1 down, 2 to go!

[Yuma]

Geez guys, it's not that hard to follow, I didn't think I'd have to go point by point!

TMac gone. Arguably option number three from my rankings! Now just Shaq and Kobe left! Anyone starting to feel squeemish yet?

Everyone has seemingly built the conspiracy that since the Suns are freeing cap space, they MUST be going after one of the top three guys available, arguably Kobe, Shaq, or TMac. See thounsand sof posts on this board! Since TMac is gone, we are down to two of the options left. Follow me so far?

I think Kobe can't pass up $50 million dollars (difference of $140 million LA can pay, and $90 million everyone else could), some player personnel say, and partial team ownership of the Lakers.

Slin would be right the amount of money the Lakers could pay him would be close to what other teams could pay him based on six year contracts. However, as reported everywhere but here, see ESPN, Yahoo sports, Fox Sports, NBA.com, the Lakers can sign Kobe for 7 (READ SEVEN) years while everyone else can only sign him for 6. Total contract amounts: Lakers $140 million over 7 years, everyone else 6 years at 90 million. If you can add and subtract, that's a difference of $50 million! Even if you read Larry Coon's FAQ, it's still $50 Million. Also reported elsewhere, ESPN comes to mind, the rumor is the Lakers will let him pick which free agents he wants to play with when they move Shaq. Also, let's not be dense here and quote Larry Coon Faq because it's irrelevant, he can be offered future ownership! He can't have it in writing, but can have a verbal agreement with the owner Jerry Buss. EVERYONE knows Magic Johnson was offered future ownership by Buss when he signed his infamous 20 year $20 million dollar contract. Guess what? Magic Johnson IS a part owner of the Lakers today!

What would a reasonable person do? I think a reasonable person would not leave all that money, power, and future ownership on the table. So I am saying Kobe would have to have something or someone on the Lakers he just couldn't stay after being offered all of the above for him to go elsewhere. THIS IS A KEY POINT! Remember this for later in the post. Still with me?


Shaq, meanwhile, is trying to get traded AND keep his H-U-G-E salary! However, I don't think the Lakers can pawn Shaq off without a reworked deal. Shaq is hinting he wants a long term deal (says he can play 5-6 more years!) and may have to cut per year salary to get a deal done. Either way, LA STILL may be stuck with Shaq.

OK this should be an easy point to explain. Orlando's GM is on record saying he can't absorb Shaq's huge salary and loss of player's to trade for Shaq. Same thing was said by Jerry West, and several other GMs in the NBA. Also, at Shaq's perceived drop in play, ESPN has reported GMs are reluctant to take a long contract on Shaq. Shaq has expressed his reluctance to rework his contract and lose the money he has on the table now. Thus, in the end, LA may not be able to trade Shaq! Still following along?

IF (The REAL BIG IF) Kobe just CAN'T play WITH Shaq the next two years, he may bolt, breaking LA's hearts!!! (Does anyone feel sorry for them?)

Remember the point I asked you to remember above? The only way Kobe walks away from all the Lakers are offering is IF there is a situation he just does not like on the Lakers. Hence the "IF (The REAL BIG IF)" meaning not likely, but it has been reported by ALL news media that these two cannot get along. You can't tell me you haven't seen these reports EVERY SINGLE DAY, OVER AND OVER! So what I have setup here is:

1) Lakers offer MORE than anyone else can to keep KOBE
2) SHAQ stays on Lakers, a good possibility.
3) KOBE not wanting to work with Shaq
4) The result of the first 3 points is Kobe leaves, even losing all he was offered by the Lakers!

So far a straight line logically! Still with me?


LA is praying Mark Cuban comes to the rescue!! Cuban COULD screw LA and get Kobe INSTEAD! That would frost LA! Kobe AND Nowitski? I shudder at the thought! I know, noone has rumored that! Suddenly Dallas jettisons a bunch of guys, looking at making cap space for Shaq, presumably, and suddenly signing Kobe! Priceless!! Who knows what will happen?

LA hoping Cuban takes Shaq off their hands so they can keep Kobe, who reportedly doesn't want to work with Shaq next season (see ANY sports show on ANY night). The logical move being reported is SHaq going to Dallas. Cuban has the same problem all other teams have, see Shaq portion above. It wouldn't take much for Cuban to fit Kobe on the team, however. They have already made one cap move by trading Antawn Jamison. They have players they could move, or NOT resign like NASH. So this sets up the IRONICAL part of the post: Cuban was supposed to save Kobe for LA, but ends up taking Kobe. You said it Cuban CAN'T get Kobe, and I have been showing you he CAN! It's really simple, all Kobe has to do is sign a one to two year deal with Dallas at whatever dollar amount they agree on, and then he can resign later at higher dollars! If a perrenial All-Star like Karl Malone can sign for way below his market value, you want to try and tell me Kobe couldn't? I am saying Dallas could get Kobe, ANYONE could get Kobe, but it would take Shaq being stuck on the Lakers, Kobe wanting out REALLY bad to pass up all that's offered, and the irony that Cuban could be the Devil to LA and not the savior they think he is! All you have to do is listen to SOCAL sports radio and hear how they are waiting for Cuban to come in and save the day for them. It's disgusting! All you guys say you hate the Lakers, now I dish up a scenario where they get screwed royally and don't even see it coming, and it seems the humor is lost on all of you! Seems easy enough to follow without having to explain it all! Now I see why people couldn't get Dennis Miller's humor!

 

[Joe Mama]

Okay guys I just ask that you don't let this thread get too out of control. I can't read it anymore.

BTW, Yuma, try breaking up some of those bigger paragraphs into smaller paragraphs. It will make it much easier to read and comprehend what you are saying.

Joe

 

[elindholm]

Yuma, the seven-years-versus-six-years issue has been discussed constantly on this board. Where have you been? Barring a career-ending injury, Bryant will get his seventh (and eighth, and ninth, and tenth...) years anyway -- they'll just be in his next contract. So yes, taking a six-year deal would be a small gamble for Bryant, but only a small one.

Magic Johnson's part-ownership arrangement was about eight CBAs ago. His 20-year contract (I thought it was 25, but whatever) was a symbolic way of showing that he'd be part of the Laker family for life. That can't happen now. The rules are changing all the time. And Buss would not be so stupid as to make an under-the-table deal. (Neither would Cuban.)

Do you want me to agree that Bryant will probably stay with the Lakers? Yes, I agree with that. I've been saying it all year.

Now, for hopefully the last time:

For the Mavericks, it is easier to get O'Neal than Bryant. The difference is that Bryant is a free agent and O'Neal is not.

When you acquire a player in a trade (the O'Neal case), you have to make salaries match (assuming both teams are over the cap, which they are). But you don't need the player's approval, and you don't need to outbid other teams who can offer the player three times as much.

O'Neal's salary over the next two seasons will be exactly the same no matter where he plays. He can play for the Lakers, the Mavericks, the Knicks, the Hawks, whoever. If the teams find a way to make a trade work, O'Neal plays for them under his current contract.

If the Lakers and Mavericks arrange a trade of O'Neal for (let's say) Nowitzki, Walker, and Howard -- never mind how likely that is -- O'Neal is stuck with it. He can't hold out and negotiate and say that he wants more money, or different teammates, or part ownership. (Well, he could threaten to retire, but that's unlikely given the amount of money on the table.)

When you acquire a free agent (the Bryant case), you have to have the cap space to add him. The Mavericks don't. They aren't close. All they have is the MLE, which Bryant won't take. The Mavericks could maneuver a bit, perhaps finding a taker for someone like Laettner (unlikely, but possible), but it wouldn't help. They are so far over the cap they have no hope of being able to offer more than the MLE. Even if they were to acquire a trade exception, that can't be combined with the MLE to make a larger offer.

The only exception is a sign-and-trade, which the Lakers have said they won't do, and which Bryant would have to AGREE to, which he won't. And even then, the Lakers wouldn't make a sign-and-trade without getting Nowitzki back.

Your overall argument seems to be

1. Bryant can get a better deal from the Lakers than anywhere else (true).
2. Because of personal issues with O'Neal, Bryant may leave anyway (true).
3. Dallas is rumored to be trying to get O'Neal (true).
4. "Therefore," Dallas might outfox everyone by going after Bryant instead (false).

The final step doesn't follow. It just doesn't. If you can't understand my several redundant explanations of why, I'm sorry.

 

[Yuma]

Okay guys I just ask that you don't let this thread get too out of control. I can't read it anymore.

BTW, Yuma, try breaking up some of those bigger paragraphs into smaller paragraphs. It will make it much easier to read and comprehend what you are saying.

Joe

When I do that Elindholm seems to think I am making ANOTHER point, instead of continuing the one I am on! It looks horrible, I know. I am trying to make it as simple to follow logically as possible!

Joe, nothing I have said here is new, with the exception of Dallas taking Kobe, so the whole post is just ideas posted here before in a certain order. Why is that so hrad to foolow?

 

[fordronken]

What, I don't deserve a tirade? How come everyone else gets a word-by-word* breakdown of their responses to Yuma and I don't even get a reference from him. I gave one quality rebuttal and a decent suggestion since his last response, but now I get nothing.






*Hyperbole

 

[Joe Mama]

When I do that Elindholm seems to think I am making ANOTHER point, instead of continuing the one I am on! It looks horrible, I know. I am trying to make it as simple to follow logically as possible!

Joe, nothing I have said here is new, with the exception of Dallas taking Kobe, so the whole post is just ideas posted here before in a certain order. Why is that so hrad to foolow?

first of all let me just say that the idea of Kobe Bryant going to Dallas is borderline ridiculous. I think everybody else has basically argued that point to you to exhaustion whether you believe it or not.

The problem with the large paragraphs isn't necessarily that I can't understand what you are saying. It's that it is just more difficult to read. Check out a newspaper. You'll rarely find one big paragraphs in a newspaper article because they know is much easier to read a bunch of smaller paragraphs.

Joe

 

[Yuma]

first of all let me just say that the idea of Kobe Bryant going to Dallas is borderline ridiculous. I think everybody else has basically argued that point to you to exhaustion whether you believe it or not.

The problem with the large paragraphs isn't necessarily that I can't understand what you are saying. It's that it is just more difficult to read. Check out a newspaper. You'll rarely find one big paragraphs in a newspaper article because they know is much easier to read a bunch of smaller paragraphs.

Joe

You are still NOT reading what I post. I agree it's ridiculous. I made the point for ironic humor. Then Elindholm said it was impossible. I am arguing that it's NOT impossible, that it may be IMPROBABLE, but there ARE POSSIBLE ways it can be done. You guys still want to argue there is no possible way, and that's just not logical. Maybe I work with math too much, but it seems probable versus possible is where you guys are misunderstanding me.

I read the Washington Post quite regualrly and some of their paragraphs are IMMENSE! The Wall Street Journal does that, too. I have read some whoppers in Forbes, too, but that's a magazine.

 

[elindholm]

Maybe I work with math too much

Yeah, I'm sure that's the problem.

 

[az240zz]

I don't know but from the size of your posts I think some of you guys have more time to waste than most. I wonder , do you guys go to the political board at all. That is where life and death conversations take place. Weather Kobe goes to Dallas or LA or Phoenix just doesn't registar, to me, as important as you guys are making it.


az240z

 

[elindholm]

Then Elindholm said it was impossible. I am arguing that it's NOT impossible, that it may be IMPROBABLE, but there ARE POSSIBLE ways it can be done.

Technically, I said only that Bryant-to-Dallas wouldn't happen. I did say that certain specific scenarios you alluded to -- such as the Mavericks "jettisoning" enough salary to offer Bryant a max deal -- are impossible. Which they are.

Go ahead, convince me. How exactly would Bryant end up joining Nowitzki in Dallas? Don't say "He doesn't like O'Neal," because we all already know that and it doesn't get you anywhere. And don't say "Cuban will find other ways to pay him $14+ million per year," because the league doesn't work that way anymore.

You have the floor. Draw up your scenario and argue for its plausibility.

 

[sunsfn]

I am wondering why I am reading this thread.........?

Actually I did not read it.........I started and then went to the end to
write this just as important post.....

 

[Yuma]

Then Elindholm said it was impossible. I am arguing that it's NOT impossible, that it may be IMPROBABLE, but there ARE POSSIBLE ways it can be done.

Technically, I said only that Bryant-to-Dallas wouldn't happen. I did say that certain specific scenarios you alluded to -- such as the Mavericks "jettisoning" enough salary to offer Bryant a max deal -- are impossible. Which they are.

Go ahead, convince me. How exactly would Bryant end up joining Nowitzki in Dallas? Don't say "He doesn't like O'Neal," because we all already know that and it doesn't get you anywhere. And don't say "Cuban will find other ways to pay him $14+ million per year," because the league doesn't work that way anymore.

You have the floor. Draw up your scenario and argue for its plausibility.

Already pointed out Kobe could take less money to be on a team with talent he thinks will win. Talked about 1 to 2 year deal and reup for max! Same as your year six deal, only he resigns after year 1 instead of year six!

Also, the Mavericks have 3 guys left on their roster signed to max deals. As you said in another post, trades to a team under the cap aren't subjected to cap rules. Trade a max guy to any team under the cap, throw in picks, or other players they want to sweeten the deal, even cash, and voila, instant cap space for the Mavericks!

We could go on all day long like this. Three team trades, four team trades, etc. Yes the Lakers won't sign and trade, but Kobe can sign at one place and be traded to another after the requisite amount of time. Even when I show you a quote from the Republic saying Kobe is on everyone's free agent board, you still say it can't be done. I'm telling you it may be less probable for some teams than others, but not impossible!

 

[elindholm]

Already pointed out Kobe could take less money to be on a team with talent he thinks will win. Talked about 1 to 2 year deal and reup for max!

You're right. Technically that is "possible." It is so profoundly unlikely that I didn't think it was worth considering, but it is possible.

Also, the Mavericks have 3 guys left on their roster signed to max deals. As you said in another post, trades to a team under the cap aren't subjected to cap rules. Trade a max guy to any team under the cap, throw in picks, or other players they want to sweeten the deal, even cash, and voila, instant cap space for the Mavericks!

I already explained why this is impossible. Now who's not paying attention?

The Mavericks' current guaranteed salaries total $85 million. This puts them roughly $40 million over the salary cap. In order to have room to sign Bryant for even $10 million a year, they'd have to move out FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS of salary. If Nash declines his option, that's about $6 million, leaving $44 million to go.

No ... freaking ... chance.

We could go on all day long like this.

If you like. I guess you want me to admit that Bryant-to-Dallas has a nonzero probability. Okay, fine, it does. It might be as high as 1 in 10,000, but that's it. I'd say it's significantly more likely -- perhaps as high as 1 in 1000 -- that the Suns acquire both Duncan and Garnett this summer.

Yes the Lakers won't sign and trade, but Kobe can sign at one place and be traded to another after the requisite amount of time.

The "requisite amount of time" is until December 15. Coon's FAQ #79.

Even when I show you a quote from the Republic saying Kobe is on everyone's free agent board, you still say it can't be done.

I am quite confident that I understand the salary rules of the NBA better than people who write for the Republic. And there are people on this board who understand them better than I do. I'm not shy to ask them for help when I'm confused about something; maybe you should follow my lead.

I still can't even figure out what you think you're arguing about. Is it that I didn't get your joke (which you can't decide even was a joke), didn't read your original post (which I clearly did), didn't follow your alleged "chain of logic" (which was a string of non sequitors without basis in reality), or said that something "wouldn't happen" when, in fact, it is theoretically possible on the order of perhaps a 0.01% chance?

 

[fordronken]

What, I don't deserve a tirade? How come everyone else gets a word-by-word* breakdown of their responses to Yuma and I don't even get a reference from him. I gave one quality rebuttal and a decent suggestion since his last response, but now I get nothing.






*Hyperbole

*Sigh* Guess I won't get a response. Or will you get to it once we've finished discussing point one? Is that whole long paragraph point one? Maybe if you broke them up a little, it'd be easier to follow. Like in Forbes.

I still can't even figure out what you think you're arguing about. Is it that I didn't get your joke (which you can't decide even was a joke), didn't read your original post (which I clearly did), didn't follow your alleged "chain of logic" (which was a string of non sequitors without basis in reality), or said that something "wouldn't happen" when, in fact, it is theoretically possible on the order of perhaps a 0.01% chance?

Honestly, Eric, pay attention. He isn't claiming it's a joke, he's claiming it's humorous irony. A painfully clear truth based upon the numerous reports of laughter being expressed within several posts through those quaint yellow smiley faces(represented thus: , thus: or thus: (any other smiley faces were considered possibly ironic, though not necessarily humorously ironic and were therefore not included in this parethetic segue)).

 

[elindholm]

Honestly, Eric, pay attention. He isn't claiming it's a joke, he's claiming it's humorous irony. A painfully clear truth based upon the numerous reports of laughter being expressed within several posts through those quaint yellow smiley faces(represented thus: , thus: or thus: (any other smiley faces were considered possibly ironic, though not necessarily humorously ironic and were therefore not included in this parethetic segue)).

I might have been able to understand that, but the paragraph was too long.

 

[Yuma]

*Sigh* Guess I won't get a response. Or will you get to it once we've finished discussing point one? Is that whole long paragraph point one? Maybe if you broke them up a little, it'd be easier to follow. Like in Forbes.

I find your logic irrefutable, thus my childlike outburst shouldn't be directed at you!


Honestly, Eric, pay attention. He isn't claiming it's a joke, he's claiming it's humorous irony. A painfully clear truth based upon the numerous reports of laughter being expressed within several posts through those quaint yellow smiley faces(represented thus: , thus: or thus: (any other smiley faces were considered possibly ironic, though not necessarily humorously ironic and were therefore not included in this parethetic segue)).

I think someone has got it!

Anyone (according to the AZ Republic) could steal Kobe from LA. What would stick in Buss' craw the most is if Cuban got Kobe. Buss is rumored to DESPISE Cuban. Something I thought everyone on this board knew. That would be like Randy Johnson going to the Yankees! Only worse since the owners hate each other! I thought you guys hated LA? Did I miss something?

 

[fordronken]

I think someone has got it!

Anyone (according to the AZ Republic) could steal Kobe from LA. What would stick in Buss' craw the most is if Cuban got Kobe. Buss is rumored to DESPISE Cuban. Something I thought everyone on this board knew. That would be like Randy Johnson going to the Yankees! Only worse since the owners hate each other! I thought you guys hated LA? Did I miss something?

I was thinking of quoting Beckett, regarding words being an unnecessary stain on emptiness and nothingness, hoping it would end this thing before we all died a newly discovered disease called a "simultaneous boredom-anger induced brain hemorrhage", but then I realized that it's a little silly to have a quote about it being unnecessary to have words. I think I'm gonna take a nap.

 

[Yuma]

I might have been able to understand that, but the paragraph was too long.

Um, this paragraph is too short! Which paragraph does it refer to? Maybe if you used more smileys?

 

[Chaplin]

What is the point of this arguement lasting this long? There's no reason for it! Possible or not, it's NOT going to happen!

 

[Yuma]

What is the point of this arguement lasting this long? There's no reason for it! Possible or not, it's NOT going to happen!

I often ask my wife the same question?

Oh and Chap, it's not probable that it's going to happen! (It is possible, though! )

 

[elindholm]

Chaplin's right. I give up.

Yuma, go ahead and say whatever you want. It's "possible" that the Earth will get wiped out by an asteroid later this week, and if you're talking about things at that level of likelihood, then there's really no point of further discussion. And frankly, the asteroid scenario isn't looking so bad right now.

 

[Yuma]

Read the other thread! Kidd DID sign with us as I said!