2015-16 NBA Western Conference OFFICIAL THREAD

[trojanfan12]

IM proven WRONG?

Yes. You've been proven wrong. It doesn't matter how much money the Buss family does or doesn't have in comparison to other owners. They never have to touch a penny of their own money because the Lakers are always profitable.

For the last 3 years, the Lakers have been as bad or worse than the Cavs were without Lebron. Yet, they are still very profitable.

When the Cavs were without Lebron, they were collecting NBA welfare checks, a significant portion of which came from those paupers in purple and gold.

 

[WiggyRuss]

And they have all them trophies to prove what a visionary Dan Gilbert is...

oh wait...

again...in one of my original posts I said we truly DONT KNOW if the LAkers will spend on the same level as the Cubans/Gilberts/Prokohorovs in the new NBA CBA.....we just dont....i could make great arguments both ways.

Some of the VERY richest owners- like Paul Allen- DO run it pretty much like a business- are hands off- tell their President and GM to run the business and break even....thats cool....maybe go over the tax here and there in a special situation- but wont ever go big time deep into the tax...

Thats NOT what some of the other Billionaire owners do though- they use their MASSIVE wealth made outside of the NBA to fuel their hobby. These are the Gilberts, Prokhorovs, Cubans. These guys have egos, and want to win and dont care if they throw millions upon millions at it-- they are the guys that will pay Baron DAvis 40 million to go away to get a lotto pick. These are the guys that will pay 90 million in tax for one good shot at the title with a bunch of veteran trades (nets).

During a rebuilding- you just ARENT going to be paying tax- unless you are doing it completely wrong. I understand why the LAkers have got outspent by the cavs on a HUMONGOUS basis lately. Thats why I say it will be interesting to see if an NBA team that relies on its basketball revenue can pay deep into the tax.....itll be fascinating to see.

 

[trojanfan12]

I mean think about this--- you go bragging about how much the LAkers operation makes--- the Cavs outspend the Lakers BY A HUGE MARGIN---- HOW could it NOT be Dan Gilberts personal wealth then? lol....holy shit....i mean....i just dont know what to say when someone INSISTS the sky is red when its blue.

Wow, this is some world class stupidity right here.

Of course the Cavs are outspending the Lakers right now. The Cavs are trying to win a title and the Lakers are rebuilding and setting themselves up to have a ton of cap space in the upcoming FA periods.

How much were the Cavs outspending the Lakers by when they didn't have Lebron and were on NBA welfare?

Would you like to do a comparison and see how many times in the Cavs history they have outspent the Lakers? After that, we could do a trophy comparison.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Yes. You've been proven wrong. It doesn't matter how much money the Buss family does or doesn't have in comparison to other owners. They never have to touch a penny of their own money because the Lakers are always profitable.

For the last 3 years, the Lakers have been as bad or worse than the Cavs were without Lebron. Yet, they are still very profitable.

When the Cavs were without Lebron, they were collecting NBA welfare checks, a significant portion of which came from those paupers in purple and gold.

I DONT WANT MY TEAM TO BE PROFITABLE....I want them to spend every dime they make on the team to get it better.

See this is PRECISELY WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT---- The owners of the Lakers--- THATS THEIR REVENUE....they dont have Quicken Loans or Cruise Lines or IBM lining their pockets.....

Could you IMAGINE if Ballmer owned the Lakers and plowed back every dollar they made INTO THE TEAM?!!!!!!!!! lol

THAT SIR IS THE DIFFERENCE.


good for the Buss children...im glad the Lakers are profitable--- im glad the Buss children are making money-- BUT PERSONALLY- id rather have a billionaire owner that took all that profit and SPENT IT ON THE TEAM .

 

[Black Adam]

again...in one of my original posts I said we truly DONT KNOW if the LAkers will spend on the same level as the Cubans/Gilberts/Prokohorovs in the new NBA CBA.....we just dont....i could make great arguments both ways.

Some of the VERY richest owners- like Paul Allen- DO run it pretty much like a business- are hands off- tell their President and GM to run the business and break even....thats cool....maybe go over the tax here and there in a special situation- but wont ever go big time deep into the tax...

Thats NOT what some of the other Billionaire owners do though- they use their MASSIVE wealth made outside of the NBA to fuel their hobby. These are the Gilberts, Prokhorovs, Cubans. These guys have egos, and want to win and dont care if they throw millions upon millions at it-- they are the guys that will pay Baron DAvis 40 million to go away to get a lotto pick. These are the guys that will pay 90 million in tax for one good shot at the title with a bunch of veteran trades (nets).

During a rebuilding- you just ARENT going to be paying tax- unless you are doing it completely wrong. I understand why the LAkers have got outspent by the cavs on a HUMONGOUS basis lately. Thats why I say it will be interesting to see if an NBA team that relies on its basketball revenue can pay deep into the tax.....itll be fascinating to see.

So blowing millions and coming away empty-handed is somehow the "better way to go"? You DO know generally speaking how rich people STAY that way, right...?

Cue the laugh track...

 

[WiggyRuss]

So blowing millions and coming away empty-handed is somehow the "better way to go"? You DO know generally speaking how rich people STAY that way, right...?

Cue the laugh track...

There is without a doubt a positive correlation between a franchise's spending and their winning. Thats just fact. Of course there are exceptions- but generally- in the history of the league- the teams that consistently spend more win more.

 

[trojanfan12]

I DONT WANT MY TEAM TO BE PROFITABLE....I want them to spend every dime they make on the team to get it better.

See this is PRECISELY WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT---- The owners of the Lakers--- THATS THEIR REVENUE....they dont have Quicken Loans or Cruise Lines or IBM lining their pockets.....

Could you IMAGINE if Ballmer owned the Lakers and plowed back every dollar they made INTO THE TEAM?!!!!!!!!! lol

THAT SIR IS THE DIFFERENCE.

If you don't want your team to be profitable, then you're not very bright. The more profitable a team is, the more they can spend. The Lakers Time-Warner deal alone makes them very profitable. It covers all salaries, etc. before they even get into the money they make from the team itself, revenue sharing, etc.

A team can only "plow as much back into the team" as the salary cap and resultant luxury taxes allow. It doesn't matter how much Ballmer plowed back into the team, they can only spend so much.

 

[trojanfan12]

So blowing millions and coming away empty-handed is somehow the "better way to go"? You DO know generally speaking how rich people STAY that way, right...?

Cue the laugh track...

Apparently, he doesn't.

 

[trojanfan12]

There is without a doubt a positive correlation between a franchise's spending and their winning. Thats just fact. Of course there are exceptions- but generally- in the history of the league- the teams that consistently spend more win more.

Well then how did those dirt poor, trailer trash Lakers win so many championships?

 

[Black Adam]

There is without a doubt a positive correlation between a franchise's spending and their winning. Thats just fact. Of course there are exceptions- but generally- in the history of the league- the teams that consistently spend more win more.

And your 3 examples were Gilbert, Prokoholov , and Cuban. And they have all of one glowing O'Brien to back you up...

Seems it's advantage: you on this one...At least in YOUR mind...

 

[WiggyRuss]

If you don't want your team to be profitable, then you're not very bright. The more profitable a team is, the more they can spend. The Lakers Time-Warner deal alone makes them very profitable. It covers all salaries, etc. before they even get into the money they make from the team itself, revenue sharing, etc.

A team can only "plow as much back into the team" as the salary cap and resultant luxury taxes allow. It doesn't matter how much Ballmer plowed back into the team, they can only spend so much.

Then Spend it?

I mean - do you not realize what i am saying?

If Ballmer owned the Lakers? HE would spend every dime they made back into the team- thats not what the Buss' are doing- thats what "PROFIT means"....of course if you SPEND LESS you are going to have MORE profit....

I do not know one fan who has ever bragged that their team is profitable. lol.....like i said

I DONT WANT MY TEAM TO MAKE MONEY- if they are making money- that means they are not spending that money on player acquistions, on building a world class organiazation, etc.

The Lakers dont have that luxury to plow every dollar they make on baskebtall operations back into the team because THIS IS THE BUSS' business....

Like i said- just imagine of Ballmer or Kroenke or Allen owned the Lakers and they could put all that Time Warner money right back onto the court!! NOW THAT WOULD be a powerful combo.....

no doubt the LAkers have the basketball operation money on a level more then anyone---- thats why im saying this is going to be so interesting----

THIS IS the Question:

Can a team that relies on its basketball revenue- even the team that generates the MOST revenue in the entire league--- keep up with billionaire owners that treat their teams as hobby's? I think its EXTREMELY interesting to see how it shakes out.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Well then how did those dirt poor, trailer trash Lakers win so many championships?

they operated in a league where teams were bought by family type entities- that relied on ONLY basketball revenue to fund their teams- and ESPECIALLY back then- the Lakers with their national tv money and LA situation were AMAZINGLY positioned for decades- until the last 10-15 years where it became common place for the biggest stars in the league to make as much money in Orlando or OKC or Cleveland as it did LA.

 

[Black Adam]

they operated in a league where teams were bought by family type entities- that relied on ONLY basketball revenue to fund their teams- and ESPECIALLY back then- the Lakers with their national tv money and LA situation were AMAZINGLY positioned for decades- until the last 10-15 years where it became common place for the biggest stars in the league to make as much money in Orlando or OKC or Cleveland as it did LA.

"back then"...?

Damn, was '10 that long ago...?

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

The Lakers currently have nearly 5 times the operating income of the Cavs.

And they have 1/20th the debt servicing as they essentially own the team outright.

Not to mention the asset value will skyrocket to unfair levels once the new Lakers TV deal is set.

The Lakers are fine.

 

[WiggyRuss]

"back then"...?

Damn, was '10 that long ago...?

prior CBA.

and the average NBA franchise has gone from like 200M to 1.1 billion in that time frame. So- yes in a way - since 2010 the economics of the game are profoundly different even in a 6 year time span- let alone 10 or 15

 

[Black Adam]

The Lakers currently have nearly 5 times the operating income of the Cavs.

And they have 1/20th the debt servicing as they essentially own the team outright.

Not to mention the asset value will skyrocket to unfair levels once the new Lakers TV deal is set.

The Lakers are fine.

Can you please repeat that a little louder? We've spent half the day saying it, but Wiggy doesn't wanna buy it...

 

[WiggyRuss]

Can you please repeat that a little louder? We've spent half the day saying it, but Wiggy doesn't wanna buy it...

ok. well then why havent they done anything then to pull themselves out of this shit storm they have experienced the last 4 years?

i mean - isnt the proof out there on the court every night now for the last few years?

 

[trojanfan12]

Then Spend it?

I mean - do you not realize what i am saying?

If Ballmer owned the Lakers? HE would spend every dime they made back into the team- thats not what the Buss' are doing- thats what "PROFIT means"....of course if you SPEND LESS you are going to have MORE profit....

What part of salary cap is too difficult for you to grasp?

The Lakers can and will spend well beyond the salary cap and pay any resultant luxury tax for players who can make them contenders. To cap themselves out on players that can't make them contenders would be incredibly stupid. It's what Prokhorov did with the Nets and we saw how that turned out.

It's like Mitch and Jeanie have both said. They have no problem paying luxury tax on a team that is contending for titles. But they aren't going to do that for a team that isn't going to contend.

There is only so much money that can be dumped back into the franchise. You don't spend money just because you have it. You spend it on ways to improve the product.

My and other Lakers fans biggest fear during this last FA period, when they didn't land any of the big name FA's they went after, was that they'd overspend on 2nd tier guys who might get a low playoff seed and they'd be stuck in 5-8 seed purgatory with no way to get better. Instead, they chose to hang on to that money and combine it with the money from Kobe coming off the books, to use in the next FA period or 2.

 

[Black Adam]

ok. well then why havent they done anything then to pull themselves out of this shit storm they have experienced the last 4 years?

i mean - isnt the proof out there on the court every night now for the last few years?

Kobe's money does come off the books after this season, and as you yourself mentioned they DO have to stay within the confines of the current CBA...

Gonna have pretty much a fuckton of money. your crystal ball telling you no players are gonna jump on it...?

 

[trojanfan12]

"back then"...?

Damn, was '10 that long ago...?

Maybe he thinks the Lakers last title was in 1910?