What's new
By:

Why every Jazz fan should be a Patriots fan

franklin said:
How do the Lakers buy talent like the Yankees do? MLB has no cap. The NBA has CBA rules limiting this from happening. If anything, players come running to LA when asked to do so (i.e. Shaq).
Click to expand...

the laker's tax this year is over $26Million... by far the highest in the league. Why the F&$# doesn't Milwaukee follow the same model???
 
How about that story of the Jets TE that was signed long enough for Belichick to learn their plays and trends and then cut him. Or of course, Spygate and reports that the Pats sabotage the headsets. No thank you.
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
the laker's tax this year is over $26Million... by far the highest in the league. Why the F&$# doesn't Milwaukee follow the same model???
Click to expand...

They have to do this within the CBA rules. Maybe signing Shaq to a ridiculous contract--something like $27 mil, or almost half the cap--and signing Kobe + everyone else at the perfect time allows them to go so far over the cap. I don't know and is why I ask. What I do know is they they cannot go all Steinbrenner on the league. They also draw guys like Matt ****ing Barnes and Ron ****ing Artest, who likely sign for way less than they would if cap space wasn't an issue.

To add, LA gets something like $100 million per in advertising revenue alone. Compare that to the Jazz' $10 million per. Yeah, they can afford to sign a $27mm/yr. contract and deal with it if it doesn't work out.
 
franklin said:
They have to do this within the CBA rules. Maybe signing Shaq to a ridiculous contract--something like $27 mil, or almost half the cap--and signing Kobe + everyone else at the perfect time allows them to go so far over the cap. I don't know and is why I ask. What I do know is they they cannot go all Steinbrenner on the league. They also draw guys like Matt ****ing Barnes and Ron ****ing Artest, who likely sign for way less than they would if cap space wasn't an issue.

To add, LA gets something like $100 million per in advertising revenue alone. Compare that to the Jazz' $10 million per. Yeah, they can afford to sign a $27mm/yr. contract and deal with it if it doesn't work out.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that while they can't "go Steinbrenner" they get as damn close as possible. Of course I'll acknowledge that the rules and regulations are different, that's not the issue. The Lakers are the Steinbrenners of the NBA. Who's gonna argue that?
 
Boondocksaint27 said:
How about that story of the Jets TE that was signed long enough for Belichick to learn their plays and trends and then cut him. Or of course, Spygate and reports that the Pats sabotage the headsets. No thank you.
Click to expand...

i would think that a team under the nfl microscope going 16-0 in the regular season would be enough to give them some credit for their success, but what do i know
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
So, what you're saying is that while they can't "go Steinbrenner" they get as damn close as possible. Of course I'll acknowledge that the rules and regulations are different, that's not the issue. The Lakers are the Steinbrenners of the NBA. Who's gonna argue that?
Click to expand...

Have you heard of the billionaire who owns Dallas? That guy is trying to go Steinbrenner but cannot due to CBA. Trust me Cuban would buy a championship if he could. Lakers are paying a ton this year, but their 10 year history is that they sign two big names to max deals and lure other players to come cheap with a championship ring. '03 they paid Shaq 26mm and Kobe 13mm. The closest third was Glove at just under $5 million. They used another tactic besides money to compete this year (Malone for $1.2 was it?).

Lakers didn't have exceptionally high salaries in their 2001 or 2002 championship years (I'm too lazy to find 2000). Portland and New York tried to buy 2001-2002 @ a whopping 83mm and 85mm, respectively. Lakers were under 53mm that year, a couple lower than the Jazz payroll. 2000-2001 they were higher @ $59mm, but still were well outspent by NJ (69), NY (73.5), Miami (74), and Portland (86.5). Again, the key to the 3-peat was acquiring Shaq and luring cheap talent (and having Kobe, of course).

Lakers weren't even in the running for highest salaries in their 2008-2009 championship run. Cuban spent well over $90mm. New York put up 97.

If anything, New York or Dallas currently fit the Yankees of the NBA title best. Plenty of teams have tried to buy a championship. Portland went over $100mm in 02 or 03. New York has been spending like madmen for the entire decade. Miami bought a championship, and Cleveland tried to copy the model. Boston put the big 3 together; purchasing the top paid player plus two 18 million contracts isn't cheap. Phoenix went all-out in 06-07 (and have stayed high since). Spurs 05-06 were close to 80 million.

Bottom line is NBA teams cannot buy a championship squad. If they could then NY would be a lock in baseball and basketball. Attempting to do so has ruined the Knicks and has not worked out well for many teams. The Lakers clear advantage is in their name. They can pay good players less than what they'd get elsewhere. The list starts before Malone and will end after Matt Barnes.
 
If you use a statement like that again we will have problems, if you even think about thinking about putting those 2 teams in the same thread.....boooyyy.

Your talkin' to me like that?
Your comin' at me all wrong see, you do it again and I'll stab in the face with a soldering iron
 
I thought this thread deserved a bump. Today, the Patriots clinch the division and home field advantage through out the AFC playoffs (Brady hasn't lost at Gillette stadium in eons), the Jets lose again, and the Dolphins drop to 1-7 at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top