Kobe "home discount is crap"

[True Lakers Fan]

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.

Ray Allen took less money, but the Heat still had more money to get other good players to go with Wade and Lebron. Had Lebron taken 24 million instead, and Wade taken his usual - it would have made things tough. The Lakers were behind the 8 ball on that one and made the wrong choice. They over paid for Kobe and now they have to live with it

 

[True Lakers Fan]

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.

Everyone tries to get as much money as possible - That's business, but don't forget Kobe took the first offer they threw out there and that too is understandable. What I am saying, however is stop complaining about zero chances of winning a championship title this year and next - They threw that out the window by not giving Kobe less money. Truthfully - The Spurs has had the best format in pay structure and players.

 

[LogicMan]

Many players decide to take less. Take Ray Allen as recently noted above. He gave up money in Boston to go take less to be in Miami. He got his extra ring, his priority was to get another ring, having made more than enough money ( and he hated playing with Rondo)

Not sure what's wrong with that, each day we all decide do I do this, or do I do that. Those actions are driven by our personal desires.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Many players decide to take less. Take Ray Allen as recently noted above. He gave up money in Boston to go take less to be in Miami. He got his extra ring, his priority was to get another ring, having made more than enough money ( and he hated playing with Rondo)

Not sure what's wrong with that, each day we all decide do I do this, or do I do that. Those actions are driven by our personal desires.

No one said its wrong to take less money.

 

[LogicMan]

Then you did not read the posts.

 

[trojanfan12]

Everyone tries to get as much money as possible - That's business, but don't forget Kobe took the first offer they threw out there and that too is understandable. What I am saying, however is stop complaining about zero chances of winning a championship title this year and next - They threw that out the window by not giving Kobe less money. Truthfully - The Spurs has had the best format in pay structure and players.

Who the hell is complaining that the Lakers have zero chances of winning a title this year? Every single team in the history of the NBA, that has ever had any level of success, has also had down seasons. They are inevitable. Guys get old, get traded, get injured, retire, etc. It's impossible to stay on top forever.

Everyone who was paying attention, including the Lakers FO, knew this was coming as soon as the Dwight/Nash trade didn't work out. Hell, even Kobe isn't complaining........................yet.

Do you actually read what people post or do you just make up shit in your own head and respond to that?

 

[trojanfan12]

Then you did not read the posts.

Or you just don't understand what's being said. There's nothing wrong with a player choosing to take less money. There is also nothing wrong with a player choosing to take as much money as he possibly can.

What is wrong, is the owners trying to keep every cent they possibly can while making the players feel like they are somehow obligated to take less. Fans and the media falling for that bullshit and bashing players for not taking less is also wrong.

People can bash the Lakers for offering him what they did and they can bash Kobe for taking it. But at least the Lakers came in with a fair market value offer, rather than trying to claim that he's selfish because he didn't take less than he is worth to the team.

As for Ray Ray, unlike what you do re: the Lakers, I don't claim to know more about your team than you do. But from everything that I've read, getting the hell away from Rondo had more to do with him leaving than winning another ring in Miami.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

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.

If it is that simple, why don't these people support the workers in the political forums?

 

[trojanfan12]

If it is that simple, why don't these people support the workers in the political forums?

Don't know, don't care. The only explanation that I have is that like many other things that are discussed over there, most of them don't know nearly as much about it as they think they do.

 

[LogicMan]

Trojan if you read the posts you would note that I defended both arguments.


Some players want and deserve as much as they can get, and some players instead take less for other reasons such as what Duncan and Dirk and Ray did which was centered around improving chances to win.

Like I said before tho, to after the fact, to have a Duncan or Dirk now complain about money, knowing they took less inorder to be well staffed around them would be wrong. In many ways Brady has had the reasons to complain as some times the Patriots did not fully use their space.

And as I said, to take the max, and then wonder or be jealous of teams like the spurs or mavs who,sum players made the alternative decision is what seems illogical.

 

[trojanfan12]

Trojan if you read the posts you would note that I defended both arguments.


Some players want and deserve as much as they can get, and some players instead take less for other reasons such as what Duncan and Dirk and Ray did which was centered around improving chances to win.

Like I said before tho, to after the fact, to have a Duncan or Dirk now complain about money, knowing they took less inorder to be well staffed around them would be wrong. In many ways Brady has had the reasons to complain as some times the Patriots did not fully use their space.

And as I said, to take the max, and then wonder or be jealous of teams like the spurs or mavs who,sum players made the alternative decision is what seems illogical.

So you're issue is that he said the Spurs have done a good job keeping guys together over the years. Wow, that's really a stretch. You actually have to WANT to have something to create an issue about. Sure he's a bit jealous because he has had to go through a different path. I'm sure that he wishes Shaq had stuck around (I know Shaq does) and I'm sure that he wishes they could have won another title or 2 with Pau. Bottom line, the Lakers have the same number of titles as the Spurs over the same amount of time. None of that make his view on what players should be paid or whether or not players should feel compelled to take less or give "home discounts" incorrect. I'm sure if you asked Timmy, Parker or Ginobili, they'd say they would rather not take less, but it's what they chose to do.

The Lakers and Spurs are the 2 most successful franchises over the past 20 years. They took different paths, but the result was the same. They also have in common that they each have 1 first ballot hall of famer who chose to remain with the same team for their entire careers and stayed with their teams even though they could have gone anywhere else they wanted to.

Kobe compliments the Spurs and you try to turn it into some kind of issue.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

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]

So you're issue is that he said the Spurs have done a good job keeping guys together over the years. Wow, that's really a stretch. You actually have to WANT to have something to create an issue about. Sure he's a bit jealous because he has had to go through a different path. I'm sure that he wishes Shaq had stuck around (I know Shaq does) and I'm sure that he wishes they could have won another title or 2 with Pau. Bottom line, the Lakers have the same number of titles as the Spurs over the same amount of time. None of that make his view on what players should be paid or whether or not players should feel compelled to take less or give "home discounts" incorrect. I'm sure if you asked Timmy, Parker or Ginobili, they'd say they would rather not take less, but it's what they chose to do.

The Lakers and Spurs are the 2 most successful franchises over the past 20 years. They took different paths, but the result was the same. They also have in common that they each have 1 first ballot hall of famer who chose to remain with the same team for their entire careers and stayed with their teams even though they could have gone anywhere else they wanted to.

Kobe compliments the Spurs and you try to turn it into some kind of issue.

There is one difference at this point though. You've made some fantastic points and all of them correct, but the Spurs path enables them to get to the finals one or two more times and actually win one or two more times and the Lakers no chance in hell in getting any more with Kobe.

 

[LogicMan]

Trojan, it looks like you went back and read the posts, and now your getting centered around the topic. Now you can understand why I defend both directions, but I dont agree that someone can say there this when there actions say that

 

[True Lakers Fan]

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.

I'm not so sure that any one is blaming Kobe. I'm not blaming Kobe for taking what was offered to him and I'm pretty sure most people would. The reality of that contract is, however it limit's the Lakers opportunities substantially to the point that they most likely will not be contenders in the near future. The reality is if Kobe had taken 15 million per year - Those opportunities would be better. So spin it any way you want or any way Kobe wants because it doesn't matter who's fault it is - No team is going to be able to build a championship team when more than one third of it is spent on one player and another 7% on a 40 year old player who was way beyond being able to play when he was signed.

 

[trojanfan12]

Trojan, it looks like you went back and read the posts, and now your getting centered around the topic. Now you can understand why I defend both directions, but I dont agree that someone can say there this when there actions say that

Why not? Why can't he compliment the Spurs for keeping their team together and still say that a "home discount" is crap?

Why can't Duncan, et al say they were willing to take less, but wish they didn't have to? Just because Kobe chose not to take less, doesn't mean he can't admire what the Spurs have done.

Additionally, Kobe's contract still allowed for another max player and solid 2nd tier FA. They also could have gone over the cap to bring back players from last years team including Pau Gasol, who waited to see who they were going to get before going to the Bulls.

People keep saying that Kobe's contract kept the Lakers from being able to get a max FA and that's simply not the case. What prevented it was that Lebron was always going to Cleveland or staying with the Heat and 'Melo apparently likes having sex with LaLa, so he stayed in NY like she wanted him to.

Those were the only 2 "game changer" FA's that were available. Kobe's contract didn't prevent anything. Not sure why that's so hard for some to understand.

 

[LogicMan]

To answer the why not Trojan I think for most people, they would quickly identify that behavior as immature, not taking responsibility for your own actions , or two faced, talking out of both sides of their mouth, or ultimately, trying to always paint myself as altruistic.

 

[LogicMan]

On the subject of Kobe, most people would have understood a 15 to 18 m salary, especially being old and Achilles . Why they rushed that deal we will never know. It's not rational. The same now for Rondo. There is no way he is a max player from what I see so far. He as well cannot suck up 33 percent of the cap, or they won't be able to keep young players signed and get that one or two star players.

 

[trojanfan12]

To answer the why not Trojan I think for most people, they would quickly identify that behavior as immature, not taking responsibility for your own actions , or two faced, talking out of both sides of their mouth, or ultimately, trying to always paint myself as altruistic.

I disagree. The owners have been doing everything in their power to keep as much money as possible while "guilting" the players into taking less than their fair market value. If a player makes a bad business decision and agrees to take less, then he's painted as selfless and "wanting to win." But if he makes a smart business decision and gets as much as he possibly can, then he's selfish and doesn't care about winning. The sad thing is, the owners have gotten the fans to buy into it. So now, fans expect the players to make bad business decisions that they themselves wouldn't make at their own jobs.

More and more players are starting see this for the bullshit that it is. Or is Lebron just being selfish when he says no more less than max contracts and no more long term contracts? How about 'Melo? I don't see anyone criticizing him for taking the absolute max that the Knicks could pay him.

What's hypocritical and not taking responsibility is owners keeping as much money as possible, not being willing to pay players what they're worth and then turning around and blaming the players.

The Lakers haven't complained about Kobe's contract, nor have they claimed it's a reason or the Lakers not getting Lebron or 'Melo. Not sure why others are.

 

[trojanfan12]

On the subject of Kobe, most people would have understood a 15 to 18 m salary, especially being old and Achilles . Why they rushed that deal we will never know. It's not rational. The same now for Rondo. There is no way he is a max player from what I see so far. He as well cannot suck up 33 percent of the cap, or they won't be able to keep young players signed and get that one or two star players.

Sure $15-18 million would have been more cap friendly as far as paying the luxury tax, but the Lakers have never had an issue with paying the tax for a contending team and would have paid it if they had landed Lebron or 'Melo, kept Gasol, etc.

Bottom line, Kobe has this year and next year left. Depending on how he holds up over the next 2 seasons, he might have one more season left in him at a lower salary (although he seems pretty sure that next year is it for him). The Lakers FO has said that the contract was essentially a "thank you" for all that he has done and because even at his advanced age and coming off injury, he will still make them far more money than they can pay him. As I said, his contract didn't prevent them from signing anyone.

As for Rondo, it's a different situation. Kobe is 36 and this 2 year deal is likely the end of the road for him. Rondo is younger and would be looking for a longer term contract. So even if Kobe's contract did somehow prevent the Lakers from getting a top FA, it's only a 2 year deal, so it's not as if it cripples them for 4-5 years like it would the Celtics if they gave Rondo a max deal.