RealGM

Just throwing it out there for discussion: agree or disagree, and whats your POV?
Personally, I feel that a "discount" is more appropriate with relations to winning championships. Everyone wants the $$$ which is fair, but allotting a huge chunk of a cap to 3 players doesn't give much leeway for owners to build a supportive cast. As for kobe...he must've realized that he wasn't going to get a ring so decided for more money instead. Thoughts?

kobe doin' work

Wasn't Kobe saying the other day how he was jealous of the Spurs?

You can't have the Spurs roster if your Duncan is making 25M. You don't get Dallas' roster with Dirk at his max value either.

Can't have it both ways, Kobe.

cram wrote:Wasn't Kobe saying the other day how he was jealous of the Spurs?

You can't have the Spurs roster if your Duncan is making 25M. You don't get Dallas' roster with Dirk at his max value either.

Can't have it both ways, Kobe.

I think he's looking at it from a workers union perspective.

If no one did it, the situation between team strength would stay largely the same and everyone would be getting full value.

It's obviously the right of the individual player to choose their pay from offered contracts, but undercutting yourself for perceived personal glory generally doesn't pay off.

I'm sure its easier for Kobe to say stuff like this sitting on his roll and handful of rings, but it's def his right to have that sort of opinion.

The free market is a very interesting economic concept, and I think the Duncan/Dirk situation says more about the respective Spurs and Mavericks organization than it does the individual players "greed/money lust" or their lack thereof

I never added my personal opinion OP, I'm sorry.

I generally agree with Kobe. I don't think anyone should take less than their worth, and don't think the romantic idealism of a hometown discount outweighs the potential damage it can do to the rest of the players regarding their wages.

So I guess you can say I'm pro union.

The issue with Kobe's stance that someone already did a good job of explaining is that Kobe's stance is not a players vs owners issue, it's a players vs players issue. Whatever kobe signs for is largely irrelevant to the owners pocket. The share of the BRI that players get is already agreed to in the cba. Kobe signing for as much as he can get takes money out of the lower tier players pockets, not the owners.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Kobe doesn't understand how the BRI split between owners and players works.

This subject is really over beaten already.

gotokyo wrote:I find it extremely hard to believe that Kobe doesn't understand how the BRI split between owners and players works.

he's just try to defend his own ( money > championship ) decision and yet fail to find a legit answer

Coming from Kobe, this is really not surprising at all. For all of his glory, he had always been a "me first, everybody and everything else second" type of personality. This applies to his decision makings both on and off the court.

Ultimately, Kobe's argument has a lot of flaws. As long as the luxury tax exist, owners will win this fight against players. The pool of money dedicated to players is pretty much set, with very minimal maneuvering room upwards or downwards. Kobe taking more simply means other players on the Lakers team take less, because we are not allowed to just go over the cap and sign anyone for any type of money. Kobe makes it sound like he is fighting the good fight against owners, but all he is doing is taking money away from his fellow players, as someone already said here.

Now the thing i find interesting is that Kobe likes to talk about things in business perspective, but to me that makes his contract look even worse than it already is. Of course, Kobe actually thinks he is worth the money. Again, this isn't unlike him to think that he is worth a billion dollars a year, but this line of thinking is really hurting the team. If Kobe thinks a 36 year old shooting guard who is shooting in the 30s and plays turnstile defense should be payed as the highest paid player in the NBA, all I can say is, he needs better business sense than that. Confidence is a great thing to have, but great leaders have both confidence and the vision to see reality. With his current sense of reality, he is going to have a really hard time in life after he retires.

Personally, I have always hoped Kobe could just go out the way Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera did with the Yankees. Just go out every night, enjoy the game and walk away peacefully. Don't keep trying to make a point to people about how great you were; don't talk about playoffs or championships; don't act like you still have 10 good years in you. Just enjoy the game, say thank you and walk away. The team stinks, we all know that. But it's especially irritating to hear Kobe constantly talk to reporters the way he does. Be humble, and enjoy the game, don't overestimate yourself or your team. Reality is what it is, and there is no way even Kobe can get away from that.

dockingsched wrote:The issue with Kobe's stance that someone already did a good job of explaining is that Kobe's stance is not a players vs owners issue, it's a players vs players issue. Whatever kobe signs for is largely irrelevant to the owners pocket. The share of the BRI that players get is already agreed to in the cba. Kobe signing for as much as he can get takes money out of the lower tier players pockets, not the owners.

That logic is flawed. If Kobe took 12 million instead, it doesn't mean that the 76er's owner is going to hand out a contract to a player to make up the difference.

Kobe…Kobe…Kobe… you do this to yourself……and the lakers

How can you be jealous of Duncan and the Spurs' consistency and at the same time slam a hometown discount? You can't have one without the other.

gotokyo wrote:I find it extremely hard to believe that Kobe doesn't understand how the BRI split between owners and players works.

Never said that, I think Kobe's stance is based on a very simplistic POV. That being that all players should take as much as they're worth and the owners should have to pay for it. That by willingly playing for less than they're worth, owners more easily force limitations on players earnings. On those basic terms it's easier to understand where he's coming from.

I just think his efforts are misguided and should focus more on the BRI slice players get. As long as that stays the same, it doesn't matter if max salaries and salary caps and all that was removed, the BRI percentage ultimately decides what players collectively get. That fight doesn't start til the next cba negotiations. Kobe seems to think that fight has already started, but the only tangible effects of his stance are ones that negatively impact the lakers salary cap situation. That's not to say the lakers aren't ok with that, since business wise it makes a lot of sense for LA.

guest81 wrote:

dockingsched wrote:The issue with Kobe's stance that someone already did a good job of explaining is that Kobe's stance is not a players vs owners issue, it's a players vs players issue. Whatever kobe signs for is largely irrelevant to the owners pocket. The share of the BRI that players get is already agreed to in the cba. Kobe signing for as much as he can get takes money out of the lower tier players pockets, not the owners.

That logic is flawed. If Kobe took 12 million instead, it doesn't mean that the 76er's owner is going to hand out a contract to a player to make up the difference.

May be I didn't express my point clearly, but the BRI breakdown is already set via the cba. Part of all players salaries are placed into escrow so that at the end of the yr when the BRI numbers are known, players either lose some of their earnings cause they made more than they should have, or they get more to money to bring them up to the amount of the BRI they should've earned.

That's why it doesn't matter how much kobe signs for. If he takes less money it doesn't go back into the owners' pocket. The percentage of money owners give up from the BRI is already set. Kobe signing for more simply means he gets more of the player's allotment of the BRI, so in essence the more he gets the less left over for other players. His individual salary doesn't affect the owners' slice of the BRI.

dockingsched wrote:

guest81 wrote:

dockingsched wrote:The issue with Kobe's stance that someone already did a good job of explaining is that Kobe's stance is not a players vs owners issue, it's a players vs players issue. Whatever kobe signs for is largely irrelevant to the owners pocket. The share of the BRI that players get is already agreed to in the cba. Kobe signing for as much as he can get takes money out of the lower tier players pockets, not the owners.

That logic is flawed. If Kobe took 12 million instead, it doesn't mean that the 76er's owner is going to hand out a contract to a player to make up the difference.

May be I didn't express my point clearly, but the BRI breakdown is already set via the cba. Part of all players salaries are placed into escrow so that at the end of the yr when the BRI numbers are known, players either lose some of their earnings cause they made more than they should have, or they get more to money to bring them up to the amount of the BRI they should've earned.

That's why it doesn't matter how much kobe signs for. If he takes less money it doesn't go back into the owners' pocket. The percentage of money owners give up from the BRI is already set. Kobe signing for more simply means he gets more of the player's allotment of the BRI, so in essence the more he gets the less left over for other players. His individual salary doesn't affect the owners' slice of the BRI.

thats not what Kobe's arguing at all

guest81 wrote:

dockingsched wrote:The issue with Kobe's stance that someone already did a good job of explaining is that Kobe's stance is not a players vs owners issue, it's a players vs players issue. Whatever kobe signs for is largely irrelevant to the owners pocket. The share of the BRI that players get is already agreed to in the cba. Kobe signing for as much as he can get takes money out of the lower tier players pockets, not the owners.

That logic is flawed. If Kobe took 12 million instead, it doesn't mean that the 76er's owner is going to hand out a contract to a player to make up the difference.

No it not flawed, it's your logic that's extremely flawed. Because this is exactly the reason the Lakers couldn't add 2nd tier talent instead of signing near D-League level players. Secondly this situation has nothing to do with the 76ers, so that reference was irrelevant.

DEEP3CL wrote:

guest81 wrote:

dockingsched wrote:The issue with Kobe's stance that someone already did a good job of explaining is that Kobe's stance is not a players vs owners issue, it's a players vs players issue. Whatever kobe signs for is largely irrelevant to the owners pocket. The share of the BRI that players get is already agreed to in the cba. Kobe signing for as much as he can get takes money out of the lower tier players pockets, not the owners.

That logic is flawed. If Kobe took 12 million instead, it doesn't mean that the 76er's owner is going to hand out a contract to a player to make up the difference.

No it not flawed, it's your logic that's extremely flawed. Because this is exactly the reason the Lakers couldn't add 2nd tier talent instead of signing near D-League level players. Secondly this situation has nothing to do with the 76ers, so that reference was irrelevant.

There was zero percent chance a superstar like a Lebron or a Melo was going to go to LA even if Kobe took the minium. Even if the Lakers would of signed a guy like Eric Bledsoe, it's doubtful they would of made the playoffs this year. The Lakers are in the position they're in 100% because of bad Laker management, 0% because of Kobe

And what Kobe is actually arguing is that owners will always be able to hold over a player's agent head is " well so and so took less is this why their team is this and that ". The players slice is already set and so is the owners, what it comes down to is if a guy takes less than his value it leaves the team with money to sign relevant players. But it doesn't mean that GM has to break them off either....thus leaving a team at the tax apron, which is the only thing the owners are looking at.

guest81 wrote:There was zero percent chance a superstar like a Lebron or a Melo was going to go to LA even if Kobe took the minium.

Why are you talking about things that are irrelevant ? Nobody is saying Kobe had to take less for them to come here. Hell for that matter I don't think it's was one educated Laker fan who even thought that was reality.....I sure as hell knew damn well it wasn't reality. Your comments are coming from a fans prospective who actually thought that Kobe taking less made it more of a reality of getting Melo and James, again that was NEVER going to happen. But Kobe taking less than his value probably meant the Lakers could've enticed Lance Stevenson with more than just a $9 mil a year offer...probably could've been 13 we don't know because Kobe left Mitch with very little money to work around.

guest81 wrote: Even if the Lakers would of signed a guy like Eric Bledsoe, it's doubtful they would of made the playoffs this year. The Lakers are in the position they're in 100% because of bad Laker management, 0% because of Kobe

Again this is hear say after the fact.....every smart mind knows it was going to take more than just even a Bledsoe to be a threat. And that scenario you speak of also was a pipe dream, because every team in the league knew of the Suns stance on the matter. Bledsoe end up getting the very amount team could've threaten with anyway. It was a reason no teams made an attempt to tender and offer sheet.

Fact is the situation is on both parties, yes management has made their mistakes. But Kobe can't come with the "I wanna win" mantra while at the same time not giving the team some financial leverage. Like some have said you can't have it both ways, and I'm one of the most loyal Laker fans but I'm not bogus either...I can call what I see. But to say it's 100% on management is bull *hit.