Jump to content


Photo

LeBron in 2018?


  • Please log in to reply
514 replies to this topic

#41 manaro90

manaro90

    Starter

  • Member
  • 5,198 posts
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Fan Since:2000
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2017 - 08:39 AM

never will they give up ingram for lebron or anything  like that!


Cologne, Germany Baby! LAKERS FOR LIFE.  |   Add me Instagram: princealaddin90

 

 


#42 Tensai

Tensai

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 8,194 posts

Posted July 20, 2017 - 08:59 AM

Your comments continue to highlight that you are too narrowly focused on an Ingram for Lebron swap.

 

I'm saying that while that move, in isolation, is debatable (if you want it to be), as a move that opens the door for other moves, there is no debate.

 

None.

 

If you really have a situation where other players are saying, "I will sign with you, if you do the Lebron deal," then you do it.   

If you are willing to risk bringing in other stars, because you love Ingram too much to trade for Lebron, then that is foolish.  FOOLISH.

 

You don't do that.

 

Now, if no one else is coming, and Lebron says, "I want to be a Laker";  of course you do not trade Ingram for him if you can sign him outright, and no one else is coming.  If you have the cap room and Lebron is willing to sign, then of course you sign him.  There's no question there.  

 

But, do you prevent yourself from putting together a star-studded team over Brandon Ingram?  Absolutely not.  

 

The moment we let the players dictate the future of this franchise, and not have solid team policies that are discussed over a long period of time, it means we already lost.

 

I don't buy the "I will come if Lebron comes" vice versa talk. That is fiction and irrelevant to current discussion.

 

And once again, whatever "star-studded" team that you can think of, look at the beating Cavaliers got and think again. It is gonna get worse because Lebron's clock is ticking. And that super team would also have an expiration date.

 

So essentially it comes to this: Do you want 2-3 years of Paul George/Cousins in a super team environment or do you want the insurance of Ingram for now and future? The answer should be same for Lebron and Lakers if their goals are same. For Lebron I think the answer is rather obvious. He won't do the same mistake twice. (Love vs. Wiggins)


fXlFKv8.gif

 


#43 Miggs

Miggs

    16x CHAMPS

  • Member
  • 2,697 posts
  • Name:Miguel
  • Fan Since:1988 Finals
  • Fav. Laker:Showtime,Shaq and Kobe

Posted July 20, 2017 - 09:04 AM

never will they give up ingram for lebron or anything like that!

if I was magic I would never do it
"Don't post while drunk, on draft night"

nSLiQqtm.jpg

#44 ChichoGarcy

ChichoGarcy

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 880 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Name:Chicho
  • Fan Since:1992
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted July 20, 2017 - 09:24 AM

Those are the types of posts that make me log off



I don't agree either but, as you said before, everyone is entitled to have a different opinion. By the way, I've sent you a PM.

#45 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,431 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted July 20, 2017 - 09:53 AM

The moment we let the players dictate the future of this franchise, and not have solid team policies that are discussed over a long period of time, it means we already lost.

 

I don't buy the "I will come if Lebron comes" vice versa talk. That is fiction and irrelevant to current discussion.

 

And once again, whatever "star-studded" team that you can think of, look at the beating Cavaliers got and think again. It is gonna get worse because Lebron's clock is ticking. And that super team would also have an expiration date.

 

So essentially it comes to this: Do you want 2-3 years of Paul George/Cousins in a super team environment or do you want the insurance of Ingram for now and future? The answer should be same for Lebron and Lakers if their goals are same. For Lebron I think the answer is rather obvious. He won't do the same mistake twice. (Love vs. Wiggins)

 

There's just so many holes in what you are saying.

 

If you don't think players dictate a lot of team's decision-making, then you've not been paying attention to professional sports the last 40 years. 

 

At this point, I don't know what "insurance" Ingram is.  He's okay, but he's not Lebron.  He's not Cousins.  He's not Wall.  He's not George.  He's not even Lonzo.

 

You trade prospects for superstars.  You just do.  It's always been that way.  Especially when you have an opportunity to build an amazing team.

 

If you don't think players coordinate their efforts, then again, you don't pay attention. To anything.  You aren't watching.  Not at all. 

 

You didn't pay attention to what happened when Wade-Bosh-Lebron all signed with Miami the same summer.

 

You didn't pay attention to the summer that KG accepted a trade to Boston (after Ray Allen was acquired).

 

You didn't pay attention the summer Lebron signed with Cleveland and Kevin Love told the Cavs he would re-sign there if they traded for him.

 

You didn't watch what Chris Paul did just a month ago.

 

You aren't watching what Carmelo Anthony is trying to do right now.

 

If you don't pay attention, you live in a cloud, and you can't have a cogent conversation about reality. 


Don't feed the trolls. 


#46 Adam

Adam

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 88 posts
  • Fav. Laker:CP3 ;)

Posted July 20, 2017 - 10:08 AM

cost-of-keeping-the-warriors-together-ac

the warriors are great, but are they worth paying 300+ million a year to keep together?

They have no reason to do that. They've made it clear that they'll pay into the luxury to keep those 4 together at Golden State. They're not worried about he tail end of any contract if it's getting them multiple rings right now.



#47 Adam

Adam

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 88 posts
  • Fav. Laker:CP3 ;)

Posted July 20, 2017 - 10:21 AM

i don't think we even entertain a sign and trade with cleaveland. why give up assets and weaken our team when we can outright sign the guy in free agency. 

lebron has leverage in that he's freakin lebron james and any team he is on will be a contender. but we also have leverage. we're the lakers, we have the cap space and the means to create a superteam in la, we have a solid supporting cast (or will have, currently in development), his window to win is closing, and there are few teams that can provide him the means to win again. if he decides to leave Cleaveland, realistically where can he go? 

 

and i'd like to mention one thing that seems to have been overlooked although Tensai alluded to it. Ingram is on a rookie scale contract. that means no more than 6 million through the end of the decade. idk about the rest of you, but i firmly believe that in two, maybe three years ingram will be better or at least almost as good as paul george (20+ ppg, 5+rpg, 3+apg, 2 3pts on 35%+ shooting, and 45+ fg%) and thus i think Paul George is our last priority as he doesn't fill a more immediate need. we're set at the 1 and 3 with lonzo and ingram. oh right - i forgot about curry. the warriors were only able to assemble the team they have because they had curry on a ridiculous cheap contract. im not saying ingram will have the same impact curry had on the warriors, but he'll definitely push the needle for us. 

 

we're so focused on signing two max free agents, we're forgetting that we might have the opportunity to promote from within the organization. we don't always need to look outside when we have four players that might play their way to a max contract with us - ingram (not this year but 2020), randle (he might surprise us), lopez (he might fit offense and roster so well we keep him but not for 100/4 years, has to be cheaper), and KCP. if our guys develop like we expect them too, than we don't need lbj, westbrook, paul george, cousins to all come play for us. i'd rather build a dynasty like the spurs did. for over fifteen years they've been a 50+ win team and been legitimate contenders for the Championship - not just the playoffs, every year. that's crazy. and they did it by not over reaching. 

 

so tl:dr - ingram is going to be an all-star and no need to trade for a marginal and temporary upgrade when you'll have a better product soon enough. and remember, ingram at 5.7 million playing at least 90% of paul george + 24 million on another all star is >>> $30 million for just paul george. PG is great, but not 30 million great when we have ingram. 

 

oh and also, is ingram for lebron in S&T even feasible? i thought the salaries had to match or whatever?

Your comments continue to highlight that you are too narrowly focused on an Ingram for Lebron swap.

 

I'm saying that while that move, in isolation, is debatable (if you want it to be), as a move that opens the door for other moves, there is no debate.

 

None.

 

If you really have a situation where other players are saying, "I will sign with you, if you do the Lebron deal," then you do it.   

If you are willing to risk bringing in other stars, because you love Ingram too much to trade for Lebron, then that is foolish.  FOOLISH.

 

You don't do that.

 

Now, if no one else is coming, and Lebron says, "I want to be a Laker";  of course you do not trade Ingram for him if you can sign him outright, and no one else is coming.  If you have the cap room and Lebron is willing to sign, then of course you sign him.  There's no question there.  

 

But, do you prevent yourself from putting together a star-studded team over Brandon Ingram?  Absolutely not.  


  • Tensai and LACAS like this

#48 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,431 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted July 20, 2017 - 10:47 AM

i don't think we even entertain a sign and trade with cleaveland. why give up assets and weaken our team when we can outright sign the guy in free agency. 

lebron has leverage in that he's freakin lebron james and any team he is on will be a contender. but we also have leverage. we're the lakers, we have the cap space and the means to create a superteam in la, we have a solid supporting cast (or will have, currently in development), his window to win is closing, and there are few teams that can provide him the means to win again. if he decides to leave Cleaveland, realistically where can he go? 

 

and i'd like to mention one thing that seems to have been overlooked although Tensai alluded to it. Ingram is on a rookie scale contract. that means no more than 6 million through the end of the decade. idk about the rest of you, but i firmly believe that in two, maybe three years ingram will be better or at least almost as good as paul george (20+ ppg, 5+rpg, 3+apg, 2 3pts on 35%+ shooting, and 45+ fg%) and thus i think Paul George is our last priority as he doesn't fill a more immediate need. we're set at the 1 and 3 with lonzo and ingram. oh right - i forgot about curry. the warriors were only able to assemble the team they have because they had curry on a ridiculous cheap contract. im not saying ingram will have the same impact curry had on the warriors, but he'll definitely push the needle for us. 

 

we're so focused on signing two max free agents, we're forgetting that we might have the opportunity to promote from within the organization. we don't always need to look outside when we have four players that might play their way to a max contract with us - ingram (not this year but 2020), randle (he might surprise us), lopez (he might fit offense and roster so well we keep him but not for 100/4 years, has to be cheaper), and KCP. if our guys develop like we expect them too, than we don't need lbj, westbrook, paul george, cousins to all come play for us. i'd rather build a dynasty like the spurs did. for over fifteen years they've been a 50+ win team and been legitimate contenders for the Championship - not just the playoffs, every year. that's crazy. and they did it by not over reaching. 

 

so tl:dr - ingram is going to be an all-star and no need to trade for a marginal and temporary upgrade when you'll have a better product soon enough. and remember, ingram at 5.7 million playing at least 90% of paul george + 24 million on another all star is >>> $30 million for just paul george. PG is great, but not 30 million great when we have ingram. 

 

oh and also, is ingram for lebron in S&T even feasible? i thought the salaries had to match or whatever?

 

Adam,

 

You didn't follow much of what was said.

 

Pretty much everybody understands that Ingram cannot be traded for Lebron straight-up.  Ingram would be a (center-)piece of the deal.

 

And again, you don't trade Ingram away if you have cap room.  I think everyone gets that.  And it keeps being said over and over, yet people keep feeling the need to point it out.

 

What you do consider, however, is trading Ingram if you have other guys coming on board, and hence, your cap room gets used up.

 

Whether that is trading Ingram in a deal for Lebron, or for Cousins, or for George, or for Wall, it doesn't matter.    Even if you free up cap room to sign 2 max players, if a third guy wants to come and your only option is a sign and trade, then Ingram is on the table. 

 

Especially if you are talking about Lebron being one of the pieces.  

 

If is 100% fathomable that a player (through his agent) communicates to LA a willingness to sign with them, if they acquire (whether through a sign and trade, or signing a player outright) certain other players.  This stuff happens pretty regularly.  It's complicated, which is why it doesn't happen all the time, but it's still discussed.

 

Even though the history gets distorted, some of you will remember that part of Carmelo's interest in signing with LA, was the prospect that Lebron would come, too.  Lebron, though, didn't take a meeting.   Melo re-signed with the Knicks.

 

You do what it takes to bring in the best talent available.  


Don't feed the trolls. 


#49 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,431 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted July 20, 2017 - 10:48 AM

cost-of-keeping-the-warriors-together-ac

the warriors are great, but are they worth paying 300+ million a year to keep together?

 

Yes. 

 

They are a cash machine.

 

New arena.  Seating licenses. 

 

Dramatic increase in franchise value. 


Don't feed the trolls. 


#50 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

  • Member
  • 16,529 posts
  • Name:Julius Jordan
  • Fav. Laker:24

Posted July 20, 2017 - 11:16 AM

No team is paying that. Tax too punitive
  • Jody Smokes and LACAS like this

#51 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,431 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted July 20, 2017 - 11:33 AM

No team is paying that. Tax too punitive

 

I think you are right.  Something breaks between now and 20-21.

 

Injury, etc. 

 

It's also possible that someone (Klay, hopefully?) decides he wants to be a star somewhere else. 

 

A lot can go wrong in 4 years. 


Don't feed the trolls. 


#52 Turbo

Turbo

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 204 posts
  • Fan Since:1984
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted July 20, 2017 - 12:23 PM

I think being in the West hampers the Lebron from signing w/ the Lakers. 

 

He wants to play on the biggest stage, which, in the world of the NBA, is the Finals, not the Western Conference Finals. 

 

As far as LA being able to further his future business ventures, I think technology would allow him to advance his business interests w/o needing to physically be in LA


  • Rekal likes this

#53 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,138 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted July 20, 2017 - 12:42 PM

Lebron won't be dictating anything in LA any more than any other star player would.  The fact that Cavs didnt give David Griffin a good deal and havent been exploring sensible roster moves this offseason pretty much shows that Lebron isn't in as much control as some think.  Gilbert is still a terrible owner and that is shining through now.  


"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#54 Adam

Adam

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 88 posts
  • Fav. Laker:CP3 ;)

Posted July 20, 2017 - 12:45 PM

Adam,

 

You didn't follow much of what was said. 

It's possible i missed some stuff. 

 

Pretty much everybody understands that Ingram cannot be traded for Lebron straight-up.  Ingram would be a (center-)piece of the deal. 

My contention with this is trading ingram. doesn't matter what pieces are involved. Lebron will be a free agent next year. absolutely no need to trade him when we can sign him and keep a future all-star. 

 

And again, you don't trade Ingram away if you have cap room.  I think everyone gets that.  And it keeps being said over and over, yet people keep feeling the need to point it out.

What you do consider, however, is trading Ingram if you have other guys coming on board, and hence, your cap room gets used up.

tbh i keep seeing ingram-lbj without any mention of cap space so yeah, i can see why we keep repeating ourselves. also, this makes it seem like ingram is being used for salary cap relief which is beyond dumb. almost impossible to get a player with his upside and production for less than 6 million through 2020. ingram would be the last piece used to make some room, even if we have bonafide all-stars and superstars trying to sign with us. 

 

Whether that is trading Ingram in a deal for Lebron, or for Cousins, or for George, or for Wall, it doesn't matter.    Even if you free up cap room to sign 2 max players, if a third guy wants to come and your only option is a sign and trade, then Ingram is on the table. 

in a vacuum this makes sense but the reality is no where close to that. Lebron, cousins, George, and Westbrook haven't signed their extensions yet and will all be free agents next year. you could say that one of those players would rather be in a sign and trade so we get their bird rights but no combination of players is worth giving up ingram to get their bird rights. if they want to form that superteam and win in LA, they can't have their cake and eat it too. and if you're going to pick up three all stars from free agency, wouldn't you rather, and wouldn't they also want to play with a fourth all-star in ingram? he's not there yet but the writing is on the wall. it's only a matter of time now. finally, if a third guy comes, how/why would our only option be a sign and trade? do a sign and trade to go over our cap? why not have those three guys take a small paycut to form that superteam like every other super team has done, to get em all in. cap is going up and if we can lose clarkson, deng, that's an additional 28-30 million. 

 

Especially if you are talking about Lebron being one of the pieces.  

 

If is 100% fathomable that a player (through his agent) communicates to LA a willingness to sign with them, if they acquire (whether through a sign and trade, or signing a player outright) certain other players.  This stuff happens pretty regularly.  It's complicated, which is why it doesn't happen all the time, but it's still discussed.

agreed

 

Even though the history gets distorted, some of you will remember that part of Carmelo's interest in signing with LA, was the prospect that Lebron would come, too.  Lebron, though, didn't take a meeting.   Melo re-signed with the Knicks.

yeah

 

You do what it takes to bring in the best talent available.  true



#55 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,138 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted July 20, 2017 - 12:48 PM

That narrative is so overblown.  Lets look at Lebron's teams the last 8 years or so.  What team out West outside of the teams that beat them in the Finals would have beaten the Heat/Cavs had those respective teams been out West? 

 

2011: They lose to Dallas.  Does the Lakers, OKC or Memphis beat them that year? Seriously doubt it

2012: OKC was the best Western team and got smoked in the Finals

2013: Spurs lose in terrible fashion.  Dont think any other WC teams beat the Heat that year

2014: OKC healthy might have beaten the Spurs and possibly Heat this year

2015: Healthy OKC possibly beats Cavs

2016: OKC possibly but then again Cavs come back 3-1..

2017: Spurs with LMA and Pau on the front line is food vs the constant attack of Kyrie and Lebron

 

The common denominator here is really Kevin Durant.  This means any team that is going to beat a Lebron team is going to likely have to have a player in his realm of good.  Which has been KD and Steph...in the last 8 years a Lebron has the same odds or winning in either conference.  The West is deep if you're arent a top 2 team. 

 

I think being in the West hampers the Lebron from signing w/ the Lakers. 

 

He wants to play on the biggest stage, which, in the world of the NBA, is the Finals, not the Western Conference Finals. 

 

As far as LA being able to further his future business ventures, I think technology would allow him to advance his business interests w/o needing to physically be in LA


  • bigvee likes this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#56 Adam

Adam

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 88 posts
  • Fav. Laker:CP3 ;)

Posted July 20, 2017 - 12:49 PM

Gilbert is being cheap. Lebron brought one championship to a city starving for one. if they go on another drought, he won't care. rn, what he cares about is that 70 million tax bill that will only keep getting worse. few owners are ready and willing to throw massive amounts of money to win - a second time. dan gilbert isn't one of those owners

 

the warriors are though. granted they're working on a third one for about the same tax bill. and they also have the pieces to make a dynasty and make history so i can see them forking over that kind of money. they are now the third most valuable franchise in the nba. win a couple more titles and they can become top two. 

 

Lebron won't be dictating anything in LA any more than any other star player would.  The fact that Cavs didnt give David Griffin a good deal and havent been exploring sensible roster moves this offseason pretty much shows that Lebron isn't in as much control as some think.  Gilbert is still a terrible owner and that is shining through now.  



#57 Adam

Adam

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 88 posts
  • Fav. Laker:CP3 ;)

Posted July 20, 2017 - 12:54 PM

i think one of the bulls teams could have beat lebron had they stayed healthy. the celtics gave him some fits a couple times. but a healthy bulls team was the only obstacle. oh if the pacers had some offense back when hibbert was good. the pacers were pretty damn good those two years but they ran into the westbrook okc problem. only one offensive threat (i didn't say option. they had options. but only one threat in paul george). 

 

but yeah i agree with you. doesn't matter which conference lebron is in, they'll be top two. 

also, for those who say that lebron will lose in the wcf, wouldnt that be better than losing in the finals? bc if he makes it to the finals, than that means he's already beaten the best team out there and they should be able to beat whoever comes out the east. and theres also some consideration for his finals record. if he loses more in the finals how does that affect his legacy?

 

That narrative is so overblown.  Lets look at Lebron's teams the last 8 years or so.  What team out West outside of the teams that beat them in the Finals would have beaten the Heat/Cavs had those respective teams been out West? 

 

2011: They lose to Dallas.  Does the Lakers, OKC or Memphis beat them that year? Seriously doubt it

2012: OKC was the best Western team and got smoked in the Finals

2013: Spurs lose in terrible fashion.  Dont think any other WC teams beat the Heat that year

2014: OKC healthy might have beaten the Spurs and possibly Heat this year

2015: Healthy OKC possibly beats Cavs

2016: OKC possibly but then again Cavs come back 3-1..

2017: Spurs with LMA and Pau on the front line is food vs the constant attack of Kyrie and Lebron

 

The common denominator here is really Kevin Durant.  This means any team that is going to beat a Lebron team is going to likely have to have a player in his realm of good.  Which has been KD and Steph...in the last 8 years a Lebron has the same odds or winning in either conference.  The West is deep if you're arent a top 2 team. 



#58 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,138 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted July 20, 2017 - 01:05 PM

What Bulls team?  You mean the one that got destroyed 4-1 in Rose's MVP year?  That was the BEST Bulls team they had.  Every year after they got worse and didn't address their offensive issues.  The Pacers came close but they still lost TWICE.  

 

The Finals record stuff is dumb and always will be.  So is it better to lose in the 2nd round so it doesnt count vs your Finals record?  Attributing records to one player is also dumb.  Teams win games not 1 guy.  It's a nonsensical argument thats been propped up by this Skip Bayless era of fans.  

People conveniently use these dumb arguments until it doesnt support their guy. 

 

i think one of the bulls teams could have beat lebron had they stayed healthy. the celtics gave him some fits a couple times. but a healthy bulls team was the only obstacle. oh if the pacers had some offense back when hibbert was good. the pacers were pretty damn good those two years but they ran into the westbrook okc problem. only one offensive threat (i didn't say option. they had options. but only one threat in paul george). 

 

but yeah i agree with you. doesn't matter which conference lebron is in, they'll be top two. 

also, for those who say that lebron will lose in the wcf, wouldnt that be better than losing in the finals? bc if he makes it to the finals, than that means he's already beaten the best team out there and they should be able to beat whoever comes out the east. and theres also some consideration for his finals record. if he loses more in the finals how does that affect his legacy?


  • bigvee likes this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#59 Adam

Adam

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 88 posts
  • Fav. Laker:CP3 ;)

Posted July 20, 2017 - 01:25 PM

i've never been a propenent of those records, guess i've heard it tossed around so much i figured it must matter to enough people. 

i personally think as far as his legacy goes, if lebron can make it to the finals in the west, that will forever squash any talk about him walking to the finals in the east. if he never makes it the finals in the west though...people will only talk more. but as they say, go big or go home. lebron wants to be GOAT. can't be the GOAT if you don't bet on yourself to be numero uno. 

 

also, i know that teams win championships, and as much as we can disagree about attributing records to one player, sadly that's never going to stop. when people think of the patriots they think of tom brady. the 90s bulls? MJ. heck, even the current bulls. we still think MJ. great players define great teams. the lakers are fortunate enough to have had so many it's hard for any one player to dominate all of it. kobe came the closest to the lakers and that too because magic was so far removed and kobe was around for so damn long. people have short memories 

 

What Bulls team?  You mean the one that got destroyed 4-1 in Rose's MVP year?  That was the BEST Bulls team they had.  Every year after they got worse and didn't address their offensive issues.  The Pacers came close but they still lost TWICE.  

 

The Finals record stuff is dumb and always will be.  So is it better to lose in the 2nd round so it doesnt count vs your Finals record?  Attributing records to one player is also dumb.  Teams win games not 1 guy.  It's a nonsensical argument thats been propped up by this Skip Bayless era of fans.  

People conveniently use these dumb arguments until it doesnt support their guy. 



#60 bigvee

bigvee

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,557 posts
  • Location:LA
  • Fav. Laker:Samaki Walker

Posted July 20, 2017 - 01:45 PM

cost-of-keeping-the-warriors-together-ac

the warriors are great, but are they worth paying 300+ million a year to keep together?

 

[expletive]. yes.

 

They know what they have is special. You saw KD take a 9 million dollar pay cut to stay. You hear Klay and Dray and all those guys go on and on about how much they love playing there. You see that Klay, KD and Steph have shoe deals that are essentially paying them more than their NBA salaries. 

 

They could spend a half a billion on salary if they want. They're making two or three times that as owners during these winning seasons. 

 

What the Warriors are doing now will have people talking about them like they talk about the Lakers' and Celtics' previous dynasties. All their stars are in their prime and they have their guy in Steph who's a fantastic media personality and incredible on the court. The Bay Area is home to some of the richest cities and companies in the world. They're moving to a new arena - away from Oakland. 

 

Not to mention it's going to take the rest of the league another year or two to assemble a team to compete with them - and let's not act like the Warriors are not going to get better themselves. This was only year 1 of the KD era. 

 

The Lakers are one of the most profitable teams in all of sports even though we went through several losing seasons. Hell, it was more expensive to go to a Laker game last year than a Clipper game. That value is solely brought in because of their past winning culture. The Laker fan base is so large and spread out that they'll surely make money forever. By creating a great dynasty and dominating the league for several years, the Warriors can cement in a spot like that for the future.


  • Jackson likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users