2 years 48.5 million. Why would you give a guy at the end of career that kind of cake? I don't know how those numbers impact the Lakers but it doesn't seem to be the way to rebuild your lineup.

They've got money coming off the books, and I think he's actually taking a pay cut. If they sign Lebron and Melo, watch out.

Agreed. If they can also get two more superstars around Melo they would have a chance.

This is incredibly dumb. When did Isaiah Thomas begin offering GM consulting services to LA? I don't care if LBJ or Melo or both join the Lakers - this contract is already dead money, even if Kobe starts this week.

It's still dumb. If I'm a Lakers fan I'm angry that my team is extending an aging, crippled 35 year old guard for two more years at 24 million a year. Like you said, they're not winning any time soon, so why not start planning for the future? The best thing to do would be to do what the Colts did with Manning: say your goodbyes and move on.

Awful contract. The guy is 35, has a million miles on him and is coming of a horrific injury for basketball players and Jim Buss makes him the highest paid player in the NBA? Genius.

You're looking at it wrong. It isn't a basketball decision at all. They need an attraction to justify their ticket prices and to get fans to come to the stadium. Kobe is that attraction. It's a good business decision.

Awful contract. The guy is 35, has a million miles on him and is coming of a horrific injury for basketball players and Jim Buss makes him the highest paid player in the NBA? Genius.

He's making more money this year, and is already the highest paid player in the league. He's taking a pay cut on this deal.

They're the Los Angeles Lakers. They'll maintain their brand well after Kobe is gone. I don't think Kobe's commercial impact justifies this contract.

How? When was the last time they were without a franchise player? No one is going to pay $10k to see Jordan Hill. It's the same reason why Jerry was willing to pay Jordan $30M. They know they'll make more money selling Kobe and his "Final" season or championship run than they would otherwise. Then take into account the PR hits they've taken over the past season. Imagine how much worse it would be if they allowed Kobe to walk? Smart business decision IMO.

How? When was the last time they were without a franchise player? No one is going to pay $10k to see Jordan Hill. It's the same reason why Jerry was willing to pay Jordan $30M. They know they'll make more money selling Kobe and his "Final" season or championship run than they would otherwise. Then take into account the PR hits they've taken over the past season. Imagine how much worse it would be if they allowed Kobe to walk? Smart business decision IMO.

How? When was the last time they were without a franchise player? No one is going to pay $10k to see Jordan Hill. It's the same reason why Jerry was willing to pay Jordan $30M. They know they'll make more money selling Kobe and his "Final" season or championship run than they would otherwise. Then take into account the PR hits they've taken over the past season. Imagine how much worse it would be if they allowed Kobe to walk? Smart business decision IMO.

Kobe is 35 right now and will be 36 and 37 for those remaining two years which total almost 50 million dollars. Last year he was an excellent offensive player but far from the best player in the league. Jordan last season with the Bulls was in 98' when he was 35, he was also the best player in the league and had a championship supporting cast around him. He also wasn't coming off of a devastating injury that ends or severely alters most careers. The situations are too different. This does not make sense financially or long term. It's been a long time since the Lakers have been without a franchise player but at this point in time Kobe is only a franchise player in terms of commercial value, not on the court. Drastically overpaying for a fast deteriorating player is not wise and will not hasten their rise back to the elite.

The Lakers are perennially the most attractive, interesting team in basketball. The Lakers have always been able to reload. The glitz and media attention that surrounds the Lakers isn't going to go away when Kobe departs. It will always be there. They're merely delaying the inevitable by overpaying for a guy well past his prime who can no longer lead them far into the playoffs. If Kobe were to depart I don't think the hit the Lakers would take popularity wise would have been impossible to over come. Many people would have been upset but many logical thinking fans would have understood.

I see what you're saying, but if the Bulls are going to do well financially after Jordan (and before Rose), then I assume the Lakers might be able to pull off something similar, no? Even the crappy Knicks have been selling seats and they've had nothing but garbage to sell for nearly 15 years.

But I guess if the Lakers are reasoning Kobe will sell more seats and what not, that says a lot about the standards of Lakers fans than anything else. Who in their right mind is going to pay to see Kobe, Gasol, and Steve Nash lead the Lakers to 40 wins?