2011-12 Los Angeles Lakers Thread

By the way, watching Kobe on Sportscenter right now - I can't remember someone looking so much older in the face than they did 6-7 months ago than he does right now, lol.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Don't believe everything you hear on ESPN.

Huh? I'M saying if they give up both of them for Howard it makes them worse, not ESPN. And any change they make might make them better, might make them worse. Trades are usually relatively even. I don't see a Pau Gasol donation on the horizon this year. Miami's not gonna call up Kupchak offering LBJ for Luke Walton.

Pau Gasol donation? You mean the one that helped retool Memphis into the playoff team they were last year? History has proven, without a doubt, that the Pau trade ended up not being as one sided as everybody thought it was.


Anyway 12321, I'm done chatting with you. I don't wish to go in circles, speaking in what ifs and speculations anymore. Merry Xmas.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Pau Gasol donation? You mean the one that helped retool Memphis into the playoff team they were last year? History has proven, without a doubt, that the Pau trade ended up not being as one sided as everybody thought it was.


Anyway 12321, I'm done chatting with you. I don't wish to go in circles, speaking in what ifs and speculations anymore. Merry Xmas.

At the time it was...who cares if 3 years later Memphis won A playoff series...you don't think if you sub out Marc for Pau last year that they would have been as good or better?

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Pau Gasol donation? You mean the one that helped retool Memphis into the playoff team they were last year? History has proven, without a doubt, that the Pau trade ended up not being as one sided as everybody thought it was.


Anyway 12321, I'm done chatting with you. I don't wish to go in circles, speaking in what ifs and speculations anymore. Merry Xmas.

At the time it was...who cares if 3 years later Memphis won A playoff series...you don't think if you sub out Marc for Pau last year that they would have been as good or better?

Marc certainly was the better player in the playoffs last year.

And overall, Marc Gasol + Zach Randolph...who the Grizzlies were capable of signing as a result of freeing up cap space by trading Gasol for the largest expiring contract in the NBA at the time (Kwame), is of more value than Pau Gasol. No question. It's hilarious that people are still b***hing about this considering it helped both teams immensely. People like you just don't understand the economics of the NBA, I suppose.

People think it's actually a more reasonable conclusion that the Grizzlies "gifted" Gasol to the Lakers instead of understanding that maybe...just maybe...the Grizzlies were getting something out of this too.

The best part is that a year before, the Lakers had a team option for $9M on Kwame and exercised it. Why? Because they knew it'd be the biggest expiring contract in the league the next year, and understood the value of expiring contracts. The Lakers got Gasol because they had foresight, not due to some "donation".

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Marc certainly was the better player in the playoffs last year.

And overall, Marc Gasol + Zach Randolph...who the Grizzlies were capable of signing as a result of freeing up cap space by trading Gasol for the largest expiring contract in the NBA at the time (Kwame), is of more value than Pau Gasol. No question.

It's hilarious that people are still b***hing about this considering it helped both teams immensely. People like you just don't understand the economics of the NBA, I suppose.

It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

Hey Pete, when was the last time the Lakers made a trade that didn't work out for them?

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Hey Pete, when was the last time the Lakers made a trade that didn't work out for them?

When they traded Lamar Odom this month.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Hey Pete, when was the last time the Lakers made a trade that didn't work out for them?

When they traded Lamar Odom this month.

1) One can hardly assess a trade a week after it was made, and before a single game has been played

2) I was talking to Pete.

Originally posted by andes14:
It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

There's no perhaps about it. They don't get Randolph or sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet with Pau's contract on the books. This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but the Grizzlies actually did make that trade for the betterment of their franchise, not to help the Lakers. And it worked.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by andes14:
It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

There's no perhaps about it. They don't get Randolph or sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet with Pau's contract on the books. This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but the Grizzlies actually did make that trade for the betterment of their franchise, not to help the Lakers. And it worked.

It helped the Lakers a lot too. You can't deny that. Personally at this point I would much rather have Marc than Pau Gasol. I think most people would. But it worked out for the Lakers for a certain # of years.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by andes14:
It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

There's no perhaps about it. They don't get Randolph or sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet with Pau's contract on the books. This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but the Grizzlies actually did make that trade for the betterment of their franchise, not to help the Lakers. And it worked.

It helped the Lakers a lot too. You can't deny that. Personally at this point I would much rather have Marc than Pau Gasol. I think most people would. But it worked out for the Lakers for a certain # of years.

When did anybody say that it didn't help the Lakers?

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by andes14:
It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

There's no perhaps about it. They don't get Randolph or sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet with Pau's contract on the books. This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but the Grizzlies actually did make that trade for the betterment of their franchise, not to help the Lakers. And it worked.

It helped the Lakers a lot too. You can't deny that. Personally at this point I would much rather have Marc than Pau Gasol. I think most people would. But it worked out for the Lakers for a certain # of years.

When did anybody say that it didn't help the Lakers?

Well the Lakers won from it so I would have to say it helped them MORE. I don't see the Grizzlies winning championships. But maybe they will. They are definitely an ascending team with a lot of good young talent. I was surprised how well they did in the playoffs last year. They should only get better. Definitely an exciting team to watch.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by andes14:
It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

There's no perhaps about it. They don't get Randolph or sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet with Pau's contract on the books. This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but the Grizzlies actually did make that trade for the betterment of their franchise, not to help the Lakers. And it worked.

It helped the Lakers a lot too. You can't deny that. Personally at this point I would much rather have Marc than Pau Gasol. I think most people would. But it worked out for the Lakers for a certain # of years.

When did anybody say that it didn't help the Lakers?

Well the Lakers won from it so I would have to say it helped them MORE. I don't see the Grizzlies winning championships. But maybe they will. They are definitely an ascending team with a lot of good young talent. I was surprised how well they did in the playoffs last year. They should only get better. Definitely an exciting team to watch.

The Lakers were a team on the cusp, and added a superstar to put them over the edge. The grizzlies were a horrible team that traded their only bright spot for, what eventually became, and whole team full of talent. The trade no doubt worked for both teams.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by andes14:
It's a good point that perhaps they wouldn't have gotten Randolph if they still had Pau, but it still was by no means an even trade. But this is digressing, my original point was that it seemed like Stoney was implying that the Lakers were going to make changes and THEREFORE were going to be improved. Much of the time changes make you worse. Most trades (and as you guys are saying, even the Pau one) are relatively even, so changes are not necessarily tantamount to improvement - i.e. if they traded Pau and Bynum for D12 - IMO that makes them worse. And like I said, it's not like Miami is gonna hit up Kupchak dangling LBJ for Luke Walton. Since you usually have to give up comparable talent in return for what you're getting, how can you take it to the bank that change makes you better?

I bet Knicks fans thought the change of trading for Carmelo was gonna make them way better - didn't quite work out that way though...

There's no perhaps about it. They don't get Randolph or sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet with Pau's contract on the books. This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but the Grizzlies actually did make that trade for the betterment of their franchise, not to help the Lakers. And it worked.

It helped the Lakers a lot too. You can't deny that. Personally at this point I would much rather have Marc than Pau Gasol. I think most people would. But it worked out for the Lakers for a certain # of years.

When did anybody say that it didn't help the Lakers?

Well the Lakers won from it so I would have to say it helped them MORE. I don't see the Grizzlies winning championships. But maybe they will. They are definitely an ascending team with a lot of good young talent. I was surprised how well they did in the playoffs last year. They should only get better. Definitely an exciting team to watch.

The Lakers were a team on the cusp, and added a superstar to put them over the edge. The grizzlies were a horrible team that traded their only bright spot for, what eventually became, and whole team full of talent. The trade no doubt worked for both teams.

Fair enough. And maybe so. It will be interesting to watch the Grizzlies this year. They could really be good now that they know what they can do. That always makes a difference for a young team.

I would never count the Lakers out. Still a lot of talent. You can never count out Kobe. Just the trade of Odom and not getting anything big in return. And the Bynum knee you can never count on and now Kobe injured albeit not super serious or long term. There is some age and injury cocerns with this team. Maybe a short season will help them though. Theoretically that should be better for older teams with injury concerns. I think losing Phil was a big deal too. But we will see.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Hey Pete, when was the last time the Lakers made a trade that didn't work out for them?

When they traded Lamar Odom this month.

1) One can hardly assess a trade a week after it was made, and before a single game has been played

2) I was talking to Pete.

Ya, the Lakers have been very successful in their trades. It's been quite a while since they came up on the short end of one. We've sucked in free agency though, and have traded a lot of draft picks away.

As for the Odom trade, it's a really unique set of circumstances due to the veto of the CP3 deal. I think they should have held on to him despite Odom's trade demand, but the trade exception that they got in return does have a lot of value around the league.

That being said, I don't think we're going to have the same roster at the end of the year that we do now.