by Henry Abbott
http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_ ... s-downfall
There were also business rationales to keeping Bryant. The first is that the Lakers are the opposite of a typical NBA team, as a business. Yes, they have more revenue. But they require tons more because the Lakers are the family business. In most ownership groups, nobody is relying on the team as the prime revenue stream; the team is the high-risk end of a much bigger portfolio. In LA, the team is the linchpin supporting six heirs.
And there is no more important income than the 20-year, $3 billion Time Warner deal to broadcast Lakers games locally. One well-placed source who has reviewed Lakers team finances says the Lakers' annual income from that deal hinges on ratings, which tend to go up when Bryant is on the court. If the team had jettisoned Bryant and tanked the past season in the name of a high 2014 draft pick, the resulting low ratings would have smacked the business of the Lakers hard.
That's presumably part of the reason Kupchak has been outspokenly anti-tanking; his bosses won't tell him to outright tank because tanking costs them a fortune. Meanwhile, it's not as if Bryant didn't have his supporters. Lakers season-ticket holders are a who's who of power brokers and celebrities, and in what one Lakers insider believes was a coordinated effort, many called Jim to make clear they expected him to bring Bryant back.
Makes great sense they got Lin: win more games with lesser talents (Linsanity, no tanking), work relatively well with Kobe(so far at least) and better TV ratings (can easily offset the poison pill); oh, and draft pick (why not?).
+ 
= 
