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!

     

2012 Los Angeles Lakers Thread


Kevin Greene

Recommended Posts

By that logic, Kobe couldn't cut it in Charlotte and had to play the sidekick role to shaq to get his first 3 rings.

ya...well, seeing he was straight out of high school and probably never even knew Charlotte had a pro team...LA was a pretty good choice!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that logic? Lebron played in Cleveland, Kobe never played for Charlotte.

He knew he couldn't be counted on to carry a small market team, and he and his agent said he would never play for the Hornets. At least LeBron stuck it out in Cleveland and made it to the NBA finals.

If you read the exchange between the posts, my point was that calling the Heat "Wade's team" and somehow cheapening LeBron's first career title (and likely many others) is a load of poo perpetuated by Kobe fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where did you come up with this? Sources?

I have a feeling this is going to turn into a semantics debate, but here you go:

http://select.nytime...berts.html?_r=0

Bryant foreshadowed his gall. In 1996, Bryant, a teenager exiting high school for the N.B.A., was not the first pick, but he exuded self-importance when he refused to play anywhere but Hollywood.

With the 13th selection, with a deal to trade Bryant to Los Angeles in pocket, Charlotte chose him. But there was a point where it looked as if the Lakers’ Vlade Divac would retire rather than take part in a trade that would send him to Charlotte for Bryant.

Couldn’t Bryant be a Hornet? Could he grow to love Southern sweet tea?

“That is an impossibility,” Bryant’s agent, Arn Tellem, said at the time. “There are no ifs. It would not happen. He is going to be a Laker, and that’s the only team he’s playing for.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he exuded self importance is one thing...in hindsight, he had a right to!

out of high school and if anyone expected him to carry a small market team is rediculous!

couple seasons later, any team in the league would have gladly let him carry their team...but when you got it good, you got it good and you stay put!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated that "he knew he couldn't be counted on to carry a small market team." The link you provided for the NY Times article showed nothing to prove your opinion. That statement is baseless.

I bolded the quote for you, his agent said he would only play for the Lakers. He cancelled predraft workouts for both the Hornets and the Kings. His agent told the Nets that he wouldn't play for them either, that he'd rather go play in Italy. We can talk semantics all day long about why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...