2014-15 Official Lakers Season Thread, Vol: We Love Each Other

[CP1708]

CP I came over to team tank once Kobe went down again, because it was a lost cause at that point.

But we also had a pick. Was guaranteed at 1, at 20.


This pick is 1-5 guaranteed. When you have $28mil in cap, you don't punt a season in order to obtain an asset that you may lose out on even if you are the 4th or 5th worst team. Tanking and then losing the pick would send a serious message that would set us back a lot longer than if we used the entire cap space on younger guys gave it a go and finished as the 10th seed.

Naw, tanking don't send no messages to nobody. What's best for the business is best for the business.


Hey, if they land Lance and a Parsons or Monroe/Bledsoe, whatever, then I hear ya.

But if we sittin around and watchin guys go elsewhere, I ain't reachin for scraps to "make a run" I rather go get my asset back, which I never shoulda given in the first place.


My scenario is if they miss out on what they wanted, which was to get better quicker. If they land a couple difference makers, then I'm fine letting the pick go. All depends how the next few days go.

 

[tay1]

I repeat, we aren't tanking a decade, it's one more year. To KEEP a pick we'd otherwise have to give up. That's all. No more. Just this one. Just this pick. After that, we're out from under Kobe's anchor of a contract, we're free to spend on whoever, whatever we want.

One year.

Iono C3Po, Kobe just may wanna come back

 

[rck3sactown]

 

question: does size of market into competency of said franchises? 

No, money aspect does.

Smaller market, less money, more trouble making moves.

Deeper pockets, easier to move and escape mistakes.

I feel you. See the quick decline of the post Webber Kings and how not to cling on to mediocrity..... and then how they (Maloofs) went down the rabbit hole of being poor as **** and trying to run a small market NBA franchise as your #1 source of income.... ******* idiots 

speaking of deep pockets, pls forgive if this was posted.... thought it was a good read.

Yall got it good, me jelly 

 (this formatting is weird.)
[h1]BEING SUPER-RICH MEANS THE LAKERS CAN BE SUPER-PATIENT[/h1]
Posted by Brian Kamenetzky  on Jul 2, 2014 in Uncategorized  | 3 comments

If you haven’t read the  breakdown by Zach Lowe on Jason Kidd’s exodus from Brooklyn  for Grantland, it’s well worth the time. But beyond some excellent details of how that whole unquestionably strange mess came to be, the story contained an eye-popping little nugget sure to interest Lakers fans:

“The Thunder are indeed paying into the revenue-sharing system, rare for such a tiny market, but they’re slated to make nearly $29 million in profit when everything is netted out. That’s the fifth-best projection in the league, trailing only the Lakers ($100.1 million), Bulls ($61 million), Rockets ($40.7 million), and Celtics ($33.1 million)… Holy cow, the Lakers! They end up with that huge profit despite contributing a league-high $49 million to revenue sharing.”

Yes, the Lakers cleared $39 million more (!) than any other team in the league, despite suffering the worst season on record since packing up the trailers and moving from Minneapolis. Despite Kobe missing all but six games, despite failing to sell out every game at Staples, luxury tax payments, and the aforementioned revenue sharing bill.

Yowza!

With free agency officially underway, the Lakers have been connected in one way or another to just about every name on the market, from the obvious big fish (LeBron, Carmelo, Bosh) to the guys a tier below (Kyle Lowry, Greg Monroe, Luol Deng, and so on). That’ll happen, in part because the Lakers, who don’t even have half a roster, are probably interested in just about every name on the market, and also because every name on the market has a vested interest in making the Lakers appear interested. Without question, the Lakers would like to figure out a way to beat the odds and improve quickly, whether by straight signings or trades absorbing players into their vast, verdant meadows of cap space. I can accept the possibility the Lakers become a decent enough team next year. Title contending, no. Playoff contending? I can accept that (even while not betting on it).

What I can’t accept, though, is the thought process stating the Lakers MUST do something bold, because they CAN’T POSSIBLY go through another year like last. Fans will revolt! They’ll stop showing up! Ratings will tank! And so on! Except assuming Kobe plays, a lot of that won’t happen. Watching the team again struggle would suck but with likely only two years of Bryant remaining, people aren’t going to skip their last handful of opportunities to see him live, whether at home and especially on the road. That’s part of the value he has to the organization.

But let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say people don’t show up. It’ll look bad for people to see empty seats, but those tickets will still be sold. The Lakers have a wait list for season tickets  thousands of applicants deep. Anyone giving theirs up in a fit of pique won’t be getting them back. And even if the Lakers lose sales for a couple years, and they won’t, at least in any meaningful way… they  have to figure out how to lose $100 million in profits before landing in the red.

There will be angst. There will be anger. But if the Lakers can’t hit a home run this offseason and are forced by circumstance to keep their proverbial powder dry (or most of it, at least), absolutely nothing will happen that won’t be instantly be cured by getting good again in a year or two. Lakers fans aren’t going to abandon the franchise over a couple years of necessary futility, and nor should they. So the Lakers can do what they think is right, without worrying what media types, or celebs in the lower bowl, think. Yes, it’s uncomfortable for fans not to know who’s next after Kobe. I’m sure it’s uncomfortable for the Lakers, too. But finding a good answer is far more important than finding any answer.

The idea is to build a genuine championship contender, not to compete for a six-seed every year, and to that end the news passed along by Lowe has the potential to be a positive force for the Lakers.

A few more thoughts on free agency…

• I get waiting to see what Melo and LeBron do, but the Lakers need to be careful about waiting too long. There’s a good chance most of the big action, whatever it is, happens after James and Anthony are off the market, but teams who don’t feel they have a shot at either won’t stand still, and secondary players interested in security might snap up solid offers sooner rather than later. The Lakers have to balance the home run swing with the need to make contact. The cheap, young, lesser known players of the world – think Kent Bazemore – could be gone quickly. There are opportunity costs associated with trying for, and not getting, the superstars.
• The idea LA won’t sign any non-elite FA to deals longer than a year or two, and there’s been plenty of chatter about that, basically means they won’t get any of them. Jodie Meeks got three years and nearly $20 million from the Pistons. Golden State gave Shaun Livingston 3/$16 million. Do the Lakers really think Kyle Lowry is going to take two years? Or that two years might be enough to get Greg Monroe to sign an offer sheet, or have the Pistons not match? In the end, I don’t really believe the Lakers will limit themselves to that degree for players the genuinely want and believe can grow with the rebuild.
• That the Lakers would want to keep a clean cap sheet to woo the Durants and Westbrooks of the world makes sense, but at the same time they have to build a real team to attract them. The “blank slate, we’ll build a winner around you, we always have and always will and look at the pile of money!” sales pitch doesn’t really work these days, it seems. Elite players want to join a team with infrastructure, meaning the Lakers need to build some even if (ok, when) James and (probably) Melo end up somewhere else. Assuming they don’t wildly overspend on Genuinely Bad Idea Players, it’s ok to shell out three or four years. Most good talent can be moved in a pinch.
• Whatever the Lakers can do to absorb talent through trades, they should. As we’ve already seen with the Meeks deal, player contracts can inflate quickly. The Lakers could, and probably will, have to pay more than performance might merit, particularly with any restricted free agents. It’s the price of doing business.
• My appreciation for Anthony grew a ton this year, given how he handled a dumpster fire of a season in New York. That said, the idea of giving a 30-year old Melo $96 million for four years, knowing it might not be until the third year the Lakers are title-competitive, makes me squeamish. Not saying I wouldn’t do it, but his will be a giant contract on the books while his skills are, at the very least, not ascending.

 

[CP1708]

I repeat, we aren't tanking a decade, it's one more year. To KEEP a pick we'd otherwise have to give up. That's all. No more. Just this one. Just this pick. After that, we're out from under Kobe's anchor of a contract, we're free to spend on whoever, whatever we want.


One year.

Iono C3Po, Kobe just may wanna come back

If we extend a 38 year old SG with 20 years of mileage, we should be contracted.

If he wants to play for the league minimum, then fine, he can join up.

 

[mosk33toe]

CP in 1...2....

Keep counting, I blocked him and he blocked me.

I can only imagine how negative it would be after reading his posts...:x

 

[tay1]

Keep counting, I blocked him and he blocked me.

I can only imagine how negative it would be after reading this posts...

You made it to his magical list? I can't imagine what you must've said.

 

[mosk33toe]

You made it to his magical list? I can't imagine what you must've said.

I insulted the great MDA, punishment for this is banishment, I gladly obliged

 

[darthska]

Randle at Center with Sacre backin him up
Kobe at PF with Kelly backin him up
Nick Young at SF

5 point guards


Byron Scott coaching.

We're so close, I can taste it. It's so good for my soul.

Only thing I don't like about that is Byron Scott coaching.

I want our next coach.

Like, NOW.

Like, our next championship coach, I want him here, implementing his 'way' and creating his system.

That way when we have our championship roster... and we will have another championship roster... his system will already in place, and it will just be a matter of being rid of the losers on the squad.

 

[CP1708]

What I can’t accept, though, is the thought process stating the Lakers MUST do something bold, because they CAN’T POSSIBLY go through another year like last. Fans will revolt! They’ll stop showing up! Ratings will tank! And so on! Except assuming Kobe plays, a lot of that won’t happen. Watching the team again struggle would suck but with likely only two years of Bryant remaining, people aren’t going to skip their last handful of opportunities to see him live, whether at home and especially on the road. That’s part of the value he has to the organization.

But let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say people don’t show up. It’ll look bad for people to see empty seats, but those tickets will still be sold. The Lakers have a wait list for season tickets thousands of applicants deep. Anyone giving theirs up in a fit of pique won’t be getting them back. And even if the Lakers lose sales for a couple years, and they won’t, at least in any meaningful way… they have to figure out how to lose $100 million in profits before landing in the red.

There will be angst. There will be anger. But if the Lakers can’t hit a home run this offseason and are forced by circumstance to keep their proverbial powder dry (or most of it, at least), absolutely nothing will happen that won’t be instantly be cured by getting good again in a year or two. Lakers fans aren’t going to abandon the franchise over a couple years of necessary futility, and nor should they. So the Lakers can do what they think is right, without worrying what media types, or celebs in the lower bowl, think. Yes, it’s uncomfortable for fans not to know who’s next after Kobe. I’m sure it’s uncomfortable for the Lakers, too. But finding a good answer is far more important than finding any answer.

The idea is to build a genuine championship contender, not to compete for a six-seed every year, and to that end the news passed along by Lowe has the potential to be a positive force for the Lakers.

Well shoot......if only we'd have thought of this.......

Nice find RCK.



We just have to ride out Kobe's contract folks. We will come back, people just have to be patient. Remember the Smush days. Just be patient, we will get back.

 

[CP1708]

Randle at Center with Sacre backin him up

Kobe at PF with Kelly backin him up

Nick Young at SF


5 point guards



Byron Scott coaching.



We're so close, I can taste it. It's so good for my soul.

Only thing I don't like about that is Byron Scott coaching.

I want our next coach.

Like, NOW.

Like, our next championship coach, I want him here, implementing his 'way' and creating his system.

That way when we have our championship roster... and we will have another championship roster... his system will already in place, and it will just be a matter of being rid of the losers on the squad.

*Says nothing*

Absolutely, nothing.

 

[kal-el-8]

 

 

Randle at Center with Sacre backin him up

Kobe at PF with Kelly backin him up

Nick Young at SF


5 point guards



Byron Scott coaching.

We're so close, I can taste it. It's so good for my soul.

Only thing I don't like about that is Byron Scott coaching.

I want our next coach.

Like, NOW.

Like, our next championship coach, I want him here, implementing his 'way' and creating his system.

That way when we have our championship roster... and we will have another championship roster... his system will already in place, and it will just be a matter of being rid of the losers on the squad.

*Says nothing*

Absolutely, nothing.

Should of went and got Ollie 

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

That the Lakers would want to keep a clean cap sheet to woo the Durants and Westbrooks of the world makes sense, but at the same time they have to build a real team to attract them. The “blank slate, we’ll build a winner around you, we always have and always will and look at the pile of money!” sales pitch doesn’t really work these days, it seems. Elite players want to join a team with infrastructure, meaning the Lakers need to build some even if (ok, when) James and (probably) Melo end up somewhere else. Assuming they don’t wildly overspend on Genuinely Bad Idea Players, it’s ok to shell out three or four years. Most good talent can be moved in a pinch.

Nice post rck

 

[lovehateself]

I would keep pau

ive been saying this. 

now we're not gonna give Pau a 3 year 33 or even a 36 mil deal. 

im good with a 2 year 10 mil per ala z-bo. 

randle needs a solid center who can shoot from the the corner or top of the key. Randle's offense is bullying his man to the spot, hows he gonna do that with sacre clogging up the lane. 

i understand why most of you guys want to ship Pau out but you dont just let a skilled, proven big man walk and expect to still good at the position. look at the players we had at center since we traded shaq. okafor is a strong cough from throwing his back out again, kaman might sign back, monroe will probably get matched....there arent any other centers worth mentioning....

 

[three6mafia2007]

Someone PM when we're done talking about Pau.

Damn he pisses me off.

How you 7 feet and grabbed like 9 rebounds all season?!

>:

Welp, if this is the precedent...

I say u ban the next person who entertains the thought of signing bosh

 

[darthska]

And I'm still anti-tank, btw.

I just... man, I would say "If you had a kid, you'd understand", but I know CP's got a kid. Are they into the Lakers w/ you?

Because my son, I just can't explain to him why it's good for our squad to lose.

- him: "Aw, MAN! We lost, Daddy."

- me: "No, no, that's GOOD, son! YAY! WE LOST!"

He'd be... I'd have an easier time convincing him that Santa is a real. He wouldn't know what to think.
 

- him: "Good... that we lost? But... so... wait... we want our teams to lose? So we want the Angels and the Sparks..."

- me: "No, no! We want THEM to win!"

- him: "

 So tomorrow when we have our game, do we try to lose?"

- me: "No, we want to score a bunch of runs tomorrow."

- him: "But you said losing was good."

I can't.

Long term, I totally understand that it's better to blah, blah, blah.

I just can't explain this to my son, so I'm not w/ it. Doesn't matter, because me being pro- or anti- tank literally has no affect on the squad... and I know we're going to lose a good third of our games, anyways.

I just don't like it.

 

[darthska]

I would keep pau

I'll cut you.

 

[CP1708]

BTW, we’re getting a little lost in the shuffle with some of the pieces, but let’s say, for example, Ryan Kelly plays well again this year, and looks useful for the future.

And maybe, one of these rookie PG’s work out. Either Clarkson or Kane. Maybe Sacre improves, slightly, another usable piece.

You could have
Sacre
Randle
Kelly
1 of the PG’s (or both)
2015 Top 5 pick

Going into 2016. Total cost for those pieces, still only 7-8-9 million total. Maybe we keep Xavier, still only 22, and he improves his game/stays healthy. Throw another 2-3 mil on the fire.


That’s 5-6 young guys, 2 of them solid building blocks, 4 rotational bench guys, at a cost controlled 10-12 million dollars. Salary cap in 2016 should be, what, 67 million?

5-6 young pieces, 50+ million to spend, you could buy 2 max guys, a 3rd Lance level type FA and still add 2-3 more ring chasing vets to reach 67 mil.


It depends on us, as a franchise, to develop the games of Randle, Kelly, PG’s etc. Not the results of Wins and Losses, the actual game skills they need to contribute to the team. The max level stars will take care of the Wins and Losses later, the young kids just need to learn the NBA game. That should be our focus, rather than buying for mediocrity just to appease people.

 

[tay1]

 
And I'm still anti-tank, btw.

I just... man, I would say "If you had a kid, you'd understand", but I know CP's got a kid. Are they into the Lakers w/ you?

Because my son, I just can't explain to him why it's good for our squad to lose.

- him: "Aw, MAN! We lost, Daddy."

- me: "No, no, that's GOOD, son! YAY! WE LOST!"

He'd be... I'd have an easier time convincing him that Santa is a real. He wouldn't know what to think.
 

- him: "Good... that we lost? But... so... wait... we want our teams to lose? So we want the Angels and the Sparks..."

- me: "No, no! We want THEM to win!"

- him: "

 So tomorrow when we have our game, do we try to lose?"

- me: "No, we want to score a bunch of runs tomorrow."

- him: "But you said losing was bad."

I can't.

Long term, I totally understand that it's better to blah, blah, blah.

I just can't explain this to my son, so I'm not w/ it. Doesn't matter, because me being pro- or anti- tank literally has no affect on the squad... and I know we're going to lose a good third of our games, anyways.

I just don't like it.

#teamantitankbutiainttrippinifwelose

Say it loud!!!

 

[rck3sactown]

please tell me you bought your son a Lisa Leslie throwback

 

[senorroboto2k5]

You might have guessed this, but

Ramona Shelburne ‏@ramonashelburne 5m
Lakers are laser-focused on meeting with Melo on Thursday. They're making other calls, but all other business is conditional on that

 

[darthska]

 
And I'm still anti-tank, btw.

I just... man, I would say "If you had a kid, you'd understand", but I know CP's got a kid. Are they into the Lakers w/ you?

Because my son, I just can't explain to him why it's good for our squad to lose.

- him: "Aw, MAN! We lost, Daddy."

- me: "No, no, that's GOOD, son! YAY! WE LOST!"

He'd be... I'd have an easier time convincing him that Santa is a real. He wouldn't know what to think.
 

- him: "Good... that we lost? But... so... wait... we want our teams to lose? So we want the Angels and the Sparks..."

- me: "No, no! We want THEM to win!"

- him: "

 So tomorrow when we have our game, do we try to lose?"

- me: "No, we want to score a bunch of runs tomorrow."

- him: "But you said losing was bad."

I can't.

Long term, I totally understand that it's better to blah, blah, blah.

I just can't explain this to my son, so I'm not w/ it. Doesn't matter, because me being pro- or anti- tank literally has no affect on the squad... and I know we're going to lose a good third of our games, anyways.

I just don't like it.

#teamantitankbutiainttrippinifwelose

Say it loud!!!

With it!

 

 

[MVP]

You might have guessed this, but

Jeanie better have her best nudes ready.

 

[CP1708]

I do explain the Lakers to her, she asks questions here and there, but I don’t think she obsesses with it quite yet.

But I do tell her why it’s ok for us to lose here and there, and why we want that. And when we build it back up, I will explain to her how we got there. In the end, she’ll learn how to build a roster.

I was a kid when the Van Exel era came, and I was super sad about losing Magic, Worthy, Scott, etc, but I learned what it took to re-build, and I loved it.

Hopefully she will too someday.

 

[hometownhero]

 

[darthska]

I do explain the Lakers to her, she asks questions here and there, but I don’t think she obsesses with it quite yet.

But I do tell her why it’s ok for us to lose here and there, and why we want that. And when we build it back up, I will explain to her how we got there. In the end, she’ll learn how to build a roster.

I was a kid when the Van Exel era came, and I was super sad about losing Magic, Worthy, Scott, etc, but I learned what it took to re-build, and I loved it.

Hopefully she will too someday.

How old, though?

My dude's 6. He ain't getting all this 'build the roster back up because we got a high draft pick by losing' foolishness.