That’s not the point
This ownership group is heavily funded by Abu Dhabi, they have unlimited cash. Fortunately the second apron is essentially a hard cap, so the benefits of that cash are limited.
1 Like
The main thing for me is that I just didn’t expect the Lakers to not be owned by the Buss family. They’ve had the team for about 50 years. It’s like the Steinbrenner family not owning the Yankees.
Also, even though he may have saved himself this year with the Luka trade, I wonder whether this puts Rob Pelinka back on the hot seat?
Jared should have to remove “NBA” from his twitter handle for having that take
1 Like
Horrific take. People just be saying anything
1 Like
The premise that a guy like McConnell is as good as a guy like Thomas was 40 years ago is proabably true. The training and systems are just so much better these days but if a McConnell was born 40 years ago he would not of had access to those things.
1 Like
I had a longer post, but without derailing this thread, you are literally putting the cart before the horse.
The Dodgers’ revenue advantage came as a result of their success on the field, which was driven by their phenomenal farm system, not the other way around.
It’s also easy to say “ah, it’s all their pocketbook”, but when lots of teams are awarding massive contracts to Jacob Degrom, Anthony Rendon, etc., their big swings have all turned out awesome.
Their revenue matters, obviously, but the Lakers have lots of revenue too, so any argument that this is not an ownership that will spend money in the right places (not just on payroll) to maximize team results is just 100% misguided.
1 Like
that’s not his premise lol
The dodgers massive revenue hit that put them on a launch pad came from their tv deal. It did not come from success, it came from the market they are in and elite and fortunate timing(they caught the very end of the massive regional tv deals). They essentially used the tv rev advantage to turn themselves into a juggernaut by spending smartly and crazily. They are obviously now reaping rewards in other areas(attendance, Japan market share etc.) but the fortunate tv deal timing is really what gave them the initial huge advantage .
4 Likes
I think the dodgers are very well run but I don’t think you can put the revenue advantage on their success primarily.
The dodgers were not the dodgers when they signed that deal. And I think goblue has the confluence of events right, and now they have a whole other country so it’s just a runaway train now
nobody is saying revenue has nothing to do with it. Lots of teams have spent a ton money without a modicum of the success.
I’d also note they signed their deal on the heels of their first meaningful playoff run since like 1988.
Regardless, the point of this discussion, in the NBA thread, is not “why are the Dodgers good”, but “can this ownership group improve the performance of the Lakers, a franchise with literally any revenue advatange you want to ascribe to the Dodgers”, and I think the answer is “yes, they can be better than the lady whose main advisor is her best friends husband, who also happens to be a certified moron”.
They, as most NBA ownership groups, have the financial means to succeed, the question is whether they can wield that in an effective manner - something they’ve absolutely done (in a different sport)
1 Like
Yeah and if Fredi Gonzalez had used Kimbrel in the 8th it wouldn’t have happened!
1 Like
Wait, the Dodgers are owned by Boehly and another guy who sold a big share of his investment business to Khaldoon+Co.?
So yeah… I’m guessing financial doping is a big part of their success. And yeah, obviously that’ll work for the Lakers too.
I’d argue that the price of franchises are so high that having an ownership group without deep pockets is increasingly rare (the Lakers had, bar none, the poorest owners in the NBA by virtue of being purchased by just some dude leveraging himself to the gills at a time nobody cared about the league)
I’m just laughing because there are deep pockets and there are deep pockets while being associated with some of the shadiest/most questionable/etc. sports policies of the last few decades.
I don’t follow baseball at all so this is all just based on Googling what you guys are talking about.
The Lakers were always viewed as a very cheap front office AFAIK, so some rich guy who looks to spend more than everyone else will have plenty of opportunity.
I’m unclear how Khaldoon (in charge of Man City and their umbrella of feeder clubs, right?) is associated with the Dodgers?
Windhorst has talked in the past how they wanted to buy an nba team and one of them is an huge lakers fan and Walter’s investment company took a 10billion dollar investment from them a few months ago.
1 Like
I keep googling “Guggenheim Khaldoon” and I get nothing. Maybe I’m interneting wrong
Regardless, Guggenheim Partners clearly is a massively powerful financial entity, however that comes.