hackashaq
::| Basketball Guru |::
Posts: 3,198
|
Post by hackashaq on Oct 22, 2014 14:39:39 GMT -8
There is really only 1 piece of that article that I kinda agree with which is when the Lakers off-season efforts failed, they really had no choice but to re-sign Kobe. It would have been a PR nightmare and basically a betrayal not to. As for the contract size, all indications were that the Lakers offered Kobe the contract. It is not a "max" deal. So do you say "Nah bro....I'll take less". For what? On the off-chance they can get who? Would you sign a contract for, let's say, the league min, because your felt that would help your team get fanciful free agents for the last three years that you may ever play ball again?
Cmon, the Lakers are not in the same position as the Spurs who have had their big three forever and have won with them. Of course in that situation those three will elect to stay on smaller salaries and keep building. But the Lakers don't have that. They didn't have that at the time of the Kobe signing. They tried to mix it up with the CP3 deal to keep rebuilding. Stern messed that up. Dwight turned out to have no cahones. Nash is a broken down Volkswagen. So why does everyone revisit this Kobe contract thing?
And btw, if Kobe keeps shooting at 50% and goes 10-20 with 5 assists, may be he's not being overpaid?
|
|
LookAway
::| Basketball Guru |::
Camera man, Zoom it ! !
Posts: 3,953
|
Post by LookAway on Oct 22, 2014 14:44:44 GMT -8
There is really only 1 piece of that article that I kinda agree with which is when the Lakers off-season efforts failed, they really had no choice but to re-sign Kobe. It would have been a PR nightmare and basically a betrayal not to. As for the contract size, all indications were that the Lakers offered Kobe the contract. It is not a "max" deal. So do you say "Nah bro....I'll take less". For what? On the off-chance they can get who? Would you sign a contract for, let's say, the league min, because your felt that would help your team get fanciful free agents for the last three years that you may ever play ball again? Cmon, the Lakers are not in the same position as the Spurs who have had their big three forever and have won with them. Of course in that situation those three will elect to stay on smaller salaries and keep building. But the Lakers don't have that. They didn't have that at the time of the Kobe signing. They tried to mix it up with the CP3 deal to keep rebuilding. Stern messed that up. Dwight turned out to have no cahones. Nash is a broken down Volkswagen. So why does everyone revisit this Kobe contract thing? And btw, if Kobe keeps shooting at 50% and goes 10-20 with 5 assists, may be he's not being overpaid? Yeah but the first half he was atrocious. Most everyone would have been pissed had he stopped shooting in the first half when he was 3-7. He only missed three shots in second half.
|
|
hackashaq
::| Basketball Guru |::
Posts: 3,198
|
Post by hackashaq on Oct 22, 2014 14:52:32 GMT -8
There is really only 1 piece of that article that I kinda agree with which is when the Lakers off-season efforts failed, they really had no choice but to re-sign Kobe. It would have been a PR nightmare and basically a betrayal not to. As for the contract size, all indications were that the Lakers offered Kobe the contract. It is not a "max" deal. So do you say "Nah bro....I'll take less". For what? On the off-chance they can get who? Would you sign a contract for, let's say, the league min, because your felt that would help your team get fanciful free agents for the last three years that you may ever play ball again? Cmon, the Lakers are not in the same position as the Spurs who have had their big three forever and have won with them. Of course in that situation those three will elect to stay on smaller salaries and keep building. But the Lakers don't have that. They didn't have that at the time of the Kobe signing. They tried to mix it up with the CP3 deal to keep rebuilding. Stern messed that up. Dwight turned out to have no cahones. Nash is a broken down Volkswagen. So why does everyone revisit this Kobe contract thing? And btw, if Kobe keeps shooting at 50% and goes 10-20 with 5 assists, may be he's not being overpaid? Yeah but the first half he was atrocious. Most everyone would have been pissed had he stopped shooting in the first half when he was 3-7. He only missed three shots in second half. Well he still was the one that kept the Lakers close in that game. Whenever you get it, 10-20 is not bad. I liked his assist numbers too. The issue is whether he can sustain good consistent output at these levels. If so, you can argue he is a $20 million guy on a team that desperately needs anything it can get.
|
|
LookAway
::| Basketball Guru |::
Camera man, Zoom it ! !
Posts: 3,953
|
Post by LookAway on Oct 22, 2014 14:55:20 GMT -8
Yeah but the first half he was atrocious. Most everyone would have been pissed had he stopped shooting in the first half when he was 3-7. He only missed three shots in second half. Well he still was the one that kept the Lakers close in that game. Whenever you get it, 10-20 is not bad. I liked his assist numbers too. The issue is whether he can sustain good consistent output at these levels. If so, you can argue he is a $20 million guy on a team that desperately needs anything it can get. We're not arguing that point. I was just pointing out that when folks say he shoots too much and his percentage is bad, they never bring up games where his average goes up with additional volume. This was far from the first time.
|
|
hackashaq
::| Basketball Guru |::
Posts: 3,198
|
Post by hackashaq on Oct 22, 2014 15:07:16 GMT -8
Well he still was the one that kept the Lakers close in that game. Whenever you get it, 10-20 is not bad. I liked his assist numbers too. The issue is whether he can sustain good consistent output at these levels. If so, you can argue he is a $20 million guy on a team that desperately needs anything it can get. We're not arguing that point. I was just pointing out that when folks say he shoots too much and his percentage is bad, they never bring up games where his average goes up with additional volume. This was far from the first time. Agree. Anyway, given where we are, I'm not so mad about the contract.
|
|
|
Post by asweetcalamity on Oct 22, 2014 15:59:23 GMT -8
There is really only 1 piece of that article that I kinda agree with which is when the Lakers off-season efforts failed, they really had no choice but to re-sign Kobe. It would have been a PR nightmare and basically a betrayal not to. As for the contract size, all indications were that the Lakers offered Kobe the contract. It is not a "max" deal. So do you say "Nah bro....I'll take less". For what? On the off-chance they can get who? Would you sign a contract for, let's say, the league min, because your felt that would help your team get fanciful free agents for the last three years that you may ever play ball again? Cmon, the Lakers are not in the same position as the Spurs who have had their big three forever and have won with them. Of course in that situation those three will elect to stay on smaller salaries and keep building. But the Lakers don't have that. They didn't have that at the time of the Kobe signing. They tried to mix it up with the CP3 deal to keep rebuilding. Stern messed that up. Dwight turned out to have no cahones. Nash is a broken down Volkswagen. So why does everyone revisit this Kobe contract thing? And btw, if Kobe keeps shooting at 50% and goes 10-20 with 5 assists, may be he's not being overpaid? This is a salient point. It's much easier for Duncan and his cohorts to take less, because they're committing to a proven organization and they have other marquee players already in place. If you were Kobe, would you have taken an 18-22 million dollar pay cut on total speculation that this current front office would properly use the extra cap space and deliver a contender? This is why I would have preferred the Lakers to take Kobe to free agency and shop with the flexibility of no contract signed. Take meeting with 2014 FAs and say "OK you can have 24 million and Jeremy Lin, or you can have 15 million and Eric Bledsoe, or you can have 5 million and have Bosh and Parsons." Obviously I am making up names and numbers but you get the idea. What if Kobe agreed to take 10 million and they used blew the extra 14 million, or didn't spend it at all? He would have no recourse. So if you're Kobe, taking a giant pay cut before Jim and Mitch deliver the goods is just bad business.
|
|
|
Post by shopson67 on Oct 22, 2014 20:33:51 GMT -8
Kobe's contract is not an issue at all. In fact Steve Nash is the one who is dooming us right now. I'd rather pay Kobe an extra $10M than pay Nash his salary (and the lost draft picks used to acquire him).
|
|
|
Post by shaolinfighter on Oct 22, 2014 20:35:25 GMT -8
Mark Jackson on ESPN just now said "I'm not one of those idiots". Lmao.
|
|
|
Post by shopson67 on Oct 22, 2014 20:36:58 GMT -8
There is really only 1 piece of that article that I kinda agree with which is when the Lakers off-season efforts failed, they really had no choice but to re-sign Kobe. It would have been a PR nightmare and basically a betrayal not to. As for the contract size, all indications were that the Lakers offered Kobe the contract. It is not a "max" deal. So do you say "Nah bro....I'll take less". For what? On the off-chance they can get who? Would you sign a contract for, let's say, the league min, because your felt that would help your team get fanciful free agents for the last three years that you may ever play ball again? Cmon, the Lakers are not in the same position as the Spurs who have had their big three forever and have won with them. Of course in that situation those three will elect to stay on smaller salaries and keep building. But the Lakers don't have that. They didn't have that at the time of the Kobe signing. They tried to mix it up with the CP3 deal to keep rebuilding. Stern messed that up. Dwight turned out to have no cahones. Nash is a broken down Volkswagen. So why does everyone revisit this Kobe contract thing? And btw, if Kobe keeps shooting at 50% and goes 10-20 with 5 assists, may be he's not being overpaid? This is a salient point. It's much easier for Duncan and his cohorts to take less, because they're committing to a proven organization and they have other marquee players already in place. If you were Kobe, would you have taken an 18-22 million dollar pay cut on total speculation that this current front office would properly use the extra cap space and deliver a contender? This is why I would have preferred the Lakers to take Kobe to free agency and shop with the flexibility of no contract signed. Take meeting with 2014 FAs and say "OK you can have 24 million and Jeremy Lin, or you can have 15 million and Eric Bledsoe, or you can have 5 million and have Bosh and Parsons." Obviously I am making up names and numbers but you get the idea. What if Kobe agreed to take 10 million and they used blew the extra 14 million, or didn't spend it at all? He would have no recourse. So if you're Kobe, taking a giant pay cut before Jim and Mitch deliver the goods is just bad business. The only way Kobe could've taken any bigger of a pay cut would've been via free agency; he took the largest allowed pay cut for an extension.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Oct 22, 2014 20:43:32 GMT -8
This is a salient point. It's much easier for Duncan and his cohorts to take less, because they're committing to a proven organization and they have other marquee players already in place. If you were Kobe, would you have taken an 18-22 million dollar pay cut on total speculation that this current front office would properly use the extra cap space and deliver a contender? This is why I would have preferred the Lakers to take Kobe to free agency and shop with the flexibility of no contract signed. Take meeting with 2014 FAs and say "OK you can have 24 million and Jeremy Lin, or you can have 15 million and Eric Bledsoe, or you can have 5 million and have Bosh and Parsons." Obviously I am making up names and numbers but you get the idea. What if Kobe agreed to take 10 million and they used blew the extra 14 million, or didn't spend it at all? He would have no recourse. So if you're Kobe, taking a giant pay cut before Jim and Mitch deliver the goods is just bad business. The only way Kobe could've taken any bigger of a pay cut would've been via free agency; he took the largest allowed pay cut for an extension. Then why didn't he wait until he was a FA, evaluate options for building a winning team then sign accordingly?
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Oct 22, 2014 20:46:02 GMT -8
This is a salient point. It's much easier for Duncan and his cohorts to take less, because they're committing to a proven organization and they have other marquee players already in place. If you were Kobe, would you have taken an 18-22 million dollar pay cut on total speculation that this current front office would properly use the extra cap space and deliver a contender? This is why I would have preferred the Lakers to take Kobe to free agency and shop with the flexibility of no contract signed. Take meeting with 2014 FAs and say "OK you can have 24 million and Jeremy Lin, or you can have 15 million and Eric Bledsoe, or you can have 5 million and have Bosh and Parsons." Obviously I am making up names and numbers but you get the idea. What if Kobe agreed to take 10 million and they used blew the extra 14 million, or didn't spend it at all? He would have no recourse. So if you're Kobe, taking a giant pay cut before Jim and Mitch deliver the goods is just bad business. The only way Kobe could've taken any bigger of a pay cut would've been via free agency; he took the largest allowed pay cut for an extension. Which would have been the smart thing for the Lakers to do. They didn't. They chose, internally, to extend him before the Nov deadline last year on their own accord. Kobe wasn't demanding an extension then. He wasn't going up and down the court demanding Buss to "fucking pay him." Mitch Jim and Jeanie decided this was "the right thing to do" knowing that they'd have "X" amount less money to operate in FA the next summer. Why is this blamed on Kobe? I challenge any one to explain that to me. Henry Abbott's explanation that Jim simply couldn't wait to get rid of him is beyond idiotic if you know jackshit about this team and it's FO over the last decade. So he's a writer for ESPN, so what? He follows this team closer than us? Please. He's had a Kobe stick lodged up his ass for years. Only thing new is that apparently so do others.
|
|
|
Post by dyjon54 on Oct 22, 2014 21:20:55 GMT -8
All I'm saying is be mad at Mitch not Kobe. If Mitch and jim wanted Kobe gone ( according to the article that some people agree with) then they would have let him walk. They extended Kobe's contract twice.
|
|
|
Post by history2b on Oct 22, 2014 21:26:32 GMT -8
All I'm saying is be mad at Mitch not Kobe. If Mitch and jim wanted Kobe gone ( according to the article that some people agree with) then they would have let him walk. They extended Kobe's contract twice. Abbott carefully took the time to paint Jim as a weak and frightened leader who relished the day he didn't have to face the maniacal Kobe Bryant. ... So he paid him 48.5 Million dollars. Dumb fucks
|
|
|
Post by shopson67 on Oct 23, 2014 6:15:55 GMT -8
The only way Kobe could've taken any bigger of a pay cut would've been via free agency; he took the largest allowed pay cut for an extension. Then why didn't he wait until he was a FA, evaluate options for building a winning team then sign accordingly? Why are you asking me? Ask Kobe. Would you turn down $48M waiting only for your signature?
|
|
|
Post by Fanofish on Oct 23, 2014 7:13:12 GMT -8
If you're open to debating I'm all ready for ya. But if this is gonna be fanofish hit n run attack, then it's all good homie. Sorry I didn't have time to debate with you yesterday. Wasn't meant to be hit-and-run. Have a pregnant wife, been through 3 mri's in the last week for my herniated disc, and my business is extremely busy. Didn't have the time but wanted to at least respond to multiple replies. Knowing I didn't have the time to debate like I have in the past, I guess I could've let the subject die. You know I've never had a problem debating topics with you H. Besides, this subject is pretty beat up. All good homie.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Oct 23, 2014 7:37:21 GMT -8
Then why didn't he wait until he was a FA, evaluate options for building a winning team then sign accordingly? Why are you asking me? Ask Kobe. Would you turn down $48M waiting only for your signature? I'm asking you bec you made the point. Plus not like I have Kobe's cell number on my speed dial. To answer your question, if it impacted my ability to win after I've already got 300 mil in the bank, I would not jump to it. I despise greed.
|
|
|
Post by shaolinfighter on Oct 23, 2014 7:54:25 GMT -8
Why are you asking me? Ask Kobe. Would you turn down $48M waiting only for your signature? I'm asking you bec you made the point. Plus not like I have Kobe's cell number on my speed dial. To answer your question, if it impacted my ability to win after I've already got 300 mil in the bank, I would not jump to it. I despise greed. Then your anger is misdirected
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Oct 23, 2014 8:00:20 GMT -8
I don't agree with the article at all but I have a tough time with Kobe having having zero culpability as well. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have a tough time with the notion that Kobe was offered the money so he had no choice but to take it. It leads to 2 scenarios 1. Kobe has zero knowledge of the current salary cap or 2. He's not committed to winning which comes 2nd after lining his pockets.
The bottom line is lakers would likely be better today if Kobe's ego wasn't larger than life driving potential FA away and if he had taken a Duncan or Nowitzki approach to negotiating his last contract keeping eye on the ring as opposed to on the $
I know a lot of you will jump on this post- to be clear - yes Jim and Mitch are largely responsible but Kobe is in the mix as well at least 20 percent.
|
|
|
Post by samadams10 on Oct 23, 2014 8:00:55 GMT -8
I'm asking you bec you made the point. Plus not like I have Kobe's cell number on my speed dial. To answer your question, if it impacted my ability to win after I've already got 300 mil in the bank, I would not jump to it. I despise greed. Then your anger is misdirected Anger? I'm angry? News to me
|
|
|
Post by shaolinfighter on Oct 23, 2014 8:02:50 GMT -8
I don't like the greed either Sam, but I look at ownership as the ultimate greedy men in this league
|
|