|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | AFireInside619 wrote: | | Once again, per Tania Ganguli, Harrison Faigen, John Ireland, Ramona Shelburne, and some others... Mitch & Jim tried to trade DLO for Cousins. The latter two reported that everyone they've talked to on both coaching staff weren't fans of DLO's. Ireland stated that in all his years, he has never seen a player receive that much negativity from his coaches. |
This is the harsh reality that all the Magic-bashers have been unable to come to grips with.
The trade was never about Russell's talent level. Magic said as much after the trade. Magic in fact, said, that Russell had potential All-Star talent, but that the organization needed more from him.
That's what really makes me laugh with all these "Magic made a mistake" comments - everyone in this organization saw first-hand what Russell can do on the court. Everyone in this organization also saw – what NONE OF US saw – which was who Russell is behind the scenes. We all saw on the court, in games, where Russell would look like an All-Star one night and be completely disengaged and uninterested the next night. I can only imagine what he was like behind the scenes, on a day-to-day basis, in practice, the weight room, etc.
It is clear as day to anyone who has been paying attention that almost nobody in the Lakers organization was a D'Angelo Russell fan. Two separate front offices, two separate coaching staffs, two different rosters. No tears were shed when he was traded.
That much is very clear and sometimes, to be successful in sports, it's about more than just talent. As great as a TO or Randy Moss were, they couldn't stay in one place very long before those closest to them grew tired of the act.
Who knows what the future holds for Russell. Sometimes it takes years for guys to mature and some guys never do it. Whatever the case, I think everyone involved needed a fresh start. I think both sides will be better off. |
Not a matter of coming to grips with anything. Noting that Russell had clashes with people within the organization is completely obvious to everyone. You're not listening to what we're saying.
It's also not accurate to say that no one in the organization was a Russell fan, nor that there were "two separate front offices." The only thing that changed between when he was drafted and when he was traded was that Magic & Pelinka took the place of Jim & Mitch. The rest of the FO was the same, and he had advocates within the organization who also acknowledge that he needed to grow up.
But he had the basketball part down pretty well for his age/position, that's the most important part, we don't know if our other young guys do, and saying that a 19-21 year old guy is immature is hardly a permanent condition.
Like BVH said, if he thrives with BKN's coaching staff/organization, what does that say about ours? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | But he had the basketball part down pretty well for his age/position, that's the most important part, we don't know if our other young guys do, and saying that a 19-21 year old guy is immature is hardly a permanent condition.
Like BVH said, if he thrives with BKN's coaching staff/organization, what does that say about ours? |
Totally agreed. From out here in the NJ/NY, nothing but glowing praises for DLO. He seems more spry and is benefitting from spacing and better coaching IMO. It's unfortunate he had Byron as his first coach, and then had too many expectations heaped on him as a #2 pick. I fear we are doing some of the same with Ingram.
What slays me is that DLO is on a rookie deal, and could have been kept for basically 7 years, where I have no doubt he would have grown out of his rebellious phase.
And as you aptly put it, he had the basketball part, you know skills and talent part down. Shame we valued the other non-basketball related issues more.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Username wrote: | | AFireInside619 wrote: | | Once again, per Tania Ganguli, Harrison Faigen, John Ireland, Ramona Shelburne, and some others... Mitch & Jim tried to trade DLO for Cousins. The latter two reported that everyone they've talked to on both coaching staff weren't fans of DLO's. Ireland stated that in all his years, he has never seen a player receive that much negativity from his coaches. |
This is the harsh reality that all the Magic-bashers have been unable to come to grips with.
The trade was never about Russell's talent level. Magic said as much after the trade. Magic in fact, said, that Russell had potential All-Star talent, but that the organization needed more from him.
That's what really makes me laugh with all these "Magic made a mistake" comments - everyone in this organization saw first-hand what Russell can do on the court. Everyone in this organization also saw – what NONE OF US saw – which was who Russell is behind the scenes. We all saw on the court, in games, where Russell would look like an All-Star one night and be completely disengaged and uninterested the next night. I can only imagine what he was like behind the scenes, on a day-to-day basis, in practice, the weight room, etc.
It is clear as day to anyone who has been paying attention that almost nobody in the Lakers organization was a D'Angelo Russell fan. Two separate front offices, two separate coaching staffs, two different rosters. No tears were shed when he was traded.
That much is very clear and sometimes, to be successful in sports, it's about more than just talent. As great as a TO or Randy Moss were, they couldn't stay in one place very long before those closest to them grew tired of the act.
Who knows what the future holds for Russell. Sometimes it takes years for guys to mature and some guys never do it. Whatever the case, I think everyone involved needed a fresh start. I think both sides will be better off. |
Not a matter of coming to grips with anything. Noting that Russell had clashes with people within the organization is completely obvious to everyone. You're not listening to what we're saying.
It's also not accurate to say that no one in the organization was a Russell fan, nor that there were "two separate front offices." The only thing that changed between when he was drafted and when he was traded was that Magic & Pelinka took the place of Jim & Mitch. The rest of the FO was the same, and he had advocates within the organization who also acknowledge that he needed to grow up.
But he had the basketball part down pretty well for his age/position, that's the most important part, we don't know if our other young guys do, and saying that a 19-21 year old guy is immature is hardly a permanent condition.
Like BVH said, if he thrives with BKN's coaching staff/organization, what does that say about ours? |
I'm listening completely to what everyone is saying. Most of the posts in here are lamenting over him having a big scoring night, as if Magic and Pelinka weren't aware that he had the talent to have strong offensive performances. Then we turn around and bash them for not realizing what a talent he was, as if that was ever the issue. It wasn't. He wasn't traded because they didn't think he could be a great player.
The coach and GM/president who drafted him wore tired of him within months. A new GM/president/head coach came in and apparently, didn't think enough of him personally to want to take the time to develop him. Again, we're talking behind the scenes. Seeing how he works, interacts every day. They saw it and didn't like it. That speaks volumes.
As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery.
Every situation is so independent and completely different. San Antonio is considered the gold standard as far as organizations go and LaMarcus Aldridge admitted he was essentially miserable there early on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ How does anyone know what Mitch thought of Russell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | I'm listening completely to what everyone is saying. Most of the posts in here are lamenting over him having a big scoring night, as if Magic and Pelinka weren't aware that he had the talent to have strong offensive performances. Then we turn around and bash them for not realizing what a talent he was, as if that was ever the issue. It wasn't. He wasn't traded because they didn't think he could be a great player.
The coach and GM/president who drafted him wore tired of him within months. A new GM/president/head coach came in and apparently, didn't think enough of him personally to want to take the time to develop him. Again, we're talking behind the scenes. Seeing how he works, interacts every day. They saw it and didn't like it. That speaks volumes.
As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery.
Every situation is so independent and completely different. San Antonio is considered the gold standard as far as organizations go and LaMarcus Aldridge admitted he was essentially miserable there early on. |
And the Spurs stuck with it, and now LaMarcus Aldridge just signed a 3-year extension. They worked through the problem. If Russell just needed a change of scenery, it begs the question...what was wrong with our scenery? How do you know he didn't just need time, like many young players do?
No one is saying that Magic & Pelinka didn't acknowledge his talent, we're saying that they didn't prioritize it and that's a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | ^ How does anyone know what Mitch thought of Russell? |
Also this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. |
I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that sometimes guys just need a change of scenery, and in fact a trade can shake up a player and force him to grow up or address whatever it was that was holding him back. It had to be humiliating to get sent to the Nets in a salary dump. If it lights a fire under Russell, and he goes on to have a great career, good for him.
But I disagree that it would not speak poorly of our organization. If it happens for Russell in Brooklyn, it means that we couldn't get through to him or that we couldn't put him a position to succeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Username wrote: | I'm listening completely to what everyone is saying. Most of the posts in here are lamenting over him having a big scoring night, as if Magic and Pelinka weren't aware that he had the talent to have strong offensive performances. Then we turn around and bash them for not realizing what a talent he was, as if that was ever the issue. It wasn't. He wasn't traded because they didn't think he could be a great player.
The coach and GM/president who drafted him wore tired of him within months. A new GM/president/head coach came in and apparently, didn't think enough of him personally to want to take the time to develop him. Again, we're talking behind the scenes. Seeing how he works, interacts every day. They saw it and didn't like it. That speaks volumes.
As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery.
Every situation is so independent and completely different. San Antonio is considered the gold standard as far as organizations go and LaMarcus Aldridge admitted he was essentially miserable there early on. |
And the Spurs stuck with it, and now LaMarcus Aldridge just signed a 3-year extension. They worked through the problem. If Russell just needed a change of scenery, it begs the question...what was wrong with our scenery? How do you know he didn't just need time, like many young players do?
No one is saying that Magic & Pelinka didn't acknowledge his talent, we're saying that they didn't prioritize it and that's a problem. |
Yes, but it seems the issues with Aldridge were more about problems he had with them, rather than them with him. He's also a proven All-Star player on a championship contending team. So again, it goes back to every situation being completely unique.
Maybe nothing was wrong with our scenery, or maybe our front office was completely dysfunctional and there were differing views on what the path forward was (that seems to have been the case under the Jim/Mitch regime), or maybe Russell never regained the trust of his teammates after the Nick Young fiasco. It's all speculation, but it doesn't appear that it was working with him here for whatever reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | ^ How does anyone know what Mitch thought of Russell? |
I'm just going off the reports of them wanting to trade him for Cousins, and the reports over time of the front office not being enamored with Russell's work ethic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. |
I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that sometimes guys just need a change of scenery, and in fact a trade can shake up a player and force him to grow up or address whatever it was that was holding him back. It had to be humiliating to get sent to the Nets in a salary dump. If it lights a fire under Russell, and he goes on to have a great career, good for him.
But I disagree that it would not speak poorly of our organization. If it happens for Russell in Brooklyn, it means that we couldn't get through to him or that we couldn't put him a position to succeed. |
Not at all, it could mean exactly what you said in that very same post –– that he needed to be traded to light a fire under him. It's entirely possible that whatever he becomes with the Nets, would have never happened for him in Los Angeles. Maybe he needed that push, or wake-up call.
It's also entirely possible that Russell goes on to have a successful career and the Lakers go on to have success as a franchise, using the pieces acquired in the trade for Russell and that both sides are better off without each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. . |
By that reasoning, you could say you can never judge anything, because there are always a lot of variables.
The bottom line is if Russell succeeds in Brooklyn, he had abilities that the Lakers were unable to tap into. Ultimately, the reasons will be irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anpherknee
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 16933
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
nick young better trust this boy with his life after all he did for him last season
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. . |
By that reasoning, you could say you can never judge anything, because there are always a lot of variables.
The bottom line is if Russell succeeds in Brooklyn, he had abilities that the Lakers were unable to tap into. Ultimately, the reasons will be irrelevant. |
Well, quite frankly, I don't think it's fair to judge something you only have a peripheral, at best, understanding of.
What, for you, constitutes success in Brooklyn for Russell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. |
I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that sometimes guys just need a change of scenery, and in fact a trade can shake up a player and force him to grow up or address whatever it was that was holding him back. It had to be humiliating to get sent to the Nets in a salary dump. If it lights a fire under Russell, and he goes on to have a great career, good for him.
But I disagree that it would not speak poorly of our organization. If it happens for Russell in Brooklyn, it means that we couldn't get through to him or that we couldn't put him a position to succeed. |
Not at all, it could mean exactly what you said in that very same post –– that he needed to be traded to light a fire under him. It's entirely possible that whatever he becomes with the Nets, would have never happened for him in Los Angeles. Maybe he needed that push, or wake-up call.
It's also entirely possible that Russell goes on to have a successful career and the Lakers go on to have success as a franchise, using the pieces acquired in the trade for Russell and that both sides are better off without each other. |
No, it means we invested a #2 pick on him and were unable to tap his potential. If he needed a trade to reach his potential, we failed. If we couldn't provide that push/wake-up call, we failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | I'm listening completely to what everyone is saying. Most of the posts in here are lamenting over him having a big scoring night, as if Magic and Pelinka weren't aware that he had the talent to have strong offensive performances. Then we turn around and bash them for not realizing what a talent he was, as if that was ever the issue. It wasn't. He wasn't traded because they didn't think he could be a great player.
The coach and GM/president who drafted him wore tired of him within months. A new GM/president/head coach came in and apparently, didn't think enough of him personally to want to take the time to develop him. Again, we're talking behind the scenes. Seeing how he works, interacts every day. They saw it and didn't like it. That speaks volumes.
As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery.
Every situation is so independent and completely different. San Antonio is considered the gold standard as far as organizations go and LaMarcus Aldridge admitted he was essentially miserable there early on. |
It's more disingenuous to suggest that we should just so flippantly absolve the Lakers organization of mishandling Russell's development despite all evidence pointing otherwise. There's more reason to believe the Lakers failed Russell than that the suggestion that there was just some magical disconnect with neither party at fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bard207
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| justsomelakerfan wrote: |
Oh sure, I'm not just blaming Magic - blaming him and Rob Pelinka for trading talented young players for cap space, Luke Walton and his staff for being inept, Byron Scott and his staff for being inept, Mitch and Jim for handing out terrible contracts requiring top assets to trade away. The Lakers as an organization have kind of proven they are not exactly equipped to develop talent and be patient with young players, because they've always had instant stars.
Not sure they've ever had to do the "small market" version of a rebuild before, but they're starting to get lapped by other young talented teams in the rebuilding process - unless they knock it out of the park in free agency. |
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: |
I'd love quotes from Tana and Ireland, but their words are no doubt lost to the wind. I remain skeptical, because even the article Harrison wrote about the DLo for Cousins trade rumors was skeptical.
If Russell thrives in Brooklyn and doesn't clash with the coaching staff there, I think it should raise some interesting questions about the Lakers' culture along with Russell's purported attitude. We shall see. |
I think that they had multiple conflicting things going on at the same time with Byron and the KFT versus having a progressive development plan in place for developing the youth.
When Kobe retired and it came time to shift away from Byron, they went with Luke who was going to face a learning curve as a first time head coach. It probably would have been better if had spent extra money by bringing in additional coaches known for player development while Luke worked through his own learning curve. It would have been acknowledgement that they recognized they were behind schedule on development, but would throw extra resources at the problem to try and make things right.
Even after the changes in the FO this past spring, it still doesn't appear that the organizational philosophy has switched to being more aligned with teams going through a traditional rebuild. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It'll be interesting. We now have Jules who will need to be paid.
Then you have Nance up next, then Ingram. I hope the Lakers can show some patience with our young players but not sure we have the institutional patience/infrastructure to do it.
The Nets seem like they do. They don't have dreams of landing LBJ/PG13 next summer or going from a lottery team to contender overnight.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. |
I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that sometimes guys just need a change of scenery, and in fact a trade can shake up a player and force him to grow up or address whatever it was that was holding him back. It had to be humiliating to get sent to the Nets in a salary dump. If it lights a fire under Russell, and he goes on to have a great career, good for him.
But I disagree that it would not speak poorly of our organization. If it happens for Russell in Brooklyn, it means that we couldn't get through to him or that we couldn't put him a position to succeed. |
Not at all, it could mean exactly what you said in that very same post –– that he needed to be traded to light a fire under him. It's entirely possible that whatever he becomes with the Nets, would have never happened for him in Los Angeles. Maybe he needed that push, or wake-up call.
It's also entirely possible that Russell goes on to have a successful career and the Lakers go on to have success as a franchise, using the pieces acquired in the trade for Russell and that both sides are better off without each other. |
No, it means we invested a #2 pick on him and were unable to tap his potential. If he needed a trade to reach his potential, we failed. If we couldn't provide that push/wake-up call, we failed. |
You can certainly choose to look at it that way if you wish. So there's no personal accountability here? Whatever Russell does or does not do is entirely on the organization? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | Username wrote: | I'm listening completely to what everyone is saying. Most of the posts in here are lamenting over him having a big scoring night, as if Magic and Pelinka weren't aware that he had the talent to have strong offensive performances. Then we turn around and bash them for not realizing what a talent he was, as if that was ever the issue. It wasn't. He wasn't traded because they didn't think he could be a great player.
The coach and GM/president who drafted him wore tired of him within months. A new GM/president/head coach came in and apparently, didn't think enough of him personally to want to take the time to develop him. Again, we're talking behind the scenes. Seeing how he works, interacts every day. They saw it and didn't like it. That speaks volumes.
As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery.
Every situation is so independent and completely different. San Antonio is considered the gold standard as far as organizations go and LaMarcus Aldridge admitted he was essentially miserable there early on. |
It's more disingenuous to suggest that we should just so flippantly absolve the Lakers organization of mishandling Russell's development despite all evidence pointing otherwise. There's more reason to believe the Lakers failed Russell than that the suggestion that there was just some magical disconnect with neither party at fault. |
What exactly is "all the evidence" that proves the Lakers mishandled Russell's development?
I'm not suggesting there was a magical disconnect. I think I've made it pretty clear that I believe Russell was not well-liked behind the scenes and did not curry favor with any of his teammates/coaches/front office with his attitude and work ethic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | As to your last point, if he thrives in BKN he thrives in BKN. It would be disingenuous to take that as a slight to our organization. It's not as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. There's so many variables. Sometimes, guys just need a change of scenery. |
I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that sometimes guys just need a change of scenery, and in fact a trade can shake up a player and force him to grow up or address whatever it was that was holding him back. It had to be humiliating to get sent to the Nets in a salary dump. If it lights a fire under Russell, and he goes on to have a great career, good for him.
But I disagree that it would not speak poorly of our organization. If it happens for Russell in Brooklyn, it means that we couldn't get through to him or that we couldn't put him a position to succeed. |
Not at all, it could mean exactly what you said in that very same post –– that he needed to be traded to light a fire under him. It's entirely possible that whatever he becomes with the Nets, would have never happened for him in Los Angeles. Maybe he needed that push, or wake-up call.
It's also entirely possible that Russell goes on to have a successful career and the Lakers go on to have success as a franchise, using the pieces acquired in the trade for Russell and that both sides are better off without each other. |
No, it means we invested a #2 pick on him and were unable to tap his potential. If he needed a trade to reach his potential, we failed. If we couldn't provide that push/wake-up call, we failed. |
You can certainly choose to look at it that way if you wish. So there's no personal accountability here? Whatever Russell does or does not do is entirely on the organization? |
Of course not. But he was a 19 year old when we drafted him. One would think we could put into place, an infrastructure to deal with him. Byron was not that guy. And yes, there is blame on DLO, but he's the one that needed to be developed.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | You can certainly choose to look at it that way if you wish. So there's no personal accountability here? Whatever Russell does or does not do is entirely on the organization? |
Who cares? We invested a #2 pick. We traded him in a salary dump. If he was a bum, that's an organizational failure. If he wasn't a bum but just didn't develop with us, that's an organizational failure. If he wasn't a bum and we traded him too soon, that's an organizational failure.
I'm not interested in excuses. We invested a #2 pick on the kid, and we dumped him for a one year rental on Lopez plus a #27 draft pick. Kuzma might wind up taking some of the sting out of the deal, but that doesn't matter. We could have acquired a #27 draft pick for a lot less.
If you don't see this as an organizational failure, you need to raise your standards for the organization. We aren't the freaking Charlotte Hornets or the freaking Sacramento Kings. Heck, you don't hear Michael Jordan saying, "Doesn't Kwame Brown have some personal accountability?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
levon
Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10600
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I was and still am against the trade (depending on what happens through October 2018), we should pump the brakes a bit. This kind of seems like misplaced outrage since we all knew he could score 30, 40. Last night's pace was 113+ I believe, not much defense being played, and some questionable shots went in. It was a bit anomalous.
I think he averages 19-20 ppg 5a 4r though on league-average efficiency but continues to die on screens. He seemed much quicker attacking the rim though.
Still doesn't judge my opinion since I knew he'd be doing this anyway. All I know is Magic and Rob better deliver next summer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Username
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4718
Location: Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | You can certainly choose to look at it that way if you wish. So there's no personal accountability here? Whatever Russell does or does not do is entirely on the organization? |
Who cares? We invested a #2 pick. We traded him in a salary dump. If he was a bum, that's an organizational failure. If he wasn't a bum but just didn't develop with us, that's an organizational failure. If he wasn't a bum and we traded him too soon, that's an organizational failure.
I'm not interested in excuses. We invested a #2 pick on the kid, and we dumped him for a one year rental on Lopez plus a #27 draft pick. Kuzma might wind up taking some of the sting out of the deal, but that doesn't matter. We could have acquired a #27 draft pick for a lot less.
If you don't see this as an organizational failure, you need to raise your standards for the organization. We aren't the freaking Charlotte Hornets or the freaking Sacramento Kings. Heck, you don't hear Michael Jordan saying, "Doesn't Kwame Brown have some personal accountability?" |
Maybe we have different definitions of what an "organizational failure" actually is.
I think everyone wishes it had worked out differently, but it didn't. So you move in, and what I see is that we brought in a 20 PPG center who hasn't hit 30 yet and is developing a lethal 3-point shot and a young player who appears to have unlimited offensive potential. We are a better team this season because of that trade and are better positioned financially for the future because of it.
That's a failure to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144456
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don’t think we are a better team this season. And what will likely be our two best players are one and done. Not a lot of positive in that.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Username wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Username wrote: | | You can certainly choose to look at it that way if you wish. So there's no personal accountability here? Whatever Russell does or does not do is entirely on the organization? |
Who cares? We invested a #2 pick. We traded him in a salary dump. If he was a bum, that's an organizational failure. If he wasn't a bum but just didn't develop with us, that's an organizational failure. If he wasn't a bum and we traded him too soon, that's an organizational failure.
I'm not interested in excuses. We invested a #2 pick on the kid, and we dumped him for a one year rental on Lopez plus a #27 draft pick. Kuzma might wind up taking some of the sting out of the deal, but that doesn't matter. We could have acquired a #27 draft pick for a lot less.
If you don't see this as an organizational failure, you need to raise your standards for the organization. We aren't the freaking Charlotte Hornets or the freaking Sacramento Kings. Heck, you don't hear Michael Jordan saying, "Doesn't Kwame Brown have some personal accountability?" |
Maybe we have different definitions of what an "organizational failure" actually is.
I think everyone wishes it had worked out differently, but it didn't. So you move in, and what I see is that we brought in a 20 PPG center who hasn't hit 30 yet and is developing a lethal 3-point shot and a young player who appears to have unlimited offensive potential. We are a better team this season because of that trade and are better positioned financially for the future because of it.
That's a failure to you? |
We could have signed Brook as a UFA; we had enough cap space in 2018 for that. He will be 30 next summer and it's a question mark as to how he will age. 30+ has not been the kindest to centers recently.
As for Kuz, it's been debated, and he was likely available at #28 instead of #27.
Meanwhile, you gave up 7-8 years of a cost controlled young guard.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| 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
|
|
