View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Team of the 80's Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008 Posts: 6095 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: | NomisR wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? | I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
That's not true. There's plenty of equity in the Laker brand to withstand even multiple years of losing. A few seasons of success does not a brand make. And a few seasons of failure does not a brand break.
We just had one of the worst seasons in Laker history and turned a record level of profit ($100M).
Draft the next Lebron James and your brand will be just fine if not fantabulous. |
People at BSPN are already talking about this being a "Clipper town", i mean, how did this conversation even come up. They've had 2 good years.. and it's suddenly a Clipper town? Really? We have more Championships than they have playoff berths, we've been to the finals more times than they games they have won in the playoffs, Clipper town?? RIGHT!
Even with another year of tanking, it won't hurt the brand much for Lakers fans, but it's not going to help it. And the problem is, when a lie is repeated enough, people take it as the truth. Look at the whole Jim Buss narrative that people on here are repeating. It's all a media creation. And who knows what else they'll make up just for the sake of it. None Lakers fans hates the Lakers.. |
What people on ESPN are saying about this being a Clipper town has had no significant adverse effect on the Laker brand value.
Whether you tank or not, what significantly hurts your brand value is losing consistently over time. How you lost is irrelevant really. |
Losing is one thing but losing and being in the lotto two year in a row is a disaster for a team like the Lakers.
And yes, what BSPN says is having a effect on the Laker brand. If bad mouth the Lakers in the press every single day (and they have) it will surely hurt the brand going forward. BSPN tries to create the story rather than report it. They want to replace the Lakers with the Clippers because they know that if the Lakers aren't on TV or in the news ratings will be lower. The Clippers don't have any fans! And most of them are casual fans who will abandon them like the Titanic is they start losing again. They need the LA market badly since they built that studio at LA live.
The only way to replace the Clippers with the Lakers is to keep bad mouthing everything the Lakers do and it becomes a self fullfilling story line.
I want all of you to watch for something when the Lakers do well this year and make the playoffs. Watch how BSPN covers the Laker resurgence. They will try to ignore it at first or dismiss it. Then when its apparent that we're back they'll start hyping us again like they were behind us from the beginning. That's the BSPN formula. Build it up, tear it down. Rinse and repeat. |
We had a first round exit by virtue of a sweep followed by a 27 win season and we netted $100M in profit, a franchise record. The brand is fine.
What was the brand value prior to last season and by how much did that value decline after our poor season? Nothing has changed.
The idea that having multiple losing seasons will significantly impact brand value in a negative way is pure speculation without any basis in fact. It sounds good but so does the idea of Santa Claus. |
The brand is not fine if we keep losing. And to believe it's not going to continue to erode the brand is pure speculation, as you would say. Let's see how much net profit the Lakers have after another disasterous season. And BTW large, successful companies fade and go out of business all the time. The fans are biggest investors sports teams like the Lakers have. Were not Cubs fans who care more about going to Wriggly and getting drunk than watching a winning BB team. Laker fans, like Yankee fans will find someting else to do if the team is losing. That means less caps, t shirts, jerseys, and most importantly TV viewership.
You folks can tank if you want, I'll be too busy cheering to the Lakers to win every game, not hoping they lose so badly it would be worse than last year. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. | It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
Awful Roster?
Lin > whoever's not injured playing the PG
Kobe > whoever's not injured playing the SG
Wes = Wes
Randle/Boozer > Ryan Kelly or Jordan Hill when he's not hurt (offensively)
Hill < Pau
So basically, the only drop off in position was Center position.
And compared to Dwight year
Lin > whoever's not hurt playing PG
Kobe < Kobe
Wes = MWP
Randle/Boozer = Pau (statistically, they were about the same that year)
Hill < Dwight
So even compared to that year, it's not a huge drop off. But when you consider that during 2012, we had no real PG at the time, so basically, the only person that could create a shot was Kobe and Kobe and Kobe.. There was little ball movement and our offense was stagnant.
This year, we have Kobe, Nick Young, Jeremy Lin, (Steve Nash's corpse), Julius Randle, Xavier Henry, Jordan Clarkson. Which is a lot better option offensively than 2012, where we had Chris Duhon as the PG at one point.. |
Yes. Awful roster.
It's so bad, there's no consensus on who the second best player on our team is.
There's a good chance we'd trade our second best player in a heartbeat for the second best player on probably any other NBA team out there.
Oh, and the status of our best player is a question mark.
We're still going to be better than last year, by a number of games. Around 10-12. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NomisR Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012 Posts: 471
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Team of the 80's wrote: |
The brand is not fine if we keep losing. And to believe it's not going to continue to erode the brand is pure speculation, as you would say. Let's see how much net profit the Lakers have after another disasterous season. And BTW large, successful companies fade and go out of business all the time. The fans are biggest investors sports teams like the Lakers have. Were not Cubs fans who care more about going to Wriggly and getting drunk than watching a winning BB team. Laker fans, like Yankee fans will find someting else to do if the team is losing. That means less caps, t shirts, jerseys, and most importantly TV viewership.
You folks can tank if you want, I'll be too busy cheering to the Lakers to win every game, not hoping they lose so badly it would be worse than last year. |
Yeah, having gone through the post Magic Lakers, this team feels like the 94 Lakers. Having Pau gone is kinda like Worthy retiring. But we picked up Ceballos and Eddie Jones. We did pretty well in surprising everyone moving into the 2nd round of the playoffs after missing the playoffs the previous year. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NomisR Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012 Posts: 471
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. | It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
Awful Roster?
Lin > whoever's not injured playing the PG
Kobe > whoever's not injured playing the SG
Wes = Wes
Randle/Boozer > Ryan Kelly or Jordan Hill when he's not hurt (offensively)
Hill < Pau
So basically, the only drop off in position was Center position.
And compared to Dwight year
Lin > whoever's not hurt playing PG
Kobe < Kobe
Wes = MWP
Randle/Boozer = Pau (statistically, they were about the same that year)
Hill < Dwight
So even compared to that year, it's not a huge drop off. But when you consider that during 2012, we had no real PG at the time, so basically, the only person that could create a shot was Kobe and Kobe and Kobe.. There was little ball movement and our offense was stagnant.
This year, we have Kobe, Nick Young, Jeremy Lin, (Steve Nash's corpse), Julius Randle, Xavier Henry, Jordan Clarkson. Which is a lot better option offensively than 2012, where we had Chris Duhon as the PG at one point.. |
Yes. Awful roster.
It's so bad, there's no consensus on who the second best player on our team is.
There's a good chance we'd trade our second best player in a heartbeat for the second best player on probably any other NBA team out there.
Oh, and the status of our best player is a question mark.
We're still going to be better than last year, by a number of games. Around 10-12. |
Based on all the previous year's informations. The biggest ? is probably Kobe, but I don't expect that much of a drop in terms of performance from Kobe based on his performance coming back from his achilles injury. He would've been fine after a few more game if it wasn't for his knee injury.
Lin could arguably be the #2 on this team. I'm not even going to quote his Linsanity stats but based on his performance in Houston when Patrick Beverly was out so he was able to start, it shows some high quality numbers. Boozer performing like last year wouldn't be so bad. And going by Randle's college performance, i'm expecting a Blake Griffin rookie year.
We'll surprise everyone with 48 wins. Enough to make the playoffs? I don't know.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kikanga Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29270 Location: La La Land
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. | It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
Awful Roster?
Lin > whoever's not injured playing the PG
Kobe > whoever's not injured playing the SG
Wes = Wes
Randle/Boozer > Ryan Kelly or Jordan Hill when he's not hurt (offensively)
Hill < Pau
So basically, the only drop off in position was Center position.
And compared to Dwight year
Lin > whoever's not hurt playing PG
Kobe < Kobe
Wes = MWP
Randle/Boozer = Pau (statistically, they were about the same that year)
Hill < Dwight
So even compared to that year, it's not a huge drop off. But when you consider that during 2012, we had no real PG at the time, so basically, the only person that could create a shot was Kobe and Kobe and Kobe.. There was little ball movement and our offense was stagnant.
This year, we have Kobe, Nick Young, Jeremy Lin, (Steve Nash's corpse), Julius Randle, Xavier Henry, Jordan Clarkson. Which is a lot better option offensively than 2012, where we had Chris Duhon as the PG at one point.. |
Yes. Awful roster.
It's so bad, there's no consensus on who the second best player on our team is.
There's a good chance we'd trade our second best player in a heartbeat for the second best player on probably any other NBA team out there.
Oh, and the status of our best player is a question mark.
We're still going to be better than last year, by a number of games. Around 10-12. |
That's never a good sign.
Imagine if we would've really tanked last year, like the Bucks did. We would have Jabari Parker. That's our number 2 option this season.
Love Randle to death, but swap him for Jabari with our current roster and we would be a legitimate playoff team. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Team of the 80's wrote: | The brand is not fine if we keep losing. And to believe it's not going to continue to erode the brand is pure speculation, as you would say. Let's see how much net profit the Lakers have after another disasterous season. And BTW large, successful companies fade and go out of business all the time. The fans are biggest investors sports teams like the Lakers have. Were not Cubs fans who care more about going to Wriggly and getting drunk than watching a winning BB team. Laker fans, like Yankee fans will find someting else to do if the team is losing. That means less caps, t shirts, jerseys, and most importantly TV viewership.
You folks can tank if you want, I'll be too busy cheering to the Lakers to win every game, not hoping they lose so badly it would be worse than last year. |
No need to worry about the brand. I mean, you can choose to if you like, but there is no need to of course.
Last season was one of the worst seasons in Lakers history following multiple years of early playoff exits. And yet...
- Had a 99% attendance rate down only 0.7 percentage points from our championship year.
- Ranked 3rd best road attendance rate behind only Heat and Thunder
- Achieved highest profit ever ($158.3M before taxes and revenue sharing) which was more than double the next closest team (Bulls, $75.7M)
Over a long period of time, losing consistently will certainly hurt your brand. Whether you lose via tanking or sucking doesn't really matter either.
At best, the brand has a small, microscopic dent in it right now. If the reason you don't want to lose next year is because you're worried about the team's brand value, then there's no need to worry but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop you either. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. | It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
Awful Roster?
Lin > whoever's not injured playing the PG
Kobe > whoever's not injured playing the SG
Wes = Wes
Randle/Boozer > Ryan Kelly or Jordan Hill when he's not hurt (offensively)
Hill < Pau
So basically, the only drop off in position was Center position.
And compared to Dwight year
Lin > whoever's not hurt playing PG
Kobe < Kobe
Wes = MWP
Randle/Boozer = Pau (statistically, they were about the same that year)
Hill < Dwight
So even compared to that year, it's not a huge drop off. But when you consider that during 2012, we had no real PG at the time, so basically, the only person that could create a shot was Kobe and Kobe and Kobe.. There was little ball movement and our offense was stagnant.
This year, we have Kobe, Nick Young, Jeremy Lin, (Steve Nash's corpse), Julius Randle, Xavier Henry, Jordan Clarkson. Which is a lot better option offensively than 2012, where we had Chris Duhon as the PG at one point.. |
Yes. Awful roster.
It's so bad, there's no consensus on who the second best player on our team is.
There's a good chance we'd trade our second best player in a heartbeat for the second best player on probably any other NBA team out there.
Oh, and the status of our best player is a question mark.
We're still going to be better than last year, by a number of games. Around 10-12. |
Based on all the previous year's informations. The biggest ? is probably Kobe, but I don't expect that much of a drop in terms of performance from Kobe based on his performance coming back from his achilles injury. He would've been fine after a few more game if it wasn't for his knee injury.
Lin could arguably be the #2 on this team. I'm not even going to quote his Linsanity stats but based on his performance in Houston when Patrick Beverly was out so he was able to start, it shows some high quality numbers. Boozer performing like last year wouldn't be so bad. And going by Randle's college performance, i'm expecting a Blake Griffin rookie year.
We'll surprise everyone with 48 wins. Enough to make the playoffs? I don't know.. |
If you're not expecting a drop in production from Kobe, then you either know nothing about achilles tears in the NBA, or, you're disregarding it for no reason in particular.
Any appropriate projection, will assume a decline (in varying amounts) in Kobe's production because 100% of achilles tears sufferers experienced a decline post injury.
Oh, and the fact that you'd have to argue Lin's place as the #2 should tell you everything you need to know. Is there an NBA team, with whom you would not trade Lin for any player other than that team's #1? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NomisR Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012 Posts: 471
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. | It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
Awful Roster?
Lin > whoever's not injured playing the PG
Kobe > whoever's not injured playing the SG
Wes = Wes
Randle/Boozer > Ryan Kelly or Jordan Hill when he's not hurt (offensively)
Hill < Pau
So basically, the only drop off in position was Center position.
And compared to Dwight year
Lin > whoever's not hurt playing PG
Kobe < Kobe
Wes = MWP
Randle/Boozer = Pau (statistically, they were about the same that year)
Hill < Dwight
So even compared to that year, it's not a huge drop off. But when you consider that during 2012, we had no real PG at the time, so basically, the only person that could create a shot was Kobe and Kobe and Kobe.. There was little ball movement and our offense was stagnant.
This year, we have Kobe, Nick Young, Jeremy Lin, (Steve Nash's corpse), Julius Randle, Xavier Henry, Jordan Clarkson. Which is a lot better option offensively than 2012, where we had Chris Duhon as the PG at one point.. |
Yes. Awful roster.
It's so bad, there's no consensus on who the second best player on our team is.
There's a good chance we'd trade our second best player in a heartbeat for the second best player on probably any other NBA team out there.
Oh, and the status of our best player is a question mark.
We're still going to be better than last year, by a number of games. Around 10-12. |
Based on all the previous year's informations. The biggest ? is probably Kobe, but I don't expect that much of a drop in terms of performance from Kobe based on his performance coming back from his achilles injury. He would've been fine after a few more game if it wasn't for his knee injury.
Lin could arguably be the #2 on this team. I'm not even going to quote his Linsanity stats but based on his performance in Houston when Patrick Beverly was out so he was able to start, it shows some high quality numbers. Boozer performing like last year wouldn't be so bad. And going by Randle's college performance, i'm expecting a Blake Griffin rookie year.
We'll surprise everyone with 48 wins. Enough to make the playoffs? I don't know.. |
If you're not expecting a drop in production from Kobe, then you either know nothing about achilles tears in the NBA, or, you're disregarding it for no reason in particular.
Any appropriate projection, will assume a decline (in varying amounts) in Kobe's production because 100% of achilles tears sufferers experienced a decline post injury.
Oh, and the fact that you'd have to argue Lin's place as the #2 should tell you everything you need to know. Is there an NBA team, with whom you would not trade Lin for any player other than that team's #1? |
I said, not expect too much of a drop, and based on what I saw from Kobe for his 6 games, and considering that he wasn't relying on his athleticism as much for the past 5 years, it's not far from the realm of possibility.
As for Lin, your comparison is ridiculous. Trading a # 2 for another teams #1, well, depending on the team of course, I would definitely trade Lin for LeBron, you wouldn't? Without the season starting, we don't know what's going to happen, but right now, he looks like the best point guard we've had since Nick Van Exel... i'm not going to count the Glove since he wasn't playing like the Glove at the time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Team of the 80's Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008 Posts: 6095 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: | The brand is not fine if we keep losing. And to believe it's not going to continue to erode the brand is pure speculation, as you would say. Let's see how much net profit the Lakers have after another disasterous season. And BTW large, successful companies fade and go out of business all the time. The fans are biggest investors sports teams like the Lakers have. Were not Cubs fans who care more about going to Wriggly and getting drunk than watching a winning BB team. Laker fans, like Yankee fans will find someting else to do if the team is losing. That means less caps, t shirts, jerseys, and most importantly TV viewership.
You folks can tank if you want, I'll be too busy cheering to the Lakers to win every game, not hoping they lose so badly it would be worse than last year. |
No need to worry about the brand. I mean, you can choose to if you like, but there is no need to of course.
Last season was one of the worst seasons in Lakers history following multiple years of early playoff exits. And yet...
- Had a 99% attendance rate down only 0.7 percentage points from our championship year.
- Ranked 3rd best road attendance rate behind only Heat and Thunder
- Achieved highest profit ever ($158.3M before taxes and revenue sharing) which was more than double the next closest team (Bulls, $75.7M)
Over a long period of time, losing consistently will certainly hurt your brand. Whether you lose via tanking or sucking doesn't really matter either.
At best, the brand has a small, microscopic dent in it right now. If the reason you don't want to lose next year is because you're worried about the team's brand value, then there's no need to worry but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop you either. |
I want the team to win becasue I'm a Lakers fan, not because I'm primarily concerned about the brand. If we win the whole brand thing takes care of itself doesn't it?
According to many doomsdayers the Lakers are not going to be any good for the next 10 years with Jim Buss at the helm so by your logic we'll see brand erosion every year for the next ten years if we keep losing. Will that make us secoind banana to the Clippers? Perhaps not but with BSPN behind them who knows.
No fan base thinks in lockstep 100%. Some fans want to tank, others don't. However there does exist a certain segment of fans that are consistently negative and speculate, as you say, about Lakers future as being a bleak.
Losing via tanking does hurt your brand more than if you try to win and lose in the procces. How would you like to be a 76ers fan stuck in a whirlpool of losing and lottery picks that for the most part never pan out? Or you can be like Boston and lose on purpose so you can stack up a bunch of 1st rounders in the hopes of finding the next Bird.
If tanking was off the table for building a team then what would these clubs do to build a winner? They would have to spent money and try to win. If it weren't for the CBA we would be having this discussion and these teams would have no choice but to compete in the market place with the big boys (Lakers, Knicks, Miami, etc) by developing players AND signing the occasional high priced FA when available.
Brand erosion eats away at everything a team stands for. It's hard for some of you to even put on Laker gear when we go thru losing like last year. It would be even harder to put on a t shirt or cap when you knew your team was losing on purpose just to get a draft pick. Who's gonna go watch the Lakers at a sports bar and root for them to lose wearing a #24 jersey?
Tank on if you wish, I'm not trying to stop you. I just don't understand you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | If you're not expecting a drop in production from Kobe, then you either know nothing about achilles tears in the NBA, or, you're disregarding it for no reason in particular.
Any appropriate projection, will assume a decline (in varying amounts) in Kobe's production because 100% of achilles tears sufferers experienced a decline post injury.
Oh, and the fact that you'd have to argue Lin's place as the #2 should tell you everything you need to know. Is there an NBA team, with whom you would not trade Lin for any player other than that team's #1? |
I said, not expect too much of a drop, and based on what I saw from Kobe for his 6 games, and considering that he wasn't relying on his athleticism as much for the past 5 years, it's not far from the realm of possibility.
As for Lin, your comparison is ridiculous. Trading a # 2 for another teams #1, well, depending on the team of course, I would definitely trade Lin for LeBron, you wouldn't? Without the season starting, we don't know what's going to happen, but right now, he looks like the best point guard we've had since Nick Van Exel... i'm not going to count the Glove since he wasn't playing like the Glove at the time. |
Hmmm. To me, averaging 13.8 PPG and 6 TO is a huge drop which is what he did in 6 games. He was also unable to put two solid games in a row together. Obviously, I think he'll be better than that this season, but I'm not sure how you watched those 6 games and conclude not too much of a drop. Sounds like hope to me. Which is fine, but hopes and projections are two separate things.
You're right. Trading a #2 for another team's #1 would be ridiculous. But I never said that. What I did say was that I'd be willing to bet that you (and most of us) would be willing to trade Lin for ANY player on ANY roster other than the #1s of those rosters. In other words, every NBA roster has a player 2-15 somewhere that we'd probably be willing to trade Lin for. That should tell you how weak our #2 is. Now go and re-read it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Team of the 80's wrote: | I want the team to win becasue I'm a Lakers fan, not because I'm primarily concerned about the brand. If we win the whole brand thing takes care of itself doesn't it? |
Exactly. So tanking is moot. Getting back to championship contention is most important. If we get a great draft pick next year and get the next Lebron James, the whole brand thing takes care of itself.
Winning 40 games and missing the playoffs puts your brand further in the hole.
Team of the 80's wrote: | According to many doomsdayers the Lakers are not going to be any good for the next 10 years with Jim Buss at the helm so by your logic we'll see brand erosion every year for the next ten years if we keep losing. Will that make us secoind banana to the Clippers? Perhaps not but with BSPN behind them who knows. |
Sure, if we lose every year for the next 10 years, then yes, we will see small incremental erosion over time.
Your idea that one losing season will be disastrous is dramatic at best though given we just came off a record profit that was double any other NBA brand in the world.
Team of the 80's wrote: | No fan base thinks in lockstep 100%. Some fans want to tank, others don't. However there does exist a certain segment of fans that are consistently negative and speculate, as you say, about Lakers future as being a bleak. |
Ok.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Losing via tanking does hurt your brand more than if you try to win and lose in the procces. How would you like to be a 76ers fan stuck in a whirlpool of losing and lottery picks that for the most part never pan out? Or you can be like Boston and lose on purpose so you can stack up a bunch of 1st rounders in the hopes of finding the next Bird. |
You're making statements that have no factual basis. In any case, I would rather my team tank to get a pick, then try their very best and do worse than a team who is losing on purpose.
Team of the 80's wrote: | If tanking was off the table for building a team then what would these clubs do to build a winner? They would have to spent money and try to win. If it weren't for the CBA we would be having this discussion and these teams would have no choice but to compete in the market place with the big boys (Lakers, Knicks, Miami, etc) by developing players AND signing the occasional high priced FA when available. |
If tanking was off the table, they'd look at other ways to improve in the long haul. Pretty simple stuff.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Brand erosion eats away at everything a team stands for. It's hard for some of you to even put on Laker gear when we go thru losing like last year. It would be even harder to put on a t shirt or cap when you knew your team was losing on purpose just to get a draft pick. Who's gonna go watch the Lakers at a sports bar and root for them to lose wearing a #24 jersey?
Tank on if you wish, I'm not trying to stop you. I just don't understand you. |
And once again, there is so much equity in the Laker brand, that it can withstand years and years and years of losing before it erodes to the point where it would become a major concern.
What you're saying sounds sensible, it's just not the real world. It wasn't that hard to put on Laker gear and attend games in one of the worst seasons in franchise history was it? 99% attendance rate and $158M in profit, more than double the next most profitable team. So maybe we only make $154M in profit next year. Big whoop. Let's get the next Lebron. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NomisR Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012 Posts: 471
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | If you're not expecting a drop in production from Kobe, then you either know nothing about achilles tears in the NBA, or, you're disregarding it for no reason in particular.
Any appropriate projection, will assume a decline (in varying amounts) in Kobe's production because 100% of achilles tears sufferers experienced a decline post injury.
Oh, and the fact that you'd have to argue Lin's place as the #2 should tell you everything you need to know. Is there an NBA team, with whom you would not trade Lin for any player other than that team's #1? |
I said, not expect too much of a drop, and based on what I saw from Kobe for his 6 games, and considering that he wasn't relying on his athleticism as much for the past 5 years, it's not far from the realm of possibility.
As for Lin, your comparison is ridiculous. Trading a # 2 for another teams #1, well, depending on the team of course, I would definitely trade Lin for LeBron, you wouldn't? Without the season starting, we don't know what's going to happen, but right now, he looks like the best point guard we've had since Nick Van Exel... i'm not going to count the Glove since he wasn't playing like the Glove at the time. |
Hmmm. To me, averaging 13.8 PPG and 6 TO is a huge drop which is what he did in 6 games. He was also unable to put two solid games in a row together. Obviously, I think he'll be better than that this season, but I'm not sure how you watched those 6 games and conclude not too much of a drop. Sounds like hope to me. Which is fine, but hopes and projections are two separate things.
You're right. Trading a #2 for another team's #1 would be ridiculous. But I never said that. What I did say was that I'd be willing to bet that you (and most of us) would be willing to trade Lin for ANY player on ANY roster other than the #1s of those rosters. In other words, every NBA roster has a player 2-15 somewhere that we'd probably be willing to trade Lin for. That should tell you how weak our #2 is. Now go and re-read it! |
On Kobe, I'm just looking at the game by game improvements. The statistical sample is too small to judge by game average. If the trend continues, he's at least on course to return to form. How good? Who knows... but his movements while a bit rusty, didn't lose much of a step.
As for Jeremy Lin? Every? Probably not.. again, it depends on the contract, and the $$$ involved. Again, i'm not saying he's that great right now, but it doesn't mean he can't or won't.. But him right now is not much different than calling Blake Griffin a great player prior to this past season. People were talking about how great Griffin was, but statistically and in reality.. while he looks great in highlights, he didn't prove to be no better than a solid starter until last year. And that was a guy that people were saying was the 2nd best player on a title contender? He's good, but not that good, until this year.
So I can see him improving especially considering he would actually be on a team that wouldn't bench him because he got the GM/coach in trouble. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NomisR Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012 Posts: 471
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: | I want the team to win becasue I'm a Lakers fan, not because I'm primarily concerned about the brand. If we win the whole brand thing takes care of itself doesn't it? |
Exactly. So tanking is moot. Getting back to championship contention is most important. If we get a great draft pick next year and get the next Lebron James, the whole brand thing takes care of itself.
Winning 40 games and missing the playoffs puts your brand further in the hole.
Team of the 80's wrote: | According to many doomsdayers the Lakers are not going to be any good for the next 10 years with Jim Buss at the helm so by your logic we'll see brand erosion every year for the next ten years if we keep losing. Will that make us secoind banana to the Clippers? Perhaps not but with BSPN behind them who knows. |
Sure, if we lose every year for the next 10 years, then yes, we will see small incremental erosion over time.
Your idea that one losing season will be disastrous is dramatic at best though given we just came off a record profit that was double any other NBA brand in the world.
Team of the 80's wrote: | No fan base thinks in lockstep 100%. Some fans want to tank, others don't. However there does exist a certain segment of fans that are consistently negative and speculate, as you say, about Lakers future as being a bleak. |
Ok.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Losing via tanking does hurt your brand more than if you try to win and lose in the procces. How would you like to be a 76ers fan stuck in a whirlpool of losing and lottery picks that for the most part never pan out? Or you can be like Boston and lose on purpose so you can stack up a bunch of 1st rounders in the hopes of finding the next Bird. |
You're making statements that have no factual basis. In any case, I would rather my team tank to get a pick, then try their very best and do worse than a team who is losing on purpose.
Team of the 80's wrote: | If tanking was off the table for building a team then what would these clubs do to build a winner? They would have to spent money and try to win. If it weren't for the CBA we would be having this discussion and these teams would have no choice but to compete in the market place with the big boys (Lakers, Knicks, Miami, etc) by developing players AND signing the occasional high priced FA when available. |
If tanking was off the table, they'd look at other ways to improve in the long haul. Pretty simple stuff.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Brand erosion eats away at everything a team stands for. It's hard for some of you to even put on Laker gear when we go thru losing like last year. It would be even harder to put on a t shirt or cap when you knew your team was losing on purpose just to get a draft pick. Who's gonna go watch the Lakers at a sports bar and root for them to lose wearing a #24 jersey?
Tank on if you wish, I'm not trying to stop you. I just don't understand you. |
And once again, there is so much equity in the Laker brand, that it can withstand years and years and years of losing before it erodes to the point where it would become a major concern.
What you're saying sounds sensible, it's just not the real world. It wasn't that hard to put on Laker gear and attend games in one of the worst seasons in franchise history was it? 99% attendance rate and $158M in profit, more than double the next most profitable team. So maybe we only make $154M in profit next year. Big whoop. Let's get the next Lebron. |
There's no "next" LeBron next year. There's some pretty good prospects from what I've seen, but not the "next big thing", it's still stronger than some of the previous year's draft though. But all things considering, this year's draft with Randle isn't that bad, he could've easily become the #1 pick last year based on his college/HS performance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: | I want the team to win becasue I'm a Lakers fan, not because I'm primarily concerned about the brand. If we win the whole brand thing takes care of itself doesn't it? |
Exactly. So tanking is moot. Getting back to championship contention is most important. If we get a great draft pick next year and get the next Lebron James, the whole brand thing takes care of itself.
Winning 40 games and missing the playoffs puts your brand further in the hole.
Team of the 80's wrote: | According to many doomsdayers the Lakers are not going to be any good for the next 10 years with Jim Buss at the helm so by your logic we'll see brand erosion every year for the next ten years if we keep losing. Will that make us secoind banana to the Clippers? Perhaps not but with BSPN behind them who knows. |
Sure, if we lose every year for the next 10 years, then yes, we will see small incremental erosion over time.
Your idea that one losing season will be disastrous is dramatic at best though given we just came off a record profit that was double any other NBA brand in the world.
Team of the 80's wrote: | No fan base thinks in lockstep 100%. Some fans want to tank, others don't. However there does exist a certain segment of fans that are consistently negative and speculate, as you say, about Lakers future as being a bleak. |
Ok.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Losing via tanking does hurt your brand more than if you try to win and lose in the procces. How would you like to be a 76ers fan stuck in a whirlpool of losing and lottery picks that for the most part never pan out? Or you can be like Boston and lose on purpose so you can stack up a bunch of 1st rounders in the hopes of finding the next Bird. |
You're making statements that have no factual basis. In any case, I would rather my team tank to get a pick, then try their very best and do worse than a team who is losing on purpose.
Team of the 80's wrote: | If tanking was off the table for building a team then what would these clubs do to build a winner? They would have to spent money and try to win. If it weren't for the CBA we would be having this discussion and these teams would have no choice but to compete in the market place with the big boys (Lakers, Knicks, Miami, etc) by developing players AND signing the occasional high priced FA when available. |
If tanking was off the table, they'd look at other ways to improve in the long haul. Pretty simple stuff.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Brand erosion eats away at everything a team stands for. It's hard for some of you to even put on Laker gear when we go thru losing like last year. It would be even harder to put on a t shirt or cap when you knew your team was losing on purpose just to get a draft pick. Who's gonna go watch the Lakers at a sports bar and root for them to lose wearing a #24 jersey?
Tank on if you wish, I'm not trying to stop you. I just don't understand you. |
And once again, there is so much equity in the Laker brand, that it can withstand years and years and years of losing before it erodes to the point where it would become a major concern.
What you're saying sounds sensible, it's just not the real world. It wasn't that hard to put on Laker gear and attend games in one of the worst seasons in franchise history was it? 99% attendance rate and $158M in profit, more than double the next most profitable team. So maybe we only make $154M in profit next year. Big whoop. Let's get the next Lebron. |
There's no "next" LeBron next year. There's some pretty good prospects from what I've seen, but not the "next big thing", it's still stronger than some of the previous year's draft though. But all things considering, this year's draft with Randle isn't that bad, he could've easily become the #1 pick last year based on his college/HS performance. |
So if you're going to miss the playoffs regardless, would you rather...
a) Have a draft pick
b) Not have a draft pick
It's pretty easy I think. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | NomisR wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | If you're not expecting a drop in production from Kobe, then you either know nothing about achilles tears in the NBA, or, you're disregarding it for no reason in particular.
Any appropriate projection, will assume a decline (in varying amounts) in Kobe's production because 100% of achilles tears sufferers experienced a decline post injury.
Oh, and the fact that you'd have to argue Lin's place as the #2 should tell you everything you need to know. Is there an NBA team, with whom you would not trade Lin for any player other than that team's #1? |
I said, not expect too much of a drop, and based on what I saw from Kobe for his 6 games, and considering that he wasn't relying on his athleticism as much for the past 5 years, it's not far from the realm of possibility.
As for Lin, your comparison is ridiculous. Trading a # 2 for another teams #1, well, depending on the team of course, I would definitely trade Lin for LeBron, you wouldn't? Without the season starting, we don't know what's going to happen, but right now, he looks like the best point guard we've had since Nick Van Exel... i'm not going to count the Glove since he wasn't playing like the Glove at the time. |
Hmmm. To me, averaging 13.8 PPG and 6 TO is a huge drop which is what he did in 6 games. He was also unable to put two solid games in a row together. Obviously, I think he'll be better than that this season, but I'm not sure how you watched those 6 games and conclude not too much of a drop. Sounds like hope to me. Which is fine, but hopes and projections are two separate things.
You're right. Trading a #2 for another team's #1 would be ridiculous. But I never said that. What I did say was that I'd be willing to bet that you (and most of us) would be willing to trade Lin for ANY player on ANY roster other than the #1s of those rosters. In other words, every NBA roster has a player 2-15 somewhere that we'd probably be willing to trade Lin for. That should tell you how weak our #2 is. Now go and re-read it! |
On Kobe, I'm just looking at the game by game improvements. The statistical sample is too small to judge by game average. If the trend continues, he's at least on course to return to form. How good? Who knows... but his movements while a bit rusty, didn't lose much of a step.
As for Jeremy Lin? Every? Probably not.. again, it depends on the contract, and the $$$ involved. Again, i'm not saying he's that great right now, but it doesn't mean he can't or won't.. But him right now is not much different than calling Blake Griffin a great player prior to this past season. People were talking about how great Griffin was, but statistically and in reality.. while he looks great in highlights, he didn't prove to be no better than a solid starter until last year. And that was a guy that people were saying was the 2nd best player on a title contender? He's good, but not that good, until this year.
So I can see him improving especially considering he would actually be on a team that wouldn't bench him because he got the GM/coach in trouble. |
I've never seen Kobe look more rusty than in those 6 games. Have you?
In either case, Lin is probably the worst 2nd option in the entire association, can we agree on that? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Team of the 80's Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008 Posts: 6095 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: | I want the team to win becasue I'm a Lakers fan, not because I'm primarily concerned about the brand. If we win the whole brand thing takes care of itself doesn't it? |
Exactly. So tanking is moot. Getting back to championship contention is most important. If we get a great draft pick next year and get the next Lebron James, the whole brand thing takes care of itself.
Winning 40 games and missing the playoffs puts your brand further in the hole.
Team of the 80's wrote: | According to many doomsdayers the Lakers are not going to be any good for the next 10 years with Jim Buss at the helm so by your logic we'll see brand erosion every year for the next ten years if we keep losing. Will that make us secoind banana to the Clippers? Perhaps not but with BSPN behind them who knows. |
Sure, if we lose every year for the next 10 years, then yes, we will see small incremental erosion over time.
Your idea that one losing season will be disastrous is dramatic at best though given we just came off a record profit that was double any other NBA brand in the world.
Team of the 80's wrote: | No fan base thinks in lockstep 100%. Some fans want to tank, others don't. However there does exist a certain segment of fans that are consistently negative and speculate, as you say, about Lakers future as being a bleak. |
Ok.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Losing via tanking does hurt your brand more than if you try to win and lose in the procces. How would you like to be a 76ers fan stuck in a whirlpool of losing and lottery picks that for the most part never pan out? Or you can be like Boston and lose on purpose so you can stack up a bunch of 1st rounders in the hopes of finding the next Bird. |
You're making statements that have no factual basis. In any case, I would rather my team tank to get a pick, then try their very best and do worse than a team who is losing on purpose.
Team of the 80's wrote: | If tanking was off the table for building a team then what would these clubs do to build a winner? They would have to spent money and try to win. If it weren't for the CBA we would be having this discussion and these teams would have no choice but to compete in the market place with the big boys (Lakers, Knicks, Miami, etc) by developing players AND signing the occasional high priced FA when available. |
If tanking was off the table, they'd look at other ways to improve in the long haul. Pretty simple stuff.
Team of the 80's wrote: | Brand erosion eats away at everything a team stands for. It's hard for some of you to even put on Laker gear when we go thru losing like last year. It would be even harder to put on a t shirt or cap when you knew your team was losing on purpose just to get a draft pick. Who's gonna go watch the Lakers at a sports bar and root for them to lose wearing a #24 jersey?
Tank on if you wish, I'm not trying to stop you. I just don't understand you. |
And once again, there is so much equity in the Laker brand, that it can withstand years and years and years of losing before it erodes to the point where it would become a major concern.
What you're saying sounds sensible, it's just not the real world. It wasn't that hard to put on Laker gear and attend games in one of the worst seasons in franchise history was it? 99% attendance rate and $158M in profit, more than double the next most profitable team. So maybe we only make $154M in profit next year. Big whoop. Let's get the next Lebron. |
The next Lebron, the Bird, the next Magic, the next.......
If it was so easy to just tank and get the next great player all of these lottery teams that end up with the first pick would have one.
Equity is a funny thing these days. One day your house or business is worth millions, the next day its underwater. If the Lakers continue to lose just to get into the lotto it will turn off fans, casual fans for sure, and the franchise will lose equity.
Of course I have no facts to back any of this up. It's just my opinion. I'll leave the facts to the experts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jlinfan Starting Rotation
Joined: 15 Jul 2014 Posts: 720
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Team of the 80's wrote: |
The next Lebron, the Bird, the next Magic, the next.......
If it was so easy to just tank and get the next great player all of these lottery teams that end up with the first pick would have one.
Equity is a funny thing these days. One day your house or business is worth millions, the next day its underwater. If the Lakers continue to lose just to get into the lotto it will turn off fans, casual fans for sure, and the franchise will lose equity.
Of course I have no facts to back any of this up. It's just my opinion. I'll leave the facts to the experts. |
Agreed. From a owner point of view, tanking makes sense. It gives them an excuse to suck year after year. From a fan point of view, I find it ridiculous to support a product that sucks on purpose. How can miracles happen if your tanking? You won't live forever and not everyone wants to wait. Here we are now, entertain us. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakeShowSince84 Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Jul 2014 Posts: 313
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Won't be any tanking. Lakers have a descent roster that can make a splash at the 7th or 8th playoff spot. Why tank it when you not guranteed a first round draft pick. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
epak Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 34147
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paul George's injury just put the pacers into team tank. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave20 Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2013 Posts: 11333
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
epak wrote: | Paul George's injury just put the pacers into team tank. | Pacers still have Hibbert, West, Hill, and a great coach. Not bad enough to be in the lottery but aren't contenders, 7th or 8th seed for them. The offense will go through Hibbert now, he's been working with Kareem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
epak Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 34147
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave20 wrote: | epak wrote: | Paul George's injury just put the pacers into team tank. | Pacers still have Hibbert, West, Hill, and a great coach. Not bad enough to be in the lottery but aren't contenders, 7th or 8th seed for them. The offense will go through Hibbert now, he's been working with Kareem. |
None of those 3 guys are stars.
But they are playing in the east, so they might make the playoffs.
Bulls
Cavs
Raptors
Nets
Heat
Bobcats
Wizards
Hawks
Might beat out the Pacers though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ginia1110 Starting Rotation
Joined: 15 Jul 2014 Posts: 241
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even though this is the only players in our roster, I still don't want to emulate the Philadelphia route by tanking next season. _________________ == WILL TRY TO IGNORE IDIOTIC POST ABOVE==
R.Hibbert, wearing purple & gold next year = my pipe-dream... Lolz |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RichD Star Player
Joined: 02 Jul 2014 Posts: 2176 Location: Sin City
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boston sucked for many years. There brand is just fine. The Dodgers and Yankees have both had many bad years there brand is OK. Lakers took 3 years to get back. Better to be bad or great. Not good. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
jlinfan wrote: | Team of the 80's wrote: |
The next Lebron, the Bird, the next Magic, the next.......
If it was so easy to just tank and get the next great player all of these lottery teams that end up with the first pick would have one.
Equity is a funny thing these days. One day your house or business is worth millions, the next day its underwater. If the Lakers continue to lose just to get into the lotto it will turn off fans, casual fans for sure, and the franchise will lose equity.
Of course I have no facts to back any of this up. It's just my opinion. I'll leave the facts to the experts. |
Agreed. From a owner point of view, tanking makes sense. It gives them an excuse to suck year after year. From a fan point of view, I find it ridiculous to support a product that sucks on purpose. How can miracles happen if your tanking? You won't live forever and not everyone wants to wait. Here we are now, entertain us. |
Then you would have had to support the team trading Kobe last season when he couldn't play. $30M eating up lots of cap space, taking up roster space.
Why would you be ok with burning $30M of your cap space for something that doesn't contribute on the court unless you want to support a product that sucks on purpose? How can miracles happen when you have players eating up lots of salary cap space and they're not even playing? You won't live forever and not everyone wants to wait. Right? Or ... right?
See how silly that sounds? So you can't just always live in the now, sometimes you have to look ahead (both in life and basketball)
It's not always easy nor desirable, I mean, I'm pretty sure no one on Team Tank WANTS to tank, they just feel that it is a necessary short-term sacrifice for an incrementally better long term benefit. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002 Posts: 58336
|
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knicks have made the playoffs what 2 times in 10 years? Yet still have great brand value and recognition. Missing the playoffs twice won't hurt the Lakers nearly as much as some think.
The major downside is that the Buss family will lose income, will lose short term gain in terms of ticket prices and people attending the games. You probably won't see a sell out for a high number of games and season ticket holders may not re-new at those price (or Lakers may not be able to increase price like they usually do every year or 2nd year).
The reason it hasn't worked out for the Knicks, foolishly in the last decade they went for the quick fix, they traded away picks that they would have had in the lottery. They were ran by idiots with no vision longterm.
Thankfully Lakers don't have nearly as bad a FO as the old Knicks regimes (2001-2011). But I don't think tanking 2 straight years will hurt nearly as much as some think. If anything it will help the Lakers in the future. Again, did Lebron and Dwight care that the teams they were going to had missed the playoffs quite a bit over the last few years? Nope. FA all-stars will jump ship to a team that has young all-star caliber players, in prime or with prime years ahead. Teams with lots of young assets who can be traded. What type of team did Shaq come to? A young team with players like Eddie Jones, NVE and kid Kobe. How on earth do we get those kinds of players without tanking or stock piling on picks like Boston has? Uhhhhh ....... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|