Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Lakers Fans are the dumbest fans on earth


MichaelNewtonII

Recommended Posts

This Lakers fan just walked in class with his kobe jersey on talking about how the Lakers are going to destroy the Houston Rockets tonight, that kobe is god, etc. I then respond the Lakers suck even with kobe are not a playoff team and the Rockets are most likely going to smack the lakers. He then ask who's my team and I say the charlotte hornets. He starts laughing so I say "they're better than the Lakers that's for damn sure" then he continues laughing and says "sike". I then follow up "do you even watch the NBA?" He says "yeah I actually do"...... obviously not. Obviously not. I didn't even have to continue flaming him the rest of the group let him know that the hornets are better (a group mixed with bulls, heat, & spurs fans not even other hornets fans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPN

-Lakers lose by 18, matching their worst season-opening loss since moving to LA in 1960

-Julius Randle injured in Lakers debut Randle (7th pick in 2014) was highest draft pick by Lakers since James Worthy went No. 1 in 1982.

Interesting to just me probably, but Worthy's rookie season also cut short by a broken leg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPN

Lakers are 0-4 for the 2nd time in franchise history, the 1st time since they moved to Los Angeles (other was 1957 when they were the Minneapolis Lakers)

Lakers have a combined margin of -68 in their 4 games. Their

only worst combined margin thru 4 games was -70 in 1957 when they were in Minnesota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...