Kobe Done For The Season

Rondo doesn't play in back-to-backs and some idiots call that "tanking".  Kobe doesn't want to play with "discomfort" and they shut him down for the season.  Is that "tanking" or just prudence?

On another note, the decision to pay a 34 year old player coming off of Achilles surgery $25M in the first place highlights the challenge facing Laker fans in the post-Dr. Jerry Buss era.  In my admittedly biased opinion, the best member of the Laker team, post-Dr. Buss, is his daughter, Jeannie.  If the rumors swirling about Phil Jackson taking the job in NY are true, what will the league do about his longterm girlfriend's relationship with the Lakers?  Is that a potential conflict of interest?


Kevin Ding of Bleacher Report first reported Tuesday that the Lakers "are expected to declare Bryant out for the rest of the 2013-14 season" later this week:

Bryant is not accompanying the team on its trip to Oklahoma City and San Antonio, staying back to be reexamined by team doctor Steve Lombardo. And considering where Bryant's level of discomfort remains with the fractured lateral tibial plateau in his left knee, barring an unforeseen change, the team will finalize the decision that Bryant will not play again this season.

USA TODAY Sports' Sam Amick confirmed those reports later Tuesday. ESPN.com's Chris Broussard confirmed the confirmation (I guess?) on Wednesday morning.

The announcement will put an official end to the most frustrating campaign of the 35-year-old Bryant's illustrious 18-year NBA career, one that began with Bryant on the shelf as he rehabilitated from the career-shaking torn left Achilles tendon he suffered during an April 12, 2013, game against the Golden State Warriors. It will also earn another unfortunate distinction, as related by Jeff Stotts of injury/health analytics-focused site In Street Clothes:

Kobe Bryant's 76 games missed to injury will cost the Lakers $28 million in salary, the most expensive single season bill in NBA history.
— Jeff Stotts (@RotowireATC) March 12, 2014

Only Kobe & Michael Jordan have had an annual salary over $30 million. Investing that much money in a player is a gamble because of injury.
— Jeff Stotts (@RotowireATC) March 12, 2014

Again Kobe's injuries carry the highest single season bill at $28 million. Insurance will help but biggest single season loss.
— Jeff Stotts (@RotowireATC) March 12, 2014

After months of ups and downs in the rehab process, Bryant and the Lakers announced (with a superheroic flourish) that he'd return to the court for the Lakers' Dec. 8 home game against the Toronto Raptors. He scored nine points, grabbed eight rebounds, dished four assists, snagged three steals and turned the ball over eight times in a predictably rusty performance for a 35-year-old coming off nearly eight months away. (Also, the Lakers lost.)

Things didn't get much better for Bryant after that. Sure, he dunked, and he looked to facilitate, and he showed the basketball IQ that's made him one of the game's sharpest and most cerebral players over the course of his career. But while Bryant's mind and spirit were willing to compete, his body just couldn't hold up his end of the bargain, as he went down with a knee injury during a Dec. 17 win over the Memphis Grizzlies that two days later was diagnosed as a "fractured tibial plateau in his left knee."

After 7 1/2 months of grueling work to get back on the court, Bryant got just six games and 177 minutes worth of floor time before succumbing to another busted wheel. He averaged 13.8 points, 6.3 assists and 5.7 turnovers in 29.5 minutes per game, shooting 42.5 percent from the floor and a career-worst 18.8 percent from 3-point range.

At the time, the Lakers laid out a six-week timetable for Bryant to return from his latest setback. As mid-January approached, though, the pace of the comeback remained glacial. Over his own objections, fans voted Kobe into the starting lineup for the 2014 Western Conference All-Star team, putting the onus on the Lakers to determine whether he'd be able to return to the court in time to fulfill the fans' wishes. A week later, they announced he wouldn't, saying that a Jan. 28 examination revealed pain and swelling in the left knee that would keep him out through the All-Star break and be re-examined three weeks later, opening up a replacement roster spot filled by New Orleans Pelicans sophomore star Anthony Davis.

Those three weeks came and went, and all remained pretty quiet. The injury-plagued — well, "injury-ravaged" or "-decimated" might be better terms — Lakers kept losing, dropping down among the likes of the Sacramento Kings and Utah Jazz at the bottom of the Western Conference. With Bryant's rehab "progressing slowly [and] really test[ing his] patience," the question loomed large over the balance of the Lakers' season — did it make any sense to keep the door open for a Kobe return for a few late-season games that will likely only have meaning insofar as they relate to the Lakers' ping-pong-ball positioning in the 2014 draft lottery? Jim Buss, Mitch Kupchak, Mike D'Antoni and company, it seems, have answered that question in the negative.

With Bryant's present evidently settled, attention turns, as it must, toward the future. Back in November, the Lakers ensured that Kobe would be the centerpiece of that future, signing him to a massive two-year, $48.5 million contract extension before he'd even played a single game following his Achilles recovery that will make him the highest-paid player in the NBA through the end of his age-37 season. This represented a huge risk even before Bryant suffered his knee fracture; this is why former L.A. head coach Phil Jackson said he wouldn't have given such a rich deal to one of his most famous former pupils. (We might soon find out just what kind of contracts Jackson would offer players.)

With Kobe's big new deal kicking in, the Lakers have just over $38 million in salary on the books for next season, a number that includes the non-guaranteed deal of reclamation-project point guard Kendall Marshall, Nick Young's player option, and qualifying offers for rookie Ryan Kelly and recent addition Kent Bazemore. Only Bryant, Steve Nash and Robert Sacre have fully guaranteed deals for next season, and while the Lakers could jettison the $9.7 million owed the also-unable-to-stay-on-the-court Nash using the stretch provision, they reportedly do not intend to do so. After years of trade rumors, clashes with D'Antoni, being pushed aside for Dwight Howard and then being forced to carry the bag for this lost Lakers season, it seems unlikely that free-agent-to-be Pau Gasol will continue to ply his trade in Hollywood after this spring.

The cupboard is all but bare, and even with money to spend, an infusion of new blood from what figures to be a high lottery pick, and Kobe's legendarily remarkable commitment to achievement fueling the fire, this still feels an awful lot more like the whimpering end of something great than the start of a brilliant new chapter or some glorious postscript. I'll hold out hope that I'm wrong, and that a fully rehabilitated Bryant and whoever winds up wearing purple and gold next year can make one more inspired push at relevance in an increasingly brutal Western Conference; for the time being, though, it looks like Kobe's going to have plenty of time to get back on his feet, go to class and hang with his besties. When you put it that way, it doesn't sound so bad, does it?



bob


.

Bob,

You know the answer to your own question.
Kobe has not even been cleared to start practicing yet.
If Kobe is not close to being able to play, why push him?
Try to get one extra win?
The Rondo/Kobe comparison is not fair. Kobe's not healed yet.

As for the fiancée of Jeannie Buss being hired by the Knicks, I'm not sure there is anything the league can do about it. But, maybe I am wrong. It would be interesting is the Knicks and Lakers made a perceived somewhat one sided trade at some point...

Kobe can't play right now, though, from my understanding.

In either case, LAL is going to the lottery this year. There's no point in Kobe trying to play the last 20 games or so and risk injury. He may as well sit things out and rehab.



KJ

tjmakz wrote:The Rondo/Kobe comparison is not fair. Kobe's not healed yet.

Comparison is absolutely fair - particularly the way the Celtics are handling Rondo upon his return vs the careless way the Lakers handled the return of Kobe earlier this season

This is all you need to know

Kobe played 6 games in 9 days - with 3 games in a row over 30 minutes.

12-08-2013 - Minutes 27:56
12-10-2013 - Minutes 29:10
12-13-2013 - Minutes 23:09
12-14-2013 - Minutes 32:14
12-16-2013 - Minutes 32:10
12-17-2013 - Minutes 32:38

Rondo on the other hand came back much slower and with a logical, gradual ramp up - 20 games in, he STILL HAS NOT played on back to back days

Date	Minutes
1/17/14	19:25
1/19/14	21:20
1/21/14	25:23
1/24/14	21:43
1/26/14	30:21
1/28/14	27:26
2/2/14	26:37
2/5/14	32:06
2/9/14	36:33
2/12/14	31:09
2/19/14	35:33
2/21/14	34:16
2/24/14	33:03
2/26/14	35:36
3/1/14	28:29
3/5/14	37:10
3/7/14	35:04
3/9/14	33:11
3/11/14	40:45

Absolutely not a fair comparison. Kobe is not ready to even practice.
For Bob to bring up this is really only starting a senseless argument.

Kleen, I'm not going to address your biased opinion about Kobe's injury. I am very fair and reasonable in what I say about the Celtics. All you do is sit back and throw verbal insults and biased thoughts at every chance you get against the Lakers organization. I could respect you a little bit if you made even the smallest effort to be fair.

I have given the Lakers credit on many occasions, in fact as it relates to Kobe' original injury - I said I felt bad about a great player having such a serious injury late in his career.

But the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that
a) the Lakers overpaid for Kobe
b) Kobe's greed and hubris with this contract will hinder the Lakers rebuilding efforts
c) the Lakers totally mismanaged Kobe' return in December

makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about the Lakers with you.

mrkleen09 wrote:a) the Lakers overpaid for Kobe
b) Kobe's greed and hubris with this contract will hinder the Lakers rebuilding efforts
c) the Lakers totally mismanaged Kobe' return in December

For what it's worth, and that ain't much, here's my take on those points.

a) the Lakers overpaid for Kobe
I agree to an extent, but looking at it another way, they are rewarding him for being the face of the franchise, for being the link to championships during these next difficult seasons, and for being such a big part of their brand. Here's how Larry Coon, the CBA guru, put it when asked if Kobe's contract was a good deal or a bad deal for the Lakers:

Good deal, but not the best deal they could have hoped for. Now that it looks like Kobe will return healthy, they've locked up the face and cornerstone of the franchise for an additional two seasons -- which is certainly a good thing. But they also have a plan to rebuild the roster for the post-Kobe era -- and the more they give to Kobe, the less they have available to retool. Giving $23.5 million to Kobe next season significantly reduces their spending power.

b) Kobe's greed and hubris with this contract will hinder the Lakers rebuilding efforts
"Greed" and "hubris" are emotionally charged words. He didn't demand the money; the Lakers offered it. The max he could've received was $32 million per year, and he took $23.5 million, so he did take a discount. The salary that would be appropriate is in the eye of the beholder. I've heard some people say $20 million, but that's only $3.5 million less than what he took. $18 million? That puts him between Rudy Gay and Deron Williams and is less than Pau Gasol is making this year, but if he takes that, that saves only $5.5 million and now he's no longer in the category of being rewarded above and beyond his current value as a player for all he's meant to the franchise.

As far as winning a title goes, the Lakers went all-in when they brought in Howard and Nash, but with Howard gone and Nash effectively gone, that plan went up in smoke, and the Lakers' have no hope to win a title in Kobe's remaining years. Kobe taking a few million less wouldn't be the difference in winning a title, and it's not a major hurdle as far as rebuilding goes. The Lakers' biggest problems with rebuilding are that they've given most of their draft picks away and Mike D'Antoni is the coach.

The Lakers have only $35 million committed in salaries for next season (depending on whether they pick up options), and the biggest problem in that total isn't Kobe's salary, it's the $9.7 million for Steve Nash.

c) the Lakers totally mismanaged Kobe' return in December
You make an interesting point with the minutes and games, but the break in Kobe's tibeal plateau was a freak injury that I don't see as caused by the minutes he played when he returned. I can't stop anyone from thinking that playing time caused the injury, but there's no way to show that, especially for this type of injury.

They didn't allow him to rush back in October or November. They knew Kobe would be difficult to manage from a minutes standpoint, and they waited until he was sufficiently recovered to play 30 minutes per game and had medical clearance for that. He averaged 29.5 minutes per game this season, about 10 fewer minutes than he's averaged since 1998-99.

There's no logic to how people react to these things. Were the Vikings foolish for letting Adrian Peterson come back nine months after major knee surgery? No, we celebrate Peterson as a superman for coming back so quickly and almost breaking the all-time rushing record.

It's all about bringing a player back and managing risk. You can't eliminate risk, other than sitting him on the bench in bubble wrap. If he'd torn the Achilles again, strained the calf, or had some other soft tissue injury on that leg, then I'd agree the minutes were an issue. For example, when Chauncey Billups came back after tearing his Achilles, he had tendonitis in his foot and back issues. But Kobe's subsequent injury was a broken bone.

mrkleen09 wrote:I have given the Lakers credit on many occasions, in fact as it relates to Kobe' original injury - I said I felt bad about a great player having such a serious injury late in his career.

But the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that
a) the Lakers overpaid for Kobe
b) Kobe's greed and hubris with this contract will hinder the Lakers rebuilding efforts
c) the Lakers totally mismanaged Kobe' return in December

makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about the Lakers with you.

You need to find a new soapbox instead of harping all the time on Kobe's salary.

I hope you read Outside's comments.
The Lakers overpaid Kobe compared to how much some players are making.
He is taking a big pay cut from this season.
The Lakers did not overpay Kobe compared to his the revenue he brings to the Lakers on an annual basis and the value that he has added to the Lakers as a corporation. I am sure he is underpaid compared to the mammoth TV contract the Lakers now have, which I am sure has a lot to do with Kobe being on the team.

The Lakers were never going to win anything in the 2014-15 season.
They know LeBron will stay with Miami.
Carmelo might court the Lakers but do they want to pay a 31 year old Carmelo over $20m per year for 4 years?
If Kobe is hurt and can't complete the final year, the Lakers could waive him and stretch his contract over 3 years if they want to. The Lakers are starting from scratch. If Kobe took $5m less, what difference will that make?
That wouldn't even get them a Brendan Bass or Avery Bradley type of player.

The Lakers actually delayed Kobe's return 3 weeks from when he expected to return.
The injury to the left knee had nothing to do with his right Achilles tear 7 months earlier.

So, we can only have a rational discussion about the Lakers if I agree with your warped views? Oh, ok...

Outside wrote:b) Kobe's greed and hubris with this contract will hinder the Lakers rebuilding efforts
"Greed" and "hubris" are emotionally charged words. He didn't demand the money; the Lakers offered it. The max he could've received was $32 million per year, and he took $23.5 million, so he did take a discount.

Look, it's obviously a terrible contract on its own merits. Kobe is 35 years old and had yet to return from a ruptured Achilles tendon at the point of the resigning, an injury that almost always exacts a severe toll on performance. To pay $25M to a post injury 37 year old is crazy -- certainly no one else was going to offer him that, so the Lakers didn't have to. Yes, it's a pay cut from his current $30M salary; but that's what aging superstars do -- they take pay cuts. Usually pay cuts that don't leave them as the highest paid player in the league. Kobe's position on this contract seems to have been "I'm willing to make less than me, but not less than anybody else."

Contrast Kobe's extension with Tim Duncan's last contract. In July 2012, Duncan re-signed with the Spurs, the only team he's ever known, for three years and $30M, at the age of 36. Bryant's deal, worth $48M for two seasons, will also take effect when he is 36. Duncan has four rings and two league MVP awards. Bryant has five rings and one MVP award. What's the difference? About $14M per year, and a whole lot of ego.

Outside wrote:c) the Lakers totally mismanaged Kobe' return in December
It's all about bringing a player back and managing risk. You can't eliminate risk, other than sitting him on the bench in bubble wrap. If he'd torn the Achilles again, strained the calf, or had some other soft tissue injury on that leg, then I'd agree the minutes were an issue. For example, when Chauncey Billups came back after tearing his Achilles, he had tendonitis in his foot and back issues. But Kobe's subsequent injury was a broken bone.

Managing risk is exactly that the Lakers didnt do.  Kobe played in too many games in a row for someone coming off an injury.  He was clearly favoring his injured leg and this is how people usually get hurt a second time.  Coming back too soon and playing too often, too hard before they have their game fitness.

Elite athletes often have to be protected from themselves (see Doc and how he handled KG a few years ago), clearly the Lakers feel Kobe is invincible (32 / 32 / 32) in 3 games in 4 nights is TOO MUCH for a recovering player, and aging one at that - to endure.

Jerry West agrees with me:  “To me he didn’t look like the same player,” West said. “His shooting will always be there. I think if he had rested a couple of months we might have seen a different Kobe Bryant.” West suggested Bryant probably would have been wise to wait a couple of months.  West said that Bryant’s mindset won’t help him get healthy. “He doesn’t take no for an answer,” West said. “He’s set in his ways.”

You could say the same about Rondo - but the Celtics are plainly NOT ALLOWING him to drive his recovery - they are doing it for him, something the Lakers were negligent in doing with Kobe.  If that isnt the definition of mismanaging the return of an aging player, I dont know what is.

tjmakz wrote:If Kobe took $5m less, what difference will that make?
That wouldn't even get them a Brendan Bass or Avery Bradley type of player.

Kobe signed a deal for 48.5 milllion for 2 years.  5 million less per year, still puts it at 38.5 million / 2 years = 19.17 million a season

In what world is Avery Bradley or Brandon Bass making 19 million per?

Kobe is dissing Laker management, wonder why?

mrkleen09 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:If Kobe took $5m less, what difference will that make?
That wouldn't even get them a Brendan Bass or Avery Bradley type of player.

Kobe signed a deal for 48.5 milllion for 2 years.  5 million less per year, still puts it at 38.5 million / 2 years = 19.17 million a season

In what world is Avery Bradley or Brandon Bass making 19 million per?

Geez kleen, tjmakz is not saying that Bradley or Bass are making 19 million per as you interpreted it. He's saying if Kobe took 5 million less per year, the Lakers would not even be able to afford a Bradley or a Bass for that 5 million in savings, because Bradley or Bass would command more. So why bother?

But my point on things is, if Kobe did what Duncan and KG did with their last contracts and signed for, say $10-$12 million per year, the Lakers would then have 12-15 million EACH of the next two years to spend on another TERRIFIC player. It's not like the guy can't afford to live on $20 to $25 million for the next couple years - he's already made $280 million in salary and probably another $150-$200 million in commercials and endorsements on top of that. He wouldn't take less than $48.5 million the next two years because he's a fraud who claims winning is everything to him, which is bullshite. If it was, he would "survive" on getting another 20 million the next two years so the Lakers could get back to where he claims he wants them to be much sooner. But that's not what he really wants. He just wants to stuff his bank account to the max instead. His salary is going to prevent that team from getting back to the top as long as he's on it

Not a team player.

mrkleen09 wrote:Look, it's obviously a terrible contract on its own merits. Kobe is 35 years old and had yet to return from a ruptured Achilles tendon at the point of the resigning, an injury that almost always exacts a severe toll on performance. To pay $25M to a post injury 37 year old is crazy -- certainly no one else was going to offer him that, so the Lakers didn't have to. Yes, it's a pay cut from his current $30M salary; but that's what aging superstars do -- they take pay cuts. Usually pay cuts that don't leave them as the highest paid player in the league. Kobe's position on this contract seems to have been "I'm willing to make less than me, but not less than anybody else."

Contrast Kobe's extension with Tim Duncan's last contract. In July 2012, Duncan re-signed with the Spurs, the only team he's ever known, for three years and $30M, at the age of 36. Bryant's deal, worth $48M for two seasons, will also take effect when he is 36. Duncan has four rings and two league MVP awards. Bryant has five rings and one MVP award. What's the difference? About $14M per year, and a whole lot of ego.

The Lakers have a deal with Time-Warner cable that gives them $150 million per year on that contract alone, and they're one of the wealthiest franchises in the league without that money. They've shown a willingness in recent years to pay over $90 million in salaries and take a huge hit on luxury taxes because they can afford it. Kobe's contract isn't stopping them from acquiring quality players.

San Antonio doesn't have that luxury. They are a small-market team that has to make do on a limited budget. Apples and oranges.

I agree that Kobe should've taken less than what the Lakers offered, but the Lakers have financial resources that no one except maybe the Knicks and Brooklyn can match, and the complete overhaul that the Lakers need in the wake of the Dwight/Nash disasters isn't going to happen in the next two years. If Dwight signed with the Lakers and Nash was healthy, I can say Kobe would've taken less to maximize his title chances with the same certainty that you say Kobe's contract is a rebuild-killer driven by ego.

mrkleen09 wrote:Jerry West agrees with me:  “To me he didn’t look like the same player,” West said. “His shooting will always be there. I think if he had rested a couple of months we might have seen a different Kobe Bryant.” West suggested Bryant probably would have been wise to wait a couple of months.  West said that Bryant’s mindset won’t help him get healthy. “He doesn’t take no for an answer,” West said. “He’s set in his ways.”

You could say the same about Rondo - but the Celtics are plainly NOT ALLOWING him to drive his recovery - they are doing it for him, something the Lakers were negligent in doing with Kobe.  If that isnt the definition of mismanaging the return of an aging player, I dont know what is.

Of course Kobe didn't look like the same player -- he was in the beginning stages of his comeback. You expect him to look like vintage Kobe from the first game back? I respect Jerry West greatly, but he's a guy who played hurt a lot because he was driven to compete, so I think he can appreciate that aspect of Kobe (and in fact he does, as he said in the same interview you cited but in a part you didn't quote).

As for the comparison with Rondo, here's the difficulty I have -- you say what Boston did with Rondo is great and what LA did with Kobe was irresponsible, but Rondo averaged 24.3 minutes in his first six games and Kobe averaged 29.5 minutes in his six games. Is 5.2 minutes per game really all it takes to go from doing it right to being negligent?

well you can call it a fluke, but I would say the results speak for themselves.

I can't believe we are back on this subject yet again...

There's no reason Kobe should have taken a Tim Duncan type of contract. Why is Duncan's contract the standard?

Kobe has brought way more financial value to his team than Duncan has.

Kobe should not have to accept $10m per year and then the Lakers offer Carmelo $20+m per year. That was a fair contract for the Lakers and for Kobe.

Outside, the Lakers contract with Time Warner turned out to be for $180m per year and not $150m which was the original report.

Outside,

I agree that the Lakers are not worried about going over the luxury tax level due to their enormous cash resources.  With that being said, Kobe's contract does have a huge affect on acquiring  the other players needed to compete.  The CBA is very restrictive for teams that go over the luxury level.

Trading for Howard and then losing him to free agency was a big blow to the team.  Acquiring the broken down Nash didn't help either.  Now the Lakers are resource poor and may need to trade Paul (sign and trade) to add any help.

IMO, Kobe's last contract had no 'team player' component.  I also didn't think his previous contract was team friendly.  People use KG's last contract as an golden example as a team friendly contract, perhaps it was.  Nobody mentions Pierce's last contract.  PP's contract should have had his salary going down each year, matching his age-driven lessening skill set.  It did not.  That may be why he is playing on a different than.

So, IMO, neither Kobe or Pierce took one for the team.  Danny made the proper adjustment because he could.  The Laker GM may not be able to make the proper adjustment.  How much of that is Kobe's contract and how much of that is Laker management mismanagement is up for debate.

gyso

Outside

To address your points.

If I were an owner of the Lakers - based on the numbers you and TJ have included here - then yes, resigning Kobe - at any price is a money maker.  His shirts still sell, people will still pay to see him, and his farewell tour will be worth more than the dollars paid to him by a long shot.

But as a fan, I would hate the deal and find it hard to believe that any Lakers follower is happy about the hamstrung position that this deal puts the franchise in now and into the future.  As someone who is not a Lakers fan - this actually makes me happy - but to see Lakers fans defending a contract that will make it harder for them to rebuild is interesting to say the least.

In the Rondo recovery - it isnt the 5.2 minutes per game that makes the difference, it is the 4 games in 5 nights that made the difference. 

Even 20 games into his comeback, Rondo isnt playing back to back games - and you know that isnt the player's decision - that is a team decision.  They are protecting Rondo from himself

Gyso, I agree with your Pierce-Bryant comparison. IMO, the Lakers made a mistake holding onto the past, as far on-court performance goes and the Celtics made the right call in looking to the future, jettisoning Pierce while he still had value (but not as much value as his salary would indicate).
I applaud the ethic of hanging onto storied veterans in their declining years, but only when those veterans are paid commensurate with their declining abilities. I know an argument against taking less for the team is that, when younger, many players were paid less than their market value, so the end of career deal can even their score. While I see this argument, I don't buy it when I have my GM hat on, which is most of the time.
Another reason not to overpay an aging veteran star is that he will usually demand playing time that for the good of the team should go to someone else. Being a star player, one needs an outsized ego and while this is an asset when skills and ego are in balance, it is painful as skills erode. It doesn't surprise me that Duncan, always a heady player who should have been a Celtic, has made this adjustment smoothly.
As for Kobe's ability to make money for the team in TV contracts, etc., even when hobbled, this is beyond me, but it seems the most likely explanation for his, and other large end-of-career contracts. As a fan, even a would-be GM, I don't buy it.
A little more here, as I'm on my soapbox: In this thread and the ones that deal with "tanking," we are getting a little testy, so I want to say that I appreciate the occasionally differing views of all Board members. Hawk

mrkleen09 wrote:If I were an owner of the Lakers - based on the numbers you and TJ have included here - then yes, resigning Kobe - at any price is a money maker.  His shirts still sell, people will still pay to see him, and his farewell tour will be worth more than the dollars paid to him by a long shot.

But as a fan, I would hate the deal and find it hard to believe that any Lakers follower is happy about the hamstrung position that this deal puts the franchise in now and into the future.  As someone who is not a Lakers fan - this actually makes me happy - but to see Lakers fans defending a contract that will make it harder for them to rebuild is interesting to say the least.

If I understand your post correctly, you're saying that I'm a Lakers fan and that I'm happy about Kobe's contract. The first point is incorrect, and the second point is only partially correct.

Regarding the first point, I'm a Warriors fan specifically and an NBA fan generally. As a Warriors fan, I don't mind the Lakers being down the next few years, so I would've been happier to see him take the $32 million.

Regarding the second point, I mainly object to the way you've characterized Kobe's contract in such starkly negative terms. These are the points I've tried to make:

• Kobe took a significant cut.

• Kobe accepted the Lakers' initial offer. He didn't play hardball or even softball to get more. He accepted the first offer on the table.

• Kobe taking $3 million to $5 million less wouldn't greatly change the Lakers' ability to rebuild.

• The biggest impediment, by far, to the Lakers' title chances is the failure of the Howard/Nash experiment, not Kobe's contract.

• In the remote chance that an opportunity arose for the Lakers to acquire the multiple pieces that they'd need to contend, they have the financial resources to go over the cap and pay even the harsh new luxury taxes and still bank tens of millions of dollars.

• The contract benefits the Lakers. Kobe is primarily motivated by winning titles, and given the Howard/Nash disaster and the near certainty that the Lakers won't be contenders during Kobe's final years, there was a real possibility that Kobe would go elsewhere to chase another title. Signing Kobe like they did means that Kobe will be a Laker for life; that he'll be the face of the franchise and a link to their championship pedigree during these next difficult years, helping to maintain the Laker brand; and that top players around the league can see that the Lakers still take care of their players, ensuring that the Lakers are top destination despite the bad years they're going to have. Where would the Lakers be if Kobe left versus if he stays? It's a big benefit to their brand and their future, even their ultimate goal of rebuilding a contender, if he stays.

I also object to the use of terms like "greed," "hubris," and "a whole lot of ego" regarding Kobe accepting what the Lakers offered. That is inflammatory and unfair.

As I've said multiple times, I think it would've been better for the Lakers' rebuilding process if Kobe had taken something less, but I see many factors at play here, and I don't think it's fair to berate Kobe based on one factor and ignore all the other factors in the situation.

mrkleen09 wrote:In the Rondo recovery - it isnt the 5.2 minutes per game that makes the difference, it is the 4 games in 5 nights that made the difference.  

Even 20 games into his comeback, Rondo isnt playing back to back games - and you know that isnt the player's decision - that is a team decision.  They are protecting Rondo from himself

You're saying the Lakers should've handled Kobe the same way that Boston is handling Rondo, but they didn't have the same injury. Are comebacks for all serious injuries managed the same way? No.

In addition to avoiding re-injury of the affected area, the main issues that need to be managed in comebacks are general soreness, tendonitis, muscle strains, and other soft tissue complications. Kobe's second injury was a fracture. Please feel free to point to all the professional athletes who suffered tibial plateau fractures while coming back from serious injury. The fact that this is so rare compared to the soft tissue complications I mentioned is what makes me tend to think this was a freak occurrence. It is nothing more than an unsupported armchair theory that Kobe's playing time caused the fracture.

Were the Celtics negligent and irresponsible for allowing Kendrick Perkins to play every game, including back-to-backs, when he came back in 2011 only seven months after major knee surgery, even though he was clearly not 100% when he came back? When he hurt his other knee in his last game as a Celtic and couldn't play for three weeks after being traded, was that injury caused by coming back too soon or playing too much after he came back? Hindsight is 20-20, and each person can choose which dots they want to connect, where they want to assign blame, and what they think is acceptable risk. In Kobe's case, I think you should consider the possibility that your opinion is far harsher because of the player and team involved.

Looking into it more, I found that lateral tibial plateau fracture is called a "bumper fracture" because it's an injury that commonly results from a car bumper hitting the leg of a pedestrian. The injury is typically caused by a collision or fall.

I looked for opinions of orthopedic and sports medicine doctors as to whether Kobe's fracture was connected to his comeback from the Achilles injury, and the few I found ranged from "No" to "It could be a factor, such as weakened muscles in his left leg being a contributing cause." But that has to do with the overall state of his recovery. I didn't find any reference to a doctor saying that playing whatever number of minutes or back-to-backs would be a cause or even a contributing factor.

So I'll agree that his recovery from the Achilles injury could be a factor (please note the words "could" and "factor"), but the only way to avoid that type of risk is not let an athlete play until he is 100% recovered. Athletes have been playing hurt or in a compromised state when recovering from injury since the invention of sport. Everything I can tell is that the Lakers took a reasonable middle-ground approach, delaying his practice activities longer than Kobe would've liked, delaying his start of the season, and limiting his minutes. They were in a lose-lose scenario -- if they held him out longer, they'd be criticized for not letting Kobe help a team desperately in need while he looks healthy and capable in practice, and the armchair experts call them incompetent idiots if they let him play and he gets hurt. I just see this particular injury as one of the most miniscule risks they had to worry about.

Could not disagree with you more Outside....but done going back and forth about a player and a team I do not care about.

Outside,

Very well thought out and reasonable points you made.
Very fair analysis too.

Outside, I've rooted against the Lakers all my life and could not care less if the organization made some poor decisions. That said, and with no horse in this race, I totally agree with your take on this entire matter. The Lakers would have made a very poor business decision not to resign Kobe, and they saw his worth as what they paid him. The Lakers will make hundreds of millions from Kobe and his legacy. Whatever they chose to pay him is their business, and they do not run Lakers Inc. as a charity. They've also sent a message around the league that take care of their own. Hence, they are a team for whom players want to play and where players want to stay, Dwight Howard excepted. Would we call Huey, Dewey, and Louie greedy for accepting some of Uncle Scrooge McDuck's largesse?

As for Kobe's injury, it's not the type that derives from too much time on the court. Had it been soft tissue, then yes. I'd agree he'd been mismanaged. However, a fracture is a different kettle of fish. Rondo has been managed properly, but he had a different type of injury, one requiring a different type of care. His was a joint issue. Kobe's a tendon. Because Rondo has been managed properly does not mean Kobe hasn't been.

In the end, I prefer to show the Lakers the mutual respect that gladiators showed the Romans and the other gladiators in the Collosseum- "We who are about to die salute you."