seriously, BLEEP Dwight Howard. He never had the what it takes to be a long-time Laker. BLEEP him and move on. _________________ "We might have had the worst season ever or could have the worst season ever for a Lakers team, but now let's have the greatest comeback that the league has ever seen." - Kobe Bryant
You're pretty much seeing what you'd get from Dwight right now in Houston.
Not worth the money or the time.
Which is production amongst the best bigs in basketball, even while playing hurt. In a league where Mozgov can fetch multiple picks, that is most definitely worth any teams time (one trying to compete or rebuild). If you had Howard I'm sure the Cavs would have given you Haywood's expiring snd multiple 1sts from him, along with other assets. That wouldn't help your team?
There is a thing called winning, that is where Dwight has fallen short.
Agreed, but that wasn't my point. I believe I've acknowledged that Dwight isn't going to lead a team anywhere and is on an athletic decline. But to make it seem like losing him for nothing was good....naw buddy.
Of course it was no good. Its just the story that is told to make it not hurt as bad and to cover for the front office. Swing for the fences, the way his dad did it, all that stuff... _________________ IM THE GREATEST HITTER IN THE WORLD!!!1!
Could we have traded Dwight for Klay b4 the deadline that year?
Think he woulld have re-upped with them or even a trade to Hou for Lin, Asik and picks. I do agree on the Byunm thing though the FO really failed to explore more options avl to them for him. His value was sky high around the league despite his injury problem( which only we knew about). The cp3 trade is another example of be short sighted when it came to Bynum.
The illogical idea is that we could have received anything in return for Dwight.
Some just don't understand this.
Deng and Noah?
This is the perfect example of not understanding the situation. Dwight was in the last year of his contract and wouldn't re-sign with the Bulls, so the trade would be useless to Chicago. They would've lost 2 good players for a half-season rental.
Despite the gamble, the trade didn't screw us up as much as when we signed Nash and gave up all those draft picks. You can thank Drew for his bad knees and pretty much not playing much after the trade.....we would've been really screwed if we signed Drew for a long term contract if they had never decided to trade for D12.
Could we have traded Dwight for Klay b4 the deadline that year?
Think he woulld have re-upped with them or even a trade to Hou for Lin, Asik and picks. I do agree on the Byunm thing though the FO really failed to explore more options avl to them for him. His value was sky high around the league despite his injury problem( which only we knew about). The cp3 trade is another example of be short sighted when it came to Bynum.
Let's be honest - at the time in question, did you think that Klay was worth Howard? Was that even offered? Did you know for sure that Howard would leave all that money and sign elsewhere? Did you think that weak-minded idiot who was always "trying" not to look bad would have the balls to bail on the Lakers? Management pulled off a nice summer which fell apart after Nash got hurt. Had everyone been healthier, we would've been in a much better position to have him stay (might not have been the best outcome).
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 20510 Location: UCLA -> NY
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:26 am Post subject:
55 wrote:
Lakers2001 wrote:
Could we have traded Dwight for Klay b4 the deadline that year?
Think he woulld have re-upped with them or even a trade to Hou for Lin, Asik and picks. I do agree on the Byunm thing though the FO really failed to explore more options avl to them for him. His value was sky high around the league despite his injury problem( which only we knew about). The cp3 trade is another example of be short sighted when it came to Bynum.
Let's be honest - at the time in question, did you think that Klay was worth Howard? Was that even offered? Did you know for sure that Howard would leave all that money and sign elsewhere? Did you think that weak-minded idiot who was always "trying" not to look bad would have the balls to bail on the Lakers? Management pulled off a nice summer which fell apart after Nash got hurt. Had everyone been healthier, we would've been in a much better position to have him stay (might not have been the best outcome).
It was good for the Lakers, they never should have traded for him. The cap space brings more value than Dwight did.
No it doesn't. The cap space brought Lin and a draft pick. That does not outweigh the value of what Howard would fetch in a trade. Howard could have been traded for assets and expiring. You still would have had the cap space. Again, you could have likely gotten the same package the Wolves got for Love.
The illogical idea is that we could have received anything in return for Dwight.
You could have if he were resigned. It's not illogical to say signing a player and either using him or flipping him is more helpful to your team than him leaving with no compensation returning. Or trading him at the deadline (Houston still would have traded for him).
The illogical idea is that we could have received anything in return for Dwight.
Some just don't understand this.
Deng and Noah?
This is the perfect example of not understanding the situation. Dwight was in the last year of his contract and wouldn't re-sign with the Bulls, so the trade would be useless to Chicago. They would've lost 2 good players for a half-season rental.
How do you know he would not have resigned with the Bulls? Prior to the season he said there was no way he would come to Houston.
Either way, Morey was on record that he would have traded for Howard regardless of him being a free agent, with the hope that he could convince him to resign. He tried to do it while he was in Orlando, twice. And you would still have expirings (ie your cap space) and picks. The team would still be in a better position. It's just not true to say the team is better off losing him for nothing in return. There was at least one deal on the table during the season (likely more) and deals to be had after the season (if you could have resigned him). Howard still carries significant value because C's are hard to find.
I am extremely curious why a thread about a guy in Houston, whose name some of us won't even mention around here, is not move to the OFF TOPIC FORUM...I hate even seeing his name in the main forum.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:55 am Post subject:
Lakers2001 wrote:
Could we have traded Dwight for Klay b4 the deadline that year?
Think he woulld have re-upped with them or even a trade to Hou for Lin, Asik and picks. I do agree on the Byunm thing though the FO really failed to explore more options avl to them for him. His value was sky high around the league despite his injury problem( which only we knew about). The cp3 trade is another example of be short sighted when it came to Bynum.
Dwight didn't want to be in Golden State, so why would they rent him for a few months? That would have contended for one of the dumbest trades ever. And Houston didn't need to trade for Howard, they could sign him outright. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:56 am Post subject:
Dreamshake wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The illogical idea is that we could have received anything in return for Dwight.
You could have if he were resigned. It's not illogical to say signing a player and either using him or flipping him is more helpful to your team than him leaving with no compensation returning. Or trading him at the deadline (Houston still would have traded for him).
It is illogical to say that he would have re-signed. In case you missed that offseason, he didn't. Reality trumps fantasy. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:58 am Post subject:
Dreamshake wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
It was good for the Lakers, they never should have traded for him. The cap space brings more value than Dwight did.
No it doesn't. The cap space brought Lin and a draft pick. That does not outweigh the value of what Howard would fetch in a trade. Howard could have been traded for assets and expiring. You still would have had the cap space. Again, you could have likely gotten the same package the Wolves got for Love.
What trade? I have no idea what you are talking about, more fantasy? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:00 am Post subject:
Dreamshake wrote:
55 wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
55 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The illogical idea is that we could have received anything in return for Dwight.
Some just don't understand this.
Deng and Noah?
This is the perfect example of not understanding the situation. Dwight was in the last year of his contract and wouldn't re-sign with the Bulls, so the trade would be useless to Chicago. They would've lost 2 good players for a half-season rental.
How do you know he would not have resigned with the Bulls? Prior to the season he said there was no way he would come to Houston.
Either way, Morey was on record that he would have traded for Howard regardless of him being a free agent, with the hope that he could convince him to resign. He tried to do it while he was in Orlando, twice. And you would still have expirings (ie your cap space) and picks. The team would still be in a better position. It's just not true to say the team is better off losing him for nothing in return. There was at least one deal on the table during the season (likely more) and deals to be had after the season (if you could have resigned him). Howard still carries significant value because C's are hard to find.
The Lakers didn't lose him for nothing, the net gain was getting a losing cancer off the roster. Now he is your problem, so let go of any hopes for a title. $21.5 mil for a one dimensional player who is declining in the one dimension. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
We should have traded him while we could...but Jim was convinced (95% certain) that he could convince Dwight to stay...so no realistic trades were ever entertained.
So for the "salary slot" that used to belong to Bynum....we ended up nothing except cap space. The asset that used to be Bynum became thin air. This is part of how the entire team was dismantled piece by piece by Jim.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:19 am Post subject:
kray28_ wrote:
We should have traded him while we could...but Jim was convinced (95% certain) that he could convince Dwight to stay...so no realistic trades were ever entertained.
So for the "salary slot" that used to belong to Bynum....we ended up nothing except cap space. The asset that used to be Bynum became thin air. This is part of how the entire team was dismantled piece by piece by Jim.
Again, thinking we could have traded him mid-season is pure fantasy. And thin air is better than Bynum right now, and will be actual players next offseason. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
And Houston didn't need to trade for Howard, they could sign him outright.
The Rockets were still willing to trade for Howard because the odds of keeping would have bene higher with the ability to give him a full max, as opposed to asking him to turn down money (which no one thought he would do).
venturalakersfan wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The illogical idea is that we could have received anything in return for Dwight.
You could have if he were resigned. It's not illogical to say signing a player and either using him or flipping him is more helpful to your team than him leaving with no compensation returning. Or trading him at the deadline (Houston still would have traded for him).
It is illogical to say that he would have re-signed. In case you missed that offseason, he didn't. Reality trumps fantasy.
It is not illogical to say you could have recieved something by trading him prior to him hitting free agency. You had him and decided not to move him. That is a reality. Trading him post signing is a hypothetical, based on him signing, but those comments were in response to folks saying it's better that he just walked. No, it is not better because if he resigned then you could have later had assets for him, at the least.
venturalakersfan wrote:
What trade? I have no idea what you are talking about, more fantasy?
A future trade is a hypothetical, just as you using future cap space for something more valuable than Howard the player or trade chip, because Lin and a late 1st sure isn't.
venturalakersfan wrote:
The Lakers didn't lose him for nothing, the net gain was getting a losing cancer off the roster. Now he is your problem, so let go of any hopes for a title. $21.5 mil for a one dimensional player who is declining in the one dimension.
What happened to reality trumping fantasy?
Last edited by Dreamshake on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total
We should have traded him while we could...but Jim was convinced (95% certain) that he could convince Dwight to stay...so no realistic trades were ever entertained.
So for the "salary slot" that used to belong to Bynum....we ended up nothing except cap space. The asset that used to be Bynum became thin air. This is part of how the entire team was dismantled piece by piece by Jim.
Again, thinking we could have traded him mid-season is pure fantasy. And thin air is better than Bynum right now, and will be actual players next offseason.
It actually isn't. You could have traded him to Houston, who would have wanted his bird rights.
It is annoying to hear the sycophants defending the Dwight Howard situation as something that wasnt so bad, or even twist it to be a good thing. Just be honest with yourself and your opinions because it is healthier and more productive. When you keep lying about it not being terrible, it enables more terrible direction from the front office.
Maybe it really was a good thing. It contributed to the freefall we are in now and because of that I have more free time to devote towards other things instead of watching the games. Now it doesnt matter how long the losing streaks go. The new culture of the franchise has allowed me to free myself from careing. I obviously still have issues because I still read this forum and it is a tough habit to break, but the front office is making it very easy to let go. _________________ IM THE GREATEST HITTER IN THE WORLD!!!1!
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:43 pm Post subject:
Dreamshake wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
We should have traded him while we could...but Jim was convinced (95% certain) that he could convince Dwight to stay...so no realistic trades were ever entertained.
So for the "salary slot" that used to belong to Bynum....we ended up nothing except cap space. The asset that used to be Bynum became thin air. This is part of how the entire team was dismantled piece by piece by Jim.
Again, thinking we could have traded him mid-season is pure fantasy. And thin air is better than Bynum right now, and will be actual players next offseason.
It actually isn't. You could have traded him to Houston, who would have wanted his bird rights.
So Houston would give up assets for a guy they could just sign and keep those assets? That wouldn't be smart, I would be pissed if the Lakers did that. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144460 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:44 pm Post subject:
salami wrote:
It is annoying to hear the sycophants defending the Dwight Howard situation as something that wasnt so bad, or even twist it to be a good thing. Just be honest with yourself and your opinions because it is healthier and more productive. When you keep lying about it not being terrible, it enables more terrible direction from the front office.
Maybe it really was a good thing. It contributed to the freefall we are in now and because of that I have more free time to devote towards other things instead of watching the games. Now it doesnt matter how long the losing streaks go. The new culture of the franchise has allowed me to free myself from careing. I obviously still have issues because I still read this forum and it is a tough habit to break, but the front office is making it very easy to let go.
The only terrible thing was trading for Howard. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
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
