OFFICIAL GENERAL FREE AGENCY/TRADE THREAD (Shams: Lakers to sign Sekou Doumbouya)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7001, 7002, 7003 ... 7049, 7050, 7051  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
deal
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 13498
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:08 pm    Post subject:

waterman40 wrote:
Does trading Simmons to the Rockets for John Wall make sense? Wall could win a chip there, and the Rockets would have an exciting name player to build on.



Simmons makes way too much money for what he brings to the table... He's a promising player but at this moment that salary is for big time stars, which he's not right now.
_________________
Lakers !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 25484

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:25 pm    Post subject:

PlantedTanks wrote:
Thanks. I guess his work is behind a pay wall. I just wanted to see how accurate he was in regards to other players. Makes sense about AC's value is in his defense. I have stated in the past and still believe he should be on the NBA all defensive team. It will be interesting to see how his analytics compare with the Bulls vs. Lakers.


His model projects values, not actual contracts. This makes sense because the CBA creates pinch points for contract values, such as the taxpayer MLE and the full MLE. I posted his point guard valuations somewhere in the last 1000 or so pages of this thread. I started to say that it would be a needle in a haystack, but then I decided to take a shot, and I actually found it. It's about halfway down this page:

http://lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=185425&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=161275
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Megaton
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Posts: 21594

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:33 pm    Post subject:

Using a model from the hack that is Hollinger for anything is cringe worthy.
_________________
Dennis Schroder: https://media.tenor.com/images/3c15249955860a4b16b59e8ae035fb75/tenor.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3000

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:26 pm    Post subject:

@V17+ I will address one last time as I think we have reached the end of this cycle.

(You either trade AD to us, or we pair Bron up with another star via our cap space.) I don't believe the Lakers would have ever paired up another star with Lebron due to the Klutch relationship. They had previously lost PG by not trading for him and the Lakers could ill afford to make the same mistake. Additionally no team can afford to miss the opportunity to obtain not only a superstar but one just entering his prime. Griffin I would believe fully understood this.

For (TB, Zu, Moe/Bonga, Jules, etc) Magic Magic Magic.

(It was even seen in the Green/1st for Schro deal...who exactly where we bidding against?). We will never know the interest in DS around the league but he was coming off a career year and entering his prime years. There was also the need to move DG and his salary.

(but that was al still dependent on if Miami/Memphis would still renounce those players away to even make them available to us) How much of this type of info is floating around the league (see agents) before it occurs? I am of the belief a lot.

(So knowing all that, they stilled pulled the trigger and then watched AC/Schro go out for nothing...waived/traded McKinnie/Gasol/2nd for nothing. Then proceeded to round out the roster with 1yr vet mins just to minimize the tax hit.) You already questioned the value of assets needed to acquire DS so with regression of his play this past season and teams knowing the relationship between DS and Lakers is strained would teams have been willing to give up assets for him? It was obvious during FA how he was valued. As a whole the vet min replacements + Nunn is jmo a better fit and better talent than what was lost. I also believe RP was aware that of the available FA's which one's would be willing to accept the vet min and had strong interest in signing with the Lakers. Is it just luck that for the past 3 years talented players fall to the Lakers? Obviously some work and some don't but it still happens.

I guess I will leave it at this as my main point from my previous posts is we just have a difference in perspective on the value of lost assets vs. the end result (championship). I feel there is validity in both our views but we just weigh their importance differently.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3000

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:38 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
PlantedTanks wrote:
Thanks. I guess his work is behind a pay wall. I just wanted to see how accurate he was in regards to other players. Makes sense about AC's value is in his defense. I have stated in the past and still believe he should be on the NBA all defensive team. It will be interesting to see how his analytics compare with the Bulls vs. Lakers.


His model projects values, not actual contracts. This makes sense because the CBA creates pinch points for contract values, such as the taxpayer MLE and the full MLE. I posted his point guard valuations somewhere in the last 1000 or so pages of this thread. I started to say that it would be a needle in a haystack, but then I decided to take a shot, and I actually found it. It's about halfway down this page:

http://lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=185425&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=161275


Thanks again. Pretty impressed as he was fairly accurate with the majority of his valuation vs. actual contract. I personally had AC and DS at 8-10 mil. I was a fan of Nunn and never expected Miami to release him. Not totally sure but I believe most of the available $'s had dried up by the time of his release which benefited the Lakers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vasashi17+
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Dec 2019
Posts: 2239

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:13 pm    Post subject:

@PT: Appreciate the discussion, but I agree it’s a differing perspective.

One instance is that folks think we’re in the clear since Magic left. I contest, that Magic and Rob enabled each other, and one of those dudes is still here. Imho, we are not in the clear since slot of the current moves echo the moves that were made when Magic was here. Not to mention, Magic felt he was undermined by not putting in the work and being in the office on a day to day basis. So if Magic was considered an absentee exec, who exactly was constructing these cap clearing moves like the Zu trade and letting a restricted FA like Jules, just walk off for nothing. All is not well just cause Magic left. Some of you believe it was all him with this moves, but imho it was the both of them that made those calls.

Still, we finally attained 3max stars so I’m happy we finally here and kudos to Rob for seeing it through and not quitting like Magic did....but still we could have been sitting on 3 stars and a lot more assets to round out the roster with and that’s where I believe Rob gets fair criticism. He wasn’t very efficient in seeing this current vision through imho. I’ll just leave it at that.

I’m happy with #17, but I think it’s disingenuous to think the unique COVID climate has no impact an a rather unusual season and postseason. That being said, I like our chances this year and proving #17 wasn’t a fluke. Still, I would love to be in this position, while looking at cap sheet thinking, yep management did everything they could to get #18 and we got a number of assets to fall back on in case emergency strikes or we need to shuffle up the deck.
_________________
Are other members mocking your trade proposals?
Are you not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules?
Don’t be that guy/gal! Please CLICK HERE to get familiar!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 11457

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:42 pm    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:
I’m happy with #17, but I think it’s disingenuous to think the unique COVID climate has no impact an a rather unusual season and postseason.


You could say the same about last year (short off season, way too many injuries) or any number of other years (strike years, expansion years). The reality is that pre-Covid the Lakers and Bucks were the best teams in the league and the Lakers had found their groove with a string of big wins before the shut down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 38848

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:55 am    Post subject:

vasashi17+ wrote:

I’m happy with #17, but I think it’s disingenuous to think the unique COVID climate has no impact an a rather unusual season and postseason. That being said, I like our chances this year and proving #17 wasn’t a fluke. Still, I would love to be in this position, while looking at cap sheet thinking, yep management did everything they could to get #18 and we got a number of assets to fall back on in case emergency strikes or we need to shuffle up the deck.


We already have #18
_________________
“God knew they couldn’t be on this Earth without each other. He had to bring them home to heaven together.”

— Vanessa Bryant
https://youtu.be/SX3IZULkWx8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 15060

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:07 am    Post subject:

JUST-MING wrote:
vasashi17+ wrote:

I’m happy with #17, but I think it’s disingenuous to think the unique COVID climate has no impact an a rather unusual season and postseason. That being said, I like our chances this year and proving #17 wasn’t a fluke. Still, I would love to be in this position, while looking at cap sheet thinking, yep management did everything they could to get #18 and we got a number of assets to fall back on in case emergency strikes or we need to shuffle up the deck.


We already have #18


Just went back through that thread. Man, the trolls back then were much more tolerable than our current ones.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 25484

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:41 am    Post subject:

PlantedTanks wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
PlantedTanks wrote:
Thanks. I guess his work is behind a pay wall. I just wanted to see how accurate he was in regards to other players. Makes sense about AC's value is in his defense. I have stated in the past and still believe he should be on the NBA all defensive team. It will be interesting to see how his analytics compare with the Bulls vs. Lakers.


His model projects values, not actual contracts. This makes sense because the CBA creates pinch points for contract values, such as the taxpayer MLE and the full MLE. I posted his point guard valuations somewhere in the last 1000 or so pages of this thread. I started to say that it would be a needle in a haystack, but then I decided to take a shot, and I actually found it. It's about halfway down this page:

http://lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=185425&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=161275


Thanks again. Pretty impressed as he was fairly accurate with the majority of his valuation vs. actual contract. I personally had AC and DS at 8-10 mil. I was a fan of Nunn and never expected Miami to release him. Not totally sure but I believe most of the available $'s had dried up by the time of his release which benefited the Lakers.


Yes. The Heat had given him a QO, then pulled it a day or two into the free agency period. By that point, the teams that were in the market for point guards or combo guards had made their commitments. There wasn't a lot of money left on the market, and he got squeezed. He says he took less money to come to the Lakers. That may be literally true, but I doubt anyone was offering him the full MLE or more. Basically, he found himself in the same position as Schroder. Free agency is like a game of musical chairs. The music stopped, and Nunn and Schroder didn't have a chair. Nunn managed to get out of it without making a spectacle of himself.

By the way, here is Hollinger's full write up on Nunn. Hollinger kinda sorta anticipated what was going to happen to Nunn:

Quote:
9. Kendrick Nunn, Heat (restricted): $11,467,484

Miami’s guard presents an interesting case because his cap hold is only $4.4 million, thus giving the Heat a fairly strong incentive to use the rest of their cap room and then re-sign Kendrick Nunn. On the other hand, one of the Heat’s primary targets is likely Lowry, and it would seemingly make little sense to pay Nunn starter-level money to be his caddy; using cap space and then paying both Nunn and Duncan Robinson (who has the same low cap hold) could also vault Miami into the luxury tax.

Rival teams know that there are scenarios where the Heat wouldn’t be able to keep Nunn and are monitoring this situation; Nunn can be a little iffy defensively and a little shoot-first for the liking of some, but he turns 26 in August and shot a staggering-for-a-small-guard 58.3 percent on 2s last year. He’s also an awesome foul shooter (88.8 percent career) who could better leverage that by drawing more fouls.

_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RashardA
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 1069
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:02 am    Post subject:

Has the season started yet?
_________________
Everyting negative - pressure, challenges - is all an opportunity for me to rise.
-Kobe Bryant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 57747
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:23 am    Post subject:

RashardA wrote:
Has the season started yet?


Oct 1 starts preseason, Lakers vs Nets Oct 3rd. Oct 18 regular season, Lakers first game Oct 19th.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 138739
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:26 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
Laker's Fan wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Harlemlakerfan wrote:
Does anyone else feel like the Cavs will not buyout Klove, as long as the Lakers have that open roster spot? It would not surprise me if teams around the league have advised Cleveland to not buyout Klove, because the Lakers are waiting to scoop him up and him going there is not a good look. No need to help them out.


I don’t think that the Lakers factor into Cleveland’s decision making. They likely won’t buy out Love because it makes no sense to do so.


Yeah, if Love isn't willing to take a significant haircut, it's hard to see Cleveland's incentive to waive him. Blake Griffin is something of a parallel, having had two years and about the same money left, and he gave back $13m. He may have also been seen as a good soldier, having been dealt there after signing with the Clippers but still remaining professional. Cleveland gave Love an oversized deal after LeBron left and he hasn't exactly been a company man.


Does Love have anything left in the tank? He was basically cut from the Olympic Team and hasn't played in 61+ games in 5 years. Last year was basically career lows in everything. He looks physically and emotionally shot.


I don’t think that he has anything left in the heart.
_________________
If you could choose between dating a supermodel or going fishing, would it be saltwater or freshwater?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nash Vegas
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 5979

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:55 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Shams: Former Lakers forward Devontae Cacok will sign with the Brooklyn Nets, sources tell @TheAthletic @Stadium. The 6-foot-7 forward will go to training camp and compete for an open two-way spot.

_________________
Marcellus Wiley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSD
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2016
Posts: 17624

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:03 am    Post subject:

Nash Vegas wrote:
Quote:
Shams: Former Lakers forward Devontae Cacok will sign with the Brooklyn Nets, sources tell @TheAthletic @Stadium. The 6-foot-7 forward will go to training camp and compete for an open two-way spot.



_________________
My main focus is we win, nothing else matters.
-Rajon Rondo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nash Vegas
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 5979

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:18 am    Post subject:

Nets just want inside intel from Lakers
_________________
Marcellus Wiley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chick's Magic Johnson
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:31 am    Post subject:

Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 25484

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:06 am    Post subject:

Chick's Magic Johnson wrote:
Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.


On your first point: I don't know that a team like the Bulls would pay a premium because Caruso has playoff experience, but I suppose it's possible. The playoff run certainly improved Caruso's credibility as a player.

On your second point: I agree in principle, but I don't think this is really a case of people arguing for the owners (though there may be exceptions on a message board like this). It's more a matter of people understanding that the owners don't want to fork over another $100M in luxury tax. That's a real distinction. I may wish that the owners would spend more money, and I may think that they can easily afford it, but I can accept that they don't want to spend an extra $100M to entertain me.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3000

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:11 am    Post subject:

Chick's Magic Johnson wrote:
Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.


I believe you may be referring to recent conversations I have been involved with. Just to clarify:

I don't recall anyone questioning if AC was worth the contract he received this offseason. We were discussing 2 points. First if Hollinger's model which is a predictive salary tool for free agents would produce the same $'s whether a player was on a championship contender or a losing team hence Lakers vs. Cavs. In short the answer was yes. Whether that would have actually affected the contract he received is a different discussion. Second and to a much lesser extent does playing in "Hollywood" lights help a player attain a better contract? I believe it was No. Just to reiterate no one is questioning AC's worth as like you stated he has proven he is.

As for your second point I don't believe anyone is arguing for the millionaire/billionaire owners "penny pinching ways". It is just acknowledging that is a reality that should be considered why certain decisions are made. We may not agree with this practice but still it is reality. I believe you realize it is not just the Lakers but every franchise including the richest owners like Ballmer. It includes all MLB teams and likewise in the NFL where I am of the belief has the richest owners and generates the most revenue but of the big 3 sports is the only one that abides by a hard cap that cannot be exceeded. I on my part factor this in as why certain decisions are made whether I like it or not.

Btw I was very disappointed when AC was not retained as I have followed his career from his g-league days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 32155

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:25 am    Post subject:

Chick's Magic Johnson wrote:
Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.


To me, it's not so much defending or attacking owners as being realistic.

I don't think any owner is going to spend every penny they can conceivably spend to increase their chance of winning by a small amount, just as players aren't going to give up money to increase their chance of winning.

All I expect is that an owner draw the spending line at a reasonable point. Having any other expectations would just cause me to work myself up for no reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3000

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:39 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Chick's Magic Johnson wrote:
Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.


To me, it's not so much defending or attacking owners as being realistic.

I don't think any owner is going to spend every penny they can conceivably spend to increase their chance of winning by a small amount, just as players aren't going to give up money to increase their chance of winning.

All I expect is that an owner draw the spending line at a reasonable point. Having any other expectations would just cause me to work myself up for no reason.


If only I could be clear and concise like you instead of my wordy explanations but I am and old dog who can't be taught new tricks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PayasoLoco
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 16425

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:41 am    Post subject:

Chick's Magic Johnson wrote:
Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.


PREACH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 32155

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:20 am    Post subject:

PlantedTanks wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Chick's Magic Johnson wrote:
Two points floating around that I wanted to jump in on.

First, the argument that AC wouldn't be worth what he got this off-season if he'd been playing for a team like Cleveland. Of course that's true, but it does not support an argument that AC isn't worth the money he got--quite the opposite. It's not just that being on "the Lakers" inflated his value ... it's that he is battle-tested in the playoffs! The dude started and played 33 minutes in a close-out game of the NBA finals. The fact that he can be counted on that deep in the playoffs increases his value, plain and simple.

Second, I just cannot understand why people are arguing for the owners justifying them penny-pinching. The "its a business argument" does NOT work for me. Year over year revenue PALES in comparison to what the owners make in the increased value of their franchise. Buss bought the Lakers for $68 million and, right now, if they sold, the franchise would fetch north of $5 billion. As a fan, to "understand" when BILLIONAIRES refuse to support the team and product to save $5-10 MILLION, makes absolutely ZERO sense. I'm sorry. Also, if you want to argue that the Buss family NEEDS the revenue from the Lakers (they absolutely don't) because this is their business, that argument is also incorrect. They can borrow $$$ against their business or ownership stakes and write off the interest almost entirely. You running a small business like an insurance company or auto garage has zero bearing on the economics of major league sports. No offense. And when a team like the Lakers, who charges ridiculous ticket prices that keep most real fans from seeing the games regularly and enters into huge contracts with media companies that prevent fans from actually seeing the games on TV, aren't willing to go all-in on title windows ... it's just indefensible.


To me, it's not so much defending or attacking owners as being realistic.

I don't think any owner is going to spend every penny they can conceivably spend to increase their chance of winning by a small amount, just as players aren't going to give up money to increase their chance of winning.

All I expect is that an owner draw the spending line at a reasonable point. Having any other expectations would just cause me to work myself up for no reason.


If only I could be clear and concise like you instead of my wordy explanations but I am and old dog who can't be taught new tricks.


Thanks. I am an old dog too
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 57747
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:03 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:

Quote:
I don't think any owner is going to spend every penny they can conceivably spend to increase their chance of winning by a small amount, just as players aren't going to give up money to increase their chance of winning.


That's not true. Harden took less money to play in Brooklyn with Durant and Kyrie. The Heat ran out of money to keep Haslem on the team, the big three of Wade, LeBron and Bosh stepped up to take a pay cut.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 32155

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:31 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
activeverb wrote:

Quote:
I don't think any owner is going to spend every penny they can conceivably spend to increase their chance of winning by a small amount, just as players aren't going to give up money to increase their chance of winning.


That's not true. Harden took less money to play in Brooklyn with Durant and Kyrie. The Heat ran out of money to keep Haslem on the team, the big three of Wade, LeBron and Bosh stepped up to take a pay cut.


Oh, sure, there are occasions now and then when players give up some money for a better chance of winning. But it's fairly rare, and it's even rarer for them to give up a significant amount of money.

In the case of Harden, he didn't actually give up money. He moved to a team in a different state with a higher tax system. Exactly how much that cost him is a complex calculation, since NBA players pay taxes in the different cities in which they play, and then things like property tax factor in as well.

If you are going to play the income tax game, you could also argue Bosh and Lebron didn't really lose money going to Miami (and might have made some) because that state has no state income tax.

All that said, by a large, it is fairly rare for an NBA player to take significantly less money in salary to improve his team's chances of winning. Of course, nothing is an absolute, and it is easy to find a few exceptions to the general rule, for both players and owners.


Last edited by activeverb on Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7001, 7002, 7003 ... 7049, 7050, 7051  Next
Page 7002 of 7051
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB