.

BIG LEEMELONE · Feb 25, 2014

SenorRoboto2k5 said:
OK. I don't think anyone doubts they'll pay whatever they need to... if they're even close to being a competitive team.

That dumb article just sidetracked me. It's going to be a long process before the team even gets to that point.

I can't tell what people are mad about anymore. If/when they get to that point and add a piece that ends up leading to a title and causes a huge tax bill, why should I care? If they end up keeping Pau/Hill, it's better to have their bird rights, no?

licensed to ball · Feb 25, 2014

CP whose you're choice at this moment if we were to be at 4 And Embiid, Wiggins, Parker were gone?

CP1708 · Feb 25, 2014

SenorRoboto2k5 said:
If they have the cap space they don't need to worry about any taxes. The luxury tax threshold is well above the salary cap threshold.

Once they hit the salary cap threshold, they can only choose to go above it to re-sign their own players with Bird rights (or with minimum contracts). At that point they'll begin coming close to the tax line.

So if the Lakers want to spend (they do), they first need to get their players, then start spending on re-signing their players to jump back over the salary cap threshold.

everyone was saying shelbourne is the Lakers mouthpiece. if so then that article was a sign of things to come

Click to expand...

Or it was just a PR spin. It's still misguided.

The real irony in all of this is, you fall off for 2-3-4 years and acquire as many picks as possible, and hope to land multiple top 5 picks.

That way, you can pay those pieces3-4 years down the line, with Bird rights, and manage thru all cap situations because you were wise enough to pay them their low rookie deals, and then extend them within the rules the CBA allows.

Do we focus on that, and enhance the biggest asset we've had since 1996?

Nope.