LABron James Discussion: Personal Time

I actually agree completely. I think it'd be a smart move for him and for the Cavs.

 

It's 100% easier to schedule an event in a city when you're actually in that city. Ask Shaq how many more endorsements he got in Los Angeles than Orlando. Ask Magic how many businesses he's got in LA. Ask Kobe how things are going with his entertainment company. Not to mention, there are numerous rumors that LeBron and his wife would like their kids to be raised in LA.

Not to mention, do you really think LeBron's brand isn't helped by the Lakers and vice versa? There's no better brand in basketball to attach your name to. You don't think LeBron's jersey sales worldwide go up with a Laker jersey on? You don't think he sells more shoes with the worldwide Laker fan base? The Lakers were Top 5 in merchandise this year with D'Angelo Russell as their headliner, where do they land with LeBron and Paul George and Lonzo Ball?

Kevin Durant literally just did it this summer. I'm not saying they will do this, but they should. It's not just the smart move to improve the team in the moment, but you have absolute proof that the team will look after you in the next contract so you know you're not going to get Dwayne Wade-d and keep giving up money forever. I understand that's not what they're likely to do, but they should. The money they give up will be made up for easily and quickly in Los Angeles.

I'm not asking them to do it if I'm Rob Pelinka, I'm just putting the offer on the table. If you take less, we get to keep (or get) these guys. If they're unwilling to sacrifice the money, that's fine. We can still easily clear the cap space to get both of them and we'll just have to figure out something else. LeBron has been taking 1 year deals since he got back to Cleveland anyway. It's not outlandish to consider the possibility and it's at least worth presenting to them. Would they rather we scoop up a stiff at the minimum to play Center or would they be willing to give up a little bit to keep an All-Star caliber Center on the team?

I agree with all of this. It doesn't impact my opinion on what the Lakers can do or what LeBron/George/whomever should do.

I agree with most of this. It doesn't change what I said should happen.

 

More endorsements in Orlando is still less endorsements than LA. LeBron is one of the extreme few exceptions to the rule, but again: do you really think his brand doesn't benefit from a Laker union? You honestly think he wouldn't make a ridiculous amount more money in a Laker uniform than any other uniform? You're mistaken. The Lakers were 6th in merchandise sales without any stars. The brand carries enormous world wide power. Curry, Klay, and Kyrie are finally tapping into the Chinese market, but none of them are received like Kobe. You don't think Kobe benefited from playing in Los Angeles as opposed to Cleveland? Or Indianapolis? Or Houston? LeBron may be an outlier and it's true that he can and will make preposterous money almost no matter where he goes (I have my doubts about Charlotte...), but that doesn't mean being in Los Angeles doesn't help. I think that bothers me more than the opposite. The idea that being in Los Angeles doesn't help you diversify your business holding is in itself ridiculous. If that were true, then why do the vast majority of athletes have houses out here? If that were true why does the city continue to grow and expand? If it's no better than Oklahoma City or Cleveland, why would athletes continue to pour into the city despite its strenuous and restrictive taxes? LA is opportunity in the same way that New York is opportunity.

For what it's worth: Shaq had one movie prior to coming to the Lakers, a crappy basketball movie that all popular NBA players are offered. It did poorly. Upon coming to LA he was in two movies in two years and had a recurring part on a tv show. Out of Shaq's 11 year career outside a Laker jersey he was in two projects. In a Laker jersey, Shaq was in eight projects (not counting a Laker championship "movie" about the 2000 run).

I'll also put it this way: if all things are equal (and for LeBron they are), why would you ever choose Houston, Cleveland, Orlando, Oklahoma, Detroit over Los Angeles? If the product on the court is similar (assuming we get another max guy), and he's going to make money no matter what, why would he choose to live in one of those cities instead of Los Angeles? We agree that LeBron will make boat loads of money no matter what, so the difference is: stay in Cleveland or come to Los Angeles. What would you do?

If you don't believe it would behoove him to be in Los Angeles to help that entertainment business, I don't know what to tell you. All the movie executives are out here. All the studio homes are here. All the connections he needs are here. It's part of why he has a house in Los Angeles. Being here full time helps his cause. I don't see how that's even debatable. Just because he can make it work from a distance, doesn't mean it's an ideal process. There's a reason actors and executives live out here and not everywhere else.

It's apples and oranges comparing a player to a team in terms of appeal. Can you honestly say that you don't believe that the Laker brand helps LeBron's brand and vice versa? There's varying degrees of who benefits more, but the marriage is one both sides would absolutely love. If you look at the same 3-5-10 year timeline, where do the Lakers end up on the team side of things? I guarantee you they're in the top 10. They're probably 1st, but I'd be shocked if they're worse than 5th in that time frame.

Because the discount he takes in LA is 10 million dollars. The discount he takes in Houston is 30 million dollars with a tougher path to make up that kind of money. Houston has no way to add Carmelo with Chris Paul and Harden without Paul, Carmelo, and LeBron taking massive pay cuts because of the contract that Harden just signed.

Let's say that Houston finds a way to turn Ryan Anderson and Eric Gordon into Carmelo Anthony (as tall an order as us moving Deng). If Houston gives up all their non-guaranteed deals, rejects some of their team options, AND waives their Bird Rights to Paul and Carmelo they'd STILL have over 55 million on the books going into next summer. That means LeBron, Paul, and Carmelo are splitting less than 50 million dollars. By the way that's assuming someone doesn't give Clint Capela an enormous offer sheet which would screw Houston's cap flexibility.

So who among LeBron, Wade, Carmelo, and Paul is taking the fall? Are they all playing for 12 million each while Harden makes 30 million, going up to 37 million the next season? Didn't you say pride is a factor? In LA, all I'm asking for is a pay-cut in order to help facilitate some talent that fits around LeBron. I'm also giving the *wink*wink* and he knows that after we've got his Bird Rights, he's getting as much money as we're legally allowed to pay him, as is whoever else we signed to short-term deals. In Houston he's giving up more than half his contract to play with his friends? Is Harden, Paul, LeBron, Carmelo, and Wade even a fit?

What I'm asking is far more reasonable than that.

 

Well Cleveland will not trade LeBron. If they would, they would do it right now, but LeBron has said he will not waive his NTC no matter what. I believe he's going to purposely tank the Cavs so accepting a sign and trade probably doesn't fit his desires anyway. I think the trade for LeBron is crazier than Paul by a solid margin. I don't think the Cavs get anything for LeBron. I don't think the Rockets make the Carmelo deal easily either. I don't see any reason they could dump Anderson and Ariza without also sending out a pick or two. This is the exact scenario in which I think the Lakers are going to get screwed with Deng: why would anyone help them facilitate that without getting a ton back?

 

Great post and breakdown

 

I don't understand how you don't think he would make more money. He's making a lot now, he'd make more with the Lakers. I don't see how it's debatable or how you can disagree with that. It's a fact. The Lakers make more money than any other team. The most marketable player on the team with the greatest market means both sides making more money. If he makes 300 million off of shoes in Cleveland, he's making more than 300 million off of shoes in LA. It's just a fact. Can you explain how I'm mistaken?

Why wouldn't it? He's closer to his businesses and his engagements. Even if Maverick Carter is running things, it's still LeBron's money and it's still LeBron's investments. How does being closer to the action not factor in? How does being closer to the action not help the situation? If it's not important to be closer to the action, why does everyone who is invested in LA live out here? I think the difference is you don't think it moves the needle enough, but even if it moves the needle a little bit, isn't that part of the tapestry of attraction to LA? Not only is he closer to the media hub he wants to be a part of, but the basketball product is similar, he's attached to a better brand, his kids and family live in a better area and city, and he's away from a bumbling owner/franchise that hold him and his narrative back. It's all connected and trying to dismiss the effectiveness of living in LA is trying to diminish an incontrovertible truth: It's better to be a rich person in LA than it is to be a rich person in Cleveland. There's a reason players live out here and if the Lakers had been competent and competitive, more players would be willing to play in Los Angeles, that is a fact.

I've been on the WB lot, it's alright. I like their Friends themed coffee shop, but it's usually filled with tourists. I've got a couple friends over there and my wife's family is in the industry. WB is okay, but they're not exactly sparkling right now. Not as bad as Paramount though.

And again: how can you not think that he would benefit from being in those meetings? How can you not see the benefit of being around more? If he wants to be present in movies, he needs to be here. I've provided concrete evidence of that with Shaq. If LeBron wants to be in Space Jam, it's a hell of a lot better for him to be in Los Angeles than it is for him to be in Cleveland. If he wants to know what's going on in his meetings, it's better to be there than it is to not be. I don't understand the disconnect on why you think that's not important or doesn't have any factor at all. That makes no sense to me. If you're invested in something, don't you want to be there to see how things are going? Even if you trust your adviser with your life, you want to be there just to see how things are operating and give your insight. Again: if being in LA wasn't important in the entertainment industry then why is everyone in the entertainment industry out here?

I understand all that. LeBron has been to 7 straight Finals and won one in the last two years. Kyrie, Klay, and Curry have been to 3 straight Finals and won two in the last three years (Kyrie one obviously). They don't have the same following Kobe did/does. Again: I'm not sure where there's a disconnect between us where you don't see how LA is more marketable than Cleveland. Even if it's not a 2:1 factor, there's no way LeBron fails to make less money as a Laker than a Cavalier. Or do you think it's a nominal amount more that he'd make? Do you think it's not worth the move? Do you think he'd make more money in Houston than Los Angeles? I just don't see it.

And on three day breaks? Maybe a day before practice? Maybe after a noon game? He's going to be in the city which lets him invest the way he wants to invest.

Why would players come here if the product is awful? That hurts their brand. What I said was: if all things are equal on the court then players would rather be in Los Angeles than Cleveland, Oklahoma, and Indiana. If you can bring another star with you and the kids we have shine, why would you stay in Cleveland or Oklahoma for a similar basketball product, when you can be in Los Angeles? You can ignore facts if you want, but I've provided plenty while you've given anecdotal evidence. Durant, Curry, and Harden are doing great. You don't think they'd do better in Los Angeles? Kobe sure did. Shaq sure did. Magic sure did. You can talk about the walls breaking down if you want, then why are the Lakers still one of the best selling basketball brands in the world? Why do we have the largest fan base around the country? You don't think that helps sell shoes? You don't think that helps sell jerseys? You don't think Los Angeles has more opportunities than Oakland or Houston? Sure they can do great in those cities. They can do better here. If you're making 200 million in Houston, you can make 350 in Los Angeles and if the teams are equal, tell me why they wouldn't choose Los Angeles. All you've done is tell me that they are going to make a lot of money regardless, well all that does is support my theory: then why not give up a bit of money to play here?

Besides, you're using LeBron as a crutch in the argument. You don't think Paul George could use the larger market to make his brand better? Did you know he's got his own Nikes? I didn't even know he had a shoe. Guess where his shoes would sell like hotcakes? Hell a hyped up rookie is selling half a million dollars worth of shoes in a couple months and he hasn't played a game in a Laker uniform yet. Please continue to tell me how the Laker brand isn't worth anything to these players.

Boom. Argument over then.

I don't think he cares about his friends in Cleveland or how people view him if he leaves. You know why? He creates the narrative. Gilbert is one of the worst owners in all of sports who lucked his way to three #1 picks in four years and a #4 pick as well. This gave him the leverage to make a great team which convinced LeBron to come back against all odds (LeBron has openly shown his dislike for Gilbert even recently). LeBron already left Cleveland once, which hurt the city's feelings so he's not worried about the fans. He left his best friends in Miami to go back to Cleveland, so I'm not convinced he cares what his friends think either. LeBron didn't even tell Wade he was leaving and he actually screwed Wade out of some money because of it.

You're right: we're not convincing LeBron to come here with business opportunities. We're convincing him to come here with Lonzo, with Ingram, with maybe Lopez, with room for Paul George, with his Klutch teammate Caldwell-Pope, and with opportunities off the court that are unrivaled anywhere besides New York City. Champions and legends in Los Angeles live on in basketball greater than any other city in the sport. I'm not soured on the appeal of Los Angeles just because Jim and Mitch are the worst sales team in the history of the world. Los Angeles has the most to offer and we have the living proof of it running our basketball organization right now.

Again: LeBron is going to take 15 million to play with those guys? He's going to take less than half of Harden's salary? That's an enormous pay cut! @abeer3 at least found a way to make a long-shot trade that fits, but you're telling LeBron to take 15 million or less to play with that team? Is Wade taking the room exception?

I'm not scoffing at the team, I'm scoffing at the idea that my scenario of asking LeBron to shave off a small amount of salary is equal to asking him to give up 20-30 million dollars. I mean s*** if he's willing to take 15 million, then he can bring the whole banana boat over to Los Angeles. If we waive our Bird Rights to Julius, Pope, and Lopez, stretch Deng, reject our team option on Bryant, waive Ennis, and then trade Clarkson for a 2nd round pick (all of which is not terribly difficult) we would have just under 32 million (after cap holds) on the books. That leaves us with a whopping 70 million to spend. Paul, Carmelo, Wade, and LeBron can come get even more money over here. Split 4 ways, that's 17.5 million dollars. Sure you don't get James Harden, but you've got Lonzo and Ingram who don't need the ball as much so you get to have it more. So now you've got all your friends and you're in a better city. Or hell, take the same amount you'd have taken if you were willing to play in Houston (12.25 million) and use the 20 million dollar savings to bring in more guys! Let's bring back KCP and Lopez for 10 million each if we're all settling for way less than we expected.

Lonzo/Wade
Paul/KCP
LeBron/Ingram
Carmelo/Nance/Kuzma
Lopez/Zubac

Why wouldn't they do that if they're all willing to play for the small salary you're talking about? That team is every bit as competitive as the one you built in Houston because of their depth at every position. After that you can re-sign guys like Ennis and Bryant to minimum deals. Boom we're in business.

I've already built out how to beat this and it's sacrificing a hell of a lot of money. LeBron goes from 34 million to 18 million (I'm asking for at worst 25 million) and yes he's going to make less money in Houston than he would in LA. But again: if they're all willing to settle for that much less than they're worth, then they should come to LA where they can do even more. Why not? The team I built is far deeper than the one they can have in Houston after Harden signed that ridiculous deal.

Also of note: if the Rockets thought there was a chance of that super team forming for them, they wouldn't put their team up for sale now. They'd wait until that deal went through, but the Rockets know they're unlikely to ever be as valuable as they are right now.