Jerry Buss: Bring on the Celtics & Luxury Tax, I'll pay to keep Lakers together

[Allanon]

Jerry Buss says Lakers can bank on him (http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/la-sp-buss10-2008nov10,0,5719038.story)
By Mike Bresnahan
November 10, 2008

Owner Jerry Buss speaks with members of the media before the Lakers' game against the Houston Rockets on Sunday.
Owner says he'll pay what it takes, in salary and luxury taxes, to keep the team in championship contention. Retaining Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson is a priority.

Jerry Buss sat back in a supple leather chair, not far from an oil painting of James Worthy grabbing an alley-oop pass from Magic Johnson in a long-ago NBA Finals game against Boston, a symbolic backdrop these days for the owner of the Lakers.

In the latest offering of the difference a year makes, Buss, 75, was relaxed and humorous Sunday in an interview, revealing with a glint in his eye how badly he wanted a Finals rematch with Boston while also saying how much he wanted to keep Kobe Bryant if the 10-time All-Star became an unrestricted free agent next July.

Along those lines, Buss said he would continue to pay luxury taxes on an annual basis "if that's what it takes to win."

He also envisioned Coach Phil Jackson staying beyond the expiration of his contract after next season because "this team looks like a delight."

The mini-riot Buss touched off last year by saying he would entertain trade offers for Bryant seemed to have taken place a century ago as he recounted more recent dealings with Bryant, including a key phone call after the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in February.

"I think Kobe very definitely understands how hard I made the effort to get sufficient talent to win," Buss said. "I was talking to him on the phone right as the Pau Gasol [trade] came through, and he said, 'Wow, I can go win with this now.' I think Kobe and I get along pretty well."

Well enough to open the vault again if Bryant leaves $47.8 million on the table and rips up his contract after this season?

"We really don't address those issues until they come up because we don't know what the environment is, but we can't afford to lose Kobe," Buss said.

In the 25-minute interview, Buss alluded numerous times to the sagging economy and the possibility of its trickling down to the NBA. Buss would probably have to sign off on a five-year contract worth $135 million if Bryant opted out next summer.

Buss said he could probably eliminate at least one competitor, taking a whack at a persistent rumor by saying he could not picture Bryant playing overseas.

"They have fewer games, smaller arenas and cheaper tickets and very little television," Buss said. "I can't see it, but there are people who are wealthy enough in the world that could make astronomical offers, and I certainly couldn't compete with that. But quite honestly, I just don't think that's a real threat."

Buss has presided over eight championships in his 29 previous years of ownership. He has also seen the Lakers advance to more than a dozen NBA Finals, though he would be dejected if they made it only that far this season.

"God willing for everybody staying healthy and that type of thing, then I feel that a championship is what we want," he said. "If we win the West this year, we've won it 15 times out of the last 30 years. Although that's pleasant, it's not our objective. Our objective is to be world champion."

Especially if it comes against the Celtics, who embarrassed the Lakers with a Finals-clinching 131-92 victory in Game 6 last season.

"I sincerely want to play them," Buss said shortly after revealing why he transitioned from real estate to team owner in the first place.

"One of the biggest reasons I bought the Lakers was to beat the Celtics," said Buss, who purchased the Lakers, the Forum, the NHL's Kings and a 13,000-acre Kern County ranch for $67.5 million in 1979. "If you were a Laker fan prior to my ownership, and you sat there and watched the Celtics whip us so many times, and how close we came -- one shot in one particular series -- you just got it into your soul that you couldn't stand the Celtics anymore."

Befitting the owner of a team favored in many circles to win another championship, Buss had compliments for many people in the organization.

* On General Manager Mitch Kupchak: "I've always been pleased with everything Mitch has done. It may seem that there are ups and downs, but our relationship has never been up and down. Everything that we've tried to do, we've pretty much accomplished. . . ."

* On Gasol: "When we got him, that was a dream come true. He's a different kind of player in a lot of ways. Sometimes I can't understand even how he gets 14 or 15 rebounds. He's been very pleasant and we couldn't be happier to have him."

* On the four-year, $57.4-million contract extension he gave Andrew Bynum: "I have to feel it was really fair to both sides . . . especially since we have him now. He could be one of the great ones."

Buss also expected Jackson, 63, to remain beyond a two-year, $23-million contract that would end after next season.

"With this team, he may grow very old and still be the coach. I don't see him going anywhere," Buss said. "I know he has some medical difficulties, but this team looks like a delight and I just can't see anybody walking away from it."

There are some things Buss doesn't expect. Despite the high expectations placed on the Lakers, he wouldn't predict a run at Chicago's record-setting 72-10 season in 1995-96.

"I think the West has improved so much that something like that would be very difficult," Buss said. "I thought that we could come close to 60 wins."

Then he paused a beat.

"I'd be happy with 73, though," he said, smiling.

Buss is currently on pace to pay about $10 million in luxury taxes this season and might pay a similar dollar-for-dollar penalty with a commitment of already more than $75 million toward only nine players on next season's payroll.

He shrugged when presented the financial facts on Sunday.

"We have to do what we have to do," he said. "I certainly don't like to pay the luxury tax, but if that's what it takes to win, then we're going to pay it."

[21_Blessings]

Best owner in sports.


"I think Kobe very definitely understands how hard I made the effort to get sufficient talent to win," Buss said. "I was talking to him on the phone right as the Pau Gasol [trade] came through, and he said, 'Wow, I can go win with this now.' I think Kobe and I get along pretty well."

:bking :bking

The part Dr. Buss left out was that he was probably getting sucked off by 2 or 3 nineteen year old supermodels while he was shaping his next dynasty on the phone.

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

it's easy to pay luxury tax for a winning team in a big market

[21_Blessings]

it's easy to pay luxury tax for a winning team in a big market

Buss is one of the least wealthy owners in the association.

[anakha]

If I were Buss, I'd rather wait and see how much Odom asks for before proclaiming that I'll pay the lux tax.

As it stands right now, anything above the MLE (x2, considering the lux tax position of the Lakers) is going to be painful to pay.

[RsxPiimp]

i still dont think la will keep its core.


right now u guys have a boatload huge contracts

luke/mle
radman/mle
vujacic/5 mil a yr
fish/5 mil a yr

kobe will command 20 mil/yr in his extension (MINIMUM)
bynum is at approx 14 mil/yr
pau will ask for bynum's salary and he deserves it


if ariza continues to play like this, he should get paid within the 6-8 million range depending who wants to overpay him.


farmar will be a FA after next year. he's going to be looking at a 5-6 mil a season. and why not. he's an upcoming star


odom is such a valuable tool (pun intended) he deserves at least 10 mil a season with how he's playing right now. and with all the intangibles he brings. he deserves it.


buss will pay at least 20 mil of lux tax. if he wants to then good for his fans but not so much for him. and since he's not really a billionaire like most nba owners the lakers as a team should reward the old man with another set of three peat rings.

[RsxPiimp]

oh and colonel sanders is projected to make another 10 mil if not just a lil bit lower (8 mil/yr) though its not included in the lux tax payroll. its still a hefty amount of loot for a coach.

[21_Blessings]

odom is such a valuable tool (pun intended) he deserves at least 10 mil a season with how he's playing right now. and with all the intangibles he brings. he deserves it.

lol Odom is not worth 10 million

[anakha]

lol Odom is not worth 10 million

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure there are teams willing to pay that much for his services.

After all, Rashard Lewis arguably brings less to the table than Odom, and look at what he's making...

[Lakers_55]

Since Buss is willing to pay, and if the Lakers can win it all this year, I'd bet the core will want to stay because they may just keep winning. They will lose some players, like they did Turiaf who went for the $, but they are a tight group of friends off the court as well.

[21_Blessings]

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure there are teams willing to pay that much for his services.

After all, Rashard Lewis arguably brings less to the table than Odom, and look at what he's making...

Rashard can shoot the ball though. But just because one team stupidly overpays a player doesn't justify overpaying a different player.

Which team is going to give Lamar Odom a 10 million dollar a year contract with the 2010 sweepstakes right around the corner? Do tell.

No one will because he isn't worth that much. He'll be close to 30 next off season and were talking about a guy that has proven to have little to no work ethic. It's not like he has some kind of upside or something. It's all downhill for him. Lamar Odom is a roleplayer at this point in his career.

[turiaf for president]

buss is just the majority owner. he can make up the extra in lux taxes on sponsorships and raised ticket prices (they raise it every year). and while i dont like that tactic, as long as corporate is willing to buy the tickets and theres a 99% season ticket renewal rate like they did the past couple years, lux tax is no problem for the lakers.

[IronMexican]

Best news all week!

[2Cleva]

This is how LA hopes to do it.


Before the game Jackson even lamented the Lakers’ “abundance of talent,” saying he was concerned about finding minutes for everyone. That could explain why rival team executives say the Lakers have made Luke Walton, Chris Mihm and, in at least one instance, Radmanovic available in trade discussions. Getting rid of the weighty contracts of either Walton (four years and about $22 million left after this season) or Radmanovic (two years, $13.3 million) could not only lessen the luxury-tax hit the Lakers will take this season, but also give them greater flexibility to re-sign Odom this summer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=jy-rocketslakers111008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Time for the magic wand!

No way any team who has any dreams of competing will help LA out by taking a bad K from them. But IF LA can somehow swindle a team like OKC or Charlotte, offering a 1st round pick as well, then Mitch needs to replace Obama in the White House.

[Allanon]

Buss knows how important Odom is to the team, that's why he was never traded. If the Lakers win a championship this year, I can see Odom taking a paycut for a long term deal and retiring as a Laker.

And remember last year how everybody wanted to trade Lamar for Shawn Marion?

Shawn Marion-$20 million/year
10 pts
8.5 rbds
34 minutes

Lamar Odom - $11 million/year
10 pts
7 rbds
26 minutes

[JamStone]

Don't know if you can call Buss the best owner in sports. He did have a public scuffle with Shaq, and that was before Shaq was traded. And, from what Kobe has said, Buss did alienate Kobe by allowing the press to believe that Kobe demanded Shaq get traded. To me, Buss is very similar to George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones, maybe a younger Al Davis before he went crazy.

He certainly has done well in terms of hiring people who know what they're doing. But, a great deal of success the Lakers have had has nothing to do with Dr. Buss as the owner. The Lakers sell themselves to free agents, and the Los Angeles market even in the current CBA financial landscape allows for the Lakers to do things many if not most other franchises simply cannot.

Lamar Odom is definitely worth $10 million a year by NBA standards, but not much more than that. And, Rashard Lewis is a tough comparison because there's no way he's worth his contract. The Magic definitely overpaid, probably egregiously so.

[JamStone]

Nobody wants Luke Walton and the FIVE years remaining on his contract. And, no one wants Vlady either.

[turiaf for president]

^ true but i think their contracts arent too bad. there are worse players with more money owed to them. keeping walton as an insurance policy in case a 3 or 4 goes down is nice to have. hes not a horrible player just not very good.

kind of a curveball but i just noticed the lakers have no one in the top 50 in minutes played so far this year. the most is pau at 34mpg and thats 56th in the league. if they can rest pau kobe and the rest of teh core and limit them to 30-35 minutes per game, thats gonna be HUGE in the playoffs

[JamStone]

Luke Walton's contract is very bad.

[Killakobe81]

Agree his contract sucks but he is not a HORRIBLE player in fact I remember Rick Carlisle saying he would love to have Walton on his team because he brings intangibles (When doing work for ESPN) He will play OK when we do play him but he makes way to much ...
Vlady is overpaid but he has a skill that we really need and that is 3 point shooting so it doesnt hurt as bad ...

[Allanon]

If the Knicks can pay $100 million, Cavs pay $90 million for those teams, and Mavs pay $85 million, Jerry Buss can afford to pay $90 million+ for a winner.

Fisher will retire after next year and that will clear $5 million. Farmar is already locked up for 3 years for cheap.

It will cost about $16 million to keep both Odom and Ariza.

[duncan228]

Ding's piece from the same interview, focused more on the Kobe side of it.

Buss makes clear his support of Bryant (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/buss-bryant-think-2223199-lakers-win)
The Lakers owner has an understanding of his star these days.
Kevin Ding

LOS ANGELES – Consider the following comment from Lakers owner Jerry Buss, because it speaks to so much more than the Lakers being NBA favorites again:

"It always feels comfortable when I'm on top. It feels uncomfortable when we're not."

When I'm on top. When we're not.

This is why Buss understands Kobe Bryant better than most. They are, in fact, more the same than different.

Within each is the massive ego to believe that he is a fundamentally a winner – and a loser only when others let him down. Perhaps that degree of self-absorption makes kind-hearted average Joes out there shake their heads. Whatever.

It's the kind of self-confidence and self-reliance that has driven Buss and Bryant to tremendous success.

Buss conducted a sit-down interview with select reporters Sunday night before the Lakers moved to 5-0 by routing the Houston Rockets. Buss made clear that after all that he went through with his star player in 2007 there remains a unique appreciation.

"Kobe just wants to win as much as any human being in any sport, ever," Buss said. "So I think he's always going to be a little edgy, and I think it's really good that he is."

Buss had made clear in a similar interview about a year ago that he would honor Bryant's trade request if the Lakers could get comparable value in return. Buss had the ego to believe that he could win without Bryant – six of Buss' rings were sized before Bryant hit puberty, remember – and the ego to believe he could win Bryant over again and win with him.

"Kobe and I have always understood one thing about each other, and that is that our desire to win shapes our personality – and especially in our dealings with each other," Buss said. "I think there has always been respect – independent of the fact that there have been moments of grief – and deep down there has always been that respect level that I knew he was the most competitive of all the basketball players ever. And I think he understands that about me, as an owner."

Asked if Bryant can be assumed to be happy as a Laker now that the team is so well positioned, Buss was not about to sell Bryant's fire short.

"I don't think he'll be happy until he wins a few more championships," Buss said. "I think he's only got a few rings, and not as many as he'd like."

For that reason – and because he knows how much Bryant wants all things to be the best – Buss dismissed the much-speculated scenario of Bryant going to play overseas in a smaller, lesser league: "I just don't think that's a real threat."

This was the extent of what Buss would say about Bryant opting out of his contract at season's end and possibly leaving the Lakers with nothing, but far more likely getting a new deal from Buss: "We can't afford to lose Kobe."

Buss was cautious in his estimates for this season – projecting "close to 60" regular season victories ("I'd be happy with 73, though") and refusing to declare the Lakers the team to beat until he better evaluated the Celtics for the expected NBA Finals rematch ("I sincerely want to play them").

But the implications are obvious. Buss noted about Andrew Bynum: "He could be one of the great ones." And Buss revealed more confidence when asked how long he envisions Phil Jackson coaching the team: "With this team he may grow very old and still be the coach. I don't see him going anywhere. It depends on him. I know he has some medical difficulties, but this team looks like a delight. And I just can't see anybody walking away from it."

That would include Bryant, with whom Buss made a point to contact directly when the clouds parted unmistakably back on Feb. 1.

"Kobe very definitely understands how hard I made the effort to get sufficient talent to win," Buss said. "I was talking to him on the phone right as the Pau Gasol trade came through. And he said, 'Wow. I can go win with this now.' So I think Kobe and I get along pretty well."

Never shall it be like it was and is with Buss and Magic Johnson. Buss reminisced unsolicited Sunday night with a practically romantic recollection about strolling around the field at a USC game with Johnson just before his rookie season

"From that day forward," Buss said about the Lakers and their fans, "it has been a love affair."

Buss would like to get back to a time when Bryant was accepting invitations to swing by Buss' Playa del Rey home for lunch after Lakers practice in El Segundo. Buss said Sunday night he thought it could happen.

Like the man said, that might be a few championships away. But rest assured, the championships are coming.

[21_Blessings]

Don't know if you can call Buss the best owner in sports. He did have a public scuffle with Shaq, and that was before Shaq was traded. And, from what Kobe has said, Buss did alienate Kobe by allowing the press to believe that Kobe demanded Shaq get traded. To me, Buss is very similar to George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones, maybe a younger Al Davis before he went crazy.

Buss is nothing like those 3 guys. What a terrible comparison.

The public scuffle with Shaq was about money. Shaq wanted a ludicrous extension that he wasn't worth and Buss didn't want to pay a declining player that kind of money. That's called good business and ended up being the right move in hindsight.


He certainly has done well in terms of hiring people who know what they're doing. But, a great deal of success the Lakers have had has nothing to do with Dr. Buss as the owner. The Lakers sell themselves to free agents, and the Los Angeles market even in the current CBA financial landscape allows for the Lakers to do things many if not most other franchises simply cannot.

What a load of misinformed crap this is. New York hasn't won jack shit in 30 years. And the CBA gives no advantages to the Lakers whatsoever. Fact is Buss is one of the least wealthy owners in the NBA. Guys like Dolan, Cuban and Allen could out spend Buss in their sleep.

[JamStone]

No misinformation. Apparently, it's just you have poor reading comprehension.

New York has advantages like Los Angeles does, but notice how I said Buss has done a good job at hiring people that have done a good job. The Knicks haven't done that.

And, I didn't say the CBA gives the Lakers advantages. I said "even in the current CBA financial landscape," the Lakers have advantages. That means "despite" the CBA, not as a result or product of the CBA. LA has advantages of location, weather, celebrity, Hollywood, music industry, the Playboy Mansion. Those are what I'm talking about. I said "EVEN IN THE CURRENT CBA FINANCIAL LANDSCAPE," not "because" of the CBA.

Reading comprehension.

And, Buss is like Steinbrenner, Jones, and Davis in that he gets fetishes for players and will do anything to get them and then discard them with no regard for loyalty once he feels he has no more use for them. That's how they are similar "TO ME." TO ME. Disagree with it if you want, but that's MY opinion.

[21_Blessings]

New York has advantages like Los Angeles does, but notice how I said Buss has done a good job at hiring people that have done a good job. The Knicks haven't done that.

More to the point that Buss has the strongest argument for best owner in all of sports. Won the West 15 out the last 30 years. The main constant is the owner.


LA has advantages of location, weather, celebrity, Hollywood, music industry, the Playboy Mansion. Those are what I'm talking about. I said "EVEN IN THE CURRENT CBA FINANCIAL LANDSCAPE," not "because" of the CBA.

Those advantages don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things as New York has proven. The Los Angeles Lakers would have been an absolute failure if Donald Sterling was running things the past three decades.


And, Buss is like Steinbrenner, Jones, and Davis in that he gets fetishes for players and will do anything to get them and then discard them with no regard for loyalty once he feels he has no more use for them. That's how they are similar "TO ME." TO ME. Disagree with it if you want, but that's MY opinion.

You can have your opinion. Doesn't change the fact that's it's wrong, dumb, misinformed and has no basis in reality. Buss is is one the loyalist owners in the NBA with mountains of evidence to back that up.

[21_Blessings]

and the Los Angeles market even in the current CBA financial landscape allows for the Lakers to do things many if not most other franchises simply cannot.
.



And, I didn't say the CBA gives the Lakers advantages. I said "even in the current CBA financial landscape," the Lakers have advantages.

Nice backtrack nonetheless.

What can the LAKERS do that other teams cannot? Please tell us.

Free agent theory is crap as New York and the Clippers have proven. The 'spend more' argument doesn't hold water as I've already pointed out. The current CBA allows the richest owners to prosper if they so choose - they feel less of financial hit from forking over the lux tax. Buss doesn't fall into that category. But despite the fact that the Lakers are his only real income, he's still willing to pay the luxury tax because he cares about winning first and foremost. Whereas guys like Sterling are content on being mediocre/terrible while never paying the tax as long as his franchise is profitable.

[mytespurs]

I'm not a Laker fan; pro football is my favorite sport but if LA ever got an NFL team (expansion not retread), I would want Jerry Buss or someone like him to be the owner of that team because he's a winner and he cares about winning. :toast

[mytespurs]

I think he would be a great owner for a football team, but whats crazy is LA fans dont even care to have a football team. Its almost like the Raiders never left.


Actually we do have a football team which many support.....called USC Trojans!!! :king :toast :rollin

I don't miss professional football that much because now we get 4 games on TV...unfortunately it's usually the Chargers or less frequently the Raiders........i.e....everyone east of the Rockies probably got to see an exciting Indy-Pittsburgh game....in la area, we had chargers-chiefs which actually turned out to be a good game but still....I don't have DirecTV so other than going to a sports bar, my options are limited. :downspin:

[anakha]

Rashard can shoot the ball though.

And Odom's a better ballhandler and slasher.

By physical attributes and general skillset, they're still very comparable.



But just because one team stupidly overpays a player doesn't justify overpaying a different player.


Tell that to those teams who have been overpaying players since the past decade.



He'll be close to 30 next off season


:lmao

NBA Players generally don't peak until they hit 30.

Bad reasoning.



and were talking about a guy that has proven to have little to no work ethic.


Hasn't stopped players like Tim Thomas and Eddy Curry from getting paid.



It's not like he has some kind of upside or something. It's all downhill for him. Lamar Odom is a roleplayer at this point in his career.

He's a role player, on the Lakers. Because the team has enough weapons that his skills are mostly redundant.

On any other team without as many weapons, he's almost a sure starter.

[Lakers_55]

I'm not a Laker fan; pro football is my favorite sport but if LA ever got an NFL team (expansion not retread), I would want Jerry Buss or someone like him to be the owner of that team because he's a winner and he cares about winning. :toast

I'm not sure Buss could own an NFL team. He bought the Lakers from Jack Kent Cooke who also owned the Redskins. He was given a choce by the NFL I think who to keep, who to sell. Of course that's nearly 30 years ago now, but it's what I know about the subject. I lost interest in pro football and couldn't care less if the NFL comes back to LA. Besides, I am a 5 hour drive away from attending a game in LA anyway.

[IronMexican]

Raiders and Cowgirls make up most % of the fans here.

[21_Blessings]

And Odom's a better ballhandler and slasher.

By physical attributes and general skillset, they're still very comparable.

Shooters are more valuable. Especially around Dwight. But you're kidding yourself if you think anyone is stupid enough overpay Lamar Odom like that.



:lmao

NBA Players generally don't peak until they hit 30.

Bad reasoning.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Lamar Odom. And no, generally, players don't peak at 30. Great players generaly peak at 28-30 which is something Odom is no where near close to being. And thats without considering he hasn't improved his game in 9 NBA seasons. Lamar Odom went from the next Magic, to the next Pippen, to overpaid player, to overpaid 2nd option should be third option, to overpaid roleplayer coming off the bench.


Hasn't stopped players like Tim Thomas and Eddy Curry from getting paid.

It will on Curry's next contract and did on Tim Thomas' last contract. Odom at most is worth what Caron Butler got from Washington. Any more than that and you're just overpaying a lost cause that has no chance to improve,on the wrong side of 30. Within 3 years he'll be on "one of the worst contracts in the league that no one wants" status.

Even then, that kind of money is pushing it since Caron's contract scales up. Fair deal for what you're paying for would be what the Clippers gave Maggette a few years back (7-8 million a year) across the board. Odom is just a step above of MLE money at this point in his career.


He's a role player, on the Lakers. Because the team has enough weapons that his skills are mostly redundant.

On any other team without as many weapons, he's almost a sure starter.

Wrong. Lamar had his shot at a 2nd option, failed miserably. On another bad team he's a 3rd option at best and only a starter if said team is paper thin at power forward.

[JamStone]

Nice backtrack nonetheless.

Backtrack? Do you know how to fucking read?



What can the LAKERS do that other teams cannot? Please tell us.

Are you serious?

Get Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he's a free agent.

Get Gary Payton for the MLE and Karl Malone for the LLE, wayyyyyyyy below market value.

Get Glen Rice for nothing to play third wheel to Shaq and Kobe.

Get Phil Jackson to coach the team when he could have had any NBA coaching job in the league. Basically fire him, and get him to come back.

Get Derek Fisher to get out of his contract and come back and play for the Lakers for less than the contract he had.

You want to tell me Los Angeles didn't help those things happen? Definitely the franchise brand of the Lakers plays a huge role first and foremost, but LA does too.



Free agent theory is crap as New York and the Clippers have proven. The 'spend more' argument doesn't hold water as I've already pointed out. The current CBA allows the richest owners to prosper if they so choose - they feel less of financial hit from forking over the lux tax. Buss doesn't fall into that category. But despite the fact that the Lakers are his only real income, he's still willing to pay the luxury tax because he cares about winning first and foremost. Whereas guys like Sterling are content on being mediocre/terrible while never paying the tax as long as his franchise is profitable.

Didn't the Clippers just get one of the best free agent players this past summer in Baron Davis despite being a wretched franchise? Of course, the Lakers have an edge over the Clippers because of the franchise history. The City of Los Angeles helps as well. You really can't say it doesn't.

New York has had problems since Scott Layden fucked them up and Isiah fucked them up worse, but they've had succuess in their history of luring players and coaches. Allan Houston appeared to be a breakout star in the NBA and signed with the Knicks. Knicks also got Pat Riley, who basically had his choice of any NBA job. They were also able to make deals for guys like Dave DeBusschere, Earl Monroe, Bernard King, Latrell Sprewell, that other teams probably couldn't pull of, financially or otherwise if the players refused to sign on those trades. Obviously, in recent years, the Knicks have been such a mess and poor management that they haven't had many good moves. But, there's a reason why the Knicks is among a handful of teams that are given serious rumors as to having a legit chance at LeBron James in 2010, despite the mess that franchise has been the past 8 years or so.

[z0sa]

Buss is one of the least wealthy owners in the association.

the spurs were worth $415 mil last season, dope (according to Forbes)

how much you think your precious lakers are worth in a tv market 5x larger? I dont have any clue to be honest, but its surely much, much more than that.

[anakha]

Shooters are more valuable. Especially around Dwight. But you're kidding yourself if you think anyone is stupid enough overpay Lamar Odom like that.


I'm not arguing his true value, whatever that's worth. I'm saying there will be teams or owners willing to pay that amount, based on what we've seen in the past for similar players.



It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Lamar Odom. And no, generally, players don't peak at 30. Great players generaly peak at 28-30 which is something Odom is no where near close to being.


I was responding to your original implication that his age should be a factor in considering him washed up.

Assuming a player below 30, with no career-threatening injuries, is already past his physical prime is bordering on the ridiculous.



And thats without considering he hasn't improved his game in 9 NBA seasons. Lamar Odom went from the next Magic, to the next Pippen, to overpaid player, to overpaid 2nd option should be third option, to overpaid roleplayer coming off the bench.


The next Pippen? Is that what the Lakers were expecting of him when they got him? If so, then part of the disappointment in his play should be blamed on those unreasonable expectations.

Overpaid? 2nd banana pay for 3rd banana production? Probably. Not really going to argue that.

Role player? Again, the fact that the Lakers have a lot of weapons on the team right now is making Odom essentially redundant. It's hardly his fault that the team is loaded.



Even then, that kind of money is pushing it since Caron's contract scales up. Fair deal for what you're paying for would be what the Clippers gave Maggette a few years back (7-8 million a year) across the board. Odom is just a step above of MLE money at this point in his career.


Considering players like Beno Udrih drew MLE-level money this past offseason, assuming Odom's going to settle for 'a step above' that amount is bordering on the ridiculous, again.

In the NBA, market value relative to other players and perceived value often triumph over true value.



Wrong. Lamar had his shot at a 2nd option, failed miserably. On another bad team he's a 3rd option at best and only a starter if said team is paper thin at power forward.

On a team like the Thunder or Bobcats (disregarding salary cap considerations for the sake of this argument), there's a pretty good chance Odom gets plugged in as the 2nd option, let alone be considered as a starter.

It all depends on which teams you consider to be 'bad'.

[21_Blessings]

Get Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he's a free agent.

Shaq wanted to be a Laker because Jerry West, the best General Manager of all time, sold on him on the fact that he had a better chance at winning multiple championships with the Lakers than in Orlando. Well documented. And ended up being proven.

Despite playing in LA for 8 years he still lived in Orlando during the entire off season and still lives there.


Get Gary Payton for the MLE and Karl Malone for the LLE, wayyyyyyyy below market value.

This has nothing to do with Los Angeles the market or city.


Get Glen Rice for nothing to play third wheel to Shaq and Kobe.

Are you fucking stupid? Prime Eddie Jones is nothing?


Get Phil Jackson to coach the team when he could have had any NBA coaching job in the league. Basically fire him, and get him to come back.

Again, nothing to do with Los Angeles, the market. Had everything to with the fact that he wanted to coach a team that had the best chance of winning championships.

Phil was never fired. He had a hissy fit over the fact that Buss chose Kobe over him so he quit, wrote his stupid book in protest while the Lakers go through the rebuilding process. He has been fucking Buss' daughter for years so I don't see how it's surprising that he was rehired and fences were mended.


Get Derek Fisher to get out of his contract and come back and play for the Lakers for less than the contract he had.

You're seriously the dumbest person posting on the internet if you believe this. Los Angeles didn't give his daughter eye cancer. LA didn't make Utah buy Derek Fisher out. Fisher played in LA most of his career and his wife's family lives in the LA area. Yes LA was factor but not for the reasons you are purporting.


You want to tell me Los Angeles didn't help those things happen? Definitely the franchise brand of the Lakers plays a huge role first and foremost, but LA does too.

The franchise brand is what made that happen through a rich history of winning which was bred from stellar ownership and great players. Respect was earned, was never a given.


Didn't the Clippers just get one of the best free agent players this past summer in Baron Davis despite being a wretched franchise?

While losing the BEST free agent player on the market in Elton Brand due being a wretched franchise. And another key free agent in Corey Magette. Baron was born and raised in LA and went to UCLA. And please explain to the class what other team was offering Baron a better offer. Golden State pretty much kicked him to the curb.


Of course, the Lakers have an edge over the Clippers because of the franchise history. The City of Los Angeles helps as well. You really can't say it doesn't.

Hasn't helped the Clippers one iota. You can't really say it has.


New York has had problems since Scott Layden fucked them up and Isiah fucked them up worse, but they've had succuess in their history of luring players and coaches. Allan Houston appeared to be a breakout star in the NBA and signed with the Knicks. Knicks also got Pat Riley, who basically had his choice of any NBA job. They were also able to make deals for guys like Dave DeBusschere, Earl Monroe, Bernard King, Latrell Sprewell, that other teams probably couldn't pull of, financially or otherwise if the players refused to sign on those trades. Obviously, in recent years, the Knicks have been such a mess and poor management that they haven't had many good moves. But, there's a reason why the Knicks is among a handful of teams that are given serious rumors as to having a legit chance at LeBron James in 2010, despite the mess that franchise has been the past 8 years or so.

None of that has amounted to Jack shit the last 30 years. As for Lebron, wake me up when he's a New York Knick.

Regardless, your original claim was and still is unvalidated and retarded. You said despite the CBA's current model the Lakers can do things that no other teams can which is complete and utter bullshit. None of which you tried to argue makes what Jerry Buss has accomplished any less impressive.

[JamStone]

I already acknowledged that the Laker brand was a big part as well.

Did Shaq not make multiple "Hollywood" movies while in LA? I even remember him stating how he loved the fact that Hollywood and better opportunities to make music were in Los Angeles.

So if the Lakers never moved from Minneapolis, think the Minneapolis Lakers would have been able to lure Shaq? Even if Jerry West was the GM still? Hell no.

The other examples are stretches, but not complete stretches. And, if Shaq is the only example that is on point, it's enough. That alone gave the Lakers three titles. Los Angeles the city helped lure Shaq.

Clippers still got one of the best free agents on the market. We were talking about advantages. The Clippers had an advantage to lure Baron Davis. How it affected the team isn't part of what we're debating.

The Knicks history is relevant. It's more than just the cities. But, if things are equivalent between say the Knicks and the Memphis Grizzlies, a free agent is going to the Knicks. A Hall of Fame coach is going to the Knicks. All things equal, New York and Los Angeles have advantages. They still sell tickets when the teams are average or below average. Those franchises still make money. A bad team in a Seattle or Vancouver or San Diego or St. Louis or Memphis or Atlanta, they don't make money. Knicks and Lakers will still make money, so they can still afford to go over the cap and over the luxury. That's the advantage. Add to that the cities are big metropolitans with great nightlifes and an endless amount to do, they have advantages. After winning 6 NBA titles, is Phil Jackson going to go to the Lakers or to the Seattle Supersonics? 4 NBA titles in his pocket, is Pat Riley going to go take over the Minnesota Timberwolves or the New York Knicks? Are teams with those kinds of winning coaches in great big U.S. cities with the willingness to go over the luxury tax going to lure the top free agents or is Eric Musselman and Terry Stotts going to get those players?

It's not just the cities. I never said it was "just" the cities. Obviously tradition, the brand name, the history, the players already on the team help. But, to discount Los Angeles the city is naive and foolish. Los Angeles helps sell the Lakers. The city and the fans that sell out the Staples Center every year to help raise ticket prices helps lure players, coaches. You keep that same franchise, the Lakers and their brand with the same amount of championships, and put it in North Dakota, Shaq doesn't go the Lakers as a free agent, Kobe doesn't re-sign with the Lakers, Phil Jackson doesn't coach the Lakers. But, of course, the Lakers would never go to North Dakota.

[21_Blessings]

I'm not arguing his true value, whatever that's worth. I'm saying there will be teams or owners willing to pay that amount, based on what we've seen in the past for similar players.

What I'm telling you is that it's going to extremely unlikely that happens this offseason. Tell us which franchises are going to blow their load on Lamar Odom and killing any chance they have at the 2010 free agent class. He won't get many good offers, which is why it's likely he takes a severe pay cut and resigns with LA.


I was responding to your original implication that his age should be a factor in considering him washed up.

Assuming a player below 30, with no career-threatening injuries, is already past his physical prime is bordering on the ridiculous.

Huh? Basketball players athleticism goes down hill pretty quickly post 30. We aren't talking about any player though, we are talking about Lamar Odom. If you paid attention to his career you would realize why age is a factor for the guy. Once athleticism goes, so goes his value. That is unless he finds that midrange jumper and post game he never developed the past 9 seasons.


The next Pippen? Is that what the Lakers were expecting of him when they got him? If so, then part of the disappointment in his play should be blamed on those unreasonable expectations.

Odom was drafted 4th overall with many comparisons to Magic Johnson. Had back to back triple doubles his rookie season. Couple drug possesions later, he gets a HUGE contract solely based on his potential. Lamar is one of the biggest 'could have been' we've seen in the past decade.


Role player? Again, the fact that the Lakers have a lot of weapons on the team right now is making Odom essentially redundant. It's hardly his fault that the team is loaded.

Yes roleplayer. And it is his fault that he isn't starting. He came into the league as a shooting forward and now Vladimir Radmonvic is starting over him because Odom is incapable of filling team needs at that position.


Considering players like Beno Udrih drew MLE-level money this past offseason, assuming Odom's going to settle for 'a step above' that amount is bordering on the ridiculous, again.

Are you stupid? Manu makes 10 million a year and you think Odom is worth that much? A step above MLE is exactly what a declining, 30 year old who can rebound well roleplayer is worth.


In the NBA, market value relative to other players and perceived value often triumph over true value.

Odom's market value isn't very high right now. And just because Rashard Lewis got 120 million doesn't mean every decent SF in the league will get that much. Especially considering the state of our economy and 2010 FA frenzy coming.


On a team like the Thunder or Bobcats (disregarding salary cap considerations for the sake of this argument), there's a pretty good chance Odom gets plugged in as the 2nd option, let alone be considered as a starter.

Westbrook is already a better scorer than Odom. So no there. Bobcats? He would start at PF because his only competition is Sean May and they could move Gerald back to SF. He would be the 3rd option behind Wallace and Richardson. That team would suck really bad while have zero cap space to improve.

[21_Blessings]

I already acknowledged that the Laker brand was a big part as well.

It's the biggest part of it, which is what you don't understand.


Did Shaq not make multiple "Hollywood" movies while in LA? I even remember him stating how he loved the fact that Hollywood and better opportunities to make music were in Los Angeles.

Shaq has stated many times that he would have never come to LA if wasn't for Jerry West. Sorry, but you're wrong. And Shaq was an icon playing in Orlando. You do realize Blue Chips was filmed when he was with the Magic, right? Yeah thats right dumbass. If anything Hollywood killed his acting career with kazam :lol


So if the Lakers never moved from Minneapolis, think the Minneapolis Lakers would have been able to lure Shaq? Even if Jerry West was the GM still? Hell no.

Let me spell it out for you: Shaq has stated he would have never become a Laker if wasn't for Jerry West. Shaq is a glorywhore. West sold him on the product of the "Lakers", not LA. Mikan. Wilt. Kareem.....Shaq.


The other examples are stretches, but not complete stretches. And, if Shaq is the only example that is on point, it's enough. That alone gave the Lakers three titles. Los Angeles the city helped lure Shaq.

Your other examples were either retarded speculation or a flat out lie. Glen Rice for nothing??? Eddie Jones was an all-star for the Lakers. Your Shaq example was already proven to be unvalidated.


Clippers still got one of the best free agents on the market. We were talking about advantages. The Clippers had an advantage to lure Baron Davis. How it affected the team isn't part of what we're debating.

They lost the best free agent on the market. LA was only a factor because Baron grew up there. The biggest factor remains is that the Clippers had cap space to blow and made an offer.


T Knicks and Lakers will still make money, so they can still afford to go over the cap and over the luxury. That's the advantage.

Yes we all get that captain obvious. But in Jerry Buss' case, it's irrelevant. Paul Allen has about 30 times the wealth of Buss. Cuban goes over the cap every season not just because Dallas sells out, because hes a rich fuck with billions to blow. The Lakers insane popularity (that puts people in the seats) is based on their history, not just because of playing in Los Angeles. Sterling is barely making a profit in LA with the Clippers. Good chance they leave in the few seasons for Anaheim.


After winning 6 NBA titles, is Phil Jackson going to go to the Lakers or to the Seattle Supersonics?

Your argument doesn't work. If the Seattle Supersonics had Kobe, Shaq and owner dedicated to winning and Lakers were like the Clippers then he would have went to Seattle.


4 NBA titles in his pocket, is Pat Riley going to go take over the Minnesota Timberwolves or the New York Knicks?

Brad Lohuas or Patrick Ewing? Hmm, tough decision.


But, to discount Los Angeles the city is naive and foolish. Los Angeles helps sell the Lakers. The city and the fans that sell out the Staples Center every year to help raise ticket prices helps lure players, coaches. You keep that same franchise, the Lakers and their brand with the same amount of championships, and put it in North Dakota, Shaq doesn't go the Lakers as a free agent, Kobe doesn't re-sign with the Lakers, Phil Jackson doesn't coach the Lakers. But, of course, the Lakers would never go to North Dakota.

You keep backtracking your argument.

If LA stayed in Minny and had the same success as the LA Lakers and Jerry West was still the GM - Shaq is going to the Lakers. Already explained this to you.

Phil Jackson's motive was to coach a winner, not an expansion franchise. If he had a choice between the Clippers or a Duncan/Robinson San Antonio team it's pretty obvious which one he's taking.

Yes big markets have lots of people with money to blow. But LA didn't make the Lakers what they are. Just as Green Bay didn't make the Packers.

[JamStone]

You still don't understand the fact that I never said the cities themselves are the only reason. Never said that. But, to discount that the cities don't play a role at all is just plain foolish. I didn't say Los Angeles made the Lakers.

You need to learn to read.

I said Los Angeles offers advantages other cities and teams don't have. That's not debatable yet you continue to debate it.

How come Shaq didn't demand to be traded to the Memphis Grizzlies then in 2004? Jerry West was still the GM in Memphis.

Shaq wanted to come to Los Angeles. The fact it was the Lakers and Jerry West helped the cause, no doubt. But, don't believe for a second that the city didn't help. Why didn't he demand to get traded to Memphis again? Why didn't he demand to get traded once Jerry West was pushed out of his GM job? Don't tell me the bullshit that he stepped down. Everyone knows Jerry West was pushed out. Why didn't Shaq demand to get traded then?

Los Angeles the city played a factor. Not the only factor. Never said that. You have to be a retard not to know that cities like Los Angeles and New York have an added appeal to players and coaches.

[21_Blessings]

You still don't understand the fact that I never said the cities themselves are the only reason. Never said that. But, to discount that the cities don't play a role at all is just plain foolish. I didn't say Los Angeles made the Lakers.

You need to learn to read.

You need to learn how to keep your arguments straight.


I said Los Angeles offers advantages other cities and teams don't have. That's not debatable yet you continue to debate it.

You said LA can do things other teams couldn't do despite the current CBA model which was utterly retarded and baseless.


How come Shaq didn't demand to be traded to the Memphis Grizzlies then in 2004? Jerry West was still the GM in Memphis.

Nice strawman. Different situations.


Shaq wanted to come to Los Angeles. The fact it was the Lakers and Jerry West helped the cause, no doubt. But, don't believe for a second that the city didn't help. Why didn't he demand to get traded to Memphis again?

Why are you still using this strawman? How does 2004 have anything to do with 1996. How come Shaq didn't demand a trade to NEW YORK?? Using your retarded logic by the way.


Why didn't he demand to get traded once Jerry West was pushed out of his GM job?

See, can't keep your arguments straight. This a whole another subject and you're trying (failing) to connect them like they're relevant to what were talking about.


Don't tell me the bullshit that he stepped down. Everyone knows Jerry West was pushed out. Why didn't Shaq demand to get traded then?

Not having West around only hastened the Shaq - Kobe fallout. West leaving the Lakers in 01 has nothing to do with West/Shaq in 1996.

Although, Shaq has stated more than once that if West never left the Lakers wouldn't have been blown up like it was.


Los Angeles the city played a factor. Not the only factor. Never said that. You have to be a retard not to know that cities like Los Angeles and New York have an added appeal to players and coaches.

You have to be a retard not to know that cities with a rich tradition of winning and great owners have an added appeal to players and coaches. Much, much more than location. And you have to be extra retarded to think that the Lakers are what they are just because they play in LA.

[JamStone]

You need to learn how to keep your arguments straight.

Never changed my argument. Me having to explain what I said to you is not changing arguments.



You said LA can do things other teams couldn't do despite the current CBA model which was utterly retarded and baseless.

I said Los Angeles has advantages. Here I go having to explain what I said to someone who has poor reading comprehension. I said "the Los Angeles market even in the current CBA financial landscape allows for the Lakers to do things many if not most other franchises simply cannot." That is a true statement. Los Angeles can offer players and coaches easy access to Hollywood and people in other entertainment industries, Sunset Blvd, parties at the Playboy mansion, Venice Beach, a greater opportunity at endorsement deals. Those are things other cities and teams cannot offer.



Nice strawman. Different situations.

Of course different situations. Memphis is not Los Angeles. That's the point. You said Shaq came to the Lakers because of Jerry West. Well, Jerry West was in Memphis. Why didn't Shaq try to go to Memphis. Because it wasn't JUST Jerry West.



Why are you still using this strawman? How does 2004 have anything to do with 1996. How come Shaq didn't demand a trade to NEW YORK?? Using your retarded logic by the way.

Not a strawman argument. In 2004, Shaq forced a trade. He was still highly sought after. He was still considered the best center in the game. Jerry West was in Memphis. Yous said the reason Shaq went to the Lakers was because of Jerry West. Why didn't Shaq try to get traded to Memphis? Not a strawman argument. It exemplifies that Shaq didn't go to the Lakers ONLY because of Jerry West. That's the point.



See, can't keep your arguments straight. This a whole another subject and you're trying (failing) to connect them like they're relevant to what were talking about.

It's not a new argument. It's called a counter-argument to YOUR argument that Shaq came to the Lakers because of Jerry West. It directly addresses that argument. Not a strawman argument. No need to straighten out my arguments.



Not having West around only hastened the Shaq - Kobe fallout. West leaving the Lakers in 01 has nothing to do with West/Shaq in 1996.

It does if as you say Jerry West was the reason Shaq came to the Lakers.



Although, Shaq has stated more than once that if West never left the Lakers wouldn't have been blown up like it was.

So why not demand a trade to Memphis?



You have to be a retard not to know that cities with a rich tradition of winning and great owners have an added appeal to players and coaches. Much, much more than location. And you have to extra retarded to think that the Lakers are what they are just because they play in LA.

You have to be retarded to think I said the Lakers are what they are because they play in LA. I didn't. The Lakers are who they are because of their history. But, it's not just one thing that lures free agents and highly sought after coaches to teams. Again, put the Lakers back in Minneapolis, and Shaq doesn't go there in 1996. Phil Jackson doesn't coach for the Lakers. Kobe does not re-sign with the Lakers.

The Detroit Pistons have as rich a history as any team in the NBA after the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs. Bill Davidson is considered one of the best owners in all of sports. The Pistons were the first team with its own private jet. Davidson built the Palace privately with no public funds, and two decades later is still among the best state of the arts facilities in sports. They were one of the first franchises to have an auxiliary practice gym within walking distance of the actual stadium. All of that and a tradition of winning. And, they still have an immensely hard time getting top free agents. They have to get lucky with trades and diamonds in the rough. Grant Hill left. Chris Webber even rebuked a courting by the Pistons back in 2003. Their stars had to come in perceived lopsided deals like Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton or under the radar signings like Billups and McDyess. It's not just the tradition and history. A city with great tradition of winning and a great owner. They've lost players to Orlando and Sacramento.

It's not just the history and tradition. To fail to acknowledge that Los Angeles the city plays a factor at all again is simply retarded.

[21_Blessings]

Never changed my argument. Me having to explain what I said to you is not changing arguments.

You have moved the goal post on your argument multiple times already. It's hilarious.


I said Los Angeles has advantages. Here I go having to explain what I said to someone who has poor reading comprehension. I said "the Los Angeles market even in the current CBA financial landscape allows for the Lakers to do things many if not most other franchises simply cannot." That is a true statement.

From doing things that others teams cannot, to advantages. You can stop lying now. You also said the Lakers 'can afford to go over the lux tax' because they play in LA. So why doesn't Sterling go over the tax? Exactly. Paul Allen trumps any would be advantage LA provides the Lakers since he has an unlimited bank account to throw around.


Los Angeles can offer players and coaches easy access to Hollywood and people in other entertainment industries, Sunset Blvd, parties at the Playboy mansion, Venice Beach, a greater opportunity at endorsement deals. Those are things other cities and teams cannot offer.

Teams don't offer players that. Your argument makes no sense in regards to the original claim with the Lakers. "Parties at the Playboy mansion" is the dumbest thing you could have possibly used to back up your unvalidated bullshit. The greater opportunity for endorsement deals is just as stupid. The 'escalator clause' in the Nike contract is nothing but fiction. Lebron is doing just fine getting his endorsement deals playing in Ohio. His income isn't going to suddenly increase because he's playing LA. He won't all of sudden attain 20 new shoe deals or commercials. With the good come to bad. If Lebron does leave Cleveland I think it will because he wants to win. And thats not going to happen with the Cavs and Ferry running things.


Of course different situations. Memphis is not Los Angeles. That's the point. You said Shaq came to the Lakers because of Jerry West. Well, Jerry West was in Memphis. Why didn't Shaq try to go to Memphis. Because it wasn't JUST Jerry West.

Look how fucking stupid you are? Completely different situations. No one can take you seriously when use retarded shit fallacies like this. Jerry West was the one who courted Shaq, borderline tampering and convinced him to sign with the Lakers as a free agent. Shaq has admitted multiple times that without Jerry West convincing him to play for a storied franchise like the Lakers, he wouldn't have left his HOME in Orlando.

You didn't answer the question. Using your retard logic, why didn't Shaq demand a trade to New York? Yeah thats what I thought you have no answer. You'll just ignore it like you keep ignoring every time I shoot down the stupid shit you say like the Lakers got Glen Rice for nothing.


Not a strawman argument. In 2004, Shaq forced a trade.

Yes it is. And with you saying it just makes you look even more stupid. Trade is not the same thing as a free agent. 1996 is no 2004. Shaq was under contract for the LA Lakers and did not get to dictate where he went.


Jerry West was in Memphis. Yous said the reason Shaq went to the Lakers was because of Jerry West.

Thats what Shaq said. And evidence backs that up. You said Shaq wanted to make movies and be hollywood. Shaq was making movies before LA.


Why didn't Shaq try to get traded to Memphis? Not a strawman argument. It exemplifies that Shaq didn't go to the Lakers ONLY because of Jerry West. That's the point.

That's the definition of a straw man. Completely misrepresented my position with another. One of which doesn't even hold any water nor relation.

Jerry West convinced Shaq to be a Laker. He wanted to be a legend and win multiple rings. Best GM in the game sold on him a storied franchise with ridiculous young talent and the best owner in the league dedicated to winning. Has nothing to do whatsoever with Shaq being traded in 2004.


It's not a new argument. It's called a counter-argument to YOUR argument that Shaq came to the Lakers because of Jerry West. It directly addresses that argument. Not a strawman argument. No need to straighten out my arguments.

Haha, no it's a straw man and you don't even realize. I really didn't think you were this stupid after all this time.


It does if as you say Jerry West was the reason Shaq came to the Lakers.

I guess your reading comprehension sucks? Shaq is a free agent. Without Jerry West convincing Shaq to take less money so he could win multiple championships and become the next great Laker center, it wouldnt have happened. Nothing to do with 2004. None, whatsoever.


You have to be retarded to think I said the Lakers are what they are because they play in LA. I didn't. The Lakers are who they are because of their history.

But, it's not just one thing that lures free agents and highly sought after coaches to teams. Again, put the Lakers back in Minneapolis, and Shaq doesn't go there in 1996. Phil Jackson doesn't coach for the Lakers. Kobe does not re-sign with the Lakers.

You just called yourself retarded by implying none of that happened if the Lakers weren't in LA. Good job, dumbass.

Shaq signed because Jerry West convinced him based on the Lakers history. Phil Jackson still coaches the Lakers because he saw, like everybody else that Kobe/Shaq duo had the potential to be one of the best the game has ever seen. Kobe still re-signs with the Lakers. You have no rational claim or evidence to say otherwise.


The Detroit Pistons have as rich a history as any team in the NBA after the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs.

No they don't. Thats reality. Spurs? Sure. Lakers, Bulls Celtics? Nope. But congrats on the couple titles you won against the Lakers soley due to injuries.


It's not just the history and tradition. To fail to acknowledge that Los Angeles the city plays a factor at all again is simply retarded.

I didn't fail to acknowledge that. But players have varying preferences based on their experience. Fact remains, Shaq didn't come to LA because of Hollywood like you lied about. He came because of the tradition Jerry West sold him on and promises of rings. That's just the reality of it.

[21_Blessings]

the spurs were worth $415 mil last season, dope (according to Forbes)

how much you think your precious lakers are worth in a tv market 5x larger? I dont have any clue to be honest, but its surely much, much more than that.

Buss only owns 51% at this point and the Lakers remain his only source of reported income. The majority of the owners in the NBA have multiple sources of income outside of their basketball franchises.

[mytespurs]

I'm not sure Buss could own an NFL team. He bought the Lakers from Jack Kent Cooke who also owned the Redskins. He was given a choce by the NFL I think who to keep, who to sell. Of course that's nearly 30 years ago now, but it's what I know about the subject. I lost interest in pro football and couldn't care less if the NFL comes back to LA. Besides, I am a 5 hour drive away from attending a game in LA anyway.

Yeah I know....just a thought....:)

[JamStone]

It's quite apparent you need reading comprehension.

I have said multiple times that the city of Los Angeles is a factor to lure players and coaches, not the only factor.

You can't seem to understand that I have not once said it's the ONLY factor or reason why a player or coach would choose the Lakers. Advantages. Things being in Los Angeles would have to offer. It's part of the lure.

You honestly keep attacking my argument in a manner that suggests that I am saying the City of Los Angeles is the only reason a player or coach would come to the Lakers. That's not what I've said.

Get better reading comprehension.

To emphasize this point, here is another example of you not being able to read well.


No they don't. Thats reality. Spurs? Sure. Lakers, Bulls Celtics? Nope. But congrats on the couple titles you won against the Lakers soley due to injuries.

I didn't say they had as rich a history of the Lakers, Bulls or Celtics. Read the word "after" in my quote. After those franchises, meaning they don't have as rich a tradition.

Reading comprehension.

Oh, and the 2004 NBA title against the Lakers wasn't due to injury. It was do to Laker implosion with Kobe jealousy and Shaq hate.

And, the 1989 title was due to injury. Fully admit that. The 1988 NBA title the Lakers won was aided by a shaky call on Laimbeer on a Kareem sky hook and because Isiah had no foot. Lakers won that because Isiah was injured. So, good talk.

I'm done with this. You have poor reading comprehension.

[anakha]

What I'm telling you is that it's going to extremely unlikely that happens this offseason. Tell us which franchises are going to blow their load on Lamar Odom and killing any chance they have at the 2010 free agent class. He won't get many good offers, which is why it's likely he takes a severe pay cut and resigns with LA.


That's assuming as well that the Lakers feel they can take the probable lux tax hit that even an MLE-level contract for Odom will bring, once all their other contract issues are completed this coming offseason.



Huh? Basketball players athleticism goes down hill pretty quickly post 30. We aren't talking about any player though, we are talking about Lamar Odom. If you paid attention to his career you would realize why age is a factor for the guy. Once athleticism goes, so goes his value. That is unless he finds that midrange jumper and post game he never developed the past 9 seasons.


This also assumes that contract offers take into consideration projected production in the latter stages of the contract.

If this were indeed the case, no player above 30 would receive anything beyond a 3-year contract at most, which simply isn't happening in the league right now.



Odom was drafted 4th overall with many comparisons to Magic Johnson. Had back to back triple doubles his rookie season. Couple drug possesions later, he gets a HUGE contract solely based on his potential. Lamar is one of the biggest 'could have been' we've seen in the past decade.


I'll take your Odom and raise you Jay Williams. :p:



Yes roleplayer. And it is his fault that he isn't starting. He came into the league as a shooting forward and now Vladimir Radmonvic is starting over him because Odom is incapable of filling team needs at that position.


Radmanovic is a better fit on the starting team because he doesn't need the ball. With that many scoring options in the Lakers' starting five, another playmaker isn't needed.

Doesn't necessarily mean Radmanovic > Odom on any other team in the NBA, or that Odom doesn't fit other team's needs.



Are you stupid? Manu makes 10 million a year and you think Odom is worth that much? A step above MLE is exactly what a declining, 30 year old who can rebound well roleplayer is worth.


Injuries aside, Ginobili is underpaid relative to other 'starter-level' (30 minutes a game, crunchtime) SGs. Bad example.

Again, it's not about true value. I haven't been arguing how much Odom really is worth, I've been saying how much other teams will perceive him to be worth will be higher than what you perceive he is (regardless of whether that is his true worth or not).



Odom's market value isn't very high right now. And just because Rashard Lewis got 120 million doesn't mean every decent SF in the league will get that much. Especially considering the state of our economy and 2010 FA frenzy coming.


Never underestimate the stupidity/desperation of certain franchises.



Westbrook is already a better scorer than Odom. So no there. Bobcats? He would start at PF because his only competition is Sean May and they could move Gerald back to SF. He would be the 3rd option behind Wallace and Richardson. That team would suck really bad while have zero cap space to improve.

Considering that Wallace is on the trading block, that doesn't necessarily hold.

[21_Blessings]

It's quite apparent you need reading comprehension.

I have said multiple times that the city of Los Angeles is a factor to lure players and coaches, not the only factor.

You can't seem to understand that I have not once said it's the ONLY factor or reason why a player or coach would choose the Lakers. Advantages. Things being in Los Angeles would have to offer. It's part of the lure.

You honestly keep attacking my argument in a manner that suggests that I am saying the City of Los Angeles is the only reason a player or coach would come to the Lakers. That's not what I've said.

You keep saying that, but the original claim was that the Lakers can do things that other teams cannot. Which is bullshit and baseless. You then implied Shaq, Phil would have never come and Kobe doesn't resign based solely on the fact that the Lakers weren't in LA.


Oh, and the 2004 NBA title against the Lakers wasn't due to injury. It was do to Laker implosion with Kobe jealousy and Shaq hate.

Nope, sorry. Third best player on the Lakers team was injured unable to perform. Enjoy the fluke title. Isiah was healthy enough to play and play well. Just because he made it look worse than it really was for the camera doesn't mean shit.


I'm done with this. You have poor reading comprehension.

Ironic, coming from the guy arguing with a straw man all night. Learn to read. Learn to not make retarded arguments. You really had some gems like the Glen Rice for nothing, Clippers enormous advantage because they got Baron (hometown guy) while losing Brand/Magette. Genius dude. I know you're bitter and all that your franchise is going nowhere and they're only plan is to go after players in 2010 that they could have drafted back in 03. Sorry about that.