Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 22850 Location: La Jolla, San Diego
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:45 pm Post subject:
The narrative was that Nick was uncoachable, or that Eddie needed to go to allow Kobe his space and minutes. But the reality was alll about $$$$$$. Nick and Eddie were still on their rookie deals. Eddie gets the max in Charlotte, and Nick got close to the max in Denver. The Lakers knew they had to pay Kobe eventually.. That's 4 max guys, wasn't going to happen.
The narrative was that Nick was uncoachable, or that Eddie needed to go to allow Kobe his space and minutes. But the reality was alll about $$$$$$. Nick and Eddie were still on their rookie deals. Eddie gets the max in Charlotte, and Nick got close to the max in Denver. The Lakers knew they had to pay Kobe eventually.. That's 4 max guys, wasn't going to happen.
Eddie would have been awesome to keep though. Because he was talented on O, the expectation was that he should have been more assertive but with Kobe/Shaq, that wouldn't have been necessary. He would have basically been a vastly superior version of Ariza. Agreed though that it was a $$ move. That was the news coming out at the time and I haven't read anything since that makes me see it differently.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:52 pm Post subject:
Runway8 wrote:
The narrative was that Nick was uncoachable, or that Eddie needed to go to allow Kobe his space and minutes. But the reality was alll about $$$$$$. Nick and Eddie were still on their rookie deals. Eddie gets the max in Charlotte, and Nick got close to the max in Denver. The Lakers knew they had to pay Kobe eventually.. That's 4 max guys, wasn't going to happen.
A valid point, although I actually think Van Exel needed to go and Eddie was soft.
Phil still would've signed Ron Harper, played Brian Shaw major minutes and does ANYONE truly believe Elden Campbell would've grasped the triangle?
For all the crap he gets Glen Rice was a knock down shooter that the triangle and Shaq needed. And we got Horace Grant for Rice the next offseason.
And trading EDDIE didn't ruin the 99 season, going through Rambis and Harris as coaches, playing Derek Harper and not playing Ruben Patterson, and signing Dennis Rodman ruined it
Rice wasn't the same shooter in LA that he was in Charlotte. He was already past his prime and wasn't much better than Jones, who could shoot pretty well and gave the team much more than just shooting.
I feel the trade ruined the 99 season because the team was playing its best basketball by far that year, was on a 10 game winning streak, and the trade immediately ruined that and the team never recover that year. But you are right about other big issues being a problem.
The narrative was that Nick was uncoachable, or that Eddie needed to go to allow Kobe his space and minutes. But the reality was alll about $$$$$$. Nick and Eddie were still on their rookie deals. Eddie gets the max in Charlotte, and Nick got close to the max in Denver. The Lakers knew they had to pay Kobe eventually.. That's 4 max guys, wasn't going to happen.
Eddie would have been awesome to keep though. Because he was talented on O, the expectation was that he should have been more assertive but with Kobe/Shaq, that wouldn't have been necessary. He would have basically been a vastly superior version of Ariza. Agreed though that it was a $$ move. That was the news coming out at the time and I haven't read anything since that makes me see it differently.
The team needed a more consistent #2 option and Jones didn't step up enough when the team needed him to in the playoffs. When he did step up like he did in the 98 series against Seattle, the team looked awesome. But Jones wasn't a guy that will give you 22-30 ppg.
But Kobe was (eventually). With Kobe stepping into the #2 role, Jones could have just played his game and it would have been fine. The team wouldn't have needed him to score 20-30 a game because Shaq and Kobe were both going to do that.
This was a major weakness of the 98 team. There was no clear #2 option. Jones, Van Exel and Kobe made the all-star game, but none of them were superstars or HOF players.
They won a ring with Rice so I can't complain too much. I'm suprised though how low a volume of three point shooter he was that season hitting 1.1 per game, probably due to his elbow now being 100% healthy. I do recall a lot of fans pushing to trade EJ at that time though, much like what went on with Gasol, but Gasol had rings on his resume, but still EJ was a phenomenal two way guard that would excel in today three and D type wing nba where they really excel with increase emphasis on analytics.
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
The narrative was that Nick was uncoachable, or that Eddie needed to go to allow Kobe his space and minutes. But the reality was alll about $$$$$$. Nick and Eddie were still on their rookie deals. Eddie gets the max in Charlotte, and Nick got close to the max in Denver. The Lakers knew they had to pay Kobe eventually.. That's 4 max guys, wasn't going to happen.
Yup. They were broken up for a reason.
Didn't fit together and couldn't afford to pay them top dollar with Shaq already getting max money and Kobe soon to follow.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject:
J.C. Smith wrote:
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
I don't know if he would have thrived but he certainly would have been a better fit than Glen Rice in the triangle.
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
I don't know if he would have thrived but he certainly would have been a better fit than Glen Rice in the triangle.
I'm with JC I think Eddie would've done wonders in the triangle. His best attribute on offense was still slashing. He is basically a super Ariza. On D, he could've been the shutdown guard and conserved Kobe like MWP did in 2010.
Van exel was my fave too but I think he might've started to pout with how little a PG is needed in the triangle.
Loved that team though. 4 legit young stars. 2 all time HOFers. I think Eddie and Kobe would've fit great contrary to what some say. _________________ Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ
following this discussion...
i was a huge fan of nick, even more than kobe at the time. i had no real problem with him, and i didn't buy the cancun thing.
eddie i was a huge fan of too, but my only complaint with him was that he really did underperform in the playoffs.
we should have let go of del before nick. and eddie was probably a more justifiable departure.
shaq should have just stayed in shape. kobe was right. if he stayed in shape, there would have been no other issues and drama.
horry should have stayed too. we got really worried when he missed all those threes, including the game winner, vs. the spurs. but i do feel we overreacted, even at the time. horry basically played his butt off in SA and he is responsible for one of their rings, which sucks for us. SA would never have gotten that ring if not for his crazy dunk, clutch 3s, especially the game winner.
Not having the right coach for this roster prevented that particular team from greater postseason heights. Phil probably would have loved working with Eddie Jones, and maximized Elden. Nick would be on a short leash. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:56 pm Post subject:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
J.C. Smith wrote:
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
I don't know if he would have thrived but he certainly would have been a better fit than Glen Rice in the triangle.
I'm with JC I think Eddie would've done wonders in the triangle. His best attribute on offense was still slashing. He is basically a super Ariza. On D, he could've been the shutdown guard and conserved Kobe like MWP did in 2010.
Van exel was my fave too but I think he might've started to pout with how little a PG is needed in the triangle.
Loved that team though. 4 legit young stars. 2 all time HOFers. I think Eddie and Kobe would've fit great contrary to what some say.
Jones's game was uptempo. In fact I think one of the reasons he struggled in the playoffs at times was because the game slowed down.
The narrative was that Nick was uncoachable, or that Eddie needed to go to allow Kobe his space and minutes. But the reality was alll about $$$$$$. Nick and Eddie were still on their rookie deals. Eddie gets the max in Charlotte, and Nick got close to the max in Denver. The Lakers knew they had to pay Kobe eventually.. That's 4 max guys, wasn't going to happen.
Eddie would have been awesome to keep though. Because he was talented on O, the expectation was that he should have been more assertive but with Kobe/Shaq, that wouldn't have been necessary. He would have basically been a vastly superior version of Ariza. Agreed though that it was a $$ move. That was the news coming out at the time and I haven't read anything since that makes me see it differently.
Nick was on his 2nd contract at the time of the trade (he only got one year as a rookie presumably because he was a 2nd rounder). However he burned his bridges to a crisp by the time he was traded making the question of his contract largely a dead issue, but I'm sure the risk of extending him big was considered to at least some extent. He was able to change his attitude for the better, but that also coincided with him hitting the 8-10 mill a year range. He knew enough at least not to screw that up, unlike other screw-up pro athletes. It was mildly annoying seeing him have no beefs with Del when they were both in Dallas. Nick really screwed his future here. The proof that his behavior was the A1 issue was that his trade value was almost nil. Logo could only get a couple of guys who would've been throw-ins if Nick had Eddie's personality. Nick even said in I think "Beyond The Glory" that he knew West was gonna send him to a place where he couldn't possibly hurt the Lakers. That place was Temecula. I mean, Denver. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
2009 lakers came close with ariza and farmer leading the bench but the 97-98 lakers are my favorite post showtime team. They didn't win a ring but that team was "gangbusters"
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:38 pm Post subject:
J.C. Smith wrote:
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
NVE would have been traded off. Elden would have worked as a C in the triangle with 18' range and a post game. That would have left EJ and Kobe to be the Dobermans on defense. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Nick and Kobe seemed as poor a match spirit-wise as anyone on this club for a long time back. Maybe they get zero titles if we'd seen Dr Buss combine those two with Shaq for more years than he did. Would we have to keep Del too ?
Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 482 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:29 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
J.C. Smith wrote:
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
NVE would have been traded off. Elden would have worked as a C in the triangle with 18' range and a post game. That would have left EJ and Kobe to be the Dobermans on defense.
Eddie and Kobe at the 2-3 wouldve been awesome in the triangle. Eddie was a slasher and didnt require the ball to be in his hands. Come to think of it, with the two on the floor, there wouldnt be a definitive 2-3 with the both.
Anyways, NVE just doesnt seem like the player PJ would assert into his system. Ball dominant as a PG, pull up 3's and shot selection beyond a constructed triangle system, and the impatience when things didnt go his way.
I loved that group of NVE and Eddie etc... But, under Phils reign, its hard to imagine that the core wouldve stuck.
Rodman was uncoachable, but brought what the bulls needed. NVE and Eddie obviously didnt present the same with the Lakers providing a three-peat in Jacksons inaugural 3 years.
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 Posts: 15403 Location: Oak Park
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:05 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
J.C. Smith wrote:
I've often thought about those teams. I loved that core. Nick had to go after Cancun, which hurts because he was my favorite Laker of that era. But he had to go. Eddie and Elden didn't. Kobe was thriving at small forward but they wanted him to be a shooting guard. The irony of course is that Eddie would have thrived as a big guard in the triangle, but nobody knew that was coming.
NVE would have been traded off. Elden would have worked as a C in the triangle with 18' range and a post game. That would have left EJ and Kobe to be the Dobermans on defense.
I loved that 1998 Lakers team. 1998 and 2008 are actually my two favorite Lakers teams despite not winning rings because they were just so much fun to watch. I was a big Eddie Jones fan and followed his career a bit when he went to Charlotte and then Miami. Watching him and Kobe run fast breaks was awesome. And Nick The Quick was fun, too. I don't think we could have won with him dominating the ball at the point with Phil, but I can imagine a scenario where a big three of Shaq, Kobe and Eddie would have been lethal under Phil Jackson. Eddie's biggest problem was that he had the talent of a no. 2, got paid like a no. 1 money (in Miami and was Charlotte's no. 1), but had the mental makeup of a number 3. With Shaq and Kobe asserting themselves as the big 2, Eddie would have been free to do what he does best: fill the lane on fast breaks, play excellent defense and knockdown open threes.
I don't know if he would have thrived but he certainly would have been a better fit than Glen Rice in the triangle.
IMO Phil would have went with an Eddie and Kobe backcourt, using Eddie similar to how he used Ron Harper. Their combination of length, athleticism and defensive ability would have been something to see.
We could have won with Eddie as our third option. He was a career 38% 3pt shooter which is very respectable and not a sizable drop off when we had Glen Rice spacing the floor for us but then we get the added defense and athleticism that Eddie brought.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
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
