RealGM

I'm curious how everyone thinks the Lockout it going to effect the Lakers and where you think the Lakers stand on negotiations?

It seems to me that the Buss' might be one of the pretty vocal Owners driving some of the hard nosed stances attributed to the Owners in rumors. It just seems like Jerry has felt that spending was a little out of control for a long time, maybe since the Shaq trade.

Being one of the only orgs to actively dump contracts seems like a pretty good indications where their heads are.

Also choosing a cheap option like Mike Brown for head coach might be another indication. I can't help thinking they are looking at him as sort of a 'Try before you Buy' deal and that this shortened season is kind of like a try-out for him... And if the season doesn't happen at all, at least they didn't spend too much.

If any of the rumors about the hard cap are true, it seems like standing pat with the contracts we have in place makes sense. Especially if they get the players to eat a pay-cut.

All in all, it feels to me like the FO has 'gone to the mattresses' already and is at least, prepared for a complete lockout and no season... And maybe even pushing for it.

What do you guys think?

Looks like it will be an issue. Isn't Kobe scheduled to make $30 million alone in the next few seasons? Combine his contract w/ Pau, Bynum or LO and the team is already at the threshold if it is indeed set at $45 million. This will affect the teams like LA, MIA, BOS and other team that is well over the current cap more so than those that are under or do not currently have any "big-time" talent on the roster IMO.

I wonder why Jerry would push for something like this. He always has that trump card in terms of spending more than 95% of the teams in the NBA. Why would he want to even the playing field? I understand him wanting to keep costs down, but he should have a conversation with his GM first. I don't make a lot of posts here, usually just sit back and read, but Kupchak is to blame for some of the situation(s) LA is in money wise. He has given out terrible deals (not necessarily in $'s, but in length) that have handicapped the team to a degree. His moves, including signing Walton for 6 years, Artest, Blake, Sasha, Fisher (not sure if we signed him to his current deal or not) amongst others have hurt the ability for the Lakers to compile talent that will actually help the team in the future. I swear there's about $30 million on the roster that shouldn't have been spent under any circumstance. Just think, it's cool to sign Walton for $5 million per, but if his contract were shorter (by say 2 seasons), we could have kept Ariza AND signed Artest if the team wanted to do so. As a result of this "dead" money, LA has been compelled to trade its 1st round pick often in the past 5 or so years. We could have drafted guys with lower guaranteed contracts, (with potential). Whether they panned out or not, its better than paying some of these guys to do nothing...literally. We all should send contract proposals to LA for ourselves to play if they are looking for guys that can't play D, can't shoot and turn the rock over on a consistent basis. I'll do what Luke does for $60k a year.

Good owners are always concerned about of the health of league at the end of the day. They know if no one else has the ability to make a return then even the most successful teams CHI, LA, NYC, and BOS will have a harder time making a return just as well. You have to keep money flowing in to the pot. No flow into the pot eventually the business model breaks down. Thus the reason for the lockout.

The lockout sucks for fans but does seem necessary ... if 20 of the 30 teams as rumored are really losing money, things simply cannot stay the same ... unless you throw 20 teams out, re-shape the league into a 10 team league, have a fantasty style draft, re-sign the 150 players lucky enough to make the 10 teams, cut the remaining 300 or so players and let them know they have no chance of ever playing in the NBA again, have a 1 round, 10 player draft each year, etc ... wow, that would be crazy.

A $45mil hard cap seems insane however and extremely excessive. I'd almost rather see contraction than that!

Dallas has the second highest payroll in the league, next to Lakers, they're screwed as well.

dj20001 wrote:Looks like it will be an issue. Isn't Kobe scheduled to make $30 million alone in the next few seasons? Combine his contract w/ Pau, Bynum or LO and the team is already at the threshold if it is indeed set at $45 million. This will affect the teams like LA, MIA, BOS and other team that is well over the current cap more so than those that are under or do not currently have any "big-time" talent on the roster IMO.

I wonder why Jerry would push for something like this. He always has that trump card in terms of spending more than 95% of the teams in the NBA. Why would he want to even the playing field? I understand him wanting to keep costs down, but he should have a conversation with his GM first. I don't make a lot of posts here, usually just sit back and read, but Kupchak is to blame for some of the situation(s) LA is in money wise. He has given out terrible deals (not necessarily in $'s, but in length) that have handicapped the team to a degree. His moves, including signing Walton for 6 years, Artest, Blake, Sasha, Fisher (not sure if we signed him to his current deal or not) amongst others have hurt the ability for the Lakers to compile talent that will actually help the team in the future. I swear there's about $30 million on the roster that shouldn't have been spent under any circumstance. Just think, it's cool to sign Walton for $5 million per, but if his contract were shorter (by say 2 seasons), we could have kept Ariza AND signed Artest if the team wanted to do so. As a result of this "dead" money, LA has been compelled to trade its 1st round pick often in the past 5 or so years. We could have drafted guys with lower guaranteed contracts, (with potential). Whether they panned out or not, its better than paying some of these guys to do nothing...literally. We all should send contract proposals to LA for ourselves to play if they are looking for guys that can't play D, can't shoot and turn the rock over on a consistent basis. I'll do what Luke does for $60k a year.

Can't argue with anything you wrote but I will say this about the bold part....

The Lakers would push for this because unlike 99% of the teams in the league, LA has more to offer than just money. And LA can increase earnings of top players through endorsements etc, more-so than maybe any other team than perhaps the Knicks.

So I think Jerry pushes for this because it helps the league AND it helps the Lakers stay on top.

Hell, George Lopez has just about every Laker on his show at one time or another...

AI-in-LA wrote:The lockout sucks for fans but does seem necessary ... if 20 of the 30 teams as rumored are really losing money, things simply cannot stay the same ... unless you throw 20 teams out, re-shape the league into a 10 team league, have a fantasty style draft, re-sign the 150 players lucky enough to make the 10 teams, cut the remaining 300 or so players and let them know they have no chance of ever playing in the NBA again, have a 1 round, 10 player draft each year, etc ... wow, that would be crazy.

A $45mil hard cap seems insane however and extremely excessive. I'd almost rather see contraction than that!

I agree, but I have a feeling that if a hard-cap is implemented, it will end up closer to that number than people would guess...

Once this goes to a lock-out, the Owners seem to have more bargaining power than the out of work players. Especially since there are whole lot more of them that make reasonable money than the ones who will never hurt for money again.

^ You could be right about the $45 number ... if that really happens we'll be looking at an NBA filled with max players and min players with hardly anything in between ... Kobe, Bron, etc will still be getting paid mad loot and the old vets and young guns will still be getting a pittance while the rooks will be getting slotted salaries far below the current level ... but the mid-level guys, the J.R. Smith's, Wilson Chandler's, etc, a BOATLOAD of them could head overseas for more $$$$! Contraction would make more sense than an NBA filled with stars and garbage and the best "teams" really being in Europe.

The thing is they can go to a hard cap all they want, it still won't fix the main crux of the problem. Owners are part to blame for this just as much as the players. You can go back to the late 90's when the stupid owner of the Hawks gave John Koncak who was a total scrub player, a contract worth 14 million over 7 years. He only made 1.8 mil for his first 3 seasons.

This was the very start of the problems, the same thing was done for Jim McIlvaine, this scab made 725,000 in his first 2 seasons. Then the Sonic dumb ass owners gave him 7 year/ 31.4 million dollar contract. For a dude who only averaged 2.7 for his career. This led to Shawn Kemp feeling unhappy and its the reason he end up wanting a trade.

The problem is the owners can't save themselves from careless spending, so they need a fail safe system to save them. I got no pity for them. Needless to say the owners who gave out those outrageous deals no longer own teams.......those dumb business deals is why they're out.

The solution is simple stop paying useless players money they don't deserve and the problem will fix it's self.

It's a broken system... Nobody's blameless...

I just find that my own selfish personal interests as a basketball fan align more closely with the owners...
I will always be a Laker fan no matter who plays here or who doesn't. I've watched my all time favorite players come and go already and am still bleeding p&g...

So whatever it takes to bring a consistently good team to LA, I'm all for.