Webber as a Laker? (article regarding luxury tax exception)

Status
Not open for further replies.

PixelPusher

Starter
I'll post a few lines from the article, you can read the whole thing here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2113328

Houston, Finley gone; other big names staying put


By Marc Stein
ESPN.com
Archive


Imagine a free-agent universe where a slew of big-name vets become available in late July because their contracts are too expensive for their current teams to keep.



grant_hill.jpg

Don't expect the Magic to cut Grant Hill and his healed ankle.


Imagine a marketplace that suddenly offers up, say, the stately Grant Hill at a starting salary of no higher than $5 million.

Imagine a former All-Star like Eddie Jones in the same price range. Or a scorer in the Jalen Rose class.

Imagine Chris Webber being cut loose and, to really spite his old friends in Sacramento, joining Kobe Bryant's Los Angeles Lakers in a cut-rate deal.

Well, guess what?

You pretty much have to imagine all that, since roughly none of it will end up happening that way...





...And Webber?

For all the concern about his mobility, cutting Webber holds little appeal to the Sixers. He had less than half a season alongside Allen Iverson, and Philadelphia just fired Jim O'Brien to bring Mo Cheeks back to town. Philly understandably wants to give the Iverson-Webber partnership more time to click under a new coach ... especially since the Sixers would still be required to pay the $62 million over the three seasons that remain on Webber's contract.

"The Lakers would love that," said one Webber confidante. "But it's not going to happen. Trust me."


So, no bonanza.

No matter what you might have heard or wished for.

Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here. Also, click here to send a question for possible use on ESPNEWS.
 
...And Webber?

For all the concern about his mobility, cutting Webber holds little appeal to the Sixers. He had less than half a season alongside Allen Iverson, and Philadelphia just fired Jim O'Brien to bring Mo Cheeks back to town. Philly understandably wants to give the Iverson-Webber partnership more time to click under a new coach ... especially since the Sixers would still be required to pay the $62 million over the three seasons that remain on Webber's contract.

Ah, crap.

That's what a lot of us here have been saying. I thought it was valid. Now that Marc Stein has said it, however, I have to wonder...

But not for too long.

It's the old "million monkeys on a million typewriters working for a million years" theory. Even Stein has to be right once in a while.

;)
 
VF21 said:
It's the old "million monkeys on a million typewriters working for a million years" theory. Even Stein has to be right once in a while.

;)

Aw, now don't go tempting me into photoshopping up a monkey on a typewriter with Marc Stein's head, it's just wrong and I won't do it! :D
 
Apparently summarizing 3 week old news stories in one article passes for journalism now. I can't believe how terrible most sports writers are. They really don't provide any sort of relevant or useful analysis and information. No way any writers are better than fanboards.
 
PixelPusher said:
Aw, now don't go tempting me into photoshopping up a monkey on a typewriter with Marc Stein's head, it's just wrong and I won't do it! :D
Now you have to do it!
 
sheesh...nice work pixel

you have pulled thru for us once more :D

anyways, yeah, this is a sad excuse for an article.

plus, i really dont see Webber signing with the Lakers. a)he hated their guts, as far as we could tell, while here b)they don't really ahve a chance at a championship, which, to me, is what he would be looking for c)webber would come here first, and most likely for less money and d)there are other teams who would pay better, despite webber's decreasing ability and increasing age
 
BobbyJ_for3! said:
c)webber would come here first, and most likely for less money

No, he wouldn't.

The ship has sailed. Permanently and irreversibly.
 
VF21 said:
No, he wouldn't.

The ship has sailed. Permanently and irreversibly.

Agree. Webber may have decided that he enjoyed Sac and wanted to stay, but there is absolutely no way that he will return. He learned to love it, and then he was betrayed. He ain't coming back.
 
Hard to say he was betrayed...he never got back to form and never sacked up to be the leader. The trade was coming...now...that's probably what HE thinks...and that's probably what you meant...just wanted to give my $.02.
captain bill said:
Agree. Webber may have decided that he enjoyed Sac and wanted to stay, but there is absolutely no way that he will return. He learned to love it, and then he was betrayed. He ain't coming back.
 
bigdog5142 said:
Hard to say he was betrayed...he never got back to form and never sacked up to be the leader. The trade was coming...now...that's probably what HE thinks...and that's probably what you meant...just wanted to give my $.02.

I don't think Webber feels betrayed but I also don't think it's right to say "he never got back to form, etc."

--------------------------------------

hoopsfan - You know I love ya, but is that really necessary?
 
I'm closing this thread - because there's absolutely nowhere good it can go and I think more than enough tempers have flared over Chris Webber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top