Lakers Now

Round-the-Clock Purple and Gold

« Previous Post | Lakers Now Home | Next Post »

Lakers valued at $643 million, according to Forbes

Forbes.com posted its annual valuations of NBA franchises and said the Lakers are currently worth $643 million, second behind only the New York Knicks at $655 million.

The financial publication estimates the Lakers posted operating income of $33.4 million in the past year on revenue of $214 million.

Forbes said the Chicago Bulls are the third most valuable NBA franchise ($511 million), followed by the Boston Celtics ($452 million) and Houston Rockets ($443 million). The Clippers were ranked 22nd in value at $305 million, Forbes said.

-- Barry Stavro

 
Comments () | Archives (14)

The comments to this entry are closed.

YEAH KNICKS did not they would cost that much. KNICKS KNICKS KNICKS LAKERS LAKERS LAKERS

You see? Size does matter! The Knicks are number 1 because of their market and city's population followed by L.A. Now once Melo suits up for his hometown Knickerbockers and pick up a few appearances against the Lakers in the Finals, coupled with inflation and other economic factors, both teams will become billion dollar franchises during our life times.

Hey, how is everybody doing today? Having a happy Wednesday?

Cool.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE LOVE

GO LAKERS!

I'm not going to assign value to all wins and disregard all losses. I'm taking it all in. As I referenced in my previous post, the wins/losses aren't even part of it, it's how they're playing as a team. When they resort to that individualized brand of ball, I can't view it as a meaningless aberration because it's a bad habit that continues to manifest itself. Why not use these meaningless "practice season" games to gain practice in staying on course and weathering the storm even when the traditional gameplan isn't working?

Posted by: Bay to LA | January 26, 2011 at 04:21 PM
====

That's your view of how you see it. I see your view as very microcosmic. You say: "I'm taking it all in." No, sir, you DO NOT take it all in. As I have said before, you need to turn your binoculars around and look through them as they were designed to be looked through so you can see EVERYTHING. You assign blame where none may exist at all. You look at a meaningless loss like, for example the Dallas game, and blow it up into something it's not.

To take it ALL in, you must take into account all the things I addressed in my post, you must take into account human nature and the need for the team to pace itself, you must take into account this team's championship mettle and DNA, and yes, you must take into account history.

Your concept of "all" is when the Lakers either don't play as you would like to see them play or if by some excellent coaching and hard playing by the opposition, they are taken out of what they like to do. To me, that is way too narrow of an approach and one that lends itself to doubt rather than confidence in this back-to-back championship team. Ups and downs during the regular season are going to happen and you hear Kobe talking about that all the time. In fact, when you hear the players talk, they all but call it the practice season. If the Lakers coaching staff took your approach, they would sap the confidence AND energy right out of the players to the point that they would doubt their own ability to three-peat.

So no, sir, you do NOT take it "all" in. Your view of the big picture appears to me to be non-existent. If I want to read a hyper-critical game-by-game analysis of the meaningless practice season, you are an excellent source. But so is Plaschke, Simers and even Heisler at times. The difference is that they will reverse themselves the next day because they know, for one example, that Jordan was 34, Pippen 32, Harper 34 and Rodman 36 when the Bulls three-peated in '98. There are things that are more important than: "Darn, why did they stop going inside with the ball and why are these guys dribbling around and chucking up shots!"

I really wish I could have read your posts last season because I'm having a tough time distinguishing between the two seasons other than the Spurs this year. Hell, even that clown Hollinger has us as #1 in his stupid power rankings and as the clear favorites to win the title again.

How about you?

Phred,

Everybody is happy because we are back on winning trail. Just learned that you too who is bona-fide Lakerholic get into trouble with ur love phrases as well as praises on both sides of the aisle. If I were you just give the floor to them and you will be reap more happiness in Luke 14:11:

"For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

63 Footer,

I have another take on Bynum, yes we want to be in ASG but not this year, how about next year or the years hence. Like PJ's thinking, what will the Lakers attain from getting into ASG, that one game could diminish our chances of 3peat because of injury. Question is, who do we prefer Bynum or the Lakers interests? We have had that situation before with Kobe and he chose the Lakers that was the time when he made a cameo appearance in an ASG game.

888- Dude... you can't have it your way, it's NOT Buger King. Hell the Lakers need this game ...BADLY TOO. If the Lakers get PUNKED AGAIN... Let me get this RIGHT....it's a practice game. RIGHT, Just Sayin.

Posted by: G.Money | January 26, 2011 at 03:50 PM
=====

The Lakers don't NEED it and it's just 1 of 82. It's not the playoffs. It's just a meaningless practice game. Other than the Jazz and the Thuggets, they've played this team more times than any other team in the NBA over the past three seasons. It's like the Yankees and the Red Sox. The regular season games are meaningless. Just because basketball is an emotional sport, doesn't change the fact that Sunday's game is just 1 in 82. Then it starts out 0-0 for ALL playoff teams or, as Phil Jackson likes to view it, the 16 win countdown. I hope the Lakers come to play this game, but it means a boatload more to the Chowds than it does to the two time defending champs. They're the ones stewing, not us.

You got a problem with that logic?

Edwin Gueco - I ALWAYS worry about our guys playin' in the ASG. It only takes one flukey moment, and the season could be ruined. If Drew didn't make it till another year, I got no problem, as he was out most of the first part of the season, and it's a personal rather than a team accolade (and a popularity contest at that). It's nice to be an All-Star, and I think LO would probably appreciate a run there at his point in his career, but Rings are always better.

In some ways the NFL (after the season) method of ASG is a little less worrisome (though hardly in any way as exciting).

63 Footer,

If you remove the Laker players, then Western lineup will not be classified ASG. Somehow, Lakers has to offer their players some exposure. At present, what I read only one will be chosen in the second team between Pau and LO. There are just too many PF's vying for that position. In the case of Bynum, it is only now that Lakers are getting the benefits of Bynum, he was absent for almost two months because of the rehab from surgery.yes you're right why risk with with one meaningless game. Second reason, he was voted only as No.2 behind Yao despite the fact that voters were aware that Yao could not play due to injury. If you were not chosen gotta wait for your turn and at 23 years old, if you're really a good Center, your time will come.

Bay to LA (or anyone else who would like to comment)

Check out this Yahoo Sports interview with Greg Anthony and Adrian Wojnarowski. As you can imagine, I agree with the vast majority of what both of them say. I'm curious to see where you agree or disagree with them. I think it's an excellent discussion about the Lakers, whether Kobe's slowed down, how his lack of practice might effect the team and the importance of HCA:

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nba/Y_Sports_NBA_Coverage/23817708#nba/Y_Sports_NBA_Coverage/23817708

Edwin- I'm not sure i'm following you. I should not talk because somebody might not like something I say? Seems to be to not make much sense. I don't think it would be better around here if everybody just went away and waited for it to blow over.

Another reason not to like the Knicks.

What do we play for? RINGS!!!

Lakers Today... Lakers Tomorrow... Lakers Forever.

GO LAKERS!!!

"That's your view of how you see it. I see your view as very microcosmic. You say: "I'm taking it all in." No, sir, you DO NOT take it all in. As I have said before, you need to turn your binoculars around and look through them as they were designed to be looked through so you can see EVERYTHING. You assign blame where none may exist at all. You look at a meaningless loss like, for example the Dallas game, and blow it up into something it's not.

To take it ALL in, you must take into account all the things I addressed in my post, you must take into account human nature and the need for the team to pace itself, you must take into account this team's championship mettle and DNA, and yes, you must take into account history.

Your concept of "all" is when the Lakers either don't play as you would like to see them play or if by some excellent coaching and hard playing by the opposition, they are taken out of what they like to do. To me, that is way too narrow of an approach and one that lends itself to doubt rather than confidence in this back-to-back championship team. Ups and downs during the regular season are going to happen and you hear Kobe talking about that all the time. In fact, when you hear the players talk, they all but call it the practice season. If the Lakers coaching staff took your approach, they would sap the confidence AND energy right out of the players to the point that they would doubt their own ability to three-peat.

So no, sir, you do NOT take it "all" in. Your view of the big picture appears to me to be non-existent. If I want to read a hyper-critical game-by-game analysis of the meaningless practice season, you are an excellent source. But so is Plaschke, Simers and even Heisler at times. The difference is that they will reverse themselves the next day because they know, for one example, that Jordan was 34, Pippen 32, Harper 34 and Rodman 36 when the Bulls three-peated in '98. There are things that are more important than: "Darn, why did they stop going inside with the ball and why are these guys dribbling around and chucking up shots!"

I really wish I could have read your posts last season because I'm having a tough time distinguishing between the two seasons other than the Spurs this year. Hell, even that clown Hollinger has us as #1 in his stupid power rankings and as the clear favorites to win the title again.

How about you?

Posted by: KobeMVP888 | January 26, 2011 at 06:52 PM "

Why do you keep acting as if I have said the Lakers can't win this year? I can't be asked to defend claims I have never made.

What I think you fail to realize is that when you see the Lakers lose a regular season game and assume they just weren't trying or didn't care about that particular game, it's purely speculative. The Lakers don't shrug those games off the same way you do. The comments they make after those games closely resemble the "doom and gloom" that I'm saying.

I think they are still the favorite to win this year but they will need to play well and play consistently to do so. I thought they were a huge favorite coming into the season but that has decreased with the play of San Antonio, Dallas, and Boston, all of whom I thought were going to be showing their age much more this year.

"Bay to LA (or anyone else who would like to comment)

Check out this Yahoo Sports interview with Greg Anthony and Adrian Wojnarowski. As you can imagine, I agree with the vast majority of what both of them say. I'm curious to see where you agree or disagree with them. I think it's an excellent discussion about the Lakers, whether Kobe's slowed down, how his lack of practice might effect the team and the importance of HCA:

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nba/Y_Sports_NBA_Coverage/23817708#nba/Y_Sports_NBA_Coverage/23817708

Posted by: KobeMVP888 | January 26, 2011 at 07:29 PM"

I think most of it is on point. If they sacrifice HCA in order to keep starters fresh and healthy, that's fine. But if their starters are playing 35-40 minutes and they're losing games just because they're too "bored" to play the right way and win the game, I don't see those losses as being beneficial.

I have a question regarding the Forbes article. By no means am I a business major, so it constantly confuses me how the Knicks are almost always #1 in value – especially over the Lakers. The Knicks haven’t won anything since 1970 and 1973 (their only championships), and haven’t even been a playoff worthy team in over a decade. Meanwhile, the Lakers have won rings left and right and been in NBA Finals since the league’s inception.

How can the Knicks, who can’t possibly generate nearly as much income as the Lakers do come playoff time (since we play far more games than they do), be even in the top 5 or 10 of NBA valued teams? How is such an awful franchise so valuable? It can’t be simply the location, can it?

If winning = money (ticket sales, televised games, merchandise, etc.), then I’m confused. Again, I’m no business mind, so I’d be glad to hear what I’m overlooking.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

All Things Lakers »

Your database for all things purple and gold.

Find a Laker

Search a name

Select a season

Choose one of our lists



Categories


Archives
 

About the Bloggers


Bleacher Report | Lakers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Lakers on Bleacher Report »



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists:


In Case You Missed It...