Howard to the Lakers

[HndsmCelt]

See, I'm WAY to resentful and petty to let ancient, superstar teams that are one injury away from not contending get away with playing their fragile guys big minutes against me.

If I had a team of unimportant nobodies in an NBA backwater that's been made fun of for decades, I'd make sure my team knew to play those superstars INCREDIBLY physical.
I'd make the other coach concerned that if he keeps playing his aging superstars hard against me, they're going to get hurt. I wouldn't care about the techs or the flagrant fouls or the fines.
I'm dead serious.
If these big-city teams *cough Lakers cough* are going to bring fragile superstars against me, I'm going to make sure they are afraid for their health.

Sound familiar? Oh, maybe my approach is a bit closer to Jerry Sloan's than I realized - I knew there was a reason I liked that guy...

This namby-pamby, nice-guy go-along-to-get-along BS is REALLY getting old by the Kings.

I could not have said it better myself. Cousins dropped 29 points on DH last year and one reason why is Howard not being up for banging with the really big boys. We could use some more tough guys for sure but any team willing to take it at Kobe, set hard screens on Nash and force Gasol to move will reap benefits especially in a playoff situation. thne again I have always been a prety big fan of Sloan my self.
G

 

[BonziFan]

See, I'm WAY to resentful and petty to let ancient, superstar teams that are one injury away from not contending get away with playing their fragile guys big minutes against me.

If I had a team of unimportant nobodies in an NBA backwater that's been made fun of for decades, I'd make sure my team knew to play those superstars INCREDIBLY physical.
I'd make the other coach concerned that if he keeps playing his aging superstars hard against me, they're going to get hurt. I wouldn't care about the techs or the flagrant fouls or the fines.
I'm dead serious.
If these big-city teams *cough Lakers cough* are going to bring fragile superstars against me, I'm going to make sure they are afraid for their health.

Sound familiar? Oh, maybe my approach is a bit closer to Jerry Sloan's than I realized - I knew there was a reason I liked that guy...

This namby-pamby, nice-guy go-along-to-get-along BS is REALLY getting old by the Kings.

This is just.....nevermind, not worth it.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Really not sure what your point is here. So I apologize if I missed it. I don't think anyone underestimates Nash, and in my opinion, he's a bigger factor in the Lakers possibly winning another championship than Howard is. Not that I don't respect what Howard brings, but as I pointed out, although he's a better player than Bynum, the difference, at least stat wise, isn't that significant. However, Nash is a huge upgrade at a position that needed it.

As I stated earlier, the question is whether Kobe and Nash can remain healthy at their respective ages. To lose one for a while during the regular season wouldn't be that big a deal, but to lose one during the playoffs, would put a big dent in their goal to win a championship. I don't think many people realize the significance of having played in over 1000 NBA games. Very few player, especially stars, because they tend to play more minutes, ever reach the 1000 game mark. And those that do, are usually a mere shell of their former selves.

Believe me, I've done a lot of reseach in this area. Now of course there are exceptions, and in the case of Kobe and Nash, the Lakers have two such exceptions on the team at the same time. Kobe wasn't the same player last year, and I don't think thats an accident. When the end starts to come, it can come rapidly. In many cases, star players go from being the man, to being a liability within one year. Look how fast Mitch Richmond fell from grace. Larry Bird never reached 1000 games. Patrick Ewing went from being a star to an aveage player seemingly overnight. Ewing sustained his excellence through 913 games and to the age of 34. After that, it was all downhill, with nagging injuries, and eventually poor play.

Not saying that will happen this next season, and I would never wish that on any player. But it is in the Lakers future at some point. I'd also like to point out, that although Howard improved the Lakers frontline defense, Bynum was no slouch in that dept. And, Nash doesn't help the Lakers backcourt defense. Did I point out that Howard is prone to foul trouble. Somehow, I just don't see Nash having a lot of success trying to guard Westbrook in the playoffs.

That's why you shouldn't compare them by stats, at least not by basic stats. Howard's impact defensively is demonstrably huge by turning the Magic (which was made up of a lot of defensive sieves over the years) into a decent defensive team, he's great at defending the pick and roll and his effort is consistent on that end. Bynum hasn't shown consistent effort defensively, nor has it really shown in the Lakers' overall defense, and he's poor at defending the pick and roll. Bynum can also be a black hole offensively unlike Dwight, who can score very well off the ball, and he has a ton of experience passing out of double teams and getting the ball to open shooters in SVG's system. Bynum is slow, Dwight is one of the fastest centers in NBA history. Bynum is a better low post scorer, and perhaps even more offensively skilled (definitely a better ft shooter), but that's not what the Lakers really need when they have Gasol. Dwight does everything they've needed, while Gasol and Bynum were often redundant slow post up players that needed the ball in their hands. The difference will be huge because Dwight fills in the necessary gaps for the Lakers and will mask a lot of their weaknesses.

 

[kingjatt]

The NBA model is broken and is a joke, the small market fans seriously have no hope, The one OKC example is a 1 in a million instance, and im sure durrant bolts to a big market or teaming up with his buddies if they dont win a ring within his contract, Kevin Love has already hinted at leaving Minni if they arent serious contenders and will probably leave anyways. The small market teams are just a farm system for the big boys and its true now more than ever, if you dont win a championship within your star players second contract then they are as good as gone and usually leave early forcing their way out of town.
Dwight Howard leaves Orlando goes to LA
Chris Paul leaves NO goes to LA
Lebron leaves Cleveland goes to Miami
Chris Bosh leaves Toronto goes to Miami
Carmelo Anthony leaves Denver goes to NY
Amare Leaves Phoenix goes to NY
Deron Williams leaves Utah goes to Brooklyn
Steve Nash leaves Phoenix goes to LA
The Boston Big three left their small market teams to get together

 

[Gargamel]

Do you think if Mitch were our GM that he could get us an NBA championship? Of course not.

Thought I might as well put this here, Glenn.

It's relative. I don't think the Kings would win a title, but I have zero doubt he'd be superior to Petrie. Mitch hasn't been doing full-time GM for 20 years, so he tends to get dismissed in a way that West wasn't, yet West had the same advantages we all point to and no one says he wasn't a top notch GM. Mitch's qualities as a GM show thru whatever extrinsic advantages LA has as a team and a city. I guess it's a losing battle trying to argue that on a Kings site, but I can at least attempt to understand how the situation may look from your perspectives. I can point out the Clippers' sorry history and that typically gets conveniently swept under the rug, like it's not applicable. They have been in LA longer than a handful of other teams have been in existence (3 expansion teams went to the Conf Finals or Finals in that span). They've also been under perhaps the worst ownership since the Stepien Cavs of the 70s. If you stink in the FO, you stink. If you're good, you're good. Expectations may differ from team to team, but that's a separate issue.

Another point that is hard to promote is that LA earned their own success, though I don't see how that's deniable. They've had 40 years of ownership willing to pay PREMIUM for wins, not just money, but premium. Buss is not fiscally stupid either, which destroys the idea that he just blindly slings money out there instead of investing it in players that are going to get the job done. He's probably not even top 10 in terms of richest owners, or hasn't been til the new cable deal. However, he's always been against paying the LT unless he was clearly trotting out a championship caliber team. He's also let go of smalls instead of bogging the payroll down with max contracts that small market teams too often give up (eg: Eddie Jones & Caron Butler, both lottery picks; Trevor Ariza - a major cog in a championship season). He's likely to give those contracts to superstars or bigmen (addressed to those who admit that LA always seeks star centers out...it's not by accident). Max deals for good, but not great players like Caron are what too often kill small market teams. Even now, after the lockout they portrayed as a crusade for parity (lolz), these teams can't help themselves. All they did was lower the BRI split from levels that had been in place since 1983 so they can have more expendable cash to hand out more foolish contracts.

Like SA gets by on its wits, yes, I do believe that Mitch Kupchak would be able to build a winning team up there. He's mitigated TWO bad outcomes by acquiring Nash and Gasol with expiring Ks. Those were gained by Kwame's contract and the hasty trade of the sullen Odom to Dallas, which was a smart move. He also came ahead in the Shaq deal of 2004 after everyone raked him over the coals. Got out of both of those situations quick to avoid what happened to Orlando.

Comparing the Kings to the Lakers as teams that are equivalent in terms of title aspirations...no. They're not. Sac doesn't have a winning history to sell like either the big market Lakers or the small market Spurs do. Matter of fact, the NEW YORK Knicks don't have that history either. Even with that admission, LA does most of their work via trades, not Draft or FA signees. You have to have a salary slot to get a FA and in order to get Shaq, they needed someone with the intelligence of Jerry West in order to clear that slot over the course of 1+ seasons. Nothing gets done by luck, money, and location alone. If that were the case, the Blazers under Paul Allen and the Knicks would've been more successful in the past 2-3 decades.

Final take, Mitch would do better up in Sac, imo, than what has taken place in the last 8 years. Likewise, the Grizz did a lot better under West than they ever had before. Relative expectations.

Kings FO has to sack up and start from scratch. Have they done that beyond trying to pluck lottery picks after bad seasons? It doesn't look that way. What's being done now that makes you think they're actually committed to building a championship team? Anyone here care to let me know if you think they are committed?

 

[Glenn]

If Bob Short had kept the team in Minneapolis, would they be as successful? It's not worth a discussion as you live in your bubble of information and I live in mine. Maybe you should stick with the Lakers fans where you all have the same delusion.

Why do you think the Lakers moved from Minneapolis to LA if it wasn't for the idea that they might be more successful in LA?

 

[VF21]

Thought I might as well put this here, Glenn.

It's relative. I don't think the Kings would win a title, but I have zero doubt he'd be superior to Petrie. Mitch hasn't been doing full-time GM for 20 years, so he tends to get dismissed in a way that West wasn't, yet West had the same advantages we all point to and no one says he wasn't a top notch GM. Mitch's qualities as a GM show thru whatever extrinsic advantages LA has as a team and a city. I guess it's a losing battle trying to argue that on a Kings site, but I can at least attempt to understand how the situation may look from your perspectives. I can point out the Clippers' sorry history and that typically gets conveniently swept under the rug, like it's not applicable. They have been in LA longer than a handful of other teams have been in existence (3 expansion teams went to the Conf Finals or Finals in that span). They've also been under perhaps the worst ownership since the Stepien Cavs of the 70s. If you stink in the FO, you stink. If you're good, you're good. Expectations may differ from team to team, but that's a separate issue.

Another point that is hard to promote is that LA earned their own success, though I don't see how that's deniable. They've had 40 years of ownership willing to pay PREMIUM for wins, not just money, but premium. Buss is not fiscally stupid either, which destroys the idea that he just blindly slings money out there instead of investing it in players that are going to get the job done. He's probably not even top 10 in terms of richest owners, or hasn't been til the new cable deal. However, he's always been against paying the LT unless he was clearly trotting out a championship caliber team. He's also let go of smalls instead of bogging the payroll down with max contracts that small market teams too often give up (eg: Eddie Jones & Caron Butler, both lottery picks; Trevor Ariza - a major cog in a championship season). He's likely to give those contracts to superstars or bigmen (addressed to those who admit that LA always seeks star centers out...it's not by accident). Max deals for good, but not great players like Caron are what too often kill small market teams. Even now, after the lockout they portrayed as a crusade for parity (lolz), these teams can't help themselves. All they did was lower the BRI split from levels that had been in place since 1983 so they can have more expendable cash to hand out more foolish contracts.

Like SA gets by on its wits, yes, I do believe that Mitch Kupchak would be able to build a winning team up there. He's mitigated TWO bad outcomes by acquiring Nash and Gasol with expiring Ks. Those were gained by Kwame's contract and the hasty trade of the sullen Odom to Dallas, which was a smart move. He also came ahead in the Shaq deal of 2004 after everyone raked him over the coals. Got out of both of those situations quick to avoid what happened to Orlando.

Comparing the Kings to the Lakers as teams that are equivalent in terms of title aspirations...no. They're not. Sac doesn't have a winning history to sell like either the big market Lakers or the small market Spurs do. Matter of fact, the NEW YORK Knicks don't have that history either. Even with that admission, LA does most of their work via trades, not Draft or FA signees. You have to have a salary slot to get a FA and in order to get Shaq, they needed someone with the intelligence of Jerry West in order to clear that slot over the course of 1+ seasons. Nothing gets done by luck, money, and location alone. If that were the case, the Blazers under Paul Allen and the Knicks would've been more successful in the past 2-3 decades.

Final take, Mitch would do better up in Sac, imo, than what has taken place in the last 8 years. Likewise, the Grizz did a lot better under West than they ever had before. Relative expectations.

Kings FO has to sack up and start from scratch. Have they done that beyond trying to pluck lottery picks after bad seasons? It doesn't look that way. What's being done now that makes you think they're actually committed to building a championship team? Anyone here care to let me know if you think they are committed?

Good to see you post.

As much as I would like to whine and cry and pout, the bolded portion of your post is important for Kings fans to remember. When we had a front office willing to spend the bucks, we gave your Lakers a run for their money. Then, however, the Maloofs got their fingers too deeply into the pie, some stupid decisions were made and the franchise has slid towards the abyss ever since. We continue to pay way too much for mediocre players and free agents avoid us like the plague. The one chance the Maloofs had to turn that around - the agreement to build the downtown arena - went down in flames when George Maloof decided to turn himself and his brothers into a poor caricature of the Marx Brothers.

And yet, we Kings fan continue to hang on to our ever-fading dreams. Do I think the front office is committed to building a championship team? No. And that's a question I really truly wish I could have answered differently.

 

[mac]

The NBA model is broken and is a joke, the small market fans seriously have no hope, The one OKC example is a 1 in a million instance, and im sure durrant bolts to a big market or teaming up with his buddies if they dont win a ring within his contract, Kevin Love has already hinted at leaving Minni if they arent serious contenders and will probably leave anyways. The small market teams are just a farm system for the big boys and its true now more than ever, if you dont win a championship within your star players second contract then they are as good as gone and usually leave early forcing their way out of town.
Dwight Howard leaves Orlando goes to LA
Chris Paul leaves NO goes to LA
Lebron leaves Cleveland goes to Miami
Chris Bosh leaves Toronto goes to Miami
Carmelo Anthony leaves Denver goes to NY
Amare Leaves Phoenix goes to NY
Deron Williams leaves Utah goes to Brooklyn
Steve Nash leaves Phoenix goes to LA
The Boston Big three left their small market teams to get together

Agree with all except the last two examples. Steve Nash is far, far removed from his second contract. All veteran players try to chase rings if they can, what more an almost 40 year old guy who has never been able to get to the Finals as the best player on his team? Or did you seriously expect him to play his last 3 years in Toronto and pray to even make the playoffs?

Boston big 3 were assembled via trade, no?

 

[bajaden]

Thought I might as well put this here, Glenn.

It's relative. I don't think the Kings would win a title, but I have zero doubt he'd be superior to Petrie. Mitch hasn't been doing full-time GM for 20 years, so he tends to get dismissed in a way that West wasn't, yet West had the same advantages we all point to and no one says he wasn't a top notch GM. Mitch's qualities as a GM show thru whatever extrinsic advantages LA has as a team and a city. I guess it's a losing battle trying to argue that on a Kings site, but I can at least attempt to understand how the situation may look from your perspectives. I can point out the Clippers' sorry history and that typically gets conveniently swept under the rug, like it's not applicable. They have been in LA longer than a handful of other teams have been in existence (3 expansion teams went to the Conf Finals or Finals in that span). They've also been under perhaps the worst ownership since the Stepien Cavs of the 70s. If you stink in the FO, you stink. If you're good, you're good. Expectations may differ from team to team, but that's a separate issue.

Another point that is hard to promote is that LA earned their own success, though I don't see how that's deniable. They've had 40 years of ownership willing to pay PREMIUM for wins, not just money, but premium. Buss is not fiscally stupid either, which destroys the idea that he just blindly slings money out there instead of investing it in players that are going to get the job done. He's probably not even top 10 in terms of richest owners, or hasn't been til the new cable deal. However, he's always been against paying the LT unless he was clearly trotting out a championship caliber team. He's also let go of smalls instead of bogging the payroll down with max contracts that small market teams too often give up (eg: Eddie Jones & Caron Butler, both lottery picks; Trevor Ariza - a major cog in a championship season). He's likely to give those contracts to superstars or bigmen (addressed to those who admit that LA always seeks star centers out...it's not by accident). Max deals for good, but not great players like Caron are what too often kill small market teams. Even now, after the lockout they portrayed as a crusade for parity (lolz), these teams can't help themselves. All they did was lower the BRI split from levels that had been in place since 1983 so they can have more expendable cash to hand out more foolish contracts.

Like SA gets by on its wits, yes, I do believe that Mitch Kupchak would be able to build a winning team up there. He's mitigated TWO bad outcomes by acquiring Nash and Gasol with expiring Ks. Those were gained by Kwame's contract and the hasty trade of the sullen Odom to Dallas, which was a smart move. He also came ahead in the Shaq deal of 2004 after everyone raked him over the coals. Got out of both of those situations quick to avoid what happened to Orlando.

Comparing the Kings to the Lakers as teams that are equivalent in terms of title aspirations...no. They're not. Sac doesn't have a winning history to sell like either the big market Lakers or the small market Spurs do. Matter of fact, the NEW YORK Knicks don't have that history either. Even with that admission, LA does most of their work via trades, not Draft or FA signees. You have to have a salary slot to get a FA and in order to get Shaq, they needed someone with the intelligence of Jerry West in order to clear that slot over the course of 1+ seasons. Nothing gets done by luck, money, and location alone. If that were the case, the Blazers under Paul Allen and the Knicks would've been more successful in the past 2-3 decades.

Final take, Mitch would do better up in Sac, imo, than what has taken place in the last 8 years. Likewise, the Grizz did a lot better under West than they ever had before. Relative expectations.

Kings FO has to sack up and start from scratch. Have they done that beyond trying to pluck lottery picks after bad seasons? It doesn't look that way. What's being done now that makes you think they're actually committed to building a championship team? Anyone here care to let me know if you think they are committed?

Look, you live in the LA bubble, and you only see things through that prisim. Believe me, one of my closest friends is a Laker fan. Yes, I still love him anyway, but he almost has a sense of entitlement when it comes to the Lakers. My friend, its all about money. If you have it, and a good GM, your on your way. If you have it, and a bad GM, you make big splashes, maybe improve enough to keep the fans interested, but you'll never win a championship. But if you don't have it, your in for a tough time. You'll never have the money to sign a big time freeagent, unless he's on the downside of his career. You can't make significant trades unless you have assests that someone else wants. And you just can't have assests, you have to have extra assests that you can afford to trade.

The only way to aquire those assests is through the draft. And thats only if you draft wisely. In the case of the Lakers, Mitch is still spending assests in one form or the other that were gotten with remnants left over from Jerry West, who in my opinion is maybe the best GM in the history of the NBA. And I'm not knocking Mitch, I'm just saying, let him start from scratch with a poor owner, and see how well he does. During the period when Petrie had money to spend, along with capspace, he put together a darned good team that almost unseated the powerful Lakers. If you look at any of the small market teams that have been successful, they all have two things in common. A wealthy owner, thats willing to spend, and a good GM.

Here's the key. Would Mitch even consider coming to sacramento? Would Howard? What are the odds that Howard would resign with the Kings, even if Petrie could have put together a deal to get him? I'd say the odd's of his resigning with the Lakers are just a tad better, wouldn't you? What are the odds of Steve Nash signing with the Kings? There's a distinct difference between LA and Sacramento when it comes to aquiring players. Mr. Mitch would find that out very quickly. Hell, at least the Spurs and Mav's can offer no state taxes as an incentive. No such luck for the Kings, when California has some of the highest state taxes in the nation.

 

[kingjatt]

Agree with all except the last two examples. Steve Nash is far, far removed from his second contract. All veteran players try to chase rings if they can, what more an almost 40 year old guy who has never been able to get to the Finals as the best player on his team? Or did you seriously expect him to play his last 3 years in Toronto and pray to even make the playoffs?

Boston big 3 were assembled via trade, no?

It wasnt a list of only second contract guys it was a combo list mostly to point out how many team cornerstones have left for the big markets and regardless of age steve nash fits that mold based upon his performance last year alone.

technically even lebron was accuried via trade but again the point i was trying to get across is that these franchises who have to give up their once in a generation star are back in the dumps and stay in the dumps for a whille, aside from denver (which still isnt better than the anthony teams).

 

[bajaden]

It wasnt a list of only second contract guys it was a combo list mostly to point out how many team cornerstones have left for the big markets and regardless of age steve nash fits that mold based upon his performance last year alone.

technically even lebron was accuried via trade but again the point i was trying to get across is that these franchises who have to give up their once in a generation star are back in the dumps and stay in the dumps for a whille, aside from denver (which still isnt better than the anthony teams).

I think it comes down to the individual, and the state of the team that drafted them. Duncan has stayed with the Spurs his entire career, and they're certainly a small market team. Now you can say that yes, they're a small market team, but they're a successful small market. True! But a large part of that success is due to Duncan. He's a big enough polarizing figure to attract other good players. Remember though, that Duncan is from the Virgin Islands, and not Philly or Chicago. So one could easily apply that same possibility to Cousins. He's from a small town in Alabama, and he likes the small town atmosphere of sacramento. If he turns into a star, he might have the same magnetic effect that Duncan had with the Spurs.

Now those players may be in the minority, but they do exist. Even Nash has spent the bulk of his career with at least somewhat smaller market teams. I do think any player worth his salt, is striving for a championship before he retires. So I don't blame Nash for using whats left of his career to chase one last dream. The sad part is, that it seldom works, or if it does, its somewhat of a hollow victory. Does anyone really think Mitch Richmond had anything to do with winning a championship?

I understand your premise, and in general, I agree. But I do think its going to change somewhat going forward into the future. The new restrictions on exceptions for teams over the cap, and the high penalities for exceeding the luxury tax, are going to cause teams to give serious thought to future moves. There are going to be teams with money to burn, and no way to burn it, because they're locked into a situation where they're over the cap, and unless they can find someone to bail them out, they'll be stuck, with no way to improve. When you have a team that has its entire salary locked up in 3 or 4 players, and one of two of those players starts sliding back to average, that team is in trouble.

This year the penality for being over the luxury tax is still one to one. But next year it goes up, and then again the following year. I don't care how much money you have coming in, when you start paying over 20 million a year in penalities, which is where the Lakers will be next year, unless they find a way to lose some salary, its going to hurt. There aren't that many teams that will be willing to just lose that amount of money. Hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think so..

 

[kingjatt]

I think it comes down to the individual, and the state of the team that drafted them. Duncan has stayed with the Spurs his entire career, and they're certainly a small market team. Now you can say that yes, they're a small market team, but they're a successful small market. True! But a large part of that success is due to Duncan. He's a big enough polarizing figure to attract other good players. Remember though, that Duncan is from the Virgin Islands, and not Philly or Chicago. So one could easily apply that same possibility to Cousins. He's from a small town in Alabama, and he likes the small town atmosphere of sacramento. If he turns into a star, he might have the same magnetic effect that Duncan had with the Spurs.

Now those players may be in the minority, but they do exist. Even Nash has spent the bulk of his career with at least somewhat smaller market teams. I do think any player worth his salt, is striving for a championship before he retires. So I don't blame Nash for using whats left of his career to chase one last dream. The sad part is, that it seldom works, or if it does, its somewhat of a hollow victory. Does anyone really think Mitch Richmond had anything to do with winning a championship?

I understand your premise, and in general, I agree. But I do think its going to change somewhat going forward into the future. The new restrictions on exceptions for teams over the cap, and the high penalities for exceeding the luxury tax, are going to cause teams to give serious thought to future moves. There are going to be teams with money to burn, and no way to burn it, because they're locked into a situation where they're over the cap, and unless they can find someone to bail them out, they'll be stuck, with no way to improve. When you have a team that has its entire salary locked up in 3 or 4 players, and one of two of those players starts sliding back to average, that team is in trouble.

This year the penality for being over the luxury tax is still one to one. But next year it goes up, and then again the following year. I don't care how much money you have coming in, when you start paying over 20 million a year in penalities, which is where the Lakers will be next year, unless they find a way to lose some salary, its going to hurt. There aren't that many teams that will be willing to just lose that amount of money. Hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think so..

Duncan also won a title while on his rookie deal, as successful as the spurs were, and as humble and down to earth as he was its still well known he flirted heavily with teaming up with T-mac, grant hill in Orlando in 2000. One could argue that it took a perfect storm for him to even stay in San Antonio and if you lose that one guy then your screwed as a small market whereas the big boys will always be fine.

I might be one of the few who doesn't think the new CBA will change much of anything. If the Big markets will go less into the tax then the small markets wont even sniff it, if a team like the lakers feels championship ready and needs to dip into it, they easily can. the best thing for a true level playing field would have been a hard cap but the sway of the big boys didn't let that happen, they just gave the small guys more money to shut up and develop stars for them so they can keep stacking their championships.

The Lakers,Celts,Knicks were suppose to have had next to zero flexibility this off season and look what they did.

 

[Glenn]

Duncan also won a title while on his rookie deal, as successful as the spurs were, and as humble and down to earth as he was its still well known he flirted heavily with teaming up with T-mac, grant hill in Orlando in 2000. One could argue that it took a perfect storm for him to even stay in San Antonio and if you lose that one guy then your screwed as a small market whereas the big boys will always be fine.

I might be one of the few who doesn't think the new CBA will change much of anything. If the Big markets will go less into the tax then the small markets wont even sniff it, if a team like the lakers feels championship ready and needs to dip into it, they easily can. the best thing for a true level playing field would have been a hard cap but the sway of the big boys didn't let that happen, they just gave the small guys more money to shut up and develop stars for them so they can keep stacking their championships.

The Lakers,Celts,Knicks were suppose to have had next to zero flexibility this off season and look what they did.

I agree with you totally. I will grant that the new CBA does more to restrict large market teams than just the luxury tax but they will still come out ahead. The Lakers have a $1 bil TV contract over the next ten years and as that is $100 mil a year, it ought to help a little to cover any inconveniences like the luxury tax.

I will try to find the study that shows that the luxury tax has benefitted the large market teams if that will help with the argument. Nothing is 100% as a small or medium market team can always hit it big on a class guy like Duncan but the odds are still in favor of the large market teams. There are always exceptions and I presume some people will feel the need to argue the exceptions endlessly but the point is, the tendency will always be in the favor the large market teams. Always. Live with it. I can. I am happy enough that we can compete on a more even standing than ever before especially with the team we have in place. Now if the Maloofs have a brain transplant or if we had Mitch Kupchak .............

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2011/11/26/nba-small-markets-put-faith-in-luxury-tax/

"Does the tentative new system discourage player movement from small market to large? Based on the preliminary reports, only through luxury tax penalties. The big question is whether that works. If the Heat, Lakers, Celtics or Knicks feel they’re player away from a title – and all the extra revenue that comes with it – will the bigger luxury tax really scare them off?

The small market clubs apparently feel they got enough or they wouldn’t be signing off on the deal. Let’s hope so for their sake – they’ll be living with the next agreement for ten years."​

 

[kingjatt]

I agree with you totally. I will grant that the new CBA does more to restrict large market teams than just the luxury tax but they will still come out ahead. The Lakers have a $1 bil TV contract over the next ten years and as that is $100 mil a year, it ought to help a little to cover any inconveniences like the luxury tax.

I will try to find the study that shows that the luxury tax has benefitted the large market teams if that will help with the argument. Nothing is 100% as a small or medium market team can always hit it big on a class guy like Duncan but the odds are still in favor of the large market teams. There are always exceptions and I presume some people will feel the need to argue the exceptions endlessly but the point is, the tendency will always be in the favor the large market teams. Always. Live with it. I can. I am happy enough that we can compete on a more even standing than ever before especially with the team we have in place. Now if the Maloofs have a brain transplant or if we had Mitch Kupchak .............

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2011/11/26/nba-small-markets-put-faith-in-luxury-tax/

"Does the tentative new system discourage player movement from small market to large? Based on the preliminary reports, only through luxury tax penalties. The big question is whether that works. If the Heat, Lakers, Celtics or Knicks feel they’re player away from a title – and all the extra revenue that comes with it – will the bigger luxury tax really scare them off?

The small market clubs apparently feel they got enough or they wouldn’t be signing off on the deal. Let’s hope so for their sake – they’ll be living with the next agreement for ten years."​

The only exception to the "only big markets win championships" line is San Antonio, every other team that's won in the past 30 years has been a big market, I count Dallas as being big relative to the real mid-small markets. now the correlation from being a big market to winning a championship may be debatable as a lot of good front office work, getting the right coaches etc plays a huge role in winning rings but at the end of the day the fact remains that big markets use their extra resources allowed under the CBA to create a noticeable competitive advantage over the competition.

in a league where small market owners heavily out-number the big market owners they couldn't for once put together a cba that provided true competitive balance across the board. The small market owners just took the extra revenue (short term thinking) sharing money and didn't change anything in the structure that could have ultimately generated more money in the long term.

Not saying we should put in a CBA that mirrors the NFL's but at least one that can mirror its results. people that say big markets sell or draw substantially more are wrong, people do tune in to watch great players engage in intense competition regardless of city, look at the NFL, with true parody its the number 1 sport in terms revenue by far.

Lets see how many championships the lakers would win if there was an even split of all revenue and a hard cap in place with very heavy incentives for players who opted to sign with the team that drafted them.

 

[bajaden]

The only exception to the "only big markets win championships" line is San Antonio, every other team that's won in the past 30 years has been a big market, I count Dallas as being big relative to the real mid-small markets. now the correlation from being a big market to winning a championship may be debatable as a lot of good front office work, getting the right coaches etc plays a huge role in winning rings but at the end of the day the fact remains that big markets use their extra resources allowed under the CBA to create a noticeable competitive advantage over the competition.

in a league where small market owners heavily out-number the big market owners they couldn't for once put together a cba that provided true competitive balance across the board. The small market owners just took the extra revenue (short term thinking) sharing money and didn't change anything in the structure that could have ultimately generated more money in the long term.

Not saying we should put in a CBA that mirrors the NFL's but at least one that can mirror its results. people that say big markets sell or draw substantially more are wrong, people do tune in to watch great players engage in intense competition regardless of city, look at the NFL, with true parody its the number 1 sport in terms revenue by far.

Lets see how many championships the lakers would win if there was an even split of all revenue and a hard cap in place with very heavy incentives for players who opted to sign with the team that drafted them.

If all things were equal, there would be some serious power shifting in the NBA. I do think your underestimating the future effects of the new CBA. Ask yourself this, how would you like to spend an extra 30 mil this year and not win? What about trippling it next year and not winning. The Buss family is wealthy, but the Lakers are self sustaining. They use what the team earns to run the team. And no matter how much a team earns because of TV revenues etc., there is a point of diminishing return. Here's a quote from Larry Coon, probably the most well know CBA expert.



"The Lakers will have a tax bill of around $30 million next July, and in retrospect, will view this season as their salad days — it’s the last one where the tax rate is dollar-for-dollar. Starting in 2013-14 the new “incremental” tax takes over, where being $30 million above the tax line will mean paying a whopping $85 million tax bill.

And it gets worse. Starting in 2014-15 teams will pay an even higher rate for being repeat offenders — defined as paying tax in at least three of the four previous seasons. A team $30 million over the tax line will pay — brace yourself — an additional $115 million in luxury tax.

After adding up their payroll, luxury tax bill, and revenue sharing contribution (projected to be $49.4 million in 2013-14), even the Lakers have to stop to consider whether this simply can be written off as the cost of doing business — and that’s the future if they’re paying players with salaries like Bryant, Howard, Gasol and Nash."

Maybe the Lakers can afford to sustain paying that kind of penality, but most teams can't or won't. Mark Cuban, a self made billionaire gutted his team to a large extent in order to avoid paying a penality this year. No one, and I mean no one with any intelligence is going to just throw money away. Especially if it doesn't mean a championship. Danny Ferry, the newly appointed GM of the Hawks, realized this, and immediately started having a fire sale on some of his highest paid players. The landscape is changing. I think you'll see a situation where an owner will stick his head through the luxury cap ceiling for one year, but will quickly pull it back if it doesn't pay dividends. You don't want to be a repeat offender of being above the luxury tax.

 

[kingjatt]

If all things were equal, there would be some serious power shifting in the NBA. I do think your underestimating the future effects of the new CBA. Ask yourself this, how would you like to spend an extra 30 mil this year and not win? What about trippling it next year and not winning. The Buss family is wealthy, but the Lakers are self sustaining. They use what the team earns to run the team. And no matter how much a team earns because of TV revenues etc., there is a point of diminishing return. Here's a quote from Larry Coon, probably the most well know CBA expert.



"The Lakers will have a tax bill of around $30 million next July, and in retrospect, will view this season as their salad days — it’s the last one where the tax rate is dollar-for-dollar. Starting in 2013-14 the new “incremental” tax takes over, where being $30 million above the tax line will mean paying a whopping $85 million tax bill.

And it gets worse. Starting in 2014-15 teams will pay an even higher rate for being repeat offenders — defined as paying tax in at least three of the four previous seasons. A team $30 million over the tax line will pay — brace yourself — an additional $115 million in luxury tax.

After adding up their payroll, luxury tax bill, and revenue sharing contribution (projected to be $49.4 million in 2013-14), even the Lakers have to stop to consider whether this simply can be written off as the cost of doing business — and that’s the future if they’re paying players with salaries like Bryant, Howard, Gasol and Nash."

Maybe the Lakers can afford to sustain paying that kind of penality, but most teams can't or won't. Mark Cuban, a self made billionaire gutted his team to a large extent in order to avoid paying a penality this year. No one, and I mean no one with any intelligence is going to just throw money away. Especially if it doesn't mean a championship. Danny Ferry, the newly appointed GM of the Hawks, realized this, and immediately started having a fire sale on some of his highest paid players. The landscape is changing. I think you'll see a situation where an owner will stick his head through the luxury cap ceiling for one year, but will quickly pull it back if it doesn't pay dividends. You don't want to be a repeat offender of being above the luxury tax.

the lakers will continue to operate in luxary tax land they are the buzz of the 2nd largest market with revenues and popularity growing each year. they have 120 million of a 20 year 4 billion dollar broadcasting deal coming in this year alone, it will cover their payroll and the majority of their taxes. with major sponsorships, marketing and ticket sales/deep playoff run they will cover revenue sharing/operating expenses and still pull a little profit.

I see what your saying with regards to the new CBA and i completely agree that it will help close the gap between large and small markets, as to what degree it is unknown because as revenues and interest in the league goes up so does the lakers and other big market teams spending power.

That reason is what makes me hesistant to say that these new restrictions are to big for the big markets to ignore, i guess ill have to wait and see because the original inception of the luxary tax was suppose to do the samething and it proved to actually be counter-productive in many ways.

 

[bajaden]

the lakers will continue to operate in luxary tax land they are the buzz of the 2nd largest market with revenues and popularity growing each year. they have 120 million of a 20 year 4 billion dollar broadcasting deal coming in this year alone, it will cover their payroll and the majority of their taxes. with major sponsorships, marketing and ticket sales/deep playoff run they will cover revenue sharing/operating expenses and still pull a little profit.

I see what your saying with regards to the new CBA and i completely agree that it will help close the gap between large and small markets, as to what degree it is unknown because as revenues and interest in the league goes up so does the lakers and other big market teams spending power.

That reason is what makes me hesistant to say that these new restrictions are to big for the big markets to ignore, i guess ill have to wait and see because the original inception of the luxary tax was suppose to do the samething and it proved to actually be counter-productive in many ways.

The Lakers, and perhaps the Knicks might be exceptions to the new rules because of their TV revenues, but in general I do think it will have an effect. Even the billionaire owner of the Trailblazers has tightened his purse strings. Plus, remember, the money paid in penality goes to the Kings and other teams that are under the cap. Now that in a sense may be counterproductive.

 

[Glenn]

At the very least it shows that the league realizes that parity is in the best interests of the league. I am sure it will help the Kings and that's my primary concern. As our last NBA championship was in the early 50's, I will settle for far less to keep my excitement level up. As the punishment for repeat offenders borders on the draconian, it may effect even the richest teams. It certainly helps the poorest teams. I wasn't factoring in that the luxury tax is distributed to teams that aren't over the luxury tax level. Does anyone know what happened to the luxury tax payments in the last 10 years? A lot of money was paid as the poorly managed Knicks paid $190 mil. themselves. Without looking it up, about $500 mil was paid in tax. Probably more.

 

[rainmaker]

Kobe and Nash only have a few years left at the top, and Kobe seems to be dropping rapidly. Simply can't take over games anymore. I;d give them a two year window to win it all. Would Pau resign with them? That's another question. Also, as good as D12 is defensively, he's not a guy you can go to at the end of games, nor do I think he'll ever be. Not with his FT shooting.

I hate the Lakers, and hate them even more in the way in which great players tend to fall into their lap simply because they are based in LaLa land. But, they don't have Cuz.They don't have a young up and comer in Reke who I think will take that next step. If we ever get around to actually building a team correctly around those two as they mature, we could pass them in 2-3 years,when Nash is 40 or 41, Kobe is struggling nightly but still won't give up the ball, and they go to D12 thinking he can actually finish like Shaq could, and I think it's better than 50/50 Pau goes elsewhere when his contract is up.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I can't wait until they look at eachother and realize not even D12 is an answer for a pissed off Cuz who doesn't like big cities.

 

[bajaden]

Kobe and Nash only have a few years left at the top, and Kobe seems to be dropping rapidly. Simply can't take over games anymore. I;d give them a two year window to win it all. Would Pau resign with them? That's another question. Also, as good as D12 is defensively, he's not a guy you can go to at the end of games, nor do I think he'll ever be. Not with his FT shooting.

I hate the Lakers, and hate them even more in the way in which great players tend to fall into their lap simply because they are based in LaLa land. But, they don't have Cuz.They don't have a young up and comer in Reke who I think will take that next step. If we ever get around to actually building a team correctly around those two as they mature, we could pass them in 2-3 years,when Nash is 40 or 41, Kobe is struggling nightly but still won't give up the ball, and they go to D12 thinking he can actually finish like Shaq could, and I think it's better than 50/50 Pau goes elsewhere when his contract is up.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I can't wait until they look at eachother and realize not even D12 is an answer for a pissed off Cuz who doesn't like big cities.

I don't think your wrong! I'd like to think it would be us that puts the lid on the Laker can, but regardles, your right, they're days are numbered, and I think a 2 year window is about right. I still think they'll have their hands full trying to beat the Thunder. The Thunder match up very well against the new Lakers.

Perkins has played Howard as well or better than anyone. If I have to pick between Durant and Kobe today, I'm taking Durant. And Westbrook has owned Nash. Gasol has an offensive advantage over Ibaka, but defensively, the edge goes to Ibaka. Then they have Harden off the bench. Not saying the Lakers can't do it, but its not going to be a cake walk.

 

[kingjatt]

as soon as Kobe and Nash are done the lakers are more likely to recruit or do lob sided trades with small markets before falling into the dumps, Love,Durant,Westbrook etc will all be available in successive years not hard to imagine at least 2 of those 3 joining Howard.

 

[Hadlowe]

Kobe and Nash only have a few years left at the top, and Kobe seems to be dropping rapidly. Simply can't take over games anymore.

Nitpicking in an abandoned thread, but I'm bored on a Thursday afternoon, so screw it.

Kobe was second in the league in points per game last year and, but for reduced play time for the last several games, he would have been first. His production may take a steep drop this year simply because the roster is more balanced than last year and other players will take up the scoring slack. OTOH, with Nash and Howard providing more open looks to him, he may take another scoring trophy home.

I think he'll go Jordan and retire in two years (with the dignity to stay retired) rather than suffer the decline of age and be relegated to the bench behind some upstart with cartilage in the knees, meaning The Kings will be denied the opportunity to unseat him.

I do see Cousins being the best offensive center in the league, but it will take another three years to get there. Right around the same time that Howard's defense starts sliding a bit and his offensive deficiencies become glaring.