Reply With Quote
Duncan signed his seven-year deal in 2003. The two-year extension to the deal taking it to 2012 was signed in 2007. That was the only extension to the seven year deal. There was no 3yr/63M extension.
That's good to know. Now we'll have to wait and see whether Odom leaves or stay. I can see Ariza getting 6m/yr and Buss offering Odom a 8.5m/yr for 3 years. Odom at this point definitely wants to retire a Lakers so I can see both him and Ariza staying. I'm just wondering about SB.
Duncan signed his seven-year deal in 2003. The two-year extension to the deal taking it to 2012 was signed in 2007. That was the only extension to the seven year deal. There was no 3yr/63M extension.
Sorry. I assumed since he was a free agent in 2000 and talked with the Orlando Magic then, he signed the seven year deal in 2000. At any rate, he had an extension where he was "taking less" for $40 million over two years. The OP is calling Kobe selfish if he takes more than $16 million a year.
I agree with you on the Kobe part. Kobe signing for less than the max only helps the Lakers bottom line, it does not affect their ability under the CBA to resign Ariza or Odom, or to add another FA.
While signing for 40M over 2 years hardly makes Duncan a saint, his extension was structured to improve the Spurs chances to have capspace to sign a FA in 2010. He will make 22.1M next year, then 18.7M in 2010, and 21.7M in 2011. A max extension would have reduced potential 2010 capspace by 4-5M.
With all of the Lakers other obligations, Kobe is not a position to do the same and any reduction in salary he accepts would simply be a transfer of funds from him to the Buss family.
Correct on adding another FA, it doesn't help.
But Kobe taking less goes a long way towards the dreaded luxury tax. Kobe's taking a $13 million hit that could equal a total of $26 million (salary + luxury tax).
Of course, I don't worry for the poorness of the Buss family, I just care that Buss sees a little extra cash and ponies up the money for Ariza/Odom.
You've mentioned this $13M hit that Kobe is taking earlier in the thread. I must be missing something. All he has said so far is that he is not leaving the Lakers. I can't see where he has taken any kind of hit so far.
Owners aren't as willing to give everyone max contracts and extensions as people would have you believe. Even if $5 million is a drop in the bucket and even if the franchise remains profitable, they are out to maximize revenue streams. I'm sure they will have some negotiations of some sort. They will probably offer the max to Kobe and say that he can take less if he wants to, that sort of thing. Going into luxury tax to match other team offers is going to be much more of a picky thing. Not many owners are actually ready to dump money and cut their profit margin by millions for a marginal chance at a championship.
Did the article actually say that he isn't opting out? It basically said that he isn't going anywhere "even if he opts out". When asked about opting out he responded with “I’ve been deflecting that all year and I ain’t going to stop now.” I will be impressed if Kobe actually does not opt out, because I fully expect him to - but I also agree that he has earned every cent that Lakers have and will pay him.
He hasn't committed either way. If he did opt out and receive a max contract, his salary for 2009-10 would actually be about 700K LESS than he is due to make on his current deal. So the Lakers would save about 1.4M if Kobe were to opt out and sign a new max deal.
Lakers probably wouldn't view spending luxury tax on retaining Odom and Ariza moves that would ensure only a "marginal" chance at a championship. Rather, they'd likely view it as ensuring a very good chance at another championship.
And while your contention about most owners generally not wanting to dump money that will cut into their profits is more often than not true, there are exceptions, such as the New York Yankees and New York Knicks. Mark Cuban in recent years is also an exception to that rule. The Lakers would be another.
Good info. Good take.
133m umm he only takes home around half of it after taxes and ...
dont forget obama could start raising fed income taxes to fund americas debt, even arnie could raise state income taxes and any taxes in cali since no one is bailing out the state....
Don't see why anyone in the Lakers uniform should even consider taking a pay cut, the Lakers are rotting in money, they play in a huge market with the most recognizable figure in the NBA.
Hi Mel_13. The article was changed. It previously stated that he was not opting out.
To explain my point though. IF he does not opt out, he sticks with his salary scale. However, if he opts out, he could get a $30 million/year extension. Instead, if he stays in his current contract, he'll make ~$13 million less over the next two years. And because of the luxury tax, this could conceivably be $26 million worth of salary that might go towards the re-signing of Lamar and Ariza.
Whether or not Kobe opted out doesn't affect money that could or could not go towards re-signing Odom and Ariza. The Lakers are way over the cap and into luxury tax regardless of what Kobe does so long as he remains a Laker. What Kobe does won't affect cap space or luxury tax with respect to re-signing Odom and Ariza. I believe that's what Mel 13 has been saying in many of his posts. Kobe opting out doesn't affect any of that because where the payroll already is with all the other contracts.
And, I'm not a capologist and don't have the exact numbers, but if Kobe opted out, and signed an extension at the maximum amount, I don't believe it would start at $30 million. But I don't know for sure.
I'm just going with the numbers in the $133 million question. I have no idea what the exact numbers are.
The Luxury tax is dollar for dollar. So if Kobe takes more money, the Lakers have to pay more luxury tax. The more money the Lakers have to pay to Kobe, the team salary is going to be that much more.
Hi Allanon
That explains your post, but you are mistaken as to the numbers. Under the CBA, if he opts out and signs a new max deal his salary over the next two years will be slightly LESS than he is currently guaranteed. I know that sounds like it can't be right, but it is.
Under the CBA, the max starting salary for a player with 10+ years in the NBA will be around 20M, except that players maximum salary is never less than 105% of his previous annual salary. Under his current deal, Kobe gets the max 10.5% annual raise over last year's salary. If he opts out and signs a new deal, his max salary will 5% above last year's salary. That comes out to about 700K LESS next year plus another 700K saved in lux tax.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q11
A new 5yr max contract will only pass 30M in the fifth year.
Thanks for the clarification mel_13. My mistake, I should have checked the numbers, I just assumed the $133M was real.
After reading that link, you're right on about the salary.
The 133M is real. It would be the total value of a new 5yr deal.
Kobe's current deal:
09/10: 23.0
10/11: 24.8
Opt out and sign 5yr max deal:
09/10: 22.3
10/11: 24.6
11/12: 26.9
12/13: 29.3
13/14: 31.6
The power of compounded 10.5% annual raises is a wonderful thing
Lakers shouldn't expect Bryant to take pay cut
It's ludicrous to be suggesting Kobe Bryant should opt out of his current contract and take a pay cut.
Kevin Ding
The Orange County Register
EL SEGUNDO – It's downright un-American, really, this notion that Kobe Bryant should swing by the 11,000-square-foot home Lakers owner Jerry Buss inhabits alone, tear up his player contract and cut his salary for next season and beyond in hopes of keeping the Lakers at a championship level.
The rationale is that Bryant can get the Lakers to re-sign both Trevor Ariza and Lamar Odom at fair-market value if he scales down his personal salary. This is like complaining the best umbrella on the beach is too big and bright instead of surveying a full picture of the landscape.
Aside from the fact no one does more for Buss' revenue streams than Bryant, let's be clear: Buss can pay Ariza and Odom as much as he wants to bring them back. Whatever it takes, Buss is allowed to do.
There are really no limitations on the dollars. Buss could even sign an altogether new, excellent player if he were willing to spend the mid-level salary-cap exemption this summer.
It's not as if Bryant taking less would move the Lakers under the cap and be the only way to afford returning or incoming talent. Whatever Bryant did cut from his salary would go directly and only into Buss' pocket.
It's funny that Odom can talk so much about how much he wants to re-sign with the Lakers and have no one notice what he says about the Lakers' luxury-tax predicament: "I don't know how the books look."
Yet Bryant is expected to do everything, including evaluating Buss' accounting ledgers and personally adjusting them.
It's ludicrous, but it has been a long-running national pastime for people to tell Bryant what he should be doing, so why stop now, right?
No one has even considered the idea that Coach Phil Jackson can opt out of his contract, and he could give money back to Buss so he can better swallow paying Ariza and Odom.
What a great non-wedding present it would be to his non-father-in-law: "I'm never going to make an honest woman of Jeanie, but here's some of next season's $12 million back!"
Jackson said Friday he intends to coach the team next season as long as no unknown health problems pop up in his upcoming medical checkups, saying: "There's no doubt."
When asked about Bryant being in position to negotiate his salary down, Jackson brought up Kevin Garnett, Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan as stars who have done that.
But Jackson knew enough to add: "I wouldn't advise him one way or the other. I want him to actively pursue and actively encourage these guys (Ariza and Odom) to come back, though, which he will."
The specifics of those Garnett, O'Neal and Duncan scenarios are not comparable to Bryant's.
Garnett and O'Neal were grandfathered in before the last collective-bargaining agreement, making them exempt to maximum-salary limitations, so it was inevitable they would have to reduce their salaries.
In Garnett's case, he did it in Minnesota in hopes the team would use the money to attract other talent — and he did it again when agreeing to his 2007 trade to Boston to get his chance at an immediate jackpot.
O'Neal basically couldn't get and didn't deserve more money when his contract expired with Miami in 2006. Duncan was offered the maximum future salary San Antonio could give him, but he wound up taking less far down the road on an extension that won't kick in until he's 34.
Bryant is just turning 31 and playing as well as anyone right now, and he doesn't have anywhere close to the lower-leg problems big men Garnett, O'Neal and Duncan have.
Bryant's training regimen is unrivaled, and Jackson said he believes Bryant will remain tremendously productive until he's 36 or 37.
Whatever he gave up for next season, he would keep losing every year because NBA contracts are limited to maximum annual raises.
Absolutely, he wants the Lakers to bring both Ariza and Odom back, but it's much better for everyone that he's done dabbling in front-office tasks.
Asked about taking less money, Bryant said: "That's not my responsibility. That's the franchise's responsibility to come to the table with things and have all the guys come back and make sure they get what they deserve."
GM Mitch Kupchak, having not yet consulted with Buss, described himself as "hopeful" about keeping the team intact but said: "If it were likely or if I felt very comfortable, I would say that to you."
It probably hinges on how much another club offers Odom.
Or maybe they'll ask big Lakers fans Jack Nicholson and Denzel Washington to turn over salaries from their next movies to Buss and help out.
That's only a little less ridiculous than telling Bryant he should sacrifice his salary, as if he needs some gesture these days to show he's committed to team success.
You don't think he's doing enough?
think about what were discussing here.
really think about it.
"oh he 'should' be getting 237238758235 dollars' 'but he can 'settle' for 123748256283 dollars' etc...
pure greed
It doesn't affect getting UNDER the luxury tax threshold no because we are way over that obviously. Kobe taking a pay cut could definitely affect the Buss family's ability to resign Odom and Ariza though. The luxury tax is a dollar for dollar tax. The further over the limit, the more you have to pay. If you're 10 million over, you have to pay an additional 10 million to the league. We would be even farther over the limit with Ariza getting a raise, a still not cheap Odom and with Bynums HUGE contract extension kicking in next year. All that extra money you can multiply by two because of the luxury tax. That adds up very quickly and like all businesses the Lakers have a limit to the amount they can afford to spend. Jerry Buss isn't Paul Allen. Kobe taking a small pay cut could very well be the difference in keeping our free agents.
As mentioned, Kobe opting out would mean a difference of about $700,000 or a $1.4 million difference in luxury tax terms. Not that $1.4 million isn't a lot of money but by NBA standards and even luxury tax standards, it is not significant. The only way Kobe could really affect the bottom line for Jerry Buss is if he were to take significantly less than he can make under the CBA. If you're talking about Kobe taking a $10 million a year pay cut, then you're talking about it making a difference. If Kobe were to opt out and re-sign for $60 million over five years, then you can talk about how it would help the Buss family afford re-signing other guys without taking a huge hit in luxury tax. But, we all know that's not happening. And, while Dr. Buss is not Paul Allen, the Laker franchise can afford to pay luxury tax without it hurting earnings as much as it would for other franchises like New Orleans or Charlotte. Kobe's decision to opt out or not doesn't affect re-signing Odom or Ariza, and in reality it doesn't affect Buss' decision whether he wants to pay more luxury tax or not. The Lakers can afford it if they really wanted to keep those two. Yes, they would end up paying a large luxury tax hit, but the difference would be a couple million at most. That's not a significant enough amount that would tip the scales either way whether the Lakers re-sign Odom and/or Ariza.
Kobe is a selfish bas unless he opts out and plays for the vet min. Only then would he prove that he truly wants to win rings.
I agree with you that asking Kobe to take 80 million is ridiculous, but trying to compare him to Tim Duncan is a bit extreme. Kobe can actually afford to take significantly less than Duncan because he makes that much more in advertising. I don't know how much money Kobe makes from all the commercials and such, but I wouldn't be suprised if it were as much or more than whatever Duncan makes.
Of course, that doesn't mean Kobe should take 80 million, he's worth much more than that and he can still take more than 80mil while helping the team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
