Future of the Lakers under new CBA

[dockingsched]

so don't know how many of you have been tracking the CBA talks, but all signs point to Dr. Buss and the Lakers taking it up the ass cause owners are tired of them having the perks that they do.

with highly increased revenue sharing, the lakers are going to be forced to give up some of their earnings to all these terribly run teams or markets that have no business having an nba team.

with a hard cap, the lakers are going to have to completely alter the way they do business. all we can hope for is that its implemented slowly so the team can rid themselves of salaries like blake/artest/walton instead of a bynum/gasol/odom.

i guess in a way this new radically changed CBA couldn't have come at a worst time, with the team carrying aging players well into the expensive years of their contracts. not looking forward to the hard choices the team is going to have to make to bring the roster into compliance with a hard cap for the next several yrs.

[dockingsched]

Hunter: "The bigger market (owners), the guys who want to cut a deal, don't have the votes."

Union chief Billy Hunter cites Lakers' Jerry Buss first (with NY, MIA, DAL owners): "Those are the folks who wanted a deal and were open."

jerry knows whats in store for the lakers if the majority of the owners get their way.

[TyCobb]

This season (11/12) could be the last time we see the big four together. If Metta declines his player option after this year, they could be saved. Good thread, cash.

[Slava]

From what I hear Dr. Buss has been very open to revenue sharing right from the start. Which makes me wonder what kind of revenue will be shared and if the new TV money will also go down to the 3rd world NBA teams.

[LaLa]

Theres no way in hell the players will let the owners have a hard cap or that ridiculous luxury tax.

[Gek]

No way in hell do I want to go to no cap though either. I like the luxury tax system. They're not getting a hard cap.

[LaLa]

No way in hell do I want to go to no cap though either. I like the luxury tax system. They're not getting a hard cap.

The system as is, is fine. But that lux tax they are proposing right now is basically a hard cap smh.

[Gek]

I don't read the proposals tbh and take everything coming out from both sides with a grain of salt. When it all settles you'll see a CBA similar to what they have now with the numbers more even between the two sides where the owners gain some ground and the players lose some.

[dockingsched]

hope your optimism proves true, but i think the owners for the most part are ready to go the nhl route and lose an entire season til they get their way.

[DEEP3CL]

With all due respect....Doc and Ty, I think you guys are over reacting just a tad here. I get the dynamics will certainly be different, but truth be told what this new CBA will do is make GM's act with diligence and assess things more closely. We won't see deals of Luke's caliber at all. Overall we'll still have the revenue to do deals, a restricted cap will and should make players assess their situations more closely also.

I argued this on the GB, if the money will be the same across the board ( if years are cut down), free agents won't go venturing to Milwaukee or Utah just because the money may be there. Doc you hit the nail on head when you said the Lakers will have to alter the way they do business, and that's the key.

If they lower the MLE like they've said they will, those are the deals that have put financial handcuffs on us repeatedly when in actuality we've look for those deals to enhance us. If not for this lockout Mitch was probably set to maybe use the MLE on another fringe player looking to contend for a title. These are the types of deals that must be scrutinized much closer now. In the past we made those deals without blinking an eye pretty much.

Even though Doc Buss is all for sharing the TV loot, I don't think it's fair that teams who've already preyed off the teams over the cap with luxury tax money will also get the chance to divvy up the TV loot too. Down trodden teams have no intention what so ever to really go for the title on a year by year basis.

Bottom line is this....we'll still attract the elite upper tier guys, we just have to be more prudent on how we go about adding such a player. Though I will admit it now, this new deal coming will have us relinquishing one of our core guys if we can't pay them fairly on their value. At the very least they'll have to make a decision on weather to take less or jump for the dough somewhere else. LO in my opinion is a prime study, we probably under paid him with this contract he's on now. But part of that was his own doing also, being heavy handed with Buss when at first a better deal was on the table.

Getting under the cap in the old system didn't guarantee teams any more luck on signing a top tier guy, the Bulls were prime examples of that in the days after MJ. They thought having the extra cash would have the stars running to get their, until KG was one of the first to turn them down citing Kruse as the main factor and their disrespect of Scottie.

The new system still won't just be the magic elixir for the teams who claim they aren't on a level playing field. Like one guy said on the GB, one thing the NBA can't fix is guys not wanting to go to small markets. And if a new restrictive cap will keep guys from making money from playing, then he will look to capitalize on the commercial front. And only LA, MIA, NY, Dallas and Chicago can offer that still.

When these owners of small market teams see that they still can't land a superstar, then what will Stern do to fix that problem?

[DEEP3CL]

hope your optimism proves true, but i think the owners for the most part are ready to go the nhl route and lose an entire season til they get their way.

No way in hell they can do that, even though they're bluffing it. The NHL was able to get away with it because for one they had no profitable TV deal, only ESPN covered the games at the time. They had no network deal such as NBC or CBS, the players are relatively unknown except to the hardcore fans.

The NBA can't get away with that. These new breed owners like Robert Sarver and Dan Gilbert are ruining the league simply because they couldn't afford a team in the first place. They've run these teams like they've run their businesses. You can cut in business and still generate profit. In sport you simply can't cut and expect to make profit, you have to shell out.

[ALL HAIL]

My intuition tells me that this will be good, old-fashioned game of "chicken".

Which side will be the first to get the hell out of he way?

The majority of owners, from the outset, IMO, have been willing to wait out the players in hopes that they crack.

The majority of players have been prideful in their attempts to show their own sense of empowerment, willing to wait for as long as the owners continue to play "this game".

"This game" unfortunately ain't basketball, it's "eff-you ... no eff-you, I'm not budging!"

There's quite a bit of money on the table DEEP, but when ego, pride, and respect are in the way (even of money), they usually win out.

This is a new day.

Players are rich and empowered by their abilities to shape their own teams. Also, all players (from the bottom to the top) have the ability to still make some money playing ball in other places.

This is truly a game of "chicken", with the two guys behind each wheel as stubborn and as obsinate as they come.

This could be very long guys. Both sides don't care about the game right now.

Ego, pride, and principle have truly taken precedent.

[eckoner]

Buss is ok with sharing the TV $$ because if he and a few other owners agree to putting more in the kitty they will want the LUX TAX abolished so if this is the main thing holding up progress they prob end up only spending a bit more because they wont be paying a lux tax anymore.

[Slava]

I'd think that's a pretty decent trade off.

However its not like the revenue sharing is any bad as it is right now. The merchandise revenue is being shared equally among all franchises and I bet the best NBA merchandise sales come from Lakers, Bulls, Celtics and Heat.

If they also start revenue sharing for TV rights that would pretty much leave ticket revenue as the only direct profit the Lakers can make, which is still a very good amount considering how expensive the Lakers seats are and they are not looking at coming down anytime soon.

[Kilroy]

It's been said before and I believe that no matter what happens, the Lakers have an advantage in all player negotiations in that we are a generally well run team, with an incredible legacy an aura, in a big market that happens to be Hollywood/LA.
I'm going to stick with that until proven wrong... So I think we'll be fine ultimately.

We won't get every free-agent we want but we'll get more than Memphis or Toronto...

[CX44]

The one thing I find funny about whatever new CBA they come up with, is the one they currently have was also done with a lockout and Stern and the owners thought they were sticking it to the players the last time and were getting the deal they (the owners) wanted. It appears the players have prepared for this lockout unlike the last time. As long as there is not a truly hard cap big market teams will continue to attract the marquee players. What could hurt the big market teams under a hard cap is getting 2nd tier players unwilling to sign for a lesser salary because of the cost of living in bigger cities. Not that many players are willing to sign for less anyway.

[That Nicka]

I can see some type of revenue sharing but I cannot see a hard cap

[The_Trade_Seer]

If the Hard Cap comes into effect ... the following trade is a no-brainer:

Pau, MWP, Blake and Walton for Antawn Jamison, Ramon Sessions, Boobie Gibson, Ryan Hollins, Joey Graham and Semih Erden.

We'd still have a very solid team this year and next year with Sessions undoubtedly opting out we would have Kobe, Fish, Morris and Goudelock under contract, could sign our pick of D12 or CP3 and build around them.

[Anklebreaker702]

With all due respect....Doc and Ty, I think you guys are over reacting just a tad here. I get the dynamics will certainly be different, but truth be told what this new CBA will do is make GM's act with diligence and assess things more closely. We won't see deals of Luke's caliber at all. Overall we'll still have the revenue to do deals, a restricted cap will and should make players assess their situations more closely also.

I argued this on the GB, if the money will be the same across the board ( if years are cut down), free agents won't go venturing to Milwaukee or Utah just because the money may be there. Doc you hit the nail on head when you said the Lakers will have to alter the way they do business, and that's the key.

If they lower the MLE like they've said they will, those are the deals that have put financial handcuffs on us repeatedly when in actuality we've look for those deals to enhance us. If not for this lockout Mitch was probably set to maybe use the MLE on another fringe player looking to contend for a title. These are the types of deals that must be scrutinized much closer now. In the past we made those deals without blinking an eye pretty much.

Even though Doc Buss is all for sharing the TV loot, I don't think it's fair that teams who've already preyed off the teams over the cap with luxury tax money will also get the chance to divvy up the TV loot too. Down trodden teams have no intention what so ever to really go for the title on a year by year basis.

Bottom line is this....we'll still attract the elite upper tier guys, we just have to be more prudent on how we go about adding such a player. Though I will admit it now, this new deal coming will have us relinquishing one of our core guys if we can't pay them fairly on their value. At the very least they'll have to make a decision on weather to take less or jump for the dough somewhere else. LO in my opinion is a prime study, we probably under paid him with this contract he's on now. But part of that was his own doing also, being heavy handed with Buss when at first a better deal was on the table.

Getting under the cap in the old system didn't guarantee teams any more luck on signing a top tier guy, the Bulls were prime examples of that in the days after MJ. They thought having the extra cash would have the stars running to get their, until KG was one of the first to turn them down citing Kruse as the main factor and their disrespect of Scottie.

The new system still won't just be the magic elixir for the teams who claim they aren't on a level playing field. Like one guy said on the GB, one thing the NBA can't fix is guys not wanting to go to small markets. And if a new restrictive cap will keep guys from making money from playing, then he will look to capitalize on the commercial front. And only LA, MIA, NY, Dallas and Chicago can offer that still.
When these owners of small market teams see that they still can't land a superstar, then what will Stern do to fix that problem?

Good post Deep. To answer your final question Stern isn't trying to fix anything. He sides with the owners continually no matter what. Mostly because he hates to see these "boys" making all this money.

[DEEP3CL]

If the Hard Cap comes into effect ... the following trade is a no-brainer:

Pau, MWP, Blake and Walton for Antawn Jamison, Ramon Sessions, Boobie Gibson, Ryan Hollins, Joey Graham and Semih Erden.

We'd still have a very solid team this year and next year with Sessions undoubtedly opting out we would have Kobe, Fish, Morris and Goudelock under contract, could sign our pick of D12 or CP3 and build around them.

That trade is utterly ridiculous........the reason any hard cap is put in place is to contain the stars from moving. The only movement will be role players. For the last time you can forget about Howard or Paul........they won't ever be Lakers.