Is the Lakers' payroll now the largest in the history of the NBA?

[vinnie]

I am sure I could do the research, but I was hoping someone would know offhand. It is astounding how much money they will be paying out next season.

[Prof. Clutch]

I don't know how they compare historically, but at the moment they're at for $98,919,773 in committed players salaries for 2012/13.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AodNvAy3ZYZmdGE3NDBqMElRUXh2REN4Q3pZRG1TU1E&gid=15

[lightspeed5]

biggest fanbase. they have the $$$

[Who]

Pretty sure teams have been over $100 million before.

So I would say no = the Lakers payroll isn't the largest in NBA History.

[__34__]

Sort of off topic, but I read somewhere that they don't care that they are spending this much money because other teams will get less money from the revenue sharing, I find that very interesting.

[celtsfan84]

The Knicks hit $103 million in 2004-05 and went over $120 million in 2005-06.  I haven't been able to find more than that, and the 05-06 number contains the retired Allan Houston (but still officially on their payroll).

However, next year, when Kobe, Gasol, Nash, and Metta increase in salary and Dwight potentially signs an extension, the possibility is on the table.

[celtsfan84]

Sort of off topic, but I read somewhere that they don't care that they are spending this much money because other teams will get less money from the revenue sharing, I find that very interesting.

The revenue sharing has increased.  Forbes estimates that the Bucks, for instance, should gain an extra $10 million a year due to revenue sharing.

The Lakers don't care because their massive television contract is kicking in.

The league’s bottom-feeders get a boost from a new revenue-sharing plan where the amount transferred from high-revenue to low-revenue teams is expected to triple from the current $60 million. A team like the Milwaukee Bucks will collect $16 million annually, up from $6 million which will help stem losses.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/01/25/the-nbas-most-valuable-teams/

[GreenEnvy]

The Knicks hit $103 million in 2004-05 and went over $120 million in 2005-06.  I haven't been able to find more than that, and the 05-06 number contains the retired Allan Houston (but still officially on their payroll).

However, next year, when Kobe, Gasol, Nash, and Metta increase in salary and Dwight potentially signs an extension, the possibility is on the table.

Yeah, according to Wiki, the 2005-06 payroll was at a whopping $124M -- the salary cap that year was $49.5M.

That bought them a 23-59 record, last in the East.

LOL.

[florida dodger]

lakers are rich yo.  It must be that new tv deal or the owners willing to lose money.  check this out:

Lakers have almost 100 m illion in salary for this year.....

they haven't even used mle or bae or all their trade exceptions; so they will probably be over 100  mill in no time, especially next year if/when Howard signs his extension.

Lakers luxury tax this year will probably be something like 45 or 50 MILLION.  It will be even more when draconian penalty  kicks in next year for repeat offenders. 

Bad for us (but good for Hornets, Kings, Clippers, Raptors, Bucks, Hawks, Grizzlies, etc.)

I am sure I could do the research, but I was hoping someone would know offhand. It is astounding how much money they will be paying out next season.

[gpap]

What I want to know is how the Lakers can afford Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Antwan Jamison, Jodie Meeks and other than our core players, we can't even supposedly afford Carlos Delfino or the Birdman

[vinnie]

What I want to know is how the Lakers can afford Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Antwan Jamison, Jodie Meeks and other than our core players, we can't even supposedly afford Carlos Delfino or the Birdman

It is a good question. If the Celtics wanted to spend a lot more money could they simply go way over the salary cap and pay the huge penalties as the Lakers will do?

[gpap]

What I want to know is how the Lakers can afford Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Antwan Jamison, Jodie Meeks and other than our core players, we can't even supposedly afford Carlos Delfino or the Birdman

It is a good question. If the Celtics wanted to spend a lot more money could they simply go way over the salary cap and pay the huge penalties as the Lakers will do?

That's my understanding. For all this "salary cap" talk, the only real consequence is paying the luxury tax. But if you put an all star team on the court, the "luxury tax" pays for itself.

[celtsfan84]

What I want to know is how the Lakers can afford Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Antwan Jamison, Jodie Meeks and other than our core players, we can't even supposedly afford Carlos Delfino or the Birdman

It is a good question. If the Celtics wanted to spend a lot more money could they simply go way over the salary cap and pay the huge penalties as the Lakers will do?

No.  The Lakers signed Kobe to an extension from his previous contract. They signed Gasol to an extension after trading for him using Kwame's salary.  They traded Bynum's salary to acquire Dwight's. They traded for Nash using a trade exception equal to Odom's salary. They signed Jamison to a league minimum contract.  They likely signed Meeks to their mid-level exception.

None of these players were signed using cap space. 

We have used our mid-level exception.  Our possible avenues are trade, the bi-annual exception, and the league minimum.

There is a salary cap in the NBA.  There are exceptions to it.  We have used some of those exceptions.  Every team has the ability to go over the soft cap using the exceptions available to them, but it is not as simple as just spending more money.

[BballTim]

Pretty sure teams have been over $100 million before.

So I would say no = the Lakers payroll isn't the largest in NBA History.

  I'm pretty sure the Knicks have been over $100M in the past.

[Roy H.]

they haven't even used mle or bae or all their trade exceptions; so they will probably be over 100  mill in no time, especially next year if/when Howard signs his extension.

The Lakers don't get the BAE this year (they're way over the $74 million "apron" that serves as a hard cap), and they've used half of the taxpayer's MLE on Jodie Meeks.  They have about $1.5 million left to spend on free agents.