|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steve007
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13221
|
 Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | a2j1m wrote: | Thunder get:
Sign and trade Pau Gasol 3yr 30m
For
Lakers get:
Kendrick Perkins
Nick Collison
Jeremy Lamb
21st overall pick from Dallas
Maybe we can get OKC 1st as well |
Forget Collison. But if anyone is watching the WCF, OKC needs a low post back to the basket scorer really badly.
I agree with you, we should try for both OKC first rounders. For what OKC wants to accomplish, they should be ready and willing to get a player like Pau. |
Gasol hasn't shown that he can be a reliable scorer in the playoffs since 2010. Now 5 years later he is going to show up for the postseason? I'm not buying it. If I were OKC I'd laugh at the idea of giving up two first round picks for an old, slow player who can't play D and is soft. However, MAYBE they would give up one and if they would, I'd make the trade. |
Gasol averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year. If Gasol were to go to OKC, he would be the third option on offense and the fourth or fifth best player on the team. Even the term "reliable scorer" on OKC is relative because OKC has no back to the basket players, at the same time they have two great scorers. I don't think OKC would really want Gasol to score a bunch of points like the Lakers needed him to do. I think OKC would want the threat of a low post player in order to implement an inside/out game and manufacture easier baskets.
The role Gasol plays on OKC as the third option is different than the role Gasol had with the Lakers as the second option, very different.
Lastly, you call Gasol slow and old, watch the labels. Labels are used by lazy people who don't want to think. 17ppg/10rpg is fringe all star numbers. Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA.
Here is why the Lakers hold out for two first rounders. Mind you, initially I thought the 21st pick was enough. But the Lakers have the ability to take on salary and the tax for a small market team like OKC matters (they let Harden go because they didn't want to pay him or the tax). Gasol is a perfect piece for OKC IMHO and we could take on some money so they avoid additional penalities. Gasol may not be worth 2 first rounders, but the deal as a whole is worth a mid and late first rounder. I would not be mad with a mid first and early second either. |
Your comments sound a lot like the comments people used to justify the Nash trade, which you were a huge critic of. "Nash put up good numbers. Nash will have an easier job playing with bigger stars. Nash will be used in this way." I'm just not buying it. One reason OKC has been successful is they loaded up on young talent. So why would they trade for a 34 year old PF that missed 55 games the last two seasons?
I've seen many comments from people saying he is a poor defender and has slowed down. His offensive numbers are inflated from playing in a Mike D'Antoni system. He averaged 17 ppg but did that on more fg attemps per game than he ever had in his career as a Laker. The year before this season, he averaged 13 ppg. His shooting numbers and free throw attempts have declined significantly. He turns the ball over more than he ever did as a Laker in the past. His win shares declined drastically. His offensive rating last season was the lowest of his career, and this year it's even lower.
We'll be lucky to get one first round pick for a guy that's old, constantly banged up, and putting up the worst numbers of his career. I'd say he is closer to retiring than being an all-star. |
I was absolutely a huge critic of the Nash trade but you are not touching why and you are staying away from details (where the devil is).
I opposed the Nash trade literally because of this logic: In the history of the NBA I have never seen a 38 or 39 year old Point Guard worth 2 first round picks.
I have seen 34 year old Point Guards who might have been worth it, but never a 38 year old. But the bigger a player is, the longer they last in the league especially if you have the skills of a Gasol or Tim DUncan. I have seen many 33/34 year old big men worth two first rounders especially if they are mid and late first rounders.
Also, you are being deliberately deceitful IMHO when you talk about Gasols numbers last year. Gasol is no longer a #1 option. With the players that took the court for the Lakers last year Gasol was thrown into a position he is no longer suited for, you know this. |
I actually think the misleading numbers are the points and rebounds per game. With Kobe, Nash and Howard either all gone or missing games, Gasol did get more shots that he normally wouldn't get, and playing for Mike D'Antoni means a quicker pace which equals more points and more possessions. Under those conditions he averaged 17 ppg. Gasol averaged 13 ppg in the last season he played a bunch of games with Kobe (in the 2012-2013 season). And he is only going to be older next season.
How many points is he going to score with Durant and Westbrook getting so many shots? I would expect him to average less than Ibaka averaged this year. It's a lot easier to average 17 ppg when the highest scoring teammate is Jodie Meeks instead of Kevin Durant.
Also, I've never heard anyone make the claim that bigger men last longer in the league. Greg Oden, Andrew Bynum, and Yao Ming sure didn't last long. I'd expect PGs to last longer.
Paul Gasol gets repeatedly trashed on these forums because a lot of fans think he isn't that good. You seem to think he is better than anyone else I've seen on this forum. That's why I'm so surprised. Why would OKC just ignore those numbers I talked about before? At the very least, they would be alarmed at getting a 34 year old big man that missed 55 games the last two seasons. Once big men start getting injured, they tend to decline quickly, especially if they're old.
Last edited by Steve007 on Sun May 25, 2014 3:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve007
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13221
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | Also this isn't the 90's anymore, so I think this back to the basket stuff is overrated.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA. |
Except he hasn't really thrived in the last 2-3 years. Again, this sounds like something people would have said about Nash. At least Nash almost led his team to the playoffs before we got him. Gasol led our team into having a realistic chance at a top 3 pick in the NBA draft. |
Your misunderstanding of the game of basketball is showing. Inside/Out has to be an aspect of your offense. Inside/out is how you collapse a defense for open shots. You go inside out through driving and kicking or post ups. But you have to have a threat in the post to work this aspect of an offense through the post.
Your argument of, "this isnt the 90s" doesnt touch basketball. It simply dismisses basketball knowledge with a bumber sticker, simple minded "argument???". "This isnt the 90s" could be used by any moron (not that I am calling you a moron) to dismiss anything that moron wants to dismiss. "This isnt the 90s" so we dont need big men. "This isnt the 90s" so we dont need a mid range game" Do you see how ignorant that sounds when a statement of the nature of "this isnt the 90s" is your rebuttal?
I disagree with your Nash argument greatly. First of all, OKC doesnt need Pau to thrive as a #1, they need him to thrive as third option on offense or as the 4th best player on their team. Gasol could still do that.
Secondly, Nash is a system player. He flourished in Dallas under Don NElson and Phoenix with Dantoni. Two wide open, offensive minded systems. Nash underachieved as a two time MVP. Go down a list of MVPs, let alone multiple MVP winners, who have never been to a NBA Finals. That list is short. Nash is the only one to win twice and never go to a finals. You know why, because in the Playoffs, when the game becomes half court (back to the basket/Inside out), Nash didnt have the skill set to win. His teams never had back to the basket players.
A 33/34 year old 6'11" big man skilled like Gasol who averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year is a great third option on offense, especially for a team with championship aspirations. |
You misunderstood my post. I agree with the stuff about why it's good to have a post up game. I was referring to how the rules have made it tougher for big men, and how teams like the Miami Heat and OKC have been able to succeed without the major post up threats we used to see a lot more often in the game.
I actually think a better case could be made that Nash overachieved. He really wasn't a typical MVP so I think comparing him to other MVPs is unfair. He didn't win because he wasn't as good as the other MVPs. In other words, of course players like Kareem, MJ, Kobe, Lebron, etc. would win more titles than him. I thought his teams lost in the playoffs because of a lack of rebounding and defense, not because of a lack of offense. His 2010 Suns team looked almost unstoppable for most of the series, but they couldn't stop the Lakers either.
The stuff about the game slowing down in the playoffs doesn't seem to be so true anymore. Miami, OKC, the Clippers and even the Spurs don't exactly play at a slow pace these days. The Spurs used to play a slower pace in the past, but not in the last few years. That's just something that gets repeated by the media because it used to be true for a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King beef
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | a2j1m wrote: | Thunder get:
Sign and trade Pau Gasol 3yr 30m
For
Lakers get:
Kendrick Perkins
Nick Collison
Jeremy Lamb
21st overall pick from Dallas
Maybe we can get OKC 1st as well |
Forget Collison. But if anyone is watching the WCF, OKC needs a low post back to the basket scorer really badly.
I agree with you, we should try for both OKC first rounders. For what OKC wants to accomplish, they should be ready and willing to get a player like Pau. |
Gasol hasn't shown that he can be a reliable scorer in the playoffs since 2010. Now 5 years later he is going to show up for the postseason? I'm not buying it. If I were OKC I'd laugh at the idea of giving up two first round picks for an old, slow player who can't play D and is soft. However, MAYBE they would give up one and if they would, I'd make the trade. |
Gasol averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year. If Gasol were to go to OKC, he would be the third option on offense and the fourth or fifth best player on the team. Even the term "reliable scorer" on OKC is relative because OKC has no back to the basket players, at the same time they have two great scorers. I don't think OKC would really want Gasol to score a bunch of points like the Lakers needed him to do. I think OKC would want the threat of a low post player in order to implement an inside/out game and manufacture easier baskets.
The role Gasol plays on OKC as the third option is different than the role Gasol had with the Lakers as the second option, very different.
Lastly, you call Gasol slow and old, watch the labels. Labels are used by lazy people who don't want to think. 17ppg/10rpg is fringe all star numbers. Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA.
Here is why the Lakers hold out for two first rounders. Mind you, initially I thought the 21st pick was enough. But the Lakers have the ability to take on salary and the tax for a small market team like OKC matters (they let Harden go because they didn't want to pay him or the tax). Gasol is a perfect piece for OKC IMHO and we could take on some money so they avoid additional penalities. Gasol may not be worth 2 first rounders, but the deal as a whole is worth a mid and late first rounder. I would not be mad with a mid first and early second either. |
Your comments sound a lot like the comments people used to justify the Nash trade, which you were a huge critic of. "Nash put up good numbers. Nash will have an easier job playing with bigger stars. Nash will be used in this way." I'm just not buying it. One reason OKC has been successful is they loaded up on young talent. So why would they trade for a 34 year old PF that missed 55 games the last two seasons?
I've seen many comments from people saying he is a poor defender and has slowed down. His offensive numbers are inflated from playing in a Mike D'Antoni system. He averaged 17 ppg but did that on more fg attemps per game than he ever had in his career as a Laker. The year before this season, he averaged 13 ppg. His shooting numbers and free throw attempts have declined significantly. He turns the ball over more than he ever did as a Laker in the past. His win shares declined drastically. His offensive rating last season was the lowest of his career, and this year it's even lower.
We'll be lucky to get one first round pick for a guy that's old, constantly banged up, and putting up the worst numbers of his career. I'd say he is closer to retiring than being an all-star. |
I was absolutely a huge critic of the Nash trade but you are not touching why and you are staying away from details (where the devil is).
I opposed the Nash trade literally because of this logic: In the history of the NBA I have never seen a 38 or 39 year old Point Guard worth 2 first round picks.
I have seen 34 year old Point Guards who might have been worth it, but never a 38 year old. But the bigger a player is, the longer they last in the league especially if you have the skills of a Gasol or Tim DUncan. I have seen many 33/34 year old big men worth two first rounders especially if they are mid and late first rounders.
Also, you are being deliberately deceitful IMHO when you talk about Gasols numbers last year. Gasol is no longer a #1 option. With the players that took the court for the Lakers last year Gasol was thrown into a position he is no longer suited for, you know this. |
I actually think the misleading numbers are the points and rebounds per game. With Kobe, Nash and Howard either all gone or missing games, Gasol did get more shots that he normally wouldn't get, and playing for Mike D'Antoni means a quicker pace which equals more points and more possessions. Under those conditions he averaged 17 ppg. Gasol averaged 13 ppg in the last season he played a bunch of games with Kobe (in the 2012-2013 season). And he is only going to be older next season.
How many points is he going to score with Durant and Westbrook getting so many shots? I would expect him to average less than Ibaka averaged this year. It's a lot easier to average 17 ppg when the highest scoring teammate is Jodie Meeks instead of Kevin Durant.
Also, I've never heard anyone make the claim that bigger men last longer in the league. Greg Oden, Andrew Bynum, and Yao Ming sure didn't last long. I'd expect PGs to last longer.
Paul Gasol gets repeatedly trashed on these forums because a lot of fans think he isn't that good. You seem to think he is better than anyone else I've seen on this forum. That's why I'm so surprised. Why would OKC just ignore those numbers I talked about before? At the very least, they would be alarmed at getting a 34 year old big man that missed 55 games the last two seasons. Once big men start getting injured, they tend to decline quickly, especially if they're old. |
First off, I will not argue over your examples of Oden, Bynum and Ming who all are seriously injury prone. To use them as a counter to what I said is dishonest. Therefore I will not address that issue anymore.
Secondly, Laker fans are spoiled. If you think Gasol isn't that good (I don't mean you, but generally), then you aren't worth the time to talk to.
Lastly, as I said before, Gasol doesn't necessarily have to score a lot of points. He simply has to be a threat in the post to facilitate easier baskets for the rest of that team because as of right now its Durant going one on one then Westbrook going one on one and the rest of the team watching. They cant win that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King beef
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | Also this isn't the 90's anymore, so I think this back to the basket stuff is overrated.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA. |
Except he hasn't really thrived in the last 2-3 years. Again, this sounds like something people would have said about Nash. At least Nash almost led his team to the playoffs before we got him. Gasol led our team into having a realistic chance at a top 3 pick in the NBA draft. |
Your misunderstanding of the game of basketball is showing. Inside/Out has to be an aspect of your offense. Inside/out is how you collapse a defense for open shots. You go inside out through driving and kicking or post ups. But you have to have a threat in the post to work this aspect of an offense through the post.
Your argument of, "this isnt the 90s" doesnt touch basketball. It simply dismisses basketball knowledge with a bumber sticker, simple minded "argument???". "This isnt the 90s" could be used by any moron (not that I am calling you a moron) to dismiss anything that moron wants to dismiss. "This isnt the 90s" so we dont need big men. "This isnt the 90s" so we dont need a mid range game" Do you see how ignorant that sounds when a statement of the nature of "this isnt the 90s" is your rebuttal?
I disagree with your Nash argument greatly. First of all, OKC doesnt need Pau to thrive as a #1, they need him to thrive as third option on offense or as the 4th best player on their team. Gasol could still do that.
Secondly, Nash is a system player. He flourished in Dallas under Don NElson and Phoenix with Dantoni. Two wide open, offensive minded systems. Nash underachieved as a two time MVP. Go down a list of MVPs, let alone multiple MVP winners, who have never been to a NBA Finals. That list is short. Nash is the only one to win twice and never go to a finals. You know why, because in the Playoffs, when the game becomes half court (back to the basket/Inside out), Nash didnt have the skill set to win. His teams never had back to the basket players.
A 33/34 year old 6'11" big man skilled like Gasol who averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year is a great third option on offense, especially for a team with championship aspirations. |
You misunderstood my post. I agree with the stuff about why it's good to have a post up game. I was referring to how the rules have made it tougher for big men, and how teams like the Miami Heat and OKC have been able to succeed without the major post up threats we used to see a lot more often in the game.
I actually think a better case could be made that Nash overachieved. He really wasn't a typical MVP so I think comparing him to other MVPs is unfair. He didn't win because he wasn't as good as the other MVPs. In other words, of course players like Kareem, MJ, Kobe, Lebron, etc. would win more titles than him. I thought his teams lost in the playoffs because of a lack of rebounding and defense, not because of a lack of offense. His 2010 Suns team looked almost unstoppable for most of the series, but they couldn't stop the Lakers either.
The stuff about the game slowing down in the playoffs doesn't seem to be so true anymore. Miami, OKC, the Clippers and even the Spurs don't exactly play at a slow pace these days. The Spurs used to play a slower pace in the past, but not in the last few years. That's just something that gets repeated by the media because it used to be true for a while. |
Miami and OKC have the two best players in the world man. Lebron James is the great equalizer. A team with him doesn't necessarily need a post game but they are the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, I am not saying inside out is the only way. I am simply saying it helps a lot to have inside/out be an aspect of your offense which is why I keep referring to Gasol as a third option. Mark my words, if Gasol goes to OKC, Durant and Westbrook get much better shots and the rest of the team gets more involved (notice I did not mention Gasol scoring).
Don't change the rules for Nash. Every other MVP, let alone 2 time MVP went to the finals and he didn't. Nash underachieved and the answer to this issue is actually in your response above. You said Nash teams didn't have rebounding and defense. EXACTLY. That is the point. As I said before Nash is a system player. If you give Nash a team with rebounding and defense, that system changes. Rebounders and defenders are generally not the best shooters. This explains Nashs lack of success in the playoffs. Rebounding and defense wins in the playoffs.
And don't blame the media. It is so lazy to blame the media. In the last 5 minutes of a finals game or conference finals game (crunch time or winning time) it always comes down to defense and half court offense. Period point blank. This is why Nash has never been to a finals and why Gasol would really help OKC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve007
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13221
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | a2j1m wrote: | Thunder get:
Sign and trade Pau Gasol 3yr 30m
For
Lakers get:
Kendrick Perkins
Nick Collison
Jeremy Lamb
21st overall pick from Dallas
Maybe we can get OKC 1st as well |
Forget Collison. But if anyone is watching the WCF, OKC needs a low post back to the basket scorer really badly.
I agree with you, we should try for both OKC first rounders. For what OKC wants to accomplish, they should be ready and willing to get a player like Pau. |
Gasol hasn't shown that he can be a reliable scorer in the playoffs since 2010. Now 5 years later he is going to show up for the postseason? I'm not buying it. If I were OKC I'd laugh at the idea of giving up two first round picks for an old, slow player who can't play D and is soft. However, MAYBE they would give up one and if they would, I'd make the trade. |
Gasol averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year. If Gasol were to go to OKC, he would be the third option on offense and the fourth or fifth best player on the team. Even the term "reliable scorer" on OKC is relative because OKC has no back to the basket players, at the same time they have two great scorers. I don't think OKC would really want Gasol to score a bunch of points like the Lakers needed him to do. I think OKC would want the threat of a low post player in order to implement an inside/out game and manufacture easier baskets.
The role Gasol plays on OKC as the third option is different than the role Gasol had with the Lakers as the second option, very different.
Lastly, you call Gasol slow and old, watch the labels. Labels are used by lazy people who don't want to think. 17ppg/10rpg is fringe all star numbers. Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA.
Here is why the Lakers hold out for two first rounders. Mind you, initially I thought the 21st pick was enough. But the Lakers have the ability to take on salary and the tax for a small market team like OKC matters (they let Harden go because they didn't want to pay him or the tax). Gasol is a perfect piece for OKC IMHO and we could take on some money so they avoid additional penalities. Gasol may not be worth 2 first rounders, but the deal as a whole is worth a mid and late first rounder. I would not be mad with a mid first and early second either. |
Your comments sound a lot like the comments people used to justify the Nash trade, which you were a huge critic of. "Nash put up good numbers. Nash will have an easier job playing with bigger stars. Nash will be used in this way." I'm just not buying it. One reason OKC has been successful is they loaded up on young talent. So why would they trade for a 34 year old PF that missed 55 games the last two seasons?
I've seen many comments from people saying he is a poor defender and has slowed down. His offensive numbers are inflated from playing in a Mike D'Antoni system. He averaged 17 ppg but did that on more fg attemps per game than he ever had in his career as a Laker. The year before this season, he averaged 13 ppg. His shooting numbers and free throw attempts have declined significantly. He turns the ball over more than he ever did as a Laker in the past. His win shares declined drastically. His offensive rating last season was the lowest of his career, and this year it's even lower.
We'll be lucky to get one first round pick for a guy that's old, constantly banged up, and putting up the worst numbers of his career. I'd say he is closer to retiring than being an all-star. |
I was absolutely a huge critic of the Nash trade but you are not touching why and you are staying away from details (where the devil is).
I opposed the Nash trade literally because of this logic: In the history of the NBA I have never seen a 38 or 39 year old Point Guard worth 2 first round picks.
I have seen 34 year old Point Guards who might have been worth it, but never a 38 year old. But the bigger a player is, the longer they last in the league especially if you have the skills of a Gasol or Tim DUncan. I have seen many 33/34 year old big men worth two first rounders especially if they are mid and late first rounders.
Also, you are being deliberately deceitful IMHO when you talk about Gasols numbers last year. Gasol is no longer a #1 option. With the players that took the court for the Lakers last year Gasol was thrown into a position he is no longer suited for, you know this. |
I actually think the misleading numbers are the points and rebounds per game. With Kobe, Nash and Howard either all gone or missing games, Gasol did get more shots that he normally wouldn't get, and playing for Mike D'Antoni means a quicker pace which equals more points and more possessions. Under those conditions he averaged 17 ppg. Gasol averaged 13 ppg in the last season he played a bunch of games with Kobe (in the 2012-2013 season). And he is only going to be older next season.
How many points is he going to score with Durant and Westbrook getting so many shots? I would expect him to average less than Ibaka averaged this year. It's a lot easier to average 17 ppg when the highest scoring teammate is Jodie Meeks instead of Kevin Durant.
Also, I've never heard anyone make the claim that bigger men last longer in the league. Greg Oden, Andrew Bynum, and Yao Ming sure didn't last long. I'd expect PGs to last longer.
Paul Gasol gets repeatedly trashed on these forums because a lot of fans think he isn't that good. You seem to think he is better than anyone else I've seen on this forum. That's why I'm so surprised. Why would OKC just ignore those numbers I talked about before? At the very least, they would be alarmed at getting a 34 year old big man that missed 55 games the last two seasons. Once big men start getting injured, they tend to decline quickly, especially if they're old. |
First off, I will not argue over your examples of Oden, Bynum and Ming who all are seriously injury prone. To use them as a counter to what I said is dishonest. Therefore I will not address that issue anymore.
Secondly, Laker fans are spoiled. If you think Gasol isn't that good (I don't mean you, but generally), then you aren't worth the time to talk to.
Lastly, as I said before, Gasol doesn't necessarily have to score a lot of points. He simply has to be a threat in the post to facilitate easier baskets for the rest of that team because as of right now its Durant going one on one then Westbrook going one on one and the rest of the team watching. They cant win that way. |
If Gasol is that good then shouldn't we seriously consider keeping him? Or at least trading him for a lot more?
I think you're overlooking one very important point about the injured big men. Big men carry a lot more weight than PGs. Sometimes it's as much as 100 pounds more. I think it would be incredibly naive to act like that wouldn't take its toll on the knees, ankles, etc. The league has a history of big men having those types of issues, with some having very short NBA careers. So bringing up people like Bynum is very fair.
| Quote: | Secondly, Laker fans are spoiled. If you think Gasol isn't that good (I don't mean you, but generally), then you aren't worth the time to talk to.
|
Do you think anyone on this forum is worth talking to? Gasol used to be one of my favorite players. I honestly don't feel like he is the same player that made a big difference during the title years.
Last edited by Steve007 on Sun May 25, 2014 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve007
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13221
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | Also this isn't the 90's anymore, so I think this back to the basket stuff is overrated.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA. |
Except he hasn't really thrived in the last 2-3 years. Again, this sounds like something people would have said about Nash. At least Nash almost led his team to the playoffs before we got him. Gasol led our team into having a realistic chance at a top 3 pick in the NBA draft. |
Your misunderstanding of the game of basketball is showing. Inside/Out has to be an aspect of your offense. Inside/out is how you collapse a defense for open shots. You go inside out through driving and kicking or post ups. But you have to have a threat in the post to work this aspect of an offense through the post.
Your argument of, "this isnt the 90s" doesnt touch basketball. It simply dismisses basketball knowledge with a bumber sticker, simple minded "argument???". "This isnt the 90s" could be used by any moron (not that I am calling you a moron) to dismiss anything that moron wants to dismiss. "This isnt the 90s" so we dont need big men. "This isnt the 90s" so we dont need a mid range game" Do you see how ignorant that sounds when a statement of the nature of "this isnt the 90s" is your rebuttal?
I disagree with your Nash argument greatly. First of all, OKC doesnt need Pau to thrive as a #1, they need him to thrive as third option on offense or as the 4th best player on their team. Gasol could still do that.
Secondly, Nash is a system player. He flourished in Dallas under Don NElson and Phoenix with Dantoni. Two wide open, offensive minded systems. Nash underachieved as a two time MVP. Go down a list of MVPs, let alone multiple MVP winners, who have never been to a NBA Finals. That list is short. Nash is the only one to win twice and never go to a finals. You know why, because in the Playoffs, when the game becomes half court (back to the basket/Inside out), Nash didnt have the skill set to win. His teams never had back to the basket players.
A 33/34 year old 6'11" big man skilled like Gasol who averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year is a great third option on offense, especially for a team with championship aspirations. |
You misunderstood my post. I agree with the stuff about why it's good to have a post up game. I was referring to how the rules have made it tougher for big men, and how teams like the Miami Heat and OKC have been able to succeed without the major post up threats we used to see a lot more often in the game.
I actually think a better case could be made that Nash overachieved. He really wasn't a typical MVP so I think comparing him to other MVPs is unfair. He didn't win because he wasn't as good as the other MVPs. In other words, of course players like Kareem, MJ, Kobe, Lebron, etc. would win more titles than him. I thought his teams lost in the playoffs because of a lack of rebounding and defense, not because of a lack of offense. His 2010 Suns team looked almost unstoppable for most of the series, but they couldn't stop the Lakers either.
The stuff about the game slowing down in the playoffs doesn't seem to be so true anymore. Miami, OKC, the Clippers and even the Spurs don't exactly play at a slow pace these days. The Spurs used to play a slower pace in the past, but not in the last few years. That's just something that gets repeated by the media because it used to be true for a while. |
Miami and OKC have the two best players in the world man. Lebron James is the great equalizer. A team with him doesn't necessarily need a post game but they are the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, I am not saying inside out is the only way. I am simply saying it helps a lot to have inside/out be an aspect of your offense which is why I keep referring to Gasol as a third option. Mark my words, if Gasol goes to OKC, Durant and Westbrook get much better shots and the rest of the team gets more involved (notice I did not mention Gasol scoring).
Don't change the rules for Nash. Every other MVP, let alone 2 time MVP went to the finals and he didn't. Nash underachieved and the answer to this issue is actually in your response above. You said Nash teams didn't have rebounding and defense. EXACTLY. That is the point. As I said before Nash is a system player. If you give Nash a team with rebounding and defense, that system changes. Rebounders and defenders are generally not the best shooters. This explains Nashs lack of success in the playoffs. Rebounding and defense wins in the playoffs.
And don't blame the media. It is so lazy to blame the media. In the last 5 minutes of a finals game or conference finals game (crunch time or winning time) it always comes down to defense and half court offense. Period point blank. This is why Nash has never been to a finals and why Gasol would really help OKC. |
Nash wasn't the real MVP of the league in those years and you know it. Do you really think he was more valuable in those years than Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, Nowitzki, etc.? If you do then there is really nothing to argue about when it comes to him. He must have been incredibly amazing. But we both know he wasn't THAT amazing and that the voters got that horribly wrong.
I think a far better comparison would be comparing him to other players at his position. Besides Tony Parker (who played with Duncan in his prime), how many star PGs in their prime have won championships since the early 90's?
I actually think your comments about how Gasol could help OKC are for the most part pretty accurate. I'm just not sure how big his impact would be on that team with his injuries and age showing. And I'm not sure OKC would think as highly of him as you do. I also wonder how much he would affect the defense.
On the Nash vs. Gasol stuff-I can see you're being consistent. You think Gasol has a lot more value now than Nash had when he was traded. So I can understand now why you think it makes more sense for OKC to trade for Gasol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King beef
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | King beef wrote: | | a2j1m wrote: | Thunder get:
Sign and trade Pau Gasol 3yr 30m
For
Lakers get:
Kendrick Perkins
Nick Collison
Jeremy Lamb
21st overall pick from Dallas
Maybe we can get OKC 1st as well |
Forget Collison. But if anyone is watching the WCF, OKC needs a low post back to the basket scorer really badly.
I agree with you, we should try for both OKC first rounders. For what OKC wants to accomplish, they should be ready and willing to get a player like Pau. |
Gasol hasn't shown that he can be a reliable scorer in the playoffs since 2010. Now 5 years later he is going to show up for the postseason? I'm not buying it. If I were OKC I'd laugh at the idea of giving up two first round picks for an old, slow player who can't play D and is soft. However, MAYBE they would give up one and if they would, I'd make the trade. |
Gasol averaged 17ppg/10rpg last year. If Gasol were to go to OKC, he would be the third option on offense and the fourth or fifth best player on the team. Even the term "reliable scorer" on OKC is relative because OKC has no back to the basket players, at the same time they have two great scorers. I don't think OKC would really want Gasol to score a bunch of points like the Lakers needed him to do. I think OKC would want the threat of a low post player in order to implement an inside/out game and manufacture easier baskets.
The role Gasol plays on OKC as the third option is different than the role Gasol had with the Lakers as the second option, very different.
Lastly, you call Gasol slow and old, watch the labels. Labels are used by lazy people who don't want to think. 17ppg/10rpg is fringe all star numbers. Furthermore, Gasol has a skill set for a big man that would allow him to thrive for many more years as a third option in the NBA.
Here is why the Lakers hold out for two first rounders. Mind you, initially I thought the 21st pick was enough. But the Lakers have the ability to take on salary and the tax for a small market team like OKC matters (they let Harden go because they didn't want to pay him or the tax). Gasol is a perfect piece for OKC IMHO and we could take on some money so they avoid additional penalities. Gasol may not be worth 2 first rounders, but the deal as a whole is worth a mid and late first rounder. I would not be mad with a mid first and early second either. |
Your comments sound a lot like the comments people used to justify the Nash trade, which you were a huge critic of. "Nash put up good numbers. Nash will have an easier job playing with bigger stars. Nash will be used in this way." I'm just not buying it. One reason OKC has been successful is they loaded up on young talent. So why would they trade for a 34 year old PF that missed 55 games the last two seasons?
I've seen many comments from people saying he is a poor defender and has slowed down. His offensive numbers are inflated from playing in a Mike D'Antoni system. He averaged 17 ppg but did that on more fg attemps per game than he ever had in his career as a Laker. The year before this season, he averaged 13 ppg. His shooting numbers and free throw attempts have declined significantly. He turns the ball over more than he ever did as a Laker in the past. His win shares declined drastically. His offensive rating last season was the lowest of his career, and this year it's even lower.
We'll be lucky to get one first round pick for a guy that's old, constantly banged up, and putting up the worst numbers of his career. I'd say he is closer to retiring than being an all-star. |
I was absolutely a huge critic of the Nash trade but you are not touching why and you are staying away from details (where the devil is).
I opposed the Nash trade literally because of this logic: In the history of the NBA I have never seen a 38 or 39 year old Point Guard worth 2 first round picks.
I have seen 34 year old Point Guards who might have been worth it, but never a 38 year old. But the bigger a player is, the longer they last in the league especially if you have the skills of a Gasol or Tim DUncan. I have seen many 33/34 year old big men worth two first rounders especially if they are mid and late first rounders.
Also, you are being deliberately deceitful IMHO when you talk about Gasols numbers last year. Gasol is no longer a #1 option. With the players that took the court for the Lakers last year Gasol was thrown into a position he is no longer suited for, you know this. |
I actually think the misleading numbers are the points and rebounds per game. With Kobe, Nash and Howard either all gone or missing games, Gasol did get more shots that he normally wouldn't get, and playing for Mike D'Antoni means a quicker pace which equals more points and more possessions. Under those conditions he averaged 17 ppg. Gasol averaged 13 ppg in the last season he played a bunch of games with Kobe (in the 2012-2013 season). And he is only going to be older next season.
How many points is he going to score with Durant and Westbrook getting so many shots? I would expect him to average less than Ibaka averaged this year. It's a lot easier to average 17 ppg when the highest scoring teammate is Jodie Meeks instead of Kevin Durant.
Also, I've never heard anyone make the claim that bigger men last longer in the league. Greg Oden, Andrew Bynum, and Yao Ming sure didn't last long. I'd expect PGs to last longer.
Paul Gasol gets repeatedly trashed on these forums because a lot of fans think he isn't that good. You seem to think he is better than anyone else I've seen on this forum. That's why I'm so surprised. Why would OKC just ignore those numbers I talked about before? At the very least, they would be alarmed at getting a 34 year old big man that missed 55 games the last two seasons. Once big men start getting injured, they tend to decline quickly, especially if they're old. |
First off, I will not argue over your examples of Oden, Bynum and Ming who all are seriously injury prone. To use them as a counter to what I said is dishonest. Therefore I will not address that issue anymore.
Secondly, Laker fans are spoiled. If you think Gasol isn't that good (I don't mean you, but generally), then you aren't worth the time to talk to.
Lastly, as I said before, Gasol doesn't necessarily have to score a lot of points. He simply has to be a threat in the post to facilitate easier baskets for the rest of that team because as of right now its Durant going one on one then Westbrook going one on one and the rest of the team watching. They cant win that way. |
If Gasol is that good then shouldn't we seriously consider keeping him? Or at least trading him for a lot more?
I think you're overlooking one very important point about the injured big men. Big men carry a lot more weight than PGs. Sometimes it's as much as 100 pounds more. I think it would be incredibly naive to act like that wouldn't take its toll on the knees, ankles, etc. The league has a history of big men having those types of issues, with some having very short NBA careers. So bringing up people like Bynum is very fair.
| Quote: | Secondly, Laker fans are spoiled. If you think Gasol isn't that good (I don't mean you, but generally), then you aren't worth the time to talk to.
|
Do you think anyone on this forum is worth talking to? Gasol used to be one of my favorite players. I honestly don't feel like he is the same player that made a big difference during the title years. |
I would not keep Gasol. No way. I would not trade Gasol for a good veteran player either. I would trade Gasol for what this team needs right now, Young Players. We are not getting any good established young players for Gasol, they are too valuable. But we could get developmental players for him in the form of draft picks. This is just my opinion.
The reason we dont keep Gasol or trade him for good experienced players is that the Lakers are in rebuild mode, Kobe or no Kobe. If it was me, at the end of this year I wouldve told Kobe:
"Look man, you could stay here for 12-14 million per year or you could go to a contender as a free agent, but we are in rebuild mode. So if you dont want to stick around for 3-5 years of rebuilding, we love you and respect your decision."
Surprise Steve, Gasol as well as Kobe arent the same players who made a big difference during the title years. Look at Kobe the way I am looking at Gasol, Kobe is still very good but he might have more value on Chicago given where that organization is and what they need than on the Lakers who are going to suck next year whether Kobe is here or not. That is all I am saying about Pau. For where the organizations are, Pau is worth more to OKC than the Lakers and draft picks are worth more to the Lakers than OKC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
