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

[daprescription]

I get what you're saying. My thing, I'm sure Duncan went to the Spurs and told them he wants to win. As a Warriors fan, I actually love the deal. He should've got more .

 

[grandtheftbike]

if only |I

 

[licensed to ball]

I feel you, but Duncan is not Kobe, though.

Duncan didn't bring in a multi BILLION dollar tv deal for his franchise.

Kobe did.

(You can say the "Lakers" brought that in, but be real. Without Kobe's impact
And Championships there would be no multi billion dollar contract signed).

Kobe's monetary value to the Lakers franchise exceeds Duncan's to the Spurs by 100's of MILLIONS of dollars.

Fact.

 

[licensed to ball]

And before anyone misinterprets that as
Me liking the move, I don't.

I just say that to show comparing Duncan's situation to Kobe's is comparing apples to oranges.

The two guys are both winners, but it's obvious whose financial impact has been much larger for their city/franchise.

San Antonio isn't LA.

The Lakers can throw this (stupid) contract at Kobe, the spurs couldn't even if they wanted to.

Two different financial climates.

But still. Mitch and Jim are idiots for not even attempting to negotiate even the slightest.

 

[noblekane]

If Kobe cared about another ring he would've taken a contract similar to Tim Duncan. I blame Vanessa . I may actually be the only Warriors fan that doesn't hate the Lakers .

The only warrior fan i get along with lol

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

besides myself

 

[grandtheftbike]

the warrior fans i get along with

 

[HEATHEN]

I feel you, but Duncan is not Kobe, though.

Duncan didn't bring in a multi BILLION dollar tv deal for his franchise.

Kobe did.

(You can say the "Lakers" brought that in, but be real. Without Kobe's impact
And Championships there would be no multi billion dollar contract signed).

Kobe's monetary value to the Lakers franchise exceeds Duncan's to the Spurs by 100's of MILLIONS of dollars.

Fact.

Nah bro, that was the Laker faithful who acted as a catalyst for that TWENTY YEAR deal, not Kobe.



Sure he played a role, absolutely. But the bigger picture is that the WE, the Lakers constituency, the paying public fueled that deal.

 

[licensed to ball]

We were able to FUEL it because of the winning culture.

You really think if 09' and 10' didn't result in rings we would of still been able to fuel the same exact 20 year multi billion dollar deal?

C'mon bro.

Of course there are other factors as well, but without those 3 straight finals trips that would of been a vastly different deal.

You really think Time Warner woulda shelled out BILLIONS for an era of Smush, Luke, Kwame, Meeks, Ryan Kelly, and Swaggy P on their television network???.........

 

[CP1708]

It is absolutely true that Kobe brings a TON of revenue to LA, moreso than Duncan does the Spurs, that is true.

So?


Duncan and his Spurs are still in the mix BECAUSE of his deal, and Kobe (and ownership) have now SUNK their chances at doing the same for another couple years.


Both of them were equally stupid. And I won't forgive either one of them for it.

 

[HEATHEN]

We were able to FUEL it because of the winning culture.

You really think if 09' and 10' didn't result in rings we would of still been able to fuel the same exact 20 year multi billion dollar deal?

C'mon bro.

Of course there are other factors as well, but without those 3 straight finals trips that would of been a vastly different deal.

You really think they woulda shelled out BILLIONS for an era of Smush, Luke, Kwame, Meeks, Ryan Kelly, and Swaggy P???.........

Yes I do think we would've been able to get that deal, maybe for a little less but still we would've gotten it.


Why? Because it's not about championships it's about money.


It's about cornering the market and keeping the competition (Fox Sports West and KCAL-TV) away.


And what era? You just mentioned a hodgepodge of guys from different eras. Guys like Meeks, Kelly and Swaggy P Nicholas Young are likely gone at seasons end. And Kobe will be gone soon too, unfortunately.


That winning culture you speak of Kobe didn't create, he was apart of it. It's Lakers tradition. You honestly believe if Kobe never existed we wouldn't have made moves to bring in championship-caliber talents? You think when Kobe's gone that winning culture tradition will end? I think not.

 

[noblekane]

Only way kobe gonna get a 6th ring is if he coaching lol

 

[HEATHEN]

And another thing @licensed to ball


losing seasons do little to slow mega market teams' earning power, case in point? The NY Knickerbockers.

 

[licensed to ball]

We were able to FUEL it because of the winning culture.

You really think if 09' and 10' didn't result in rings we would of still been able to fuel the same exact 20 year multi billion dollar deal?

C'mon bro.

Of course there are other factors as well, but without those 3 straight finals trips that would of been a vastly different deal.

You really think they woulda shelled out BILLIONS for an era of Smush, Luke, Kwame, Meeks, Ryan Kelly, and Swaggy P???.........

Yes I do think we would've been able to get that deal, maybe for a little less but still we would've gotten it.


Why? Because it's not about championships it's about money.


It's about cornering the market and keeping the competition (Fox Sports West and KCAL-TV) away.


And what era? You just mentioned a hodgepodge of guys from different eras. Guys like Meeks, Kelly and Swaggy P Nicholas Young are likely gone at seasons end. And Kobe will be gone soon too, unfortunately.

That winning culture you speak of Kobe didn't create, he was apart of it. It's Lakers tradition.

Okay I see your point.
You make sense.

However, when you say the deal would of been a "little less", my point is a "little less" when you're negotiating is in the realm of billions of dollars in reality is a LOT of money.


There's a difference in saying "it's just a little less" when you compare 9 dollars to 10 dollars than when you compare 900 million dollars to 1 billion dollars.

That "little less" when you talk television economics is still at least 100 Million Dollars.

If that is the difference Kobe makes (which is putting it lightly, because I think it was far
More than 1/10th of a difference he made),
Then obviously offering 48 Million out of an extra 100 million in profit is something they feel comfortable doing.

It's not something San Antonio would be able to do for someone at that stage in career.

That "little less" in tv economics
Is still a **** ton of money. That's mostly what I'm saying

Does my point make sense?

 

[HEATHEN]

Okay I see your point.
You make sense.

However, when you say the deal would of been a "little less", my point is a "little less" when you're negotiating is in the realm of billions of dollars in reality is a LOT of money.


There's a difference in saying "it's just a little less" when you compare 9 dollars to 10 dollars than when you compare 900 million dollars to 1 billion dollars.

That "little less" when you talk television economics is still at least 100 Million Dollars.

If that is the difference Kobe makes (which is putting it lightly, because I think it was far
More than 1/10th of a difference he made),
Then obviously offering 48 Million out of an extra 100 million in profit is something they feel comfortable doing for someone whose helped them profit far more than Duncan has for San Antonio.

Does my point make sense?

it does but then one can argue that had he taken less money, the revenue produced from an extended playoff run, a possible championship run. the city's income from a possible championship parade and the tourism that would bring in would negate that difference.

 

[CP1708]

Your idea about the money makes sense, except when talking about a Salary Cap.

If there was no cap, you could pay Kobe 500 million for 2 years, no harm, no foul.

When you have a cap, and restrictions on that cap, past that cap, etc, you tied one arm behind your back, while trying to play basketball.

That is unwise.

 

[licensed to ball]

Okay I see your point.
You make sense.

However, when you say the deal would of been a "little less", my point is a "little less" when you're negotiating is in the realm of billions of dollars in reality is a LOT of money.


There's a difference in saying "it's just a little less" when you compare 9 dollars to 10 dollars than when you compare 900 million dollars to 1 billion dollars.

That "little less" when you talk television economics is still at least 100 Million Dollars.

If that is the difference Kobe makes (which is putting it lightly, because I think it was far
More than 1/10th of a difference he made),
Then obviously offering 48 Million out of an extra 100 million in profit is something they feel comfortable doing for someone whose helped them profit far more than Duncan has for San Antonio.

Does my point make sense?

it does but then one can argue that had he taken less money, the revenue produced from an extended playoff run, a possible championship run. the city's income from a possible championship parade and the tourism that would bring in would negate that difference.

One could definitely argue that,
And I would agree with that.

Both you and CP need to know I am not DEFENDING the deal by any means.

I'm on the same page as you guys on that it's really hurting our chances to win in the near future.

When it comes to the deal, there's nothing about it that I personally feel comfortable with and Kobe is my favorite player of all time. I hate the contract. I hate that it was offered so fast, I hate that it was accepted so fast, I hate that it happened period.

I'm just saying economically it's "understandable" why they Lakers feel so comfortable making such an offer.

Is it smart however? Absolutely not,
IMO. Not if you want to win basketball games now.

Economically? Maybe so.
Maybe it makes them a **** ton of money for 2 more years, maybe like Jerry Jones that's all they care about right now.

But not many of us are happy with it,
It's not smart if they wanted to win.
I'm just explaining that it's not comparable to Duncan's situation.

 

[HEATHEN]

One could definitely argue that,
And I would agree with that.

I'm on the same page as you on that.

When it comes to the deal, there's nothing about it that I personally feel comfortable with and Kobe is my favorite player of all time. I hate the contract. I hate that it was offered so fast, I hate that it was accepted so fast, I hate that it happened period.

I'm just saying economically it's "understandable" why they Lakers feel so comfortable making such an offer.

Is it smart however? Absolutely not,
IMO. Not if you want to win basketball games now.

Economically? Maybe so.

But not many of us are happy with it,
I'm just explaining that it's not comparable to Duncan's situation.

oh well yeah I mean economically it makes sense. Kobe will remain arguably the most marketable player in the NBA until he retires and will act as a stopgap while the Lakers rebuild.


I will say this about TImmay, the man pretty much put the Spurs on the map. I think we're underestimating his impact here. Had he not created a dynasty the Spurs being in the market they play in could've very well ended up as a team that would've inevitably been moved to a bigger market.

I don't think Peter Holt would hesitate to put Duncan in the same category as Kobe for that reason. He's the greatest PF of all-time, a two time MVP and a member of all four of their championship teams.

If Kobe never existed the Lakers would still be one of the league's most storied franchises. We'd still have a wealth of championships, legends and special memories.


Tim Duncan personifies Spurs basketball. Small-market or not, because of his exploits the Spurs are here to stay for the long-term. Financially, that's huge.

 

[CP1708]

I hear ya LTB, I agree.

Tim Duncan personifies Spurs basketball. Small-market or not, because of his exploits the Spurs are here to stay for the long-term. Financially, that's huge.

Yeah, no.

 

[kal-el-8]

 

[HEATHEN]

I hear ya LTB, I agree.
Yeah, no.

can I get a more valid rebuttal than "yeah, no"?


that's weak bro.

 

[licensed to ball]

HEATHEN no disagreement with most of that.
Obviously the financial value isn't nearly the same.

However.

When you think Spurs basketball you definitely think Timmy. He's appreciated.
I hated what he did to us in the playoffs a few years but I always respected him.

Following back on my point, I truly believe the Spurs would of been more than happy to give Tim a lot more then that 13 mil per year contract if they could.
If they had the same type of tv deal or income as the Lakers do, whose to say they wouldn't of sat there and given Tim 48 million? Maybe they wouldn't have cared about their cap if they were making Laker type money.
Maybe they would of told Tim "don't short sell yourself Tim, take the money you deserve it all" if they could of like Mitch did for Kobe.

Who knows?

Sneaker are you a Laker fan? You should post more frequently i enjoyed reading your points. I can tell you know your NBA basketball. stick around and discuss with us more often.

 

[CP1708]

I hear ya LTB, I agree.
Yeah, no.

can I get a more valid rebuttal than "yeah, no"?


that's weak bro.

Spurs are not "here for the long term" as you put it. When the Pop-Duncan-Parker sun sets, they will fall by the wayside quicker than ****.

And financially, even with those dudes, they have not become some value monster, or money making machine either. They are soundly run, smart ownership, and stay within their strengths, but they are not going to be around for 30-40-50 years like us or Boston or New York etc.

They will wilt away, unless they land another transcendent star, along with a transcendent coach in the near future.

What you are saying/believing is the equivalent to me saying that OKC will be around for ever and ever because Kevin Durant is great. When he leaves, unless they replace his *** with an equal talent, OKC will become the Bobcats.

 

[HEATHEN]

HEATHEN no disagreement there.

When you think Spurs basketball you definitely think Timmy. He's appreciated.
I hated what he did to us in the playoffs a few years but I always respected him.

Following back on my point, I truly believe the Spurs would of been more than happy to give Tim a lot more then that 13 mil per year contract if they could.
If they had the same type of tv deal or income as the Lakers do, whose to say they wouldn't of sat there and given Tim 48 million? Maybe they wouldn't have cared about their cap if they were making Laker type money.
Maybe they would of told Tim "don't short sell yourself Tim, take the money you deserve it all" if they could of like Mitch did for Kobe.

Who knows?

Sneaker are you a Laker fan? You should post more frequently i enjoyed reading your points. I can tell you know your NBA basketball. stick around and discuss with us more often.

You make a great point, if the Spurs had the market-share the Lakers do, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to think he'd command the same type of money as Kobe.


But all I'm saying is that given the current Laker situation, Kobe's injury concerns and age, I feel like this was a stopgap move. To give us something to believe in while the Lakers rebuild. I'm skeptical of Jim & Mitch's motives here. I'm not so certain the idea here is to build a championship team around Kobe during these two contract years. I don't honestly believe we'll be in the hunt for a superstar at this time.


Maybe after those two years are over we'll take a run at Kevin Love or Russell Westbrook, but that has more to do with the young talent we bring in during the next couple years instead of Kobe.


The Spurs on the other hand can very well challenge for a championship, and if they do land Danny Granger, that possibility only goes up. So I don't think if the Spurs were in a similarly sized market they'd ever even offer Timmay such a contract, because they're legitimate contenders.


Lakers? Reality is we're not.





And yeah I'm a Lakers fan, I'll try to post more often I just often spend a lot of time in General. I enjoyed this conversation with you as well bro.

 

[menacin methods]

I hear ya LTB, I agree.
Yeah, no.

can I get a more valid rebuttal than "yeah, no"?


that's weak bro.

Spurs are not "here for the long term" as you put it. When the Pop-Duncan-Parker sun sets, they will fall by the wayside quicker than ****.

And financially, even with those dudes, they have not become some value monster, or money making machine either. They are soundly run, smart ownership, and stay within their strengths, but they are not going to be around for 30-40-50 years like us or Boston or New York etc.

They will wilt away, unless they land another transcendent star, along with a transcendent coach in the near future.

What you are saying/believing is the equivalent to me saying that OKC will be around for ever and ever because Kevin Durant is great. When he leaves, unless they replace his *** with an equal talent, OKC will become the Bobcats.

Chad P got a point!

 

[HEATHEN]

Spurs are not "here for the long term" as you put it. When the Pop-Duncan-Parker sun sets, they will fall by the wayside quicker than ****.

And financially, even with those dudes, they have not become some value monster, or money making machine either. They are soundly run, smart ownership, and stay within their strengths, but they are not going to be around for 30-40-50 years like us or Boston or New York etc.

They will wilt away, unless they land another transcendent star, along with a transcendent coach in the near future.

What you are saying/believing is the equivalent to me saying that OKC will be around for ever and ever because Kevin Durant is great. When he leaves, unless they replace his *** with an equal talent, OKC will become the Bobcats.

It's not realistic to believe the Spurs will suddenly fall apart in one fell swoop.


Parker is aging well and I believe will remain effective as he approaches his mid-30s.

Kawhi has all the potential in the world.

Mike Budenholzer could very well succeed Popovich once Popovich follows Duncan into retirement. Doubt he'd re-up with the Hawks if a Spurs HC job opened up.


And my point is this, because of TImmay the Spurs as a franchise are here to stay. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be relevant but because of the 4 rings he helped bring in, they'll be a lot harder to move to a bigger market.


And that financially is immensely relevant for the Spurs & Peter Holt. He's not a multi-billionaire, he's a millionaire owner of the Spurs. IF not for Timmay the Spurs would've eventually been bought & moved.

You're talking about a small market team with an owner whose net is is just north of 200 million. Tim Duncan is the reason the Spurs are relevant in the long-term, you can't say that about the Mamba. Lakers will be here no matter what.


Thank you for expanding on your stance however.