2011-12 Los Angeles Lakers Thread

Originally posted by andes14:
If that does happen, Laker fans shouldn't even be happy even if they were to win it all. It'd be like the Yankees - just BUYING championships...is BUYING something really ACCOMPLISHING something? It's like the Yankees. All their world series' are all hollow and meaningless. They let other teams develop players and then just take them. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think championships mean more when most of the core are guys YOU brought into the league and guys YOU developed. Like the Mavs this year (though a lot of their talent such as JET, Chandler, and Marion used to be on other teams, they were non-superstar talents that DAL legitimately acquired and were able to get more than the sum of the parts out of...also, as for J-Kidd, he WAS brought into the league by them ). Like the Spurs. Like the Bulls of the 90's. Like the Patriots. Like the Steelers. Like the Packers are doing. Like the 49ers of yesteryear (and hopefully now once again). If the Niners traded 7th round picks for Aaron Rodgers and DeMarcus Ware and Darrelle Revis and Calvin Johnson and then won the next 10 super bowls, I wouldn't even be happy. Winning just one with this current squad would mean exponentially more than winning a million with that fairytale squad. Anybody feel me on that?

I don't see the analogy. Lakers are using their assets to accumulate better assets. They've done this historically. It's why some teams win 16 championships and others none. Dallas did the same thing those guys they got were all former all stars, just superstars.

Originally posted by susweel:
I think the Lakers gave up too much in this deal. Two quality bigs for a good pg is not worth it. We better get something else back in return or I has a sad.

Oh s*it, you were serious earlier lol

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by susweel:
I think the Lakers gave up too much in this deal. Two quality bigs for a good pg is not worth it. We better get something else back in return or I has a sad.

Oh s*it, you were serious earlier lol

I dont see how its a good move. It basically destroys our front court.

Originally posted by susweel:
I dont see how its a good move. It basically destroys our front court.

It's the move before the move.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by susweel:
I think the Lakers gave up too much in this deal. Two quality bigs for a good pg is not worth it. We better get something else back in return or I has a sad.

Oh s*it, you were serious earlier lol

I dont see how its a good move. It basically destroys our front court.

You will have Howard possibly or Bynum. Set, to say the least, at center. Kobe at SG. And the best PG in the league. The position you guys were desperate for. And they aren't done dealing. Other solid players may want to go there just to get a ring. Chris Paul is ridiculous and he is young. Trust me, this is a GREAT move.

Originally posted by JDeezy:
I don't see the analogy. Lakers are using their assets to accumulate better assets. They've done this historically. It's why some teams win 16 championships and others none. Dallas did the same thing those guys they got were all former all stars, just superstars.

Let's say hypothetically that LAL wins it all this year. Their only player of any note that they brought in at the beginning, developed, saw mature, etc. would be Kobe (and even he wasn't drafted by them lol). Paul, Howard, Artest, Barnes, Blake, pretty much everyone else that would be in the rotation would have just been guys they brought in in the middle of their careers. And the reason they'd acquire Howard, if they were to do so, would just be because he'd be holding Orlando hostage, not because of a fair and legitimate trade. But look at those other teams. Parker, Ginobili, Duncan, etc. were brought into the league by SAS. Pippen and Jordan and other role players were brought into the league by Chicago. Montana, Rice, Craig, Lott, etc. were brought into the league by the Niners (and pretty much our only current significant players that we didn't bring into the league and develop ourselves are Rogers and J. Smith). Rodgers, Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Jones, Driver, Matthews, Raji were all brought into the league by the Packers. Those teams scouted, brought in out of college, and developed these guys. It means more that way. That's why a team like the Yankees doesn't even need a good farm system. They'll just buy Teixeira and A-Rod, and Granderson, and Sabathia, etc. Like I said, if GB, Dallas, NYJ, and DET were dumb enough to trade us Rodgers and Ware and Revis and Johnson for retarded compensation, would winning with those guys even feel special? IMO, no.

,

It's being reported by John Ireland that the Lakers also got a $9 million dollar trade exemption and Emeka Okafor, however neither are being reported since the kinks are still being worked out in the deal.

So you're pre

Originally posted by andes14:
Let's say hypothetically that LAL wins it all this year. Their only player of any note that they brought in at the beginning, developed, saw mature, etc. would be Kobe (and even he wasn't drafted by them lol). Paul, Howard, Artest, Barnes, Blake, pretty much everyone else that would be in the rotation would have just been guys they brought in in the middle of their careers. And the reason they'd acquire Howard, if they were to do so, would just be because he'd be holding Orlando hostage, not because of a fair and legitimate trade. But look at those other teams. Parker, Ginobili, Duncan, etc. were brought into the league by SAS. Pippen and Jordan and other role players were brought into the league by Chicago. Montana, Rice, Craig, Lott, etc. were brought into the league by the Niners (and pretty much our only current significant players that we didn't bring into the league and develop ourselves are Rogers and J. Smith). Rodgers, Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Jones, Driver, Matthews, Raji were all brought into the league by the Packers. Those teams scouted, brought in out of college, and developed these guys. It means more that way. That's why a team like the Yankees doesn't even need a good farm system. They'll just buy Teixeira and A-Rod, and Granderson, and Sabathia, etc. Like I said, if GB, Dallas, NYJ, and DET were dumb enough to trade us Rodgers and Ware and Revis and Johnson for retarded compensation, would winning with those guys even feel special? IMO, no.

So you're saying since they didn't win with players they drafted, its not "Fair". Look around you, that's no longer the landscape of the NBA and hasn't been for sometime, nor will it be. Teams have one cornerstone that they've drafted and build around him (see Bryant, Kobe). If you're lucky to have two you drafted ala Durant and Westbrook, you'd instantaneously trade one of them in the pursuit to get significantly better. And the Lakers actually save money by doing this deal right now. In Football and baseball keeping the guys you drafted is more prevalent, for the mere fact that there are more guys on the team!!! 12 players active in basketball you get the 12 best or the 5 best to play together, however you accumulate them.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by GuessWhosOn3rd:
There's rumors going around Lakers have a package for Howard ready. We'll just wait and see

If that does happen, Laker fans shouldn't even be happy even if they were to win it all. It'd be like the Yankees - just BUYING championships...is BUYING something really ACCOMPLISHING something? It's like the Yankees. All their world series' are all hollow and meaningless. They let other teams develop players and then just take them. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think championships mean more when most of the core are guys YOU brought into the league and guys YOU developed. Like the Mavs this year (though a lot of their talent such as JET, Chandler, and Marion used to be on other teams, they were non-superstar talents that DAL legitimately acquired and were able to get more than the sum of the parts out of...also, as for J-Kidd, he WAS brought into the league by them ). Like the Spurs. Like the Bulls of the 90's. Like the Patriots. Like the Steelers. Like the Packers are doing. Like the 49ers of yesteryear (and hopefully now once again). If the Niners traded 7th round picks for Aaron Rodgers and DeMarcus Ware and Darrelle Revis and Calvin Johnson and then won the next 10 super bowls, I wouldn't even be happy. Winning just one with this current squad would mean exponentially more than winning a million with that fairytale squad. Anybody feel me on that?

I don't. I'd love it. Obviously it would feel more rewarding with the current squad, but I'd enjoy it either way.

Originally posted by JDeezy:
So you're pre

So you're saying since they didn't win with players they drafted, its not "Fair". Look around you, that's no longer the landscape of the NBA and hasn't been for sometime, nor will it be. Teams have one cornerstone that they've drafted and build around him (see Bryant, Kobe). If you're lucky to have two you drafted ala Durant and Westbrook, you'd instantaneously trade one of them in the pursuit to get significantly better. And the Lakers actually save money by doing this deal right now. In Football and baseball keeping the guys you drafted is more prevalent, for the mere fact that there are more guys on the team!!! 12 players active in basketball you get the 12 best or the 5 best to play together, however you accumulate them.

The Spurs did it with THEIR guys...it can be done. So did the Bulls of the 90's. Even OKC - THEY drafter Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden, Collison were all brought into the league by that organization. Pretty much their only key piece they acquired is Perkins, and they got him in a LEGIT trade (not because of a team being held hostage and scared to death of losing him for nothing, as would be the case with Orlando and Howard).

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by JDeezy:
So you're pre

So you're saying since they didn't win with players they drafted, its not "Fair". Look around you, that's no longer the landscape of the NBA and hasn't been for sometime, nor will it be. Teams have one cornerstone that they've drafted and build around him (see Bryant, Kobe). If you're lucky to have two you drafted ala Durant and Westbrook, you'd instantaneously trade one of them in the pursuit to get significantly better. And the Lakers actually save money by doing this deal right now. In Football and baseball keeping the guys you drafted is more prevalent, for the mere fact that there are more guys on the team!!! 12 players active in basketball you get the 12 best or the 5 best to play together, however you accumulate them.

The Spurs did it with THEIR guys...it can be done. So did the Bulls of the 90's. Even OKC - THEY drafter Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden, Collison were all brought into the league by that organization. Pretty much their only key piece they acquired is Perkins, and they got him in a LEGIT trade (not because of a team being held hostage and scared to death of losing him for nothing, as would be the case with Orlando and Howard).

U mad

Championships are championships who cares how they are won. There is no right way or wrong way, history only remembers the results.

Originally posted by susweel:

Championships are championships who cares how they are won. There is no right way or wrong way, history only remembers the results.

This. As Bill Walsh says winning is the only way of measuring success

This may sound crazy, but I'd be more than happy to go into the season with Bynum, Okafor, and 9 mil exception instead of Hedo and Dwight. That's not to say I wouldn't mind getting a guy like Howard, but I think we could add some really nice pieces with the nine mil. and always try to clear room to get Howard after the season as a FA (without Hedu and his contract).