Should the Lakers part ways with Pau Gasol?

With the “disappointing” — and by disappointing, I mean completely predictable — end to the Lakers season, there’s a question: Do the Lakers need to break up Pau and Kobe? Such a thought brings up memories of the original Shaq and Kobe split. While this blog may have a slightly negative Kobe tone, we did side with Kobe in 2004. If you dust off your copy of Wages of Wins, you can reminded of the following facts:

Kobe and Shaq were both very good players
Their last season together Kobe was close to overtaking Shaq’s production
Much of this had to do with the fact the Shaq had gotten old
Additionally Shaq had a market value of near $20 million a season

Now, here’s the interesting part about Shaq’s last season on the Lakers, he was 31 years old! This is now true of Pau Gasol! Let’s take a quick examination of Pau’s career, using the numbers from the NBA Geek:

Season	Team	Games	Minutes	WP48	Wins Produced
2001-2002	Memphis	82	3007	0.214	13.4
2002-2003	Memphis	82	2948	0.122	7.5
2003-2004	Memphis	78	2458	0.129	6.6
2004-2005	Memphis	56	1790	0.185	6.9
2005-2006	Memphis	80	3135	0.184	12.0
2006-2007	Memphis	59	2133	0.167	7.4
2007-2008	Memphis-L.A. Lakers	66	2351	0.159	7.8
2008-2009	L.A. Lakers	81	2999	0.234	14.6
2009-2010	L.A. Lakers	65	2403	0.264	13.2
2010-2011	L.A. Lakers	82	3041	0.265	16.8
2011-2012	L.A. Lakers	65	2430	0.142	7.2

Pau put up some of his best seasons when the Lakers made their trips to the finals. He in fact hit his top season two seasons ago. It’s possible playing with Kobe helped this. Another theory from Stumbling on Wins is that playing under the Zen-Master Phil Jackson was a key component. That said, Pau will be 32 next season, the age when most players start to fall apart. He has two seasons left on his contract worth almost $40 million. Worse still, he showed the starting signs of decline this season.

Now simply dumping Pau’s contract is not advisable. He’s still a good big and there is value there. However, if a good trade comes along for him, they should definitely take it. The second part of this though is if this is Pau vs. Kobe. It’s not. Kobe’s contract is even worse and every single thing that applies to Pau is even worse for Kobe. Kobe may still have trade value but his contract means the Lakers would need to take nearly $30 million in contracts back. It is unlikely any team with $30 million in good contracts wants to spend them on Kobe. The suggestion here is one Patrick Minton has had for a while: Amnesty Kobe! Some team will pick up some of the salary, and it will free up tons of cap space and also save some on the cap hit the Lakers currently incur.

Here is my advice for the Lakers

Trade Pau if there is a decent option
Amnesty Kobe
Pick up Bynum’s option
Don’t make any other dumb signings like Steve Blake, Metta World Peace or Derek Fisher

This could leave the Lakers in a decent spot going forward. Of course, doing this would mean admitting that when it comes to Pau vs. Kobe the real answer is neither!

-Dre

30 Responses to "Should the Lakers part ways with Pau Gasol?"

TundraGator says:

May 24, 2012 at 6:31 am

I understand the recent wave of amnesty Kobe talk from a salary cap perspective but people need to remember that the NBA is a business. Yes, the fans want the best team possible but the owner wants to make as much as possible. Kobe and Lebron are in their own stratosphere for drawing money (talking money, not production). Last year Jerry Buss said (was reported to have said) that Kobe is worth $70 million a year to the Lakers. Paying him less than half his value (for on court production and revenue production) seems like a pretty good deal.
What people fail to account for is that stats are great for evaluating but there’s a reason people don’t pay to watch engineers work. Look at the Spurs. They’re the perfect team and their Finals appearances are consistently some of the worst rated in NBA history. People pay to watch “exciting” players, guys that overcome stupid decisions to score anyway in spectacular fashion.
Chris Yeh says:

May 24, 2012 at 8:54 am

Despite his decline, Kobe is still too popular in LA to be amnestied. Jim Buss would be crucified for ditching Kobe in favor of his “pet” Bynum. As a Laker fan, I’m afraid this means I’ll have to be content with 16 championships for now.

Given Kobe’s obssession with his legacy, he understands that he needs to a) stay a Laker for life, b) win 6 or 7 championships, c) pass Kareem’s scoring record. The problem is that c) conflicts with b), which makes it harder for him to achieve a).

The best case scenario is that Kobe accepts demotion to Reggie Miller/Ray Allen status–elder statesman, dangerous weapon, but no longer a primary option.
motherwell says:

May 24, 2012 at 9:28 am

I don’t think you know how revenue works in the NBA, TundraGator. Lets go through your inferences:

1. AFAIK, TV revenue is shared, meaning Kobe is worth zero extra dollars to the Lakers there. Maybe to the NBA as a whole, but zero to the Lakers.

2. Gate receipts are based on winning – see WoW for evidence. Losing Kobe would hurt not terribly much there if the Lakers keep Gasol and Bynum, and can sign a MLE FA to replace Kobe.

3. Jersey sales – AFAIK, In the NBA, unlike the NFL, the money made from jersey sales and other licensed products has been shared equally since the 1995 group licensing agreement was put together by the union.

So where is that $70 million figure coming from? I wonder if it is literal or a theory value.
jbrett says:

May 24, 2012 at 10:27 am

IF Kobe would waive his no-trade, which he won’t, maybe Brooklyn. DWill and Wallace would have to opt in, of course, but LA could get great value, and better potential value, and Mikhail would get star power, for what it’s worth. Since that won’t happen, amnesty him; enraged, he’ll go across the hall and ruin the Clippers’ chemistry.
Everyone says Philly wants to move Iguodala; surely they’d take Pau for AI and Vucevic. GS is moving on from Biedrins; would they take Blake and Metta?
Bynum, Biedrins, Vucevic, Hill, McRoberts, Iguodala, Ebanks, Barnes, Sessions. Eyenga and Goudelock have contracts; that’s 11. Potential signings–Ersan Ilyasova (or Kris Humphries), Dominic McGuire, Gerald Green. STEVE NASH. MIKE D’ANTONI. SHOWTIME!
One year later, CP3 will be available, if Kobe hasn’t driven him to drink, or suicide; hopefully there are enough expiring contracts to finally thwart Bowie Stern’s meddling.
Excuse me, I need to go in the bathroom and ‘think’ about that for a while.
TheNBAGeek says:

May 24, 2012 at 11:00 am

TundraGator,

They should amnesty Kobe precisely because the NBA is a business.

I find it ironic that nobody really gave Jerry Krause much flak when he let Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman walk to ‘rebuild’ after 1998, but when I brought up Amnestying Kobe everybody thought I was crazy.

Crazy is paying a 35-year old chucker $30 million in a league where you can sign Chris Paul AND Dwight Howard (both in their primes) for around $35-$40 million, depending on whether either takes a pay cut like LeBron did.
Andres Alvarez says:

May 24, 2012 at 11:16 am

On Kobe being valuable and Buss not being able to ship him out. Kobe himself is proof that winning is the cure all. I mean in 2004 he had rape allegations, chased out Shaq and Phil and they missed the 2005 playoffs. He was demanding trades to Chicago if you don’t recall. He went from MVP candidate to hated. Wait four years when he gets Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum and suddenly he wins an MVP, two Finals MVP and is apparently a cornerstone of the franchise?

As Patrick points out, the NBA is a business. If Buss is going to listen to his loud fans that want moves that will cause him to lose then he deserves to fail. Look at the Clippers. They have one of the worst and most hated owners in sports. Give them a star and win some games and they jump from middle of the road attendance (thanks to a large market) to just 10K below the Lakers.
TundraGator says:

May 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Motherwell, you would do better to check before you attempt to tell me I don’t know how revenue works in the NBA. Revenue sharing in the NBA (under the new CBA) is based on a specific percent of each team’s revenue (the percent is based on the percentage of league-wide revenues that go to player salaries); info from cbafaq.com, #24. This means that, if Forbes is correct, the $200m/year avg revenue for the lakers from their new TV deal will be reduced by about half. That still leaves $100 million just going to the Lakers. The Spurs “just” win and the league office cries when they play in the Finals. Advertisers pay more for more exciting matchups and Kobe tends to draw a lot of viewers (many who want to watch him fail). That’s one of the primary reasons the Lakers were able to garner such a huge TV contract.
For jerseys, yeah, the revenue from Kobe jerseys is shared but the advertising for the Lakers brand on all those Kobe jerseys is not. That needs to be priced as well.
TundraGator says:

May 24, 2012 at 12:13 pm

TheNBAGeek, if Kobe is worth $70 million to the Lakers brand, then why would paying him less than half that be foolish? Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, if both CP3 and Howard said that they would each sign contracts for $20 million a year then the Lakers should do it. However, that’s not reality. CP3 has said he’s going to stick around next year for the Clippers. Howard, nobody knows what he’s doing. When dealing with reality you need to keep the guys making you money, they can always amnesty him next year or simply wait until 2014. Using the amnesty on Bryant would do nothing to help the Lakers in the next two years while allowing Bryant the chance to team up with Nowitzki or Deron Williams or even worse, Rondo. Can you imagine the horror for the Lakers if Bryant goes to the Celtics and wins?
Dave says:

May 24, 2012 at 12:25 pm

TG,
I really don’t think you understand what drives revenue in the NBA. My sense is you have never read a study of this issue.
jbrett says:

May 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm

TundraGator,
The Lakers would have been a better team this year if Kobe had sat in a bean bag chair naked eating Cheetos all season. Winning is a panacea. Kobe is a BALLSTOPPER, and teams don’t win because of ballstoppers, they win DESPITE them. Since he’s been the undisputed team leader, he’s been a drag on his teammates’ productivity. He is the opposite of synergy.
I pray to God that some NBA owner–maybe Prokorov?–agrees with you that Kobe drives revenue, and gives him enough of a hummer that he waives his no-trade. If LA gets NOTHING back, they win that trade. DWill and Wallace would be a miracle for LA–and most of the pundits would agree with you that they got robbed. I don’t know how they would explain why LA was better next year and Brooklyn sucked even more, but I have faith that all of you could come up with explanations.
Kobe the market force will never make up for Kobe the title killer. The idea is simply ridiculous. Lucky for you, the LA brass will take your side.
TundraGator says:

May 24, 2012 at 1:24 pm

I don’t understand the difficulty. Believe me, I’m not sitting here defending Bryant’s unwillingness to pass more and his habitual need to take everything one on one. However, as many studies or stats you want to throw out, the fact remains that Dr. Buss has built a very strong franchise in the Lakers and i don’t think he suddenly forgot all sense of business acumen when he signed Kobe to his deal. I’m willing to admit when I might be missing something or am wrong, why can’t others admit that there might be forces outside stats that point to Kobe being valuable to the Lakers?
As for comments that the Lakers win in spite of Bryant, you honestly think Gasol and Odom win two titles in LA, more handily apparently, if Bryant wasn’t there? He’s not the best player on the planet but saying that he detracted from two title teams goes a little far.
Thomas Littrell says:

May 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm

TundraGator,
Star power might appear to drive attendance because “star” players tend to produce a lot of wins (Kobe and Melo aside). I’m not at all convinced by your attempt to create a false equivalence between positions that you merely believe to be true and positions backed up by statistical analysis. As for Kobe detracting from the team, that describes his current contribution not what he did a few years ago.
Joe Harris says:

May 24, 2012 at 9:10 pm

I am not going to get into the revenue Kobe may or may not generate. But to call him a “title killer” or suggest that dropping him makes the Lakers better is ridiculous. I am of the opinion that Kobe is very overrated, but this is taking it too far.

How can it be possible for a team to give a “bad player” 38.5 minutes a game and let him control one third of all their possessions and somehow get the #3 seed? That doesn’t make sense.

The reason he looks bad is because he has the most difficult job on the team! Yes, he should probably pass to Bynum a bit more. But it isn’t always that simple – passing the ball into the low post is a play with a high risk of turnovers.

WP doesn’t give Kobe a chance – either he tries to pass the ball into Bynum, risking a turnover (which gets credited to him not Bynum btw) or he is forced to take a difficult shot.
TundraGator says:

May 24, 2012 at 9:11 pm

I still haven’t heard a convincing argument of how Bryant doesn’t advertise the Lakers brand. He had the best selling Jersey in China, the most populous country in the world, and all those Jerseys said Lakers, not NBA. How much would it have cost Dr. Buss to pay a few hundred thousand Chinese people to wear Lakers jerseys?
motherwell says:

May 24, 2012 at 11:51 pm

> you would do better to check before you attempt to tell me I don’t know how revenue works in the NBA.

Sigh! Rather than posture and claim to know, why not show you know? You want to claim a lot of knowledge, but you have just PROVEN you don’t know, as your whole post was a big maybe.

For example: Jersey sales. how does that help the Lakers? Where does the money go? To LA or to the players?

> $200m/year avg revenue for the lakers from their new TV deal

Which what, disappears if Kobe is traded? Prove to me that Kobe is the reason they get that money, and that losing him costs them that cash. All evidence I’ve seen on TV figures is that winning matters most. If Kobe and leaves and the Lakers win more, then what?

If LA never makes the finals and wins less, because Kobe is not as good anymore and his contract crippling, how does that help LA’s revenue? What does the $70 million dollar Kobe figure – that you specifically said goes to LA – where does that come from?
TundraGator says:

May 25, 2012 at 6:39 am

Motherwell, I wasn’t posturing, simply replying to your decidedly patronizing tone. I referenced in my message that cbafaq.com was where i got my information, it’s actually quite well written (by Larry Coon, someone who knows the ins and outs of the CBA very well). You’re initial post stated that TV deals for teams were shared. I pointed out that they were shared on a percentage basis. I also would point out that the Lakers TV deal is based first and foremost on the ad dollars that the television station expects to receive. Those ad dollars in the first few years of the deal are higher because Kobe is on the team. No matter how poor a player he apparently is, he draws eyeballs. That’s what matters to advertisers, not basketball skill (look at Tebow!). The burden of proof shouldn’t be on me. Dr. Buss built the most valuable franchise in the NBA and he said Kobe was worth $70 million. The burden of proof is on others to prove that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Ultra-Humanite says:

May 25, 2012 at 10:40 am

TundraGator, the event you are referring to is a rumor that Jerry Buss privately told “people” that he thinks Kobe Bryant is “perhaps” worth $70 million. I didn’t know there was a need to disprove throwaway numbers that are born out of rumors from off the cuff comments. So whether or not he even actually believes this is in question. Basically, it’s not really worth debating about a specific number that may or may not exist and may or may not have been a guess off the top of his head, particularly if all anyone is going to do is speculate about specific sources of revenue when they are clearly not privy to that knowledge.
jbrett says:

May 25, 2012 at 11:01 am

TG and Joe;
A main finding of ‘The Wages of Wins’ is that NBA decisions are often based on the wrong data. For years I’ve been WP’s voice of moderation re Kobe, but it’s clear his on-court value is in the past. He’s around average since ’09; when he’s LA’s best player they win 34 and 42.
IMO, you’re confusing skill with production. His ONLY elite-level skill is making difficult shots more often than we expect–but this ain’t diving; that contested, spinning fadeaway 22-footer doesn’t have a technical difficulty multiplier. Pau’s baby hook, which goes in 5% more often, or Drew’s drop step–10% more–count for the same 2 points. Why is it so hard to get them the ball? Because Kobe is one of way too many who think his elite skill negates the need for a goddamn offense. Even the coach who led MJ to 6 titles couldn’t get Kobe to see teammates as more than blocking sleds.
Swap him for Pierce or Allen–or Nash, in the ’96 draft!–and LA wins 2 MORE titles, on improved team chemistry alone.
Charles Connaughton says:

May 25, 2012 at 11:56 am

Looking over their roster, the only contract on the entire team I’m happy with is Andrew Bynum’s – and they’re rightly pissed at him for his poor attitude and lack of work ethic. I have a lot of trouble seeing the Lakers doing any damage in the next two years without Kupchak pulling another star out of his hat.

Based on their production last year the Lakers massively overachieved (something like 8 wins over what you’d expect from differentials, winning a playoff series against a team that outscored them), so with just a bit of regression to the mean and another year of age, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this same group could miss the playoffs entirely next year (think Pau continuing to fall off a cliff, Bynum checking out, and Kobe going full hero mode and chucking up circus shots all game – think game 4 vs Denver).

They should definitely flip Pau for longer term assets if possible. They’re basically done as a contended until the Kobe contract ends.
Todd Bogart says:

May 25, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Can we get an All-Amnesty team?
TundraGator says:

May 25, 2012 at 11:49 pm

I think people are confusing my endorsement of Kobe as an entertainer for endorsing Kobe as an MVP. I am stating that, according to win shares, Kobe was far from the best player on the Lakers (though Bynum’s consistency makes me question his rankings; 10 pts, 4 rbds in 35 min in game 5 against Thunder?!). I am also asserting that Kobe, having had the best selling jersey in six of the past 11 years, adds value outside of on court production. Advertising the Lakers brand is a value add. Plenty of people think Kobe is overrated and watch only to prove what they think (ahem, jbrett) those people STILL WATCH. Famous old stat was that people who HATED Howard Stern listened to him for longer than people that loved Howard Stern.
As for the assertion that Buss’ $70 million quote was a rumour; the quote was reported by Wojnarowski, who has proven to be quite knowledgeable. Seems a little bit of a cop-out to simply ignore it as a ‘rumour’ rather than address the issues it raises if true.
motherwell says:

May 26, 2012 at 7:06 am

> The burden of proof shouldn’t be on me

It absolutely is. You made the statement, you back it up. Show me evidence of the statement for a start – you have, at the very minimum, that burden of that proof.

TundraGator you have to PROVE your statements. For Kobe to be worth anymore than any other player, he has to uniquely and in isolation add value to the Lakers beyond what another player does / could. You have not yet shown this to be the case.

> I also would point out that the Lakers TV deal is based first and foremost on the ad dollars that the television station expects to receive

Again, PROVE THIS FACT. Show me the Lakers TV deal that says revenue is based on ratings.

And even if it is, advertisers don’t advertise because Kobe is playing. They advertise because people watch the NBA. People in LA watch because LA is winning – no one cares if Kobe is in or not, just as they didn’t care Shaq left.

You have the burden of proof, now prove SOMETHING.
Chris Spencer says:

May 26, 2012 at 9:34 am

In my opinion…the lakers should really think about moving Bynum; If Bynum was a stock id sell high if i could get a quality pointguard and power forward in return. Then when kobes hellish contract ends blow the whole thing up and clear the books.

He plays bad pick and roll defense…he is an unathletic finesse player and is often unable to finish at the rim despite his size…has trouble receiving the ball when fronted because he cant get away from the defense. Has lingering knee issues at 25 and is thinking about getting surgery this off season. Im sorry but Bynum is a bonafied second option who has to be in prime position to score…hes good but not great.

http://www.bballbreakdown.com/why-the-lakers-cant-get-the-ball-to-the-post/
The reason kobe shoots so much is actually a breakdown in the lakers offense. They pass the ball around trying to give it to Bynum..when that fails they houst up a kobe bryant contested fadeaway. Pau Gasol is being misused and should be at center
Charles Connaughton says:

May 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm

The question surrounding Kobe’s jersey sales is how much of it is the irreplaceable aura of Kobe, and how much of it is generic ‘most popular player on the Lakers’ money. The most popular player on the most popular team is always going to sell jerseys, and if Kobe was gone someone else would be that guy. How much is it the guy and how much is it the position?

I disagree completely that the reason Kobe shoots so much is the breakdown of the Lakers offense. Yes, he takes shots with little time left on the clock and his ability to hit a forced shot is quite valuable in those situations. But Kobe shoots so much not because the Lakers have an abnormally high number of forced shots, but because Kobe likes shooting the basketball. He shot a ton even when surrounded by star players in a well oiled offense.

Half dozen times a game – or more! – he gets the ball in isolation with lots of time on the clock and chucks up a turnaround, fadeaway jumper. There’s nothing complicated about that.
jbrett says:

May 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm

TundraGator,
From the next post, you’ll see I must like the Laker uniforms, since the roster has changed a lot since 1968. Three years of comments here show that I WISH Kobe was the next MJ, but he never even close. He WAS a valuable and productive player–until 2009. And, in 1996, the Lakers DID NOT NEED HIM.
They had an excellent SG in Eddie Jones. They had enough star power in Shaq, to drive those all-important jersey sales. They needed a PG saner than Van Exel, with more upside than Fisher–and they could have had Nash at 13 in exchange for Divac, and Jerome Williams at #24. I daydream about Nash, Jones, Ceballos, Campbell, Williams and Shaq playing together for 5-10 years–but Jerry West, who I adore above all, fell in love with the wrong guy. He thought he got the next MJ; he got MJ’s drive and competitiveness–but in Reggie Miller’s body, and with Wilt’s brain. “I’m the most talented player, so if I dominate the game, we win.” That line is old, and tiresome, and never true.
TundraGator says:

May 26, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Motherwell, ALL television contracts are based on ad dollars, broadcasters aren’t philanthropic, they’re for-profit (some hyperbole, there are public service channels). I didn’t make the “Kobe is worth $70 million/yr statement”, it was reported (by one of the best bball reporters in the business) that Dr. Buss made the statement. I trust his opinion on the business of basketball as he has proven his acumen over an extended period.
Jbrett, my apologies for not being clearer that including your name in my post was tongue-in-cheek. I hit the char limit and think I ended up removing some contextual comments. As for comparing Bryant to Jordan, the most i can say is that both are phenomenal players; comparing players directly from different eras is a no-win situation. Who knows what Kobe could have done with Pippen/Kerr/Rodman and who knows what Jordan would have done with Shaq/Gasol.
Thomas Littrell says:

May 26, 2012 at 11:52 pm

TundraGator,
Putting aside how serious Buss was with the $70 million figure, do you plan to respond to the research showing that winning not star power drives revenue? If this is just a matter of believing the stats versus believing your impressions, then I recommend you read Thinking, Fast and Slow and end this discussion.
TundraGator says:

May 27, 2012 at 6:26 am

Obviously winning drives revenue, I’ve never argued otherwise. What I said was that there’s also value in having a player like Bryant who draws so much attention due to how many different opinions there of him as a player. In that regard he’s somewhat unique. There haven’t been many players in the history of the league that managed to divide the populace so sharply on their skill as a basketball player. I actually can’t think of any other that elicits the level of discussion that Bryant receives. I get that studies have been done and, for the most part, I agree with them. However, having studied statistics I also understand that when there’s a unique event (in this case Kobe) it can throw a wrench into many econometric models (e.g., low interest rates right now). The best analogy I can make is Howard Stern, where people that didn’t like him listened for longer than his fans listened. Most fans watch teams they like, many fans will watch the Lakers hoping to see Kobe fail.
jbrett says:

May 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm

TundraGator,
No apology necessary, no offense taken; there probably are Kobe-haters filling Laker coffers as we speak. I didn’t start hating Kobe until he clearly stopped helping LA win–which I personally believe started the moment he became Alpha dog. And I would absolutely swap him for Steve Nash now, 5 years ago, or 16 years ago.
As for him being uniquely polarizing, I have to think Iverson was very similar–and ‘The Wages of Wins’ uses him as an example showing that star power drives ROAD attendance (of which road teams get 0%), while winning drives HOME attendance (of which home teams keep 100%). The Lakers would have won more by taking Nash; therefore, they would have made more money.
The Amazing Vanishing Pau Gasol says:

November 21, 2012 at 3:58 am

[...] give up on Gasol yet. In spite of his age and declining productivity (which lead me to say he should be traded.), the fact is we can explain it. If Gasol is no longer able to take close shots, then yes [...]

May 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr				Jun »
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Share this: