Kobe "home discount is crap"

[LogicMan]

Players have the right to take less or more. Then, live with your decision. It has ramifications either way. Its not a perfect world.

 

[trojanfight]

it would be one thing if no other players were doing it already. fans aren't upset at kobe for not doing something that nobody else has already done. dirk in dallas. not sure they have montae ellis, parsons and tyson chandler without him taking less than half of what kobe draws in. tim duncan, paul pierce in washington. if kobe took something like 12 mil vs the 23 he's getting paid then thats a higher quality team. not hiring a coach before free agency impacted it as well. we will never know. I'm as big a kobe fan and laker fan as they come but I'm not accepting he took enough discount to improve team in other areas.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

TAKE every penny.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is the right move.


I challenge all these for the good of the team guys on here:


When your boss does your next annual review:


Will you take a pay cut, so they can hire a young talented new IT guy and improve the firms bottom line?


KOBE did exactly the right and correct thing.


That 100 of 100 of us on here would do as well....twice over...

Terrible analogy. You need to at least compare this to people making huge amounts of $$ & also people who would have a significant amount to gain by freeing up money to acquire talent.

Someone making say @ $100k (or less) would feel a major pinch if they took a huge pay cut & would not really benefit by a company acquiring a few more talented people. Kobe is possibly being asked to give up several million, but he will still have tons of $$ left & actually could benefit if the team won another title (via endorsements, etc).

You might have the right idea in general, but in no way does this apply to the majority of the population.

 

[starbigd]

well, it really comes down to this most likely in Kobe's mind:

Take less, so the team wins more, which in turn makes the OWNER more......but I get less. WHY???

Kobe is a large part of their profitability right now. Him taking less really doesn't mean much.......especially when the guys that employ him aren't taking that financial hit, but rather, they are profiting from it.

 

[Inimical]

If we keep grinding that argument, even though it doesnt make sense in the case of the Lakers, i would have to ask why is all the blame on Kobe when the owners could just as easily take the hit?

 

[Inimical]

We keep talking about going after this guy or that guy, but far as i saw the Lakers swung and missed on every target of theirs. Add to that fact that the GM and Owners, who ultimately decide who to go after, passed on several mid level players. My guess is .....has....already been outlined. But as far as logic goes in the case of the Lakers FA situation, i havent seen any other alternatives to the Lakers overall franchise success besides "Kobe should have taken less".

Even though if anyone paid attention, that doesnt make sense in the case of the Lakers. As i already said, if we are talking player pettiness or unwilling to play with Kobe, his contract being or not being a factor, thats a whole other issue.

Mark my words, there is no reason, nor would there be any player that would have thought when they saw Kobes contract. Contracts like Kobes set the bar for future earnings. NBAPA was when they heard this. Along with any players with business sense.

 

[trojanfan12]

We keep talking about going after this guy or that guy, but far as i saw the Lakers swung and missed on every target of theirs. Add to that fact that the GM and Owners, who ultimately decide who to go after, passed on several mid level players. My guess is .....has....already been outlined. But as far as logic goes in the case of the Lakers FA situation, i havent seen any other alternatives to the Lakers overall franchise success besides "Kobe should have taken less".

Even though if anyone paid attention, that doesnt make sense in the case of the Lakers. As i already said, if we are talking player pettiness or unwilling to play with Kobe, his contract being or not being a factor, thats a whole other issue.

Mark my words, there is no reason, nor would there be any player that would have thought when they saw Kobes contract. Contracts like Kobes set the bar for future earnings. NBAPA was when they heard this. Along with any players with business sense.

I'd be willing to bet Kobe's contract was on Lebron's mind when he said he's done taking less than the max and then took it a step farther and said he's done with long term deals too. Fact is, it's in his best interest for the owners to know that he can bolt after a year or 2 if he doesn't like the way things are going.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

We keep talking about going after this guy or that guy, but far as i saw the Lakers swung and missed on every target of theirs. Add to that fact that the GM and Owners, who ultimately decide who to go after, passed on several mid level players. My guess is .....has....already been outlined. But as far as logic goes in the case of the Lakers FA situation, i havent seen any other alternatives to the Lakers overall franchise success besides "Kobe should have taken less".

Even though if anyone paid attention, that doesnt make sense in the case of the Lakers. As i already said, if we are talking player pettiness or unwilling to play with Kobe, his contract being or not being a factor, thats a whole other issue.

Mark my words, there is no reason, nor would there be any player that would have thought when they saw Kobes contract. Contracts like Kobes set the bar for future earnings. NBAPA was when they heard this. Along with any players with business sense.

If I was Lebron James for example and I am looking at the Lakers in the summer of 2014, Here is what I saw:

The Lakers signed Kobe Bryant and had no other players whatsoever to go with him

If I sign a reasonable contract - my contract of 20 million plus Kobe's 24 equals 48 of the 76 expected to be the cap. That leaves 30 million to divided over at least 8 players which would average 2-3 million each.

It would be reasonable expectation and conclusion to say the Lakers would have signed me and had no money to go get a Bosh to make the team contenders.

That is the reason that Kobe's salary besides his health being a giant red flag

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I'd be willing to bet Kobe's contract was on Lebron's mind when he said he's done taking less than the max and then took it a step farther and said he's done with long term deals too. Fact is, it's in his best interest for the owners to know that he can bolt after a year or 2 if he doesn't like the way things are going.

If it wasn't then he should have fired his business agent because 24 plus 20 equals very little to sign other good players. If Kobe had taken 45/three years or structured it better - the Lakers would have had a chance, but there was no way in hell any player like Lebron or Carmelo was going to sign into a team that screwed up and mismanaged

 

[trojanfan12]

If it wasn't then he should have fired his business agent because 24 plus 20 equals very little to sign other good players. If Kobe had taken 45/three years or structured it better - the Lakers would have had a chance, but there was no way in hell any player like Lebron or Carmelo was going to sign into a team that screwed up and mismanaged

Actually, you're wrong. They could have signed Lebron or 'Melo to the max deal that they were allowed under the CBA. They still would have had room for a solid 2nd tier FA and they could go over the cap to bring back guys they wanted to keep from last year.

The only thing Kobe's contract would have prevented would be signing 2 top FA's to max deals.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Actually, you're wrong. They could have signed Lebron or 'Melo to the max deal that they were allowed under the CBA. They still would have had room for a solid 2nd tier FA and they could go over the cap to bring back guys they wanted to keep from last year.

The only thing Kobe's contract would have prevented would be signing 2 top FA's to max deals.

You missed my point so I will say it again. You're right that they could have signed Lebron to a maximum contract, but the problem is what do they do once they have signed Lebron and Kobe to a combined 48 million and Nash was taking 11 to equal 59 million? At the point the salary cap was around 62. At that point there would have been more money to get a Chris Bosh or Carmelo.

It takes 8-10 good players to win a championship. Kobe and Lebron would have been two of the eight.
Yes they could have signed Lebron, but Lebron had enough common sense to know that he and an aging Kobe coming off an Achilles tendon was not even close to a championship team. Not even in the same ball park.

 

[trojanfan12]

You missed my point so I will say it again. You're right that they could have signed Lebron to a maximum contract, but the problem is what do they do once they have signed Lebron and Kobe to a combined 48 million and Nash was taking 11 to equal 59 million? At the point the salary cap was around 62. At that point there would have been more money to get a Chris Bosh or Carmelo.

It takes 8-10 good players to win a championship. Kobe and Lebron would have been two of the eight.
Yes they could have signed Lebron, but Lebron had enough common sense to know that he and an aging Kobe coming off an Achilles tendon was not even close to a championship team. Not even in the same ball park.

Actually, it is you who missed the point. Also, Lebron was never coming to L.A., he was always going to Cleveland or staying in Miami. The point was that the Lakers could have still signed a max FA, a solid mid-level FA, probably an MLE vet or 2 and then gone over the cap to sign guys from last season that they had already intended to keep.

This gives them a contending team. No guarantee of a title, especially in the West in the first year, but a team that had a shot.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Actually, it is you who missed the point. Also, Lebron was never coming to L.A., he was always going to Cleveland or staying in Miami. The point was that the Lakers could have still signed a max FA, a solid mid-level FA, probably an MLE vet or 2 and then gone over the cap to sign guys from last season that they had already intended to keep.

This gives them a contending team. No guarantee of a title, especially in the West in the first year, but a team that had a shot.

No - I understood that and I agree, but I am also adding that if Lebron had been open to Los Angeles Lakers, that he would have been stupid to consider it for the reasons I mentioned.

1. The Lakers were a mess with new owners completely clueless in how to build championship teams

2. The Lakers had enough money to sign one 20 million dollar player or two 15 million dollar players, but not enough to get the remaining players needed to win a championship. In short the Lakers were short handed

3. Kobe had not recovered from his injury and proven that he still could play

4. Even if Kobe could play, big egos like Lebron don't normally want to play second fiddle to players like Kobe.

There was just no way in hell the Lakers ever had even a prayer of good free agents and they won't until Kobe is retired. Kobe says he is jealous of the continuity the Spurs have had, but the Spurs has that because Tim Duncan took less money. Tim Duncan made the ultimate sacrifice to have a another shot at the Larry Obrien Trophy and honestly, I can't think of any player in the NBA more deserving of that.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

But FYI I am going with the philosophy that three super players like Lebron - Wade - Bosh is NOT ENOUGH TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. It takes the little players, and the bench and good coaching. The Lakers had none of that to offer this last summer other than possibly 3 players if all of them had taken less money and if you're Lebron, the question is why take less money for Kobe. Kobe's made his money and still wouldn't take less. I never for one minute believed Lebron was a possibility. I figured that was dead on arrival when Kobe took 48 million. I knew then it was over for two years

 

[OutlawImmortal]

You only get a small window to make money as a player TLF, not everyone turns out to be like Magic Johnson, this should be basic stuff to you.

 

[Hangman]

Kobe is 100% right. The fact that there is a max contract and a low salary cap while owners are making money hand over fist is foolish. The owners have brainwashed fans into thinking that it is the players fault or the players greed that causes deals like Kobe's and then the repercussions of not getting 2 other near max players fall on the player making "too much." Fact is that the owners greed to keep the lions share of the profits is to blame.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

You only get a small window to make money as a player TLF, not everyone turns out to be like Magic Johnson, this should be basic stuff to you.

I understand that, but with all due respect to Kobe Bryant who in the prior five years earned 100 million dollars and then some, so I do not think this was the place and time where he needed to take 50 million and limit the Lakers abilities. Now I'm not saying he did anything wrong, but don't stand there trying to justify your greed either. Just come out and be honest. Admit you took 50 more million because you wanted the money and didn't care about anything else. We all know that's the truth

 

[OutlawImmortal]

But FYI I am going with the philosophy that three super players like Lebron - Wade - Bosh is NOT ENOUGH TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. It takes the little players, and the bench and good coaching. The Lakers had none of that to offer this last summer other than possibly 3 players if all of them had taken less money and if you're Lebron, the question is why take less money for Kobe. Kobe's made his money and still wouldn't take less. I never for one minute believed Lebron was a possibility. I figured that was dead on arrival when Kobe took 48 million. I knew then it was over for two years

What your speaking about here requires players like Ray Allen to take less in order to chase a championship, there's no reason for that, especially in a league where a large percentage of players go broke after a few years away from the league.

You could argue it improves parity in the league but screws a lot of players out of their true market value as well. You can't say players are overpaid when the demand is there. If you think players are overpaid then you should boycott watching sports.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

I find it very interesting that some die hard "capitalism" guys are backing the worker in this thread...

 

[trojanfan12]

I find it very interesting that some die hard "capitalism" guys are backing the worker in this thread...

Why? It's capitalism at work. The owners of the franchise are trying to keep as much money as possible and the players are trying to make as much as possible/get fair market value for the product they provide.

I think both sides are right. The owners SHOULD try to keep as much money as possible. They have the bigger financial risk. Without them, there would be no NBA.

The players SHOULD also try to get paid as much as possible because they are the product that fans are paying to see. Without them, again, there would be no NBA.