Shaqs Laker salary

[Reality]

msc and all,

Your favorite station -and mine, was revisition that old topic of Jerry Buss ordering Kupkake to let Shaq go.

Steve Hartman made the interesting comparison of current Laker salaries vs Shaqs Laker salary that would have expired this year.

Brian Grant 14.5 million
Kwame Brown 7.5 mil
22 million

vs 25 million Shaqs Laker contract.

"But Shaq could have walked after this season with no one in return."

Oh i see, instead you have Brian Grants salary and Kwame Brown for not only this year but nexts!!!

Grant 15.5 mill in 2006-7
Kwame 8.5 and 9.0 in 07-08.

Still wanna make that trade?
 

[westkoast]

Um, this would make sense and all if the Lakers didn't use the player exception on Brian Grant to waive him.

He is not being paid by Pheonix and the Lakers at the same time.

[msc]

Jesus Christo! Isn't this topic older than dirt!?

Reality, it is clear to me why you like the Loose Cannons.  That show was tailor made for you.  Now you're counting salaries that weren't part of the initial trade?  I guess you can do that ... then you might as well throw in Laron Profits' salary in there as well.  He was part of the Kwame trade.

Look, we needed to make a change.  Shaq wasn't TRYING here anymore.  He phoned it in.  I realize that from an outside perspective many might not have realized this ... but those of us die-hards, who watch every game, see every rebound he doesn’t hustle for, see every time he’s a step slow to intimidate a shot, listen to every interview, day in and day out ... we all know that Shaq had phoned it in and once Jerry Buss told him he wouldn't extend at top dollar, Shaq DEMANDED a trade.  I may be in the minority on this board, but I still think it was the right move.  Really, we had no choice.  What are we going to do … not extend him?  Just to keep him here for an extra year as a lame duck while he’s unhappy.  He was totally unmotivated before, I shudder to think how fat he would have gotten had he been disgruntled.  And watching Shaq last night just reinforced my opinion.  It was funny to me how the announcers kept saying, "Miami really misses Alonzo's D", "They're getting killed out there in the paint without Alonzo's D presence"  All this while Shaq is on the floor!!   WTF, Shaq?  He has no D presence at all at this point in his career.  So much so that a 40 year old with a kidney transplant out-hustles his lazy arse up and down the court.  Heck, Kwame Brown practically shut down Yao two nights ago.  His D against Yao was a major reason for the Lakers convincing W.  If Shaq were out there for the Lakers, Yao probably would have dropped 30 on him and the Lakers would have lost.  Kwame might suck on O, but his D has been pretty solid in recent months.  I’m not saying that Kwame isn't a worthless piece, but his D is better than Shaqs this year, which is just plain sad.  

Obviously, we would have liked to get more in return for Shaq.  We ended up with Lamar Scrotum and two guys we traded for Kwame and Laron.  No, I'm not happy with the results of these guys, but we were forced to make a move by the “Big Lazy” and we did.  Let him mortgage another franchises future for the next 3-years, not ours.  I'd rather not win championships without Shaq, than not win championships with him.  

<This is an automatic reply>
 

[Reality]

Um, this would make sense and all if the Lakers didn't use the player exception on Brian Grant to waive him.

He is not being paid by Pheonix and the Lakers at the same time.

He most certainly is being paid by the Lakers to the tune of 14.5 million this year and 15.5 next year.
Also Phx 1.67 this year and zero next year.
Stop making crap up!!

This is the Reality of the rule and what pittance the Lakers did save:

The 2005 summer, each NBA team will have the option to waive one player from their roster for added luxury tax relief. This isn't a straight cut like in the NFL, however. The team is still responsible for that player's salary and the subsequent cap hit, but that player's salary won't count towards the team's taxable payroll. With the salary cap increasing by $4-6 million, many teams will see lower luxury tax bills.



 

[westkoast]

Um, this would make sense and all if the Lakers didn't use the player exception on Brian Grant to waive him.

He is not being paid by Pheonix and the Lakers at the same time.

He most certainly is being paid by the Lakers to the tune of 14.5 million this year and 15.5 next year.
Also Phx 1.67 this year and zero next year.
Stop making crap up!!

This is the Reality of the rule and what pittance the Lakers did save:

The 2005 summer, each NBA team will have the option to waive one player from their roster for added luxury tax relief. This isn't a straight cut like in the NFL, however. The team is still responsible for that player's salary and the subsequent cap hit, but that player's salary won't count towards the team's taxable payroll. With the salary cap increasing by $4-6 million, many teams will see lower luxury tax bills.

Even if I am wrong you are using a sticky hand to grasp onto something.  How are you including information from two seperate deals?

Shaq wasnt going to take a lowered salary with the Lakers so your attempt at making a point is null and void.  He would have been making 32 million +.

[Guest_Randy]

Reality,

The problem is that $25 mill ISN'T what Shaq was going to make with the Lakers -- he was DEMANDING the max and that would have put him around $35 mill a year (I actually think it was $33 a year).

Shaq took a lesser salary for his salary extension but also got more years by doing so.  This pays off for Miami if they can win a title -- if they don't win a title, Shaq binds them by his enormous salary (and I personally don't believe he will be able to play out his contract).  

Bottom line -- what difference does it make how deep into the playoffs you go if you KNOW you can't win a title?  I'm glad the Lakers traded Shaq (although I STILL think they should have gotten more for him).  Miami had ONE good year with Shaq -- that's more than the Lakers would of because Shaq WOULDN'T have been motivated to stay in shape.

Sure the Lakers could have been some teams -- but I don't think they could have ever won another title unless Shaq got into shape.

[Reality]

Look, we needed to make a change.  Shaq wasn't TRYING here anymore.  He phoned it in.  
 Really, we had no choice.  What are we going to do … not extend him?  Just to keep him here for an extra year as a lame duck while he’s unhappy.  He was totally unmotivated before, I shudder to think how fat he would have gotten had he been disgruntled.  <This is an automatic reply>

msc msc....

auto reply?  The presumption that Shaq would have sucked these last two years in LA is a pretty valid one.  However I am not convinced he would have sucked but will not and cannot argue the point.  You are the one and only Laker onboard to acknowledge the beatdown Ben Wallace gave him in 2004.  I will further that by Tim Dunkars working him a year ealier in 2003, altho they played to a standstill in 04.

Anywho, it must be stated that Miami was 60 seconds away from the Finals last year and even with last nights beat down Miami is 20-10 with the Big Lazy this year.

But lets move forward on this "old as dirt" topic.  Lets say he would have sucked or in reality been just okay on the Lakers these past two years.  Surely he would have gotten them into the 50s in wins and a 2nd round playoff appearance, no?

Okay lets even say he would have absolutely sucked.  No playoffs.  Same .500 record as Kobe and company.  While you and I do not believe that lets entertain it anyways.

His contract would expire.  Lakers would now have not only Shaqs 25 million gone, but cut out Lamar Scrotums salary (ouch that kind of hurt) since he would have not become a Purple n Golder.  Currently his 11 then 12 then 14 mill a year salary would have not have happened.  Lakers now enter 2006-7 season with 35+ million in salary space.  With 35 mill a season to spend in 2006 forwar, think they could add a player or two (or three or four?) to the greatest player ever to play the game, Kobe Bryant.

So whats better, entering 2006 on with Grants 15 mil salary, Lamar 12 and Kwame 8.  Or entering with 35 mill in salary cleared? [/size]

Plus, if i am GM i might even work out some kind of a favorable sign n trade for Shaq after this season as a Laker.  

[Reality]

Reality,

The problem is that $25 mill ISN'T what Shaq was going to make with the Lakers -- he was DEMANDING the max and that would have put him around $35 mill a year (I actually think it was $33 a year).

Randoph,

I knew you would come in with this.  Shaq was under contract to the Lakers.  Let him DEMAND all he wants.  Do you honesty think he would have refused to play and forfeited his 25 mil Laker salary last year and this.  I'm not so sure he doesnt come back more motivated to show the world it's his team and not Kobadiahs.

See my post above to msc.  So he had to go.  Beautiful.  
Shaqs Laker contract would have expired this year.

Repeat, what would be better, moving into 2006-7 with 35 mil salary space or as they are at present with Odor, Grants 15 mil salary and Kwame?  

 

[westkoast]

"You are the one and only Laker onboard to acknowledge the beatdown Ben Wallace gave him in 2004."

LOL, Randy says this every single time Shaq is brought up.  What the hell are you talking about.

Shaq's contract expires and then what?  You dont pay him what he wants and you are left with no Shaq and no Kobe with a bunch of role players.  Makes alot of sense........in Realityville.

[Reality]

"You are the one and only Laker onboard to acknowledge the beatdown Ben Wallace gave him in 2004."

LOL, Randy says this every single time Shaq is brought up.  What the hell are you talking about.

Shaq's contract expires and then what?  You dont pay him what he wants and you are left with no Shaq and no Kobe with a bunch of role players.  Makes alot of sense........in Realityville.

Could you go and play while the adults are talking about his?
I want to have a converstion with msc.  You can join in once you have the slightest bit of knowledge as to what we are talking about.

No Kobe?  I would have signed Kobe and kept Shaq.  Now, since Kobee was a FA and could have refused the Lakers 125 million offer since it meant staying with Shaq, then perhaps no Kobee.  In fact that is what all indications are occured.  However, your beloved Kobe says he never said anything about wanting Shaq out.  Anything at all.  Are we to believe Kobe Bryant.  Your Kobe Bryant?   If I am to take Kobe at his word as truthful, I would have still shot for Kobe and Shaq.  Or as many have supported, sign Shaq and if Kobee refuses to get on board then hasta la vista Kobe.  Lots of players would have gotton on board with Shaq/Staples and the media coverage of LaLa Land.

2006 onward with no Kobee and Shaq and Lamar?  Yeah thats a real problem.  55 million a year to spend on rebuilding the Lakers.  Who is available this summer via FA, trade or draft.  Got 55 to go shopping.

[westkoast]

Could you go and play while the adults are talking about his?
I want to have a converstion with msc. You can join in once you have the slightest bit of knowledge as to what we are talking about.

What are you going to do while the adults are talking?  Make some juice?

Slightest bit of knowledge?  You cutting and pasting two seperate deals and assuming that Shaq would be making 25 million with the Lakers.  Maybe once you make some sense, instead of grasping at straws from all over ill join in.  You are acting as if you are on to something when you are not.

No Kobe? I would have signed Kobe and kept Shaq. Now, since Kobee was a FA and could have refused the Lakers 125 million offer since it meant staying with Shaq, then perhaps no Kobee. In fact that is what all indications are occured. However, your beloved Kobe says he never said anything about wanting Shaq out. Anything at all. Are we to believe Kobe Bryant. Your Kobe Bryant? If I am to take Kobe at his word as truthful, I would have still shot for Kobe and Shaq.

Can you join in once you have the slightest idea of what was going on?  Shaq was not going to re-sign if Kobe was there and if Phil wasnt there.  Phil did not get the money he wanted so he was leaving anyways.   On top of that the Lakers would not have been able to afford to pay Shaq 33 million and then give Kobe the max without hurting the team for years and years.

2006 onward with no Kobee and Shaq and Lamar? Yeah thats a real problem. 55 million a year to spend on rebuilding the Lakers. Who is available this summer via FA, trade or draft. Got 55 to go shopping

Why dont you enlighten us on what players the Lakers would sign Reality.  See you need a star to build a team around and all of them are locked up.  Could you join in once you have the slightest idea of whats going on?

[Guest_Randy]

Look, we needed to make a change.  Shaq wasn't TRYING here anymore.  He phoned it in. 
 Really, we had no choice.  What are we going to do … not extend him?  Just to keep him here for an extra year as a lame duck while he’s unhappy.  He was totally unmotivated before, I shudder to think how fat he would have gotten had he been disgruntled.  <This is an automatic reply>

msc msc....

auto reply?  The presumption that Shaq would have sucked these last two years in LA is a pretty valid one.  However I am not convinced he would have sucked but will not and cannot argue the point.  You are the one and only Laker onboard to acknowledge the beatdown Ben Wallace gave him in 2004.  I will further that by Tim Dunkars working him a year ealier in 2003, altho they played to a standstill in 04.

Anywho, it must be stated that Miami was 60 seconds away from the Finals last year and even with last nights beat down Miami is 20-10 with the Big Lazy this year.

But lets move forward on this "old as dirt" topic.  Lets say he would have sucked or in reality been just okay on the Lakers these past two years.  Surely he would have gotten them into the 50s in wins and a 2nd round playoff appearance, no?

Okay lets even say he would have absolutely sucked.  No playoffs.  Same .500 record as Kobe and company.  While you and I do not believe that lets entertain it anyways.

His contract would expire.  Lakers would now have not only Shaqs 25 million gone, but cut out Lamar Scrotums salary (ouch that kind of hurt) since he would have not become a Purple n Golder.  Currently his 11 then 12 then 14 mill a year salary would have not have happened.  Lakers now enter 2006-7 season with 35+ million in salary space.  With 35 mill a season to spend in 2006 forwar, think they could add a player or two (or three or four?) to the greatest player ever to play the game, Kobe Bryant.

So whats better, entering 2006 on with Grants 15 mil salary, Lamar 12 and Kwame 8.  Or entering with 35 mill in salary cleared? [/size]

Plus, if i am GM i might even work out some kind of a favorable sign n trade for Shaq after this season as a Laker.

Here we go again with your selective choice about what to remember and what to forget.

I have made the comment too many times that Shaq got KILLED by Big Ben and the used his quickness to make Shaq look like a fat, lazy, overpaid has-been.

I've ALSO stated that it was a HUGE mistake to sign Kwame Brown -- ESP. for a lot more than he was worth.

Besides, this year was a player option for Shaq -- you have to weigh that risk.  Would he walked away?  With Shaq's ego, it's always possible.

Brian Grant's salary doesn't count against the cap even though the Lakers have to pay his salary next year.  Buss HAS the money to pay Grant's salary -- the Lakers are a cash cow!

[Lurker]

I've got it.  We are playing the what if game.

Here's one for Reality....

What if the Spurs had signed Kidd for the max two summers ago?  Then they would have had no money to sign Parker & Ginobili to their contracts.  Would the Spurs still be considered defending champs?  Or would they be on their way to #4 since Fisher's 0.4 prayer wouldn't have been necessary?  Would you be better off with a deteriorating Kidd going forward or two younger and still improving players?

[Reality]

I've got it.  We are playing the what if game.

Here's one for Reality....

What if the Spurs had signed Kidd for the max two summers ago?  Then they would have had no money to sign Parker & Ginobili to their contracts.  Would the Spurs still be considered defending champs?  Or would they be on their way to #4 since Fisher's 0.4 prayer wouldn't have been necessary?  Would you be better off with a deteriorating Kidd going forward or two younger and still improving players?

$150 an hour each from you, Randy and westkoast to entertain that and all the spin off questions.

Short answer, same now as then.  Tell Jouana Kidd to jam it.

[westkoast]

I've got it.  We are playing the what if game.

Here's one for Reality....

What if the Spurs had signed Kidd for the max two summers ago?  Then they would have had no money to sign Parker & Ginobili to their contracts.  Would the Spurs still be considered defending champs?  Or would they be on their way to #4 since Fisher's 0.4 prayer wouldn't have been necessary?  Would you be better off with a deteriorating Kidd going forward or two younger and still improving players?

$150 an hour each from you, Randy and westkoast to entertain that and all the spin off questions.

Short answer, same now as then.  Tell Jouana Kidd to jam it.

If I use Reality-logic I can do it for more than a few hours...

What if Tony Parker's current salary and Sean Elliots salary from 10 years ago were still  coming out of the Spurs payroll?  They would have soooo much money to sign all the top notch FA in market after this season.