2011-12 Los Angeles Lakers Thread

Originally posted by AmpLee:

Originally posted by dobo:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by ads_2006:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
still didnt get chris paul lol

Got Steve Nash and kept Pau Gasol instead lol.

wouldnt you have wanted paul long term instead?

I'd rather have the better team now, considering that Kobe is gonna be 34 next year.

You always take the title contention now if you can get it, IMO.

If you're the Lakers, yes. That's a luxury for them. Other teams, like OKC and SA, have to plan long-term on the assumption that no blockbuster trades or FA acquisitions will ever happen.

Kobe's advanced age is just another factor weighing in favor of wins NOW as opposed to win later. The Lakers can always rebuild in a couple years.

It's been 16 years since the Lakers signed an all-star FA (not counting the resigning of Kobe). The myth that they can just rebuild at will is funny. They've used considerable assets and worked intelligently with teams in need to build their championships. It has much more to do with front office skill than the Hollywood allure.

Please. Their big market gives them a huge advantage. Some teams spend all day long trying to unload guys so they can save salary. Other teams have a big market and tons of money. So they look for the best players every single year. Teams like OKC have to draft well to build and maintain what they have. Teams like the Lakers can get one sided deals with teams who are just trying to unload players before they leave in FA anyway. It's not the same playing field.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Both Jamison & Meeks are better than anything we had on the bench last season, and we re-signed Jordan Hill. I'm happy with our bench this year.

You would know much better than me what the strength of the Lakers is. Let me ask you this...if you don't win a title this year, would you consider it to be a failed year?

Originally posted by AmpLee:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Please. Their big market gives them a huge advantage. Some teams spend all day long trying to unload guys so they can save salary. Other teams have a big market and tons of money. So they look for the best players every single year. Teams like OKC have to draft well to build and maintain what they have. Teams like the Lakers can get one sided deals with teams who are just trying to unload players before they leave in FA anyway. It's not the same playing field.

No wonder the Knicks have been so good year in and year out.

They sure drew a lot of big name FA's. Who spent their first year together. I wouldn't write them off because of one failed year. Their problem is being in the same conference with the Heat. And they aren't getting past them for the next 5 years or so.

Originally posted by AmpLee:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Please. Their big market gives them a huge advantage. Some teams spend all day long trying to unload guys so they can save salary. Other teams have a big market and tons of money. So they look for the best players every single year. Teams like OKC have to draft well to build and maintain what they have. Teams like the Lakers can get one sided deals with teams who are just trying to unload players before they leave in FA anyway. It's not the same playing field.

No wonder the Knicks have been so good year in and year out.

Awesome...get so tired of hearing about the big market/small market argument. There is a small amount of valididty to elite players wanting to go to a "sexy" destination, but the management of the team and the talent analysis is so much more important. And, having the balls to make impact deals. Don't like the Lakers, but nobody can accuse them of not doing everything in their power to win a championship every year.

Same way I feel about the Giants and Sabean, which gets me all kind of grief...

Originally posted by dcsham:

Originally posted by AmpLee:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Please. Their big market gives them a huge advantage. Some teams spend all day long trying to unload guys so they can save salary. Other teams have a big market and tons of money. So they look for the best players every single year. Teams like OKC have to draft well to build and maintain what they have. Teams like the Lakers can get one sided deals with teams who are just trying to unload players before they leave in FA anyway. It's not the same playing field.

No wonder the Knicks have been so good year in and year out.

Awesome...get so tired of hearing about the big market/small market argument. There is a small amount of valididty to elite players wanting to go to a "sexy" destination, but the management of the team and the talent analysis is so much more important. And, having the balls to make impact deals. Don't like the Lakers, but nobody can accuse them of not doing everything in their power to win a championship every year.

Same way I feel about the Giants and Sabean, which gets me all kind of grief...

That's exactly the point. They are doing everything in their power to win the championship every single year. While teams like Orlando are trying every single year to unload players who are going to leave in FA eventually anyway. You don't see a difference there in the market and money availabilty and decisions they make?

How do the Yankees win 27 Championships and some win 1? Probably because they have the balls to make impact deals while spending 10 times more than everybody else due to their large market....

Originally posted by dcsham:
You would know much better than me what the strength of the Lakers is. Let me ask you this...if you don't win a title this year, would you consider it to be a failed year?

Yes. The only condition to that is that they're relatively healthy.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
That's exactly the point. They are doing everything in their power to win the championship every single year. While teams like Orlando are trying every single year to unload players who are going to leave in FA eventually anyway. You don't see a difference there in the market and money availabilty and decisions they make?

How do the Yankees win 27 Championships and some win 1? Probably because they have the balls to make impact deals while spending 10 times more than everybody else due to their large market....

lulz

What horse crap.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

lulz

What horse crap.

This.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
That's exactly the point. They are doing everything in their power to win the championship every single year. While teams like Orlando are trying every single year to unload players who are going to leave in FA eventually anyway. You don't see a difference there in the market and money availabilty and decisions they make?

How do the Yankees win 27 Championships and some win 1? Probably because they have the balls to make impact deals while spending 10 times more than everybody else due to their large market....

lulz

What horse crap.

What did you expect?

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
That's exactly the point. They are doing everything in their power to win the championship every single year. While teams like Orlando are trying every single year to unload players who are going to leave in FA eventually anyway. You don't see a difference there in the market and money availabilty and decisions they make?

How do the Yankees win 27 Championships and some win 1? Probably because they have the balls to make impact deals while spending 10 times more than everybody else due to their large market....

lulz

What horse crap.

Seriously. Orlando will be a quality team again very soon.

The lakers have a 25yr $5billion dollar tv deal to subsidize any and all of their chronic overspending. This makes for a considerable advantage no doubt. In addition the market offers the allure of Hollywood and the big market endorsement deals. Mitch Kupchak has an easier time getting championship caliber players. At the same time, Orlando, most specifically Otis Smith, cluster fuc%ed that franchise by over paying richardson lewis turjoglu jameer nelson and others to look like they were buying the same championship the lakers were. .- The thing is that lakers spent big on the right players while ORL, NYK, DAL for a while were spending big on mediocre talent and not getting the results. The Lakers have the advantage and Derek Fisher was instrumental in the last CBA ensuring this with the NO HARD CAP rule, but the Lakers know when to pounce on weaker franchises at the exact moments of vulnerability and poach every available franchise player. This along with their advantages is why they keep themselves relevant. The NBA needs a hard cap just like the NFL where GB NO IND PIT have all won championships the last few years. I sided with players in NFL CBA and owners in NBA CBA. I want every team to be forced to play by the same budget but the lakers are obviously well managed. Nice job Mitch!!

Motherf**kin Mitch!!

Originally posted by Pillbusta:
The lakers have a 25yr $5billion dollar tv deal to subsidize any and all of their chronic overspending. This makes for a considerable advantage no doubt. In addition the market offers the allure of Hollywood and the big market endorsement deals. Mitch Kupchak has an easier time getting championship caliber players. At the same time, Orlando, most specifically Otis Smith, cluster fuc%ed that franchise by over paying richardson lewis turjoglu jameer nelson and others to look like they were buying the same championship the lakers were. .- The thing is that lakers spent big on the right players while ORL, NYK, DAL for a while were spending big on mediocre talent and not getting the results. The Lakers have the advantage and Derek Fisher was instrumental in the last CBA ensuring this with the NO HARD CAP rule, but the Lakers know when to pounce on weaker franchises at the exact moments of vulnerability and poach every available franchise player. This along with their advantages is why they keep themselves relevant. The NBA needs a hard cap just like the NFL where GB NO IND PIT have all won championships the last few years. I sided with players in NFL CBA and owners in NBA CBA. I want every team to be forced to play by the same budget but the lakers are obviously well managed. Nice job Mitch!!

Miami, Dallas, LA, & Boston have won championships in the last few years as well. I'm not sure what your point is.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Miami, Dallas, LA, & Boston have won championships in the last few years as well. I'm not sure what your point is.

DAL, LA, and BOS are large markets with large revenue streams and those teams spent dearly for those chips (more than $80million dollars on a $58 million soft cap system?). MIA came in under the cap initially($65 million after they filled out roster but lost to an $85 million DAL team in finals). As their contracts escalate, they will pay dearly also starting this year ($82 million). Fortunately for them, they have lebron, and as a result they have just signed a very lucrative TV deal(approx $250 mil) of their own to account for this new luxury tax. The heat were underspending for 2 to 3 years straight to prepare for the free agent bonanza of summer 2010. The miami market is a mid size market but has the weather advantage as well a a wealthy owner and Pat Riley, so they too are a premier destination as a result. Right now the same teams eat first in the big markets NYC(knicks nets) and LA(lakers clips) and now MIA because they have Lebron then u have CHI DAL then everyone else. These players today want the off court endorsement deals that they seen Michael get rich from with lesser talent so they flock to the big markets to compensate for it. Lebron, however was making dough in CLE but he could not recruit others to come with him. The Lakers don't have this problem due to the aforementioned advantages as well as a superior track record of success that players can believe in. No knock on lakers or any other chronic winner but the NBA does need a hard cap to give everyone a punchers chance. Obviously players will always flock to NY and LA because heck I would too all things even but right now players can march onto a team already outspending everyone through certain loopholes and still find a way to get top dollar. Now if a player wants to take a paycut to go to a big spender, more power to them, but to have your cake (overspending team of choice) and eat it too (max salary) is not something that a rival GM of a smaller market, lesser resources, and from a less accomplished team could compete with. Now some players want to win and others get paid but u should not b able to join an overspending winning team and still get paid max salary. If that is the case then Lebron was right in that the league should go down to only 12 teams or so because other fan bases are just buying fool's gold thinking their teams will be anything other than farm systems for the major squads

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Miami, Dallas, LA, & Boston have won championships in the last few years as well. I'm not sure what your point is.

DAL, LA, and BOS are large markets with large revenue streams and those teams spent dearly for those chips (more than $80million dollars on a $58 million soft cap system?). MIA came in under the cap initially($65 million after they filled out roster but lost to an $85 million DAL team in finals). As their contracts escalate, they will pay dearly also starting this year ($82 million). Fortunately for them, they have lebron, and as a result they have just signed a very lucrative TV deal(approx $250 mil) of their own to account for this new luxury tax.


The heat were underspending for 2 to 3 years straight to prepare for the free agent bonanza of summer 2010. The miami market is a mid size market but has the weather advantage as well a a wealthy owner and Pat Riley, so they too are a premier destination as a result. Right now the same teams eat first in the big markets NYC(knicks nets) and LA(lakers clips) and now MIA because they have Lebron then u have CHI DAL then everyone else. These players today want the off court endorsement deals that they seen Michael get rich from with lesser talent so they flock to the big markets to compensate for it.


Lebron, however was making dough in CLE but he could not recruit others to come with him. The Lakers don't have this problem due to the aforementioned advantages as well as a superior track record of success that players can believe in. No knock on lakers or any other chronic winner but the NBA does need a hard cap to give everyone a punchers chance. Obviously players will always flock to NY and LA because heck I would too all things even but right now players can march onto a team already outspending everyone through certain loopholes and still find a way to get top dollar.


Now if a player wants to take a paycut to go to a big spender, more power to them, but to have your cake (overspending team of choice) and eat it too (max salary) is not something that a rival GM of a smaller market, lesser resources, and from a less accomplished team could compete with.


Now some players want to win and others get paid but u should not b able to join an overspending winning team and still get paid max salary. If that is the case then Lebron was right in that the league should go down to only 12 teams or so because other fan bases are just buying fool's gold thinking their teams will be anything other than farm systems for the major squads

Dude if you're going to make a post that big, you need to break it up a little.