Why Kobe Bryant deal is worth it for the Lakers, and then some

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/24280657/why-kobe-bryant-is-worth-it-and-then-some

LAST CHANCE to play 4-week Fantasy Football - now with BIGGER cash prizes! Ken Berger
NBA Insider
Why Kobe Bryant deal is worth it for the Lakers, and then some
November 25, 2013 2:55 pm ET




Kobe Bryant remains the highest-paid player in the league, but he also remains underpaid. (USATSI)




Kobe Bryant is 35, has logged the second-most minutes among all active NBA players and has yet to return to game action after his Achilles' tendon snapped this past April. So of course, the Lakers signed him to a two-year, $48.5 million extension on Monday.

Uh, what?

Understand a couple of things. At this stage of Bryant's career, as one of the greatest players ever, he has earned a certain stature and pay grade in the NBA. He has won five championships for the Lakers and made the organization countless hundreds of millions of dollars during his 17-year career.


Watch thisMagic Johnson: If anyone can beat injury, it's Kobe

So a portion of what Bryant will be paid over the next two seasons amounts to a sort of lifetime achievement award. Having entered the NBA just before the league successfully put a cap on maximum individual player salaries, it can be argued that if Bryant were paid what he was truly worth over the past decade-plus, the Lakers would owe him another $250 million -- at least.

I'm not an accountant or economist, so that's simply a guess. But just to give you an idea, Forbes estimated earlier this year that the Miami Heat were worth $364 million before LeBron James arrived and are now worth $625 million. The publication estimates that the Lakers are one of two teams in the NBA (the other being the New York Knicks) worth $1 billion. If you don't think a significant portion of that is due to Kobe Bryant, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. (For a couple of knishes, a cheesecake and a marble rye, I'll throw in the basketball team that plays there.)

So while Bryant remains the highest-paid player in the league, he also remains something else in the era of compressed player salaries and artificially limited individual maxes: underpaid.

Whether Bryant is overpaid when his salary is viewed through the prism of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement and its massive luxury-tax penalties is a different sort of debate. What's indisputable, though, is that Bryant is taking a pay cut from the maximum the Lakers could have paid him. Under the rules, Bryant was entitled to 107.5 percent of his previous year's salary in this extension. Since he makes $30.5 million this season, Bryant's salary ceiling (subject to negotiation, of course) was $32.8 million for the 2014-15 season.

By agreeing to a '14-'15 salary of $23.5 million and a '15-'16 salary of $25 million (the collectively bargained 7.5 percent raise), Bryant is accounting for the expected decline in production for a player his age while also opening up cap room for the Lakers to spend over the next two free-agent summers. With only Bryant and Steve Nash ($9.7 million) on the books next season, the Lakers will have room for a max free-agent with about $12 million to spare. (More room would open up if the Lakers were to waive Nash and "stretch" his remaining obligation over the next three seasons).

As of now, only Bryant is on the Lakers' books for the '15-'16 season.

Here's another point that is relevant to the discussion of whether Bryant is worth all this money at this stage of his career. Once it was revealed that Bryant's agent, Rob Pelinka, and the Lakers were discussing a contract extension, you could have gone to Las Vegas (and then to the bank) with the following prediction: that extension was going to be signed before Bryant logged a single minute of game action in his return from Achilles rehab. Bryant returned to practice recently and proved that, if nothing else, his leg is sound. But there was no way a five-time champion and franchise money-maker such as Bryant was going to risk coming back from a serious injury without assurances beyond this season.

Kobe doesn't do lame duck, in other words, nor should he.

As the Lakers lick their wounds from Dwight Howard's departure and prepare for the inevitable post-Bryant era, Bryant himself remains the team's biggest draw. In fact, there's only one way Bryant won't remain the Lakers' biggest draw after they've completed their free-agent shopping next summer, and that would be if they signed LeBron.

That's a farfetched idea, but the Lakers will have massive amounts of cap room next summer even with Bryant's extension on the books. (Even if they hadn't re-signed Bryant now, their space would've been clogged up by the cap hold associated with Bryant's free-agent status. His new salary actually limits that burden.) And when it comes time to go shopping for a max player to fill the void that Howard left behind, the idea of chasing a championship with Bryant and then taking the keys to the kingdom from him will be high on the list of what the Lakers will be selling.

So in the grand scheme of things, the Lakers didn't pay Bryant what he's worth -- not even close. A serious argument can be made that he's actually been worth far more.

If you've learned anything about Bryant, you know he's still chasing greatness, still chasing that sixth championship. He will give the Lakers everything he has, even if that everything is diminished -- and even if the salary figure next to his name seems outlandish when viewed in the context of a much more restrictive salary structure than the one that was in place when Bryant came into the league.

Kobe Bryant has made a lot of people a lot of money, and he'll continue to make some more for himself. Debating whether he's worth $48.5 million over the next two seasons misses the point that he's been worth so much more than that for so long.


MY TAKE: I do believe Kobe is underpaid when it comes to his value to the Lakers organization. Does this hurt cap space? Yes, for sure.
I am sure part of this was Kobe's ego to be the highest paid player in the league. With Kobe, you have to accept the good with the bad.
To me, next year is a wash too. LA is not near being a contender.

On a side note, Mike D'Antoni has basically a group of journeymen playing some pretty competitive and fun basketball. I really like watching this team compared to last years team. Steve Blake is 4th in the league in assist/turnover ratio and Jordan Hill leads the league in rebounds per 48 minutes.

If I were Kobe, I'd prefer another title to just another high salary.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:If I were Kobe, I'd prefer another title to just another high salary.



KJ

There's no guarantee of a title if he took $10m.
What free agent is coming to LA?
Deng? He won't get them a title.

tjmakz wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:If I were Kobe, I'd prefer another title to just another high salary.



KJ

There's no guarantee of a title if he took $10m.
What free agent is coming to LA?
Deng? He won't get them a title.

There is never a guarantee for anything in this league.

But if they can sign more talent, it'd at least give them a shot.

I don't know about Deng, but there are going to be a lot of decent FAs this summer.




KJ

k_j_88 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:If I were Kobe, I'd prefer another title to just another high salary.



KJ

There's no guarantee of a title if he took $10m.
What free agent is coming to LA?
Deng? He won't get them a title.

There is never a guarantee for anything in this league.

But if they can sign more talent, it'd at least give them a shot.

I don't know about Deng, but there are going to be a lot of decent FAs this summer.




KJ

There really won't be many decent FA's this summer if Lebron and Carmelo don't exercise their ETO's.
Paul George re-signed.
Kyle Lowry, Paul Pierce and Pau Gasol will probably be the best 3 free agents that will change teams.
None of these guys will help bring a title to LA.

I agree with KJ.

If Kome wants to win he needs talent beside him. He is sucking up a big portion of the cap.

The Lakers were a great franchise before he came. It is not like he made them what they are.

Dboss

Everybody wants to win.
Why should Kobe take $12m when Pau will prob get the same and non-stars are getting $8m multi-year contracts.

Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, DeMarcus Cousine, Roy Hibbert, Paul George, etc, they all used up their teams cap space. LA will waive Nash. They can afford 1 more max player.

dboss, that's really not fair to say.
In the last 20 years, I think Kobe has had a bigger impact on the court, in total team revenue and in the increase in his teams value than any other player in the league.

Would I like Kobe to have taken less, yes, but I understand why the Lakers did this.

Can LA waive Nash? I didn't think you could just waive a player under contract. If you can then Keith Bogans is a dead man. LA has already used their amnesty on TAFKARA.


bob



.

bobheckler wrote:Can LA waive Nash?  I didn't think you could just waive a player under contract.  If you can then Keith Bogans is a dead man. LA has already used their amnesty on TAFKARA.


bob



.

Bob,

A team can only waive a player via the stretch provision in July.
I am 95% sure that the Lakers already know they will waive Nash.
His $9.3m will be spread over 3 years.
Nash did not get old from his last game with Phoenix to his first games with the Lakers.
Nash says is leg is still not properly healed since he broke a bone in his leg in his 2nd game with the Lakers.

Excuse me, but i just had an extended conversation about the NBA of the past and am not in a frame of mind even to recognize this as a serious topic. Money, in one form or another, is at the heart of the changing values around the NBA. Debating the prelative merits of varying degrees of gluttony is a legitimately interesting subject for many people, and I strongly endose their right to do so. It's just not for me at the present time. Sam

Happy to hear about the big contract. With little to no salary cap room, the Lakers are assured of years of mediocrity.

mrkleen09 wrote:Happy to hear about the big contract.  With little to no salary cap room, the Lakers are assured of years of mediocrity.  

Do you mean like almost 30 years of mediocrity?

tjmakz wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:Happy to hear about the big contract.  With little to no salary cap room, the Lakers are assured of years of mediocrity.  

Do you mean like almost 30 years of mediocrity?

No, it wont take that long. The NBA will cook up some new unfair trade for the Lakers to get back into contention sooner than later. Dont worry TJ, they wont have to build from the ground up like everyone else.

mrkleen09 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:Happy to hear about the big contract.  With little to no salary cap room, the Lakers are assured of years of mediocrity.  

Do you mean like almost 30 years of mediocrity?

No, it wont take that long.  The NBA will cook up some new unfair trade for the Lakers to get back into contention sooner than later.  Dont worry TJ, they wont have to build from the ground up like everyone else.

Well, since David Stern is a Laker lover and a Celtics hater and since he is retiring in February, he better think of a lopsided trade ASAP.

well put Mr. Kleen

Sam

With the bondage of the early years there wasn't much room for salary conversations. If the 50s and 60s had benefited from wealthy ownership,lucrative TV contracts and free agency, would player contracts have been a major topic? I think so.

swish

TJ

I do not disagree that he has made money for LA.

but he is no Tom Brady

Dboss

Alimony can bite one hard.

beat

dboss wrote:TJ

I do not disagree that he has made money for LA.

but he is no Tom Brady

Dboss

dboss,

I am not even sure how the comparison between Kobe and Brady applies.
You can't penalize Kobe or Larry Bird because the team they played for was successful before they got there.

Swish, I know all the facts. I don't have to like them. Even the old players are glad today's players are getting paid well, and they don't gripe about tbeir own lot. But witbout the trailblazing players AND owners, today's players would have nothing. And to read about today's gluttony while I'm aware of the mediocre pensions and lack of insurance older players have happens to bother ma A LOT. And, by the way, I don't really blame today's players or owners nearly as much as the agents for the gluttony. Sam

Sam,

The owners need rules to protect them from themselves.
Often agents are not even needed, especially for max contract players.
Why are today's salaries considered gluttony?
Is there really a big difference in the percentage of salaries paid to players vs. revenue kept by the owners from 2013 to maybe 50 years ago?
The players earn what the owners are willing to pay them.
Some movie stars make tens of millions.
Some musicians make tens of millions.
Some athletes make tens of millions.
This is not gluttony, they are getting paid what the current market rate is.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sam that the older players who laid the foundation that the game's success now stands on are shamefully ignored. My guess is that this point is especially salient given that Sam just spent time with one such player.

The issue should be addressed when negotiating the collective bargaining agreement and that money should be set aside from the total revenues to help deserving older players. Both owners and players should consider it a priority.

Kobe's contract isn't any more at fault for that situation that any other player's. The issue of his contract just happened to be standing here after Sam's visit with Sam and Gladys.

As for the original topic of the thread, I do think Kobe's deal is fine. He took a substantial cut. The Lakers can afford it. Him taking $4 million or $5 million less would have a negligible impact on the Lakers' championship prospects. It certainly doesn't hurt the Lakers' standing with players around the league to see how they take care of one of their own, and that will help continue to make the Lakers a desired destination for top talent and boost their title chances after Kobe is gone regardless of its impact in the short term.

While Kobe is generally respected around here, he plays for Boston's historic rival, is disliked by most, and is hated by some. If this were happening with another team -- say, Dirk Nowitski with Dallas -- it would be viewed quite differently. Strip away the Kobe/Laker issue and it's a gesture of loyalty and career appreciation to a deserving long-time star.

Kupchak: Lakers Continuing Practice Of Being Good To Players
Nov 26, 2013 7:11 PM EST


The Los Angeles Lakers established a reputation for taking good care of their players under the ownership of Dr. Jerry Buss and that has continued with his children running the organization.

The loyalty shown by the Lakers in their new deal with Kobe Bryant is an example.

"Historically, this organization has been good to its players," said Mitch Kupchak. "I know they’ve been good to me. I know that. But I think our reputation, based on Dr. Buss’ ownership over the years, has been a good one in taking care of players and being a destination place for players. I know our city is attractive to players. They like to play and they like to live. We have great fans here. They really support the franchise. To know that an organization looks after its players, I think that’s a good thing."

Via NBA.com


bob
MY NOTE:  Nice to say and nice to see, the Celtics have a history of that too.  However, there's at least a little bit of self-serving propaganda in this as well.  They weren't good to Ariza.  He was simply negotiating his new contract and they kneecapped him.  They weren't good to Odom either.  He beefed a bit because he was being bandied about in trade rumors (one could say they were not showing him loyalty by doing that) and they shipped him off to Dallas for cash.  They amnestied TAFKARA, after he all but won Game 7 against us.  They traded Laker icon Derek Fisher.  Admittedly, D-Fish's abilities had declined, but so have Kobe's.  Let's be honest here, the reason why the Lakers are showing "loyalty" to Kobe is because Laker fans want to see Kobe Bryant in purple-and-gold and in nothing else.  Laker fans are not ready to "transition" to the post-Kobe world.  The Lakers are giving their fans what they want, just like every good organization tries to do for its customers and they are hoping/expecting their fans to continue to stay glued to their Lakers cable TV station to watch the Lakers play and show up at the Staples.  Claiming they're doing it out of "loyalty" is just Kupchak spinning pseudo-mystique, trying to squeeze another ounce of good PR out of the signing.  I'm not blaming him, that's his job, I'm just trying to pierce the attempt at portraying this as altruism.  It's not, it's a value proposition for both sides.



.

Bob,

You couldn't be any further off base.
The Lakers having a reputation as being good to their players doesn't mean they won't trade them.
1) Trevor Ariza started 23 regular season games in his career as a Laker. He demanded too much money and LA decided to go sign Artest.
2) The Lakers were embarrassed by Dallas in the playoffs. They didn't re-sign phil and his staff. They tried to trade Pau and Odom. Odom had a hissy fit and demanded a trade. That trade saved the Lakers $17.8m and they received a 1st round draft pick. Odom was an utter bust for Dallas.
3) Yes, they amnestied MWP, that was a business decision.
4) Trading Derek Fisher was a great move for the Lakers at the time.

The Lakers re-signed Kobe because the fans still want him on the team AND out of loyalty to him. Pau won't get the same treatment and he doesn't deserve to.