Los Angeles Lakers: Time To Say Goodbye To Kobe Bryant? (Part 3)

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the third and final installment of a three-part series discussing why the Los Angeles Lakers should have entertained the idea of using their amnesty exemption on Kobe Bryant.

If you’re just now tuning in, make sure to check out part one (here) and part two (here).

In the part three, we will be covering how the fans would have reacted had L.A. amnestied Kobe, and what not amnestying Kobe means for the future of the Lakers.

Think About The Fans!

After watching the Brooklyn Nets introduce Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett in a press conference that could have easily been confused for a funeral, I absolutely understand the sentiment that it’s incredibly difficult to let a team legend walk away.

Since July 1, 1996, when he was just 17 years old, Kobe Bryant has bled purple-and-gold.

Five championships, 15 All-Star Games, two Finals MVPs and one MVP later that 17-year-old boy is now a 34-year-old Laker legend. With that, Kobe has engendered seemingly one of the strongest fan bases of any NBA player.

Surely L.A. fans would protest had Kobe been let go. But would their anger result in a significant decrease in revenue for the Lakers?

Andres Alvarez argues that the Lakers have been through a similar situation in 2004, when Shaquille O’Neal was run out of L.A. by Kobe, Phil Jackson didn’t return as head coach and the Lakers lost 22 more games the following season. His point, using data from Forbes, is that although the Lakers lost around $14 million that season[1], their payroll also went down because they did not have to re-sign O’Neal (who ended up signing a five-year, $100 million deal with the Miami Heat).

When you consider that the Lakers would have been off the hook for $58.3 million over two years had they amnestied Kobe (in the sense that it would not have counted towards their luxury tax payment or salary cap in 2013, and they would not have been over the tax threshold in 2014), it’s possible that the Lakers would not have actually end up in the red when you look at the bigger picture.

Lakers fans were, no doubt, upset when Shaq left L.A. and for basketball reasons it made sense that Los Angeles chose to appease Kobe, who was just 24 years old at the time. If Kobe had been amnestied, Lakers fans would have been very vocal in speaking out against the front office.

But would they cancel their season tickets and refuse to spend money on them in the future? I find that hard to believe.

Since the 1999-2000 season, the Lakers’ average attendance has never dropped below 18,000, despite trading Shaq and a three-season stretch where they missed the playoffs and loss in the first round in two consecutive years.

At the end of the day, as die-hard of a Kobe fan that one might be, winning is what matters most to the fan base. Releasing Kobe may have disheartened his supporters, but I’m not so convinced that Lakers fans would have jumped ship had Kobe been amnestied.

Furthermore, since when has loyalty to its employees (players and coaches) been the modus operandi for the Lakers front office? Where was the loyalty to Pau Gasol, who after helping Kobe win his fifth ring, was suddenly an expendable asset in the Lakers quest to acquire a top-tier point guard?

And what about Phil Jackson? The Lakers management didn’t even give him the chance to accept their offer, which he was reportedly willing to do, before hiring Mike D’Antoni, who finished his first season as the Lakers head coach by calling Kobe Bryant a “fan.”

Fans would have been upset; they would have criticized the people in charge for quite some time and Jim Buss may not be able to leave his house for a while. Even with that, I don’t think that the financial impact on the Lakers would be as drastic as one might believe it to be.

Had Kobe been amnestied, he would have still gone down as a Laker legend and if amnestying Kobe would have helped the Lakers rebuild, once the Lakers started winning again, the season-ticket holders that might have left would have again resurfaced.

Kobe Cripples Future Rebuilding

No pun intended.

ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne released a report earlier in the week declaring that the Lakers have set their sights on bringing LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony to L.A. next season. Since Lakers fans have apparently forgotten that in just a few months they will be expected to come out and support their team, however difficult that may be, this story has garnered quite a lot of attention.

These rumors are well and good and if it helps Laker Nation get through next season, great, but, ultimately, the rumors are just that.

Rumors.

And, per Jared Dubin of Grantland, they’re incredibly far-fetched rumors.

Dubin outlines seven different potential scenarios for the Lakers next offseason and his conclusion about the possibility of LeBron and Melo teaming up with Kobe next season is basically:

“LOL”

Even though the books are technically cleared for L.A. next season, there are these things called cap holds, which make it so the Lakers won’t actually have any cap space when free agency starts on July 1, 2014.

Larry Coon explains that a cap hold is a placeholder for players the team is expected to sign and they are added to the books as a percentage of the previous salary of every free agent the team does not renounce.

In one scenario outlined by Dubin, the Lakers renounce every free-agent except for Kobe, but Kobe doesn’t take a pay cut, as he claimed he would not in an interview with Serena Winters.

To quote Kobe,

“I’m not taking any at all – that’s the negotiation that you have to have…For me to sit here and say, ‘Oh yeah, I’m just going to take a huge pay cut. Nah, I’m going to try to get as much as I possibly can.”

If Kobe doesn’t take a pay cut next season, his salary for 2014-15 would start at $31,976,495, which would leave the Lakers would about $14.5 million in cap space (if you assume Nash is still on the books and factor in the money they will owe their draft pick). You know what $14.5 million will buy you?

If you answered, “Not LeBron or Melo,” you’d be correct.

But what if Kobe understood, as we now do, that he isn’t worth anything near $31 million, and decided he’d return for a mere $20 million? In this situation, the Lakers would have enough cap space to sign one max player, with a little pocket change left over.

The most extreme scenario, where the Lakers would actually be able to offer LeBron and Melo max deals, is unfortunately the most improbable of all the situations.

Want to know what would really have to happen for the Lakers to be able to offer LeBron and Carmelo full maximum contracts?

If the Lakers can somehow drug Kobe and get him to sign a contract with a starting salary of … $4.95 million, then, and only then, will the Lakers be able to afford bringing both LeBron and Carmelo to sunny Los Angeles.

Here’s how I imagine that meeting with Kobe going.

General manager Mitch Kupchak: “Hey Kobe, we know how important winning that sixth ring is to you and we think we’ve come up with a way to make it happen.”

Kobe: “Awesome, let’s hear it.”

Kupchak: “We’ve been in contact with LeBron and Melo’s people and they’re willing to come play for us. All that they want is the max contract. If we give them that, they’re on board.”

Kobe: “Man, that’s great news. I’m really glad to hear you and Jimmy B. are willing to spend a little extra money on me, BronBron and Melo in order to bring one more title to this team.”

Kupchak: “Well, you see, here’s the thing. We’re gonna need you to take a little pay cut for this to fall into place.”

Kobe: “Pay cut? I don’t know about that Mitch, my man, but lay it out for me, I’m listening.”

Kupchak: “Okay, so to make this work, you’d need to agree to making $4…”

Kobe: “Nope. And if you ever even suggest something like that ever again, you’re fired.”

Kupchak: “Uh you can’t fi…”

*Kobe stands up and limps off while Kupchak sits in his chair, speechless *

One thing everyone knows about Kobe is that from Day 1 he’s been one of the most confident players in the league and has historically been unwilling to take less than what he feels he deserved. From telling L.A. he would leave if they kept Shaq to the patronizing message he had for Dwight Howard in their pitch to him, Kobe has shown that he’s not one to back down.

If the Lakers had decided to amnesty Kobe, this situation could have been avoided entirely. They wouldn’t have to convince him to take pay cut and he wouldn’t scare free agents away because they dislike his confidence and unwillingness to cede control. Perhaps Kobe’s attitude will change if the players in question are LeBron and Melo and not Dwight Howard. Maybe he will be more willing to play a secondary role then, but everything I’ve ever seen from Kobe makes it very hard for me to accept that will be the case.

Here’s the bottom line.

All this is purely hypothetical because the Lakers have already used their amnesty clause on Metta World Peace. Kobe Bryant has had a historic career with the Lakers and will go down in history as one of the best players to ever step foot on the court. The purpose of my argument is not at all to diminish what Kobe has done; rather, my intention has merely been to show that the argument for amnestying Kobe is stronger than one might have initially thought.

I wish Kobe the very best and I look forward to when he returns next season because we will finally be given the chance to see if he can silence the critics.

[1] $17 million in today’s dollars, once you account for inflation.