Official NBA 2012-2013 Season Thread
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by Spectacular23,
- Start date
- Status
- Nov 18, 2007
- 28,107
- 9,248
I mean I dont think he would make it back for the start of the 2013-14 season, and dont think it would be advisable to rush his return. This type of injury is a DEVASTATING basketball injury. The fact that its Kobe makes Laker fans believe he can rush back. Thats not the case with this type of injury. The 6-9 month timetable is extremely optimistic.
It would be best for LA to amnesty him. The Kobe coming back in 6-9 months would NOT be the same Kobe that would come back after sitting out a year. Look at the history of players who came back from this injury....and look at the history of those who rushed it back. It doesnt end well. The Lakers could either their cap/luxury tax situation, or just sign a few players to make their roster better. THAT would make LA better. Dont see how thats even debatable.
Already explained this. It would be better for Kobe to sit out a year than to rush back. I dont see how this is debatable either.
Add that all up, 3 smiley faces.
Couldnt be more wrong about the bolded. I hate the Lakers, but I love Kobe and hope he wins another ring before he retires. As far as the rest of this goes, yes, we are talking about ONE season. How does that change anything I wrote? Assuming the Lakers would use the $30M, that would free up with Kobe salary not counting against the cap, on other players, the Lakers would be better than either wasting the $30M on Kobe who either cant play, or cant play close to the level he was at.
It doesnt have to be a huge PR hit. And I also disagree that you would be "treating your franchise player like that (poorly)." What if Kobe agrees this was the best thing for the team? What if the Lakers positioned it like it was a mutually agreed upon decision? Thats NOT a huge PR hit. They can be totally up front about it and say that Kobe will be back on the Lakers on the 2014-15 season.
Remember Dan Gilbert lookin stupid the way he **** all over LeBron? Everyone asked, what played would want to sign up and play for that douchebag of an owner? Well, same thing here. 17 years, and with 1 year left on his contract, the Lakers just cut their losses so they can save some money after signing a 3 billion dollar tv deal a few months ago?
BILLION. 3, BILLION.
But hey, let's cut one of our greatest players of all time after one of his greatest seasons when we know he will kill hisself to get back on our court, and make us another 75 million dollars next season like he has done the last decade.
Yeah.
Totally missing the point here. Its not about cutting Kobe for the sake of cutting him. Its for improving your team so that when Kobe IS ready to play, it he will be inserted onto a better team than he left. And your Dan Gilbert comparison isnt even in the same ballpark.
Why does it need to be for multiple seasons? Why cant they use it to help themselves out for ONE season?
The Lakers are not hurting for cash. But hey, what do I know, I only follow every move they make every single day, you all probably know better than I.
No the Lakers arent hurting for cash. I understand that. But assuming that the Lakers arent willing to just pass out blank checks, everything I wrote makes sense. And if it is positioned the correct way, the biggest issue (a PR hit), could be completely avoided.
- Dec 9, 2002
- 34,655
- 28,013
Although they didn't make the playoffs, I respect the Mavs for banding together and keeping the promise as a team. Dirk was looking like a real deal caveman.
- Feb 22, 2007
- 20,236
- 4,229
I dont think Kobe would be happy if he got amnestied by the Lakers
I dont think he'd come back to them, I think he'd go to best possible western contender for less money just so he could screw the Lakers for basically cutting him
I dont think he'd come back to them, I think he'd go to best possible western contender for less money just so he could screw the Lakers for basically cutting him
Amnestied players can be claimed Dland. You think the other teams are all gonna sit and let him slide by? Think of the PR GAIN they would get.
Amnestied players can't play for the team that cut them for a certain amount of time. (not sure what that time frame is)
Kobe SAYIING he wants to be back opening night, don't mean he will be. He can sit til Christmas, January, All Star Break, whatever. He's not going to miss an entire season. But he won't risk his career if he isn't ready. Of course he's going to say opening night, don't mean it'll come true.
And cutting his 30 mil does not allow them to go out and sign 30 mil worth of players. Please, stop saying it like it's an option.
Amnestied players can't play for the team that cut them for a certain amount of time. (not sure what that time frame is)
Kobe SAYIING he wants to be back opening night, don't mean he will be. He can sit til Christmas, January, All Star Break, whatever. He's not going to miss an entire season. But he won't risk his career if he isn't ready. Of course he's going to say opening night, don't mean it'll come true.
And cutting his 30 mil does not allow them to go out and sign 30 mil worth of players. Please, stop saying it like it's an option.
- Nov 18, 2007
- 28,107
- 9,248
Let me flip this on you. Do you think another team would claim him with the knowledge that he may not play the whole season, and just resign with the Lakers in the following offseason? And lets just hypothetically say the Bobcats claimed Kobe. Then Kobe tells them, I wont be playing this season. Where is the PR gain?
Players cant resign with the team that that amnestied him for the duration of the original contract. In this case, the contract runs out after the 2013-14 season, so its not an issue.
Again, this type of injury is devastating. Common recovery time is 12 months whether you, other Laker fans, Kobe or the Lakers themselves want to say otherwise. If Kobe's timetable is faster than that, fine. But IN MY OPINION, it would be better for Kobe to sit a season to try to come back at close to what he was pre-injury than rush it.
I understand that. Let me spell it out for you in case you dont seem to be understanding where I am coming from:
The Lakers roster right now (top to bottom) is horrible, yet top heavy. Its not a good all around team. There is NO QUESTION that players need to be added to this team in the offseason. If the Lakers are not trying exceed the salary cap by even more than they have this year (and subsequently pay an even higher luxury tax), amnestying Kobe would allow them to use that same $30M that Kobe makes to sign other players. NO, the Lakers arent necessarily saving money here. But they would be able to add more players without increasing their luxury tax amount to be paid. Make sense?
Last edited:
- Nov 18, 2007
- 28,107
- 9,248
In addition, the current cap situation and subsequent luxury tax dues prevent the Lakers from being able to complete sign and trade deals and use the mid-level exception. So how are they going to improve their roster again?
Also, I am pretty sure that going over the cap year in and year out will make them have to pay even more future cap penalties.
Also, I am pretty sure that going over the cap year in and year out will make them have to pay even more future cap penalties.
Last edited:
- Feb 22, 2007
- 20,236
- 4,229
Sure you could amnesty Kobe but I think you'd basically be hurting yourself to get free agents in the long run.
You're better off to amnesty another player and tank.... hoping to get a high lottery pick in 2014 to pair with Dwight
You're better off to amnesty another player and tank.... hoping to get a high lottery pick in 2014 to pair with Dwight
- Jan 30, 2007
- 23,381
- 6,002
San Antonio dont want to see ANYBODY in the playoffs.
- Sep 6, 2012
- 7,466
- 3,923
I better not hear any arguments for Crawford for 6th man
lawdog1
Supporter
- Sep 14, 2000
- 60,142
- 72,613
Pretty low, I think. Since Denver has the tie breaker over the Clips, I believe they'd have to lose their last two game and the Clippers would have to win their last two for the Clippers to pass them, since Denver is currently a game ahead. Denver is @ the Bucks tonight and then finishes at home against the Suns. I could see the Nuggs dropping the game tonight, but not the final home game against Phoenix. The Clippers have Portland at home, then finish with the Kings on the road. I think they'll finish with the same record.
- Jan 3, 2008
- 12,102
- 1,410
I'm pretty sure LAC would own the tiebreaker with Denver. Like Nets/Pacers - winning a division overrides head to head.
lawdog1
Supporter
- Sep 14, 2000
- 60,142
- 72,613
I think you're right for the purposes of seeding. But if they ended up playing each other, wouldn't Denver get home court?
- Jan 3, 2008
- 12,102
- 1,410
I don't think so. If they're tied - LAC gets slotted above them, owns tiebreaker (division winner is 1st tiebreaker regardless if teams are even record wise) and gets home-court if they match up.
The Clipps or any higher seeded team not having home scenario would happen if LAC had a worse record than say, both Memphis and Denver - they would have the 5th best record but can't drop below the 4 seed because they won their division.
Say: Denver 57-25, Memphis 56-26 and Clips 54-28.
Denver is 3rd, Clips have 5th best record but get the 4th seed due to winning division - Memphis has the 5th seed but they would have home court in Rnd 1 vs LAC due to better record
ie like Atlanta being seeded 5th but having home court over Boston (4 seed) last year.
The Clipps or any higher seeded team not having home scenario would happen if LAC had a worse record than say, both Memphis and Denver - they would have the 5th best record but can't drop below the 4 seed because they won their division.
Say: Denver 57-25, Memphis 56-26 and Clips 54-28.
Denver is 3rd, Clips have 5th best record but get the 4th seed due to winning division - Memphis has the 5th seed but they would have home court in Rnd 1 vs LAC due to better record
ie like Atlanta being seeded 5th but having home court over Boston (4 seed) last year.
Last edited:
How do you add players above the salary cap in the range of 30 mil? Even less than that, 20 mil? 15 mil? Tell me how the Lakers can add 15-20-30 million dollars worth of salary, even after amnestying Kobe. Cuz you think that's possible. Tell me how it works. How do we sign multiple players while already over the salary cap, AFTER the amnsety?
That takes care of your "best thing for the Lakers" part of the argument.
As for "best for Kobe" You want him to sit out an entire year, to then sign back with the Lakers. Except we lose his Bird rights, meaning we are not allowed to go over the cap to sign him (remember that cap thing you are ignoring by amnesting Kobe and signing 30 mil in other players?) and so Kobe can only sign for 2.5 million dollars.
2.5
Sit out a year, then sign for two and a half million dollars. Best thing for Kobe.
Other teams under the cap can sign him for up to 30 mil. (not that they would, but they could)
Whereas if we don't amnesty him, he comes back whenever, Dec, Jan, Feb, plays out his final year, and if he wants to keep playing after that, with everyone else off the books, he can sign for 10 mil. 15 mil, 12.5, 7.8, 11.6 whatever number, but more than the 2.5 we can offer him without his bird rights.
So again, tell me more. Please.
antidope
Supporter
- Jan 2, 2012
- 63,489
- 67,939
- May 25, 2001
- 22,144
- 16,401
Lakers are so far over the cap even if they amnesty Kobe, all they have to use to sign more players is trades and the MLE. So you get a 5mil a yr caliber *** player, maybe an 8mil a yr caliber *** dude who takes a cut off his market value to play in LA. In other words, you replace Kobe with a Martell Webster, Dorrell Wright, Kevin Martin, OJ Mayo, Randy Foye, etc. I have to look at the rest of the list of who is going to be out there.
But good luck selling that to the fan base, to Jack Nicholson and them. We cut Kobe so we can sign Kevin Martin and "save" off our cap space, which we are still massively over, and still responsible for his salary anyways if he doesn't get picked up and if he does then obviously we lost him to sign Kevin martin and still have to pay the remainder of what his new team didn't pick up from his salary.
But good luck selling that to the fan base, to Jack Nicholson and them. We cut Kobe so we can sign Kevin Martin and "save" off our cap space, which we are still massively over, and still responsible for his salary anyways if he doesn't get picked up and if he does then obviously we lost him to sign Kevin martin and still have to pay the remainder of what his new team didn't pick up from his salary.
Last edited:
- Aug 22, 2011
- 23,340
- 5,916
LMAO CP going in
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Kevin Martin :x
- Feb 17, 2013
- 3,870
- 853
I think Kobe will come back better than ever.. It's in him to succeed even after an injury like this, you could see it in his eyes
- Aug 22, 2011
- 23,340
- 5,916
Last edited:
- May 25, 2001
- 22,144
- 16,401
Thank you. Was starting to think I was on punked or something.
antidope
Supporter
- Jan 2, 2012
- 63,489
- 67,939
I just want to make sure I'm clear on something. My whole thought process behind them thinking about anmestying Kobe is that if they were too, they could take that 30 Mil off the cap books and maybe get one or two guys for next season, then come 2014 resign Kobe for significantly less money and keep all the guys. Is that no good?
Obviously they should anmesty him under any circumstances because the backlash would be astronomical but still.
Obviously they should anmesty him under any circumstances because the backlash would be astronomical but still.
So it can happen, as long as I know I wasnt wrong about it I'm fine, you guys just dont agree with it.
Last edited:
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
There's no guarantee Kobe would agree to return if he was amnestied. The Lakers would still be over the cap and (like CP said) would be giving up Kobe's Bird rights and contract to sign a much lesser player. This huge cap hit is only for one year, which becomes bearable when you remember that the team just got a $3 billion dollar deal with Time Warner.
- Status
