Official Offseason News and Rumors

[trojanfan12]

We gave Lakers fans crap for this when they were coming off their title in 2010 and Lakers fans gave us the same crap in 2013 saying it would come to haunt us someday - boy were they right in 2014.

It sucks that it happens, but it's also kind of cool. It means that they've been to the finals a few years in a row and won a couple. I mean what team wouldn't sign up for a run like the Heat just had?

I've seen the Lakers go on similar runs a few times and get bit in the ass like that a few times and it NEVER gets old.

 

[WiggyRuss]

they dont have the money that other owners have.

honestly please answer me this- you HONESTLY think that the Buss family trust can spend in the same stratosphere as Paul Allen, as Mikkail Prokorohov, as Dan Gilbert, as Mickey Arison- this collection of men who are among the richest men in the world-

you are saying that the Buss family trust has an advantage spending wise over them

I just want to clear that up and make sure that is what you are saying because i cant believe it

If you have a good argument I am all ears - i just dont see it.

Mickey Arison 6.5 billion
Dan Gilbert 3.9 billion
Paul Allen 16.2 billion
Mark Cuban 2.5 billion
Tom Gores 2.5 billion
Mikkail Prokohorv 11 billion
Steven Ballmer 20.7 billion

I just dont see how the Buss family trust which is compromised of 6 of the Buss children owning the team has a financial advantage over some of the richest men in the world when putting together a team


maybe i am wrong- ihave been before and i am sure i will be again

 

[trojanfan12]

they dont have the money that other owners have.

honestly please answer me this- you HONESTLY think that the Buss family trust can spend in the same stratosphere as Paul Allen, as Mikkail Prokorohov, as Dan Gilbert, as Mickey Arison- this collection of men who are among the richest men in the world-

you are saying that the Buss family trust has an advantage spending wise over them

I just want to clear that up and make sure that is what you are saying because i cant believe it

Yes, they not only CAN, they have been doing it for a long time and a hell of a lot longer than the Cavs.

I don't give 2 shits what you believe. You also think that all of the Buss family money comes from basketball. The Lakers have assets that other teams don't have, beginning with the Time-Warner deal.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that it doesn't matter what money the Buss family has outside of basketball. The Time-Warner deal alone pays for salary and however far over the cap they are allowed to go under the CBA and still turn a profit. Everything else they take in, just adds to the profit. If an owner is having to dip into their own money to pay their employees, then their team isn't even breaking even, much less turning a profit. The Buss family has never had to dip into their own fortune.

If the Lakers are such paupers, then explain how they've been at the top or near the top in luxury tax every season and have still been one of very few teams in the league to turn a profit every single season.

Once again, time to admit you got this one wrong and move on.

 

[trojanfan12]

If you have a good argument I am all ears - i just dont see it.

Mickey Arison 6.5 billion
Dan Gilbert 3.9 billion
Paul Allen 16.2 billion
Mark Cuban 2.5 billion
Tom Gores 2.5 billion
Mikkail Prokohorv 11 billion
Steven Ballmer 20.7 billion

I just dont see how the Buss family trust which is compromised of 6 of the Buss children owning the team has a financial advantage over some of the richest men in the world when putting together a team


maybe i am wrong- ihave been before and i am sure i will be again

You're wrong because the Lakers are profitable. Time-Warner takes care of that by itself. The Lakers have also ALWAYS been profitable, even before Time-Warner. The Time-Warner deal just makes them ridiculously profitable.

You do understand why there's a luxury tax don't you? It's to help the teams that are losing money. How many millions have the Cavs received because they haven't been profitable?

 

[WiggyRuss]

You're wrong because the Lakers are profitable. Time-Warner takes care of that by itself. The Lakers have also ALWAYS been profitable, even before Time-Warner. The Time-Warner deal just makes them ridiculously profitable.

You do understand why there's a luxury tax don't you? It's to help the teams that are losing money. How many millions have the Cavs received because they haven't been profitable?

I dont understand this- you have to be profitable?

As i saw last year- the Nets had by far the highest payroll in the NBA. They are not NEARLY as profitable as the Lakers- not nearly

however- they still had a much higher payroll, and paid more tax in one year, then the Lakers have paid if you picked the two highest years of paying the tax in their franchises history.

that was not because the Nets were more profitable than the Lakers- you are totally right- the Lakers are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

more profitable than the Nets


however, the Nets were able to spend on a level that the NBA has never seen in its history before because their owner is worth 11 billion dollars- the NBA is not his primary business-and he looks at it as a hobby- and does not care if he is profitable.

 

[WiggyRuss]

The Brooklyn Nets will pay a record $90.57 million in luxury taxes for the 2013-14 season, sources told ESPN.com.

The NBA released its audit to teams ahead of the start of the new fiscal year at midnight Wednesday and revealed the numbers, including the Nets' penalty for splurging after trading for Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett last year. In all, the Nets paid more than $197 million in salaries and luxury taxes this past season. Only three other teams had paid more than $90 million in total tax since its inception in 2001.


between payroll and luxury tax penalties- the Nets paid just under 200 million in player costs for the 2013/2014 year-

This is not because the Nets were the most profitable team in the NBA. This is because the Nets have an owner worth 11 billion dollars that treats the team as his hobby and does not care if he incurs what are seemingly "gigantic" losses- but in the grand scheme of thigns- when you are worth 11 billion- are really not hugely significant.

 

[WiggyRuss]

in reality there is some truth to both arguments as has been displayed by the actual history of the league.

 

[trojanfan12]

I dont understand this- you have to be profitable?

As i saw last year- the Nets had by far the highest payroll in the NBA. They are not NEARLY as profitable as the Lakers- not nearly

however- they still had a much higher payroll, and paid more tax in one year, then the Lakers have paid if you picked the two highest years of paying the tax in their franchises history.

that was not because the Nets were more profitable than the Lakers- you are totally right- the Lakers are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

more profitable than the Nets


however, the Nets were able to spend on a level that the NBA has never seen in its history before because their owner is worth 11 billion dollars- the NBA is not his primary business-and he looks at it as a hobby- and does not care if he is profitable.

What you are not understanding is that the Nets owner dips into his own fortune because he HAS to because his team is not profitable. Teams can only go over the cap by so much. There is a max amount that they can go over the cap and therefore a max amount that they can pay in tax.

Let me try explaining it a little differently.

Let's say that the Nets total salary plus luxury tax is $190 million dollars. The Nets aren't profitable enough to cover that. So the owner has to dip into his own fortune to cover the rest.

Because of the Time-Warner deal, the Lakers could match that $190 million and still have $10 million left over. The Buss family could have no more money than I do and it wouldn't matter because they never have to dip into their own fortune.

 

[WiggyRuss]

what the Time Warner deal does allow the Lakers to do is- if they wish- keep up with these other owners who are crazily out of this world rich. You look at certain teams though like the Magic that have always been frugal- even when they were contenderse- with an EXTREMELY rich owner worth about 6 billion- and you realize that gigantic wealth does not mean you will actually spend it-----


you both have to have the VERy rich owner- and the will to spend the money and incur 8 digit losses on a yearly basis-

unless you are Dolan who is both rich and extremely profitable- thank God that guy never gets his act together and figures out how to run the Knicks or the East would be in some big time trouble

 

[WiggyRuss]

What you are not understanding is that the Nets owner dips into his own fortune because he HAS to because his team is not profitable. Teams can only go over the cap by so much. There is a max amount that they can go over the cap and therefore a max amount that they can pay in tax.

Let me try explaining it a little differently.

Let's say that the Nets total salary plus luxury tax is $190 million dollars. The Nets aren't profitable enough to cover that. So the owner has to dip into his own fortune to cover the rest.

Because of the Time-Warner deal, the Lakers could match that $190 million and still have $10 million left over. The Buss family could have no more money than I do and it wouldn't matter because they never have to dip into their own fortune.

what you just wrote is absolutely true- Prokorhov absolutely dipped into his own fortune- and thats EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING

to many of these guys the NBA is a hobby- they are not the Larry Miller's (former Jazz owner) or the Buss's or the other old school owners who bought in at 20 million and have seen their franchises increase in value to a billion or more


these guys have BILLIONS and buy in andwant to win- and could not care less about 10, 20- or even 90 million in a year to be competitive.



If you dont think Dan Gilbert is dipping into his own pockets to pay well into the tax to keep LeBron/Love/Kyrie together for a winner you dont understand the will to win for these guys and the ego involved when you are a self-made MULTI-billionaire


the lakers have by far the best revenue stream in basketball- but these other guys have revenue streams outside of basketball that are just as good- if not better- and arewilling to plow that money back into their hobby- thier basketball team.

 

[Heatles84]

The Brooklyn Nets will pay a record $90.57 million in luxury taxes for the 2013-14 season, sources told ESPN.com.

The NBA released its audit to teams ahead of the start of the new fiscal year at midnight Wednesday and revealed the numbers, including the Nets' penalty for splurging after trading for Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett last year. In all, the Nets paid more than $197 million in salaries and luxury taxes this past season. Only three other teams had paid more than $90 million in total tax since its inception in 2001.


between payroll and luxury tax penalties- the Nets paid just under 200 million in player costs for the 2013/2014 year-

This is not because the Nets were the most profitable team in the NBA. This is because the Nets have an owner worth 11 billion dollars that treats the team as his hobby and does not care if he incurs what are seemingly "gigantic" losses- but in the grand scheme of thigns- when you are worth 11 billion- are really not hugely significant.

Jesus Christ. The Nets paid way deep in the luxury tax due to a number of trades that included Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett's bloated salaries. Once you get over the salary cap, you spend $3 for every $1 over the cap. That's why their luxury bill was at large as it was.

Just admit you're wrong. At this point you're reaching, and it's embarrassing.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Jesus Christ. The Nets paid way deep in the luxury tax due to a number of trades that included Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett's bloated salaries. Once you get over the salary cap, you spend $3 for every $1 over the cap. That's why their luxury bill was at large as it was.

Just admit you're wrong. At this point you're reaching, and it's embarrassing.

dude....the adults are talking- your post just made no sense what so ever

 

[Heatles84]

dude....the adults are talking- your post just made no sense what so ever

Well, common sense escapes some people, so I understand.

 

[Mecca]

You're wrong because the Lakers are profitable. Time-Warner takes care of that by itself. The Lakers have also ALWAYS been profitable, even before Time-Warner. The Time-Warner deal just makes them ridiculously profitable.

You do understand why there's a luxury tax don't you? It's to help the teams that are losing money. How many millions have the Cavs received because they haven't been profitable?

Wow...we have the richest Owner?

Hmmm, Hope this one isn't a slumlord.


It's a brand new day

 

[Mecca]

***** off topic alert*****


I'm watching What dreams may come.

I don't know if any of you have seen it. But, it's one of my favorite Robin Williams films.

Totally surreal due to the subject matter


***** end alert *****

:focus:

Lebron walks on water.

Chris Bosh > Karl Malone

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

I almost forgot about that game. Here's the youtube link and it puts a rather large hole in Kyrie being such a clutch player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnktUxroQTE

Kyrie is a nice player, but the NBA is loaded with nice players.
In his few years in the league, I have never seen how he has made players around him better.
If he improves because of James, so what? He won't be the first and he won't be the last.
Same can basically be said about Love.

I honestly believe that this X-box fantasy offense that Cavs fans are envisioning is a long way from becoming a reality.

 

[DJ]

The Nets lost 144 million last season.

 

[DJ]

dude....the adults are talking- your post just made no sense what so ever

This is the kind of dick-ish behavior that got you booted from ESPN & banned 4-5 times on FN.

Typical of a wanna-be lawyer.

 

[Shield-Thread Killa]

Ignore Button

This is the kind of dick-ish behavior that got you booted from ESPN & banned 4-5 times on FN.

Typical of a wanna-be lawyer.

That's what make me wonder about some people...

This site has a ignore button, but they don't use it on you...

I think deep down they are fond of you and your comments....

 

[trojanfan12]

what the Time Warner deal does allow the Lakers to do is- if they wish- keep up with these other owners who are crazily out of this world rich. You look at certain teams though like the Magic that have always been frugal- even when they were contenderse- with an EXTREMELY rich owner worth about 6 billion- and you realize that gigantic wealth does not mean you will actually spend it-----


you both have to have the VERy rich owner- and the will to spend the money and incur 8 digit losses on a yearly basis-

unless you are Dolan who is both rich and extremely profitable- thank God that guy never gets his act together and figures out how to run the Knicks or the East would be in some big time trouble

Very true. Good thing he's not too bright so far. Although, Phil could change that.