NBA: Kobe Blasts NBA Owners and Tim Duncan In New Op Ed

[Brunodf]

[resistanze]

Nobody in this thread has made $400m in salary + $100s more in endorsements unless, ya know, Tim Duncan is reading

Well I wouldn't a $20K pay cut to bring more people on my team at work because upper management says 'we're strapped for cash'. And good for Timmy. He's my favorite player of all time but that doesn't mean everyone needs to follow his lead. I don't chastise my family doctor for not taking less or for not being with Doctors without Borders.

No, but there's a big difference between pretending like all you care about is 6 and disingenuously defending your greedy sociopathic tendencies with every tweet.

Well, the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure he'd love to get #6 and hates that TD has a chance. But he also hates the fact the millionaire/billionaire owners can play the victim card and that fans are so stupid that they blast the players they watch...as opposed to the owners that jack up ticket prices, move teams, handle out ty contracts, and penny pinch to the point of destroying contenders. Kobe can't have it both ways and I'm not crying for him, but really wgaf.

Link to owners saying that?

Seriously? That's been the narrative of the owners for the past several years and was exacerbated in the new CBA. Phil Jackson?
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...icle-1.1846176
http://grantland.com/features/nba-mi...s-free-agency/

[Clipper Nation]

I know he didn't take max - I said I would've.

We all know Kobe is full of about #6 - who in this thread would take a ring over $20 million? You think Kobe is really gonna say 'I only play for money now, I see the writing on the wall'?
How's it any different from the owners spewing the bull about 'Take a pay cut to win!'?

How is it bull ? There's only so much money that teams can spend on players, and if you want to hog most of that money for yourself, then it's harder to attract good players and win.... without the salary cap, the NBA is dead in 10 years tops, and good luck finding anywhere near as good a job with minimum-to-no college education....

[Splits]

Seriously? That's been the narrative of the owners for the past several years and was exacerbated in the new CBA. Phil Jackson?
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...icle-1.1846176
http://grantland.com/features/nba-mi...s-free-agency/

Phillip is an owner now?

[DPG21920]

Well I wouldn't a $20K pay cut to bring more people on my team at work because upper management says 'we're strapped for cash'. And good for Timmy. He's my favorite player of all time but that doesn't mean everyone needs to follow his lead. I don't chastise my family doctor for not taking less or for not being with Doctors without Borders.

Well that too isn't apples to apples. Of course you would take a 20K paycut if it meant your team would perform better and it would lead to more than the 20K paycut/greater opportunities (i.e. bonuses, other job ops with better salary, ect..).

That's of course ignoring the fact that 20K to someone making 100K is a much bigger impact than 200K to someone making 1M.

[da_suns_fan]

The only thing I found humorous was the early speculation by fans over at Lakersground that they would be able to re-sign kobe in 10-12 million dollar range.

[Cry Havoc]

The only thing I found humorous was the early speculation by fans over at Lakersground that they would be able to re-sign kobe in 10-12 million dollar range.

[Splits]

The only thing I found humorous was the early speculation by fans over at Lakersground that they would be able to re-sign kobe in 10-12 million dollar range.

Lakersground? Should re-read the Kobe-extension thread on this site...

[Chinook]

Lolbe with another gem. The TV deal going up will allow players to make more while, "taking less". It actually should help the superstar players a lot, as they'll be compensated as well as they were under this CBA while also leaving room for better teammates. But instead, players like him will think, "I was worth $20 Million under the old CBA? I'm worth $35 Million now," and completely undermine their team's ability to win.

[Killakobe81]

Lolbe with another gem. The TV deal going up will allow players to make more while, "taking less". It actually should help the superstar players a lot, as they'll be compensated as well as they were under this CBA while also leaving room for better teammates. But instead, players like him will think, "I was worth $20 Million under the old CBA? I'm worth $35 Million now," and completely undermine their team's ability to win.

You miss the point. With max salary caps, middle class gets phat, superstars have a "fixed cost" (same with rookies) and the owners come up like fat rats. Again I get the fact you want quality team-mates and the superstars shouldnt hog the entire cap ...But a system that pays Hayward, Bledsoe, Parsons more than they are worth but pays Lebron, durant or even Tim and dirk less than they deserve is faulty.

I am sorry I just dont see what you guys see. The spurs are an anomaly for the most part everyone save Tim and KL is being compensated fairly. Duncan took less to help his team in his last days and KL is stuck on a rookie deal. Outside of Tony the two best players are on a le team are getting less much less than the guys I mentioned. I am sorry that is a ty system. Not to mention that is unfair to Lebron.

I dont get why you blokes side with the owners here unless you are just worried about your own small market teams, why woudl anyone here be in favor of having YOUR OWN max worth limited?

[Chinook]

You miss the point. With max salary middle class gets phat, superstars have a "fixed cost" (same with rookies) amd the owners come up like fat rats.

That wasn't a good point (Kobe's; the one you made about rookies is much better one). The cap rises with revenue. Everyone keeps their same percentages. That superstars wanting an even bigger piece of the pie is selfish and misguided.

But a system that pays Hayward, Bledsoe, Parsons more than they are owrth but pays Lebron, durant or even Tim and dirk less than they deserve is faulty.

No, it's not. It's just what happens when you have a trade organization with anti-trust exemptions. That wouldn't change even if you took away the max. Again, James can only judge his worth based on his teammates.

The spurs are an anomaly for teh most part everyone save Tim and KL is being compensated fairly.

Every Spur is underpaid, even ones like Splitter. In fact, there are metrics that suggest Tim takes up more of the Spurs' cap than he should for his production. I bet if you ran those metrics for stars, you'd see they're no where near as valuable as they assume themselves to be (from an on-court perspective).

Not to mention that is unfair to Lebron.

The it is. He's slated to get $30 Million a year in a few years. It's absurd for him to act like he should get $40 Million a year while his teammates have to take minimum salaries when he can't win anything without them. The marginal cost between the money he's "shorted" and the money that middle-class players get as a result is tremendous.

[resistanze]

Well that too isn't apples to apples. Of course you would take a 20K paycut if it meant your team would perform better and it would lead to more than the 20K paycut/greater opportunities (i.e. bonuses, other job ops with better salary, ect..).

That's of course ignoring the fact that 20K to someone making 100K is a much bigger impact than 200K to someone making 1M.

Well I don't think that too apples to apples either. Unless the comparison is that Kobe taking a pay cut would resulted in A) A significantly more compe ive team B) Success/championship that would lead to more money going to Kobe than the ~25 million people wanted him to leave on the table. I can't say I agree with A (I don't think the Lakers were in any position to be le contenders after that epic fail D12 year) or B (I don't see where this other money would come from).

I don't want to get into impact; I think that's too subjective. I'm not going to tell another person about the impact of leaving money on the table just because he's richer than me. I can get a paycut of 20K and I'm pretty sure I could live a pretty decent life (i.e. I wouldn't starve, I could still pay for my place, etc). That doesn't mean I'll do it though. The impact of me losing $1000 is nothing compared to the bum on the street finding it, but truthfully I'm not throwing money left and right at them.

I mean the fact the Lakers signed Kobe without hesitation should be an indictment of the Lakers moreso than Kobe. If it was bad for them - if the Lakers wanted to win - they shouldn't have signed him. If they were concerned about the lost revenues of letting the star power of Kobe go, then they're more concerned about money than winning, which is no different from Kobe, at best.

[Koolaid_Man]

Well I don't think that too apples to apples either. Unless the comparison is that Kobe taking a pay cut would resulted in A) A significantly more compe ive team B) Success/championship that would lead to more money going to Kobe than the ~25 million people wanted him to leave on the table. I can't say I agree with A (I don't think the Lakers were in any position to be le contenders after that epic fail D12 year) or B (I don't see where this other money would come from).

I don't want to get into impact; I think that's too subjective. I'm not going to tell another person about the impact of leaving money on the table just because he's richer than me. I can get a paycut of 20K and I'm pretty sure I could live a pretty decent life (i.e. I wouldn't starve, I could still pay for my place, etc). That doesn't mean I'll do it though. The impact of me losing $1000 is nothing compared to the bum on the street finding it, but truthfully I'm not throwing money left and right at them.

I mean the fact the Lakers signed Kobe without hesitation should be an indictment of the Lakers moreso than Kobe. If it was bad for them - if the Lakers wanted to win - they shouldn't have signed him. If they were concerned about the lost revenues of letting the star power of Kobe go, then they're more concerned about money than winning, which is no different from Kobe, at best.

save some of DPG's little white star fish for me....

[DPG21920]

Sure. That's all true, but anyone would absoultely leave money on the table for the most part if the promise of things to come was richer with a high degree of certainty. Not Kobe and his situation perhaps, but many other players we are speaking about not at the end of their crumbling career. But you see guys taking less money to win all the time and it leads to playoff bonuses, endorsements from winning, great exposure for your brand and general net worth going up. It's why you see Lebron becoming the biggest name in the world pretty much (took less to win) and guys like Melo hovering where they have always been from a brand perspective.

Regarding your last part - sure, we are talking basketball. Lakers/Kobe is not about basketball, it's about business. We as fans discuss this in the bubble of on court, but owners view it as a business and while winning is important to some/most, business is more important. Kobe while likely killing their basketball/on court chances surely is worth the money when you factor in the business aspect.

We as fans just dont care about that.

[Koolaid_Man]

Sure. That's all true, but anyone would absoultely leave money on the table for the most part if the promise of things to come was richer with a high degree of certainty. Not Kobe and his situation perhaps, but many other players we are speaking about not at the end of their crumbling career. But you see guys taking less money to win all the time and it leads to playoff bonuses, endorsements from winning, great exposure for your brand and general net worth going up. It's why you see Lebron becoming the biggest name in the world pretty much (took less to win) and guys like Melo hovering where they have always been from a brand perspective.

Regarding your last part - sure, we are talking basketball. Lakers/Kobe is not about basketball, it's about business. We as fans discuss this in the bubble of on court, but owners view it as a business and while winning is important to some/most, business is more important. Kobe while likely killing their basketball/on court chances surely is worth the money when you factor in the business aspect.

We as fans just dont care about that.

You have Zero basis to be making such superfluous claims

[Raven]

Because you watch the NBA to hear the commentary and watch the owners in the crowd.

if you take the 100 best players away, the game still doesn't lose anything, there still would be dunks, there still would be stories, there still would be goats.

[Biernutz]

Like other players Kobe wants the end of the salary cap. In pre-cap days MJ made $66 mil for one year.....
With the owners rolling in money with the new TV contract it's going to be hard to say they need a cap....

[resistanze]

Sure. That's all true, but anyone would absoultely leave money on the table for the most part if the promise of things to come was richer with a high degree of certainty. Not Kobe and his situation perhaps, but many other players we are speaking about not at the end of their crumbling career. But you see guys taking less money to win all the time and it leads to playoff bonuses, endorsements from winning, great exposure for your brand and general net worth going up. It's why you see Lebron becoming the biggest name in the world pretty much (took less to win) and guys like Melo hovering where they have always been from a brand perspective.

Regarding your last part - sure, we are talking basketball. Lakers/Kobe is not about basketball, it's about business. We as fans discuss this in the bubble of on court, but owners view it as a business and while winning is important to some/most, business is more important. Kobe while likely killing their basketball/on court chances surely is worth the money when you factor in the business aspect.

We as fans just dont care about that.

For me, criticizing Kobe for chucking or lazy defense is basketball. Criticizing Kobe for not taking less money is the business side. So if we're going to cross over to the business side, owners and all factors must be considered.