Trades of the last year: did we give up too much talent?

[Endure 12]

Roughly over the last year since Kareem was traded was too much talent given up?

Essentially it's been;
Kareem Rush, Caron Butler, Chucky Atkins, Jumaine Jones

for

Kwame Brown, Laron Profit, Ronny Turiaf and 2 2nd round picks.

Now I'm not saying we should have kept these guys around (Maybe JJ) but we could have used them for trades better than the ones we used them in. Hindsight is 20-20 but these were some horrible trades.

[TEEGUNN]

Got bent over. Again. When has Mitch ever been on the right side of a trade (or draft pick)??? You could argue Bynum, but we don't know that for sure yet.
_________________
"Why do you think bad things happen, anyway???" "So we have something good to look forward to."

Jake Speed, 1986

[twoface723]

Yup, those were horrible trades. No doubt we have a worse roster than last year. The only upgrade we had was on the coaching staff, and even that is looking questionable right now.

[LA_Lakers_Rule]

TEEGUN wrote:

[Ank]

[Runway8]

[dadamookie]

[Darkndeep]

Mitch isn't trading enough. Mitch shouldn't trade because every trade he makes is terrible. Glad I'm not Mitch.

People hated Atkins when he was with the Lakers--this board was full of griping about him--and few cared two cents for Rush or Jones: they were all just fodder, trade bait. Then they are traded and, all of a sudden, this team's got no future without them. Wake-up call: what difference does it make that they're gone? Atkins doesn't play defense. Rush wasn't going to get a whole lot of playing time behind Kobe and would have walked when his contract was up. Jumaine Jones seems pretty good right now but he's playing a whole lot better than anyone would have predicted at the time he was traded, may not keep it up, probably would have walked from the Lakers if he had (they weren't going to give him much of a contract) and, as the Lakers haven't used the pick they got for him (Charlotte 2007 second-rounder) and it's been less than a year since he was traded--who knows who comes out ahead on that deal in the long run? Certainly Jones is not going to be the make or break player between this team and a championship, anyway.

People scream for trades, these were reasonable ones. Only Butler was somewhat of a talent-giveaway-gamble, and the trade makes perfect sense: Butler plays a position stocked with talent; talented bigs are hard to find and Kwame may well turn out to be pretty decent.

Give it time, people, be patient. There's an old proverb: count no man lucky until he's dead. It means you can't get all excited about things six months or a year after they happen, or really at any point in time until it's all over. We won't know whether the last few moves were good or bad for years, at which point we can look back and see how everyone involved panned out for their entire careers, and how the Lakers did with the players they ended up with.

I think this team is on a very good track with some very good young talent that just needs to develop and mature together. Almost every championship team goes through several years of frustrating play: the last Laker Shaq/Kobe dynasty did, the current Pistons did, even Jordan's Bulls struggled for several years before they put it all together. The Lakers went as far as they could with Shaq and Kobe and rather than just watch an aging team slowly rot into the ground, we at least have the hope of youth. Patience--and stop questioning and bemoaning every trade or nontrade.

[Boldarblood]

[Tony Montana]

[Darkndeep]

<<sorry, but this team is one the road to nowhere. Take Kobe out of the equation, and they are the Atlanta Hawks, or the Bobcats. You absolutely cannot compare the role players on this team to those of the championship Pistons and Bulls teams. That is just silly.>>

How do you know how good Odom and Bynum and Turiaf, et al are going to be Tony Montana, and where this Laker team will be in two or three years if they kept the core of this team and got a big free agent? Do you have a crystal ball, Tony? Tell us what you see? Were you watching the Bulls before their dynasty? Did you follow the Pistons? You either aren't old enough or are forgetting: the Bulls were ripped as being a one-man (Jordan) team, Billups and Rasheed were ripped as selfish, inconsistent, underachieving players. What happened? They played together awhile, developed, matured ... You don't know that this will not happen to this Lakers team, there are a numbe of players on this team with talent and NO ONE knows where they will be in 2-3 years as players or where this team will be if it doesn't panic and sticks to the plan.

[Tony Montana]

I'm 35. I watched the teams in question, and have a memory like an elephant. This team, as presently consituted, does not have championship depth, even with another all-star added. Too many soft, no-defense playing, open shot missing scrubs. No amount of "playing together, developing, and maturing" is going to change that. A tiger can't change it's stripe. Kwame will always be a butterfingers, who goes up soft; Brian Cook will always have a 3-inch vertical leap and a hot/freezing cold outside shot; Luke Walton may never return from whatever alternate universe he has disappeared into; Sasha is just not NBA material; Smush is an offensive minded player who, while from time to time putting up nice numbers continues the Laker tradition of making every other decent opposing point guard look like an all-star, and making every opposing all-star point guard look like a hall-of-famer. Mihm is decent, but doesn't have much more upside, except for perhaps figuring out a way to stay out of foul trouble; blah blah blah. Look at this team and it's record. Even with Kobe having he best season of his career, and they are barely above water.
A big free agent is not a minor detail, and not part of your original thesis. With another big signing, then maybe you can acquire some depth by being close to the top, with at least two all-stars, and a decent THIRD option in Odom (I'm tired of potential from him, and don't expect him to elevate much higher than he already is); Bynum is 3-5 years from being a major impact (and I am bullish that he will eventually be an all-star); past that, garbage. The Bulls were ripped as being a one-man team, correctly, but then they picked up some crucial role players and another all-star (obviously you are the one who is too young or too forgetfull to recall the sequence there); the Pistons were a much better team than the Lakers currently are; Rasheed put them over the top. They were already a solid playoff team. This Laker team will be fortunate to make the playoffs, in the 7th or 8th spot.

I've been a Laker fan for over a quarter century. I've seen the good, the bad, the ugly with this team, and I do not feel good about the direction of this squad. It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that limited talent and potential does not have "trip to the promised land" written all over it. Rather it is "waste of Kobe Bryant's prime" that this is a script for.

Moves must be made.

[Darkndeep]

Well, Tony, I'm 47 and have been watching basketball since Wilt. I've seen championships come and go and players do mature, as do teams. I hate to argue with a fellow Lakers fan, but think you're "elephantine" memory and thinking here is really selective, rather negative and extremley short-sighted. Neither of us are NBA scouts or fortune tellers, but I think there is a lot of talent on this team and would like to see the Lakers stick to the "2007 plan" and not panic, and think it is ridiculous for ripping the Lakers for trading the likes of Atkins, Jones and Butler for a chance at acquiring some legitimate championship material. Atkins, Jones and Butler were not going to bring the Lakers to the promised land. There's no harm in trading fringe players or replaceable talent for a shot at something better: you don't get something without trading something; you can't expect every trade to work out, just most. Look at the big picture. This team is better than it would have been at this point if the trades for the last year or so had not been made: Shaq is fading (demanded a trade, anyway) and we would not have won anything the last two years, or in the next several, if we had kept Shaq. What has happened overall, though, since trading Shaq, gives us hope.

As a long-time Lakers fan, I have one goal: to see the LAKERS win the championship. Kobe is not the be-all-end all, and it's hardly at a point where something must be done NOW for him to win a championship or we've just "wasted" his talent, anyway. Jordan won his first championship in '91, when he was 28, older than Kobe is right now, and Kobe has three under his belt. I don't want to see the LAKERS sacrifice the chance at a championship caliber group down the road for the sake of a quick fix that may give them a game or two or even one more round in the playoffs--which is all they are going to get this year even with a "big trade"; the Lakers are not going to beat the Spurs or Pistons this year, no matter what they do (or next even next year, realistically). Panicking and throwing away a good plan for the sake of Kobe having a bit more talent around him right now is not smart, and ripping management for taking reasonable gambles on trades is not fair.

[Tony Montana]

Whether Kobe can have the longevity of Jordan is a real question mark. The guys like Kobe, KG, T-Mac (who is already falling apart) who came out of high school are an unknown quanitity; in other words, there will be a lot of games on those legs (and remember, Kobe gets to spend the next three summers playing for team USA instead of rehabbing and training like he did this past summer, which is what has enabled him to elevate his game to this new level); Kobe's accumulation of time served, and injuries may eventually cut his career shorter than we may expect. Hopefully not, but the window may not be quite as wide as you might think.

I do not advocate a "quick fix" trade either; I think that we just don't agree that there is enough talent existing on this team to be deep enough to go far, regardless of what FA might be signed in the next two years. Shaq had to go, Mitch didn't get enough back. I really just don't think much of our current "role players," don't think they will get much better, and wouldn't mind a better mix of "role players." Preferrably guys who will hit more than 30% of their open shots, make reasonably intelligent decisions on the floor, and show some passion on the floor. If you really think that the bench of this team has that capability, then I guess we are just interpreting them differently, and will have to agree to disagree. Well, until a little more time passes, and then your basic thesis of
"time, development, etc" can be looked back upon.

More than half this team is "fringe players." In my book, that means I could see most of these guys go, and not shed a tear, so long as we get a better fitting piece of the puzzle (not elite players, just guys who actually fulfill their needed role) in return...

[bounty]

[Darkndeep]

I guess we will just have to disagree. But every starting Laker is shooting a better percentage than Kobe--Smush, Odom, Mihm and Brown--look it up, and Kobe makes his own share of turnovers and bad decisions. I'm tired of hearing that that as as being a "burden" to Kobe. If the Lakers were as reactionary to Kobe in his earlier years as a lot of people want them to be now in relation to other players on this team, Kobe wouldn't be a Laker now and the Lakers wouldn't have won three championships. Have you forgotten the airballs and general poor decision-making of Kobe in his early years? Players mature. Give them a chance.

[bounty]

[Donkeybong]

chucky atkins sucks

[NOODLESTYLE]

ALl the other trades are fine, just JUMAINE JONES. I personally would rather see him on this team then LUKE "MY ONLY SKILL IS I CAN PASS" WALTON.

[Darkndeep]

[bounty]

[Tony Montana]

The harm is that if it takes time, development, and trust, then you had better start building the core of role players that will be effective, necessary parts of a championship contender. Just carrying a bunch of guys who just don't show the promise of doing so is a waste of that time.

The team is one player from competing at a higher level, but they are still missing those role-player components necessary to be a championship contender, which is a different level of talent, heart, and execution than some of the present players on this team have.

I'm not panicking. I'm being realistic.

Oh, and Magic's comments are just plain stupid, as has been observed around here for quite awhile. Don't get him at all. I've heard Phil disparage (not just in the media, but in person), the lack of depth and quality in the role players (and let's face it; Phil is all over the board anyways with his comments, alternately trying to encourage and chastize the team in his zen games); and the commentators I've been listening too lately, especially since the 81, where Kobe has since cut back on his shot output, are (even the haters) basically saying "if I was Kobe, and had these guys on my team, I wouldn't pass the ball to them either." Watch the feed of an opposing team's broadcast, and they are basically mocking how bad the Laker bench is.

As a coach, I understand what a uncomfortable situation you are placed in, when, as a gifted player, you begin to realize that you have a better chance of hitting a forced shot, double-teamed, than your teammates do of nailing it wide open. If they want trust, they have to earn it. 1-8 from 3 point land uncontested won't do it. Jordan wouldn't have put up with that crap either. Neither would Bird, Magic, etc. Kobe has given trust in his teammates, and most of them let him down time and time again. Sometimes you have to cut bait on players. There's a couple guys on this roster who definately qualify...

[Darkndeep]

Who would you trade, Tony, and what do you think the rest of the league would give up for them? None of this Smush for Ben Wallace stuff (although you seem more reasonable than that).

[Tony Montana]

Hmmm.
from tommorrow's LA Times (exerpt):

Teams Mimic Bryant Double-Team
By Mike Bresnahan, Times Staff Writer


DALLAS -- Kobe Bryant has seen just about every possible defense, but the latest trend of double-teaming him far from the basket has caused the Lakers all kinds of problems.

Bryant has continued to make shots but his teammates have not, a primary reason the Lakers went empty-handed against Indiana, Charlotte and New Orleans.

Bryant averaged 32 points and shot 48.5% but the rest of the team shot only 34.1%. Not surprisingly, the Lakers have not had a lead in more than 127 minutes of play.

Teams have dared other Lakers to shoot by double-teaming and trapping Bryant just inside halfcourt or above the three-point line.

"A lot of teams in our league are copycats," said forward Devean George, who had 21 points Saturday against the Hornets. "They'll see something kind of working well for another team and how they're double-teaming Kobe, so until we stop it, until we start capitalizing on making shots and cutting teams up, then they can continue to do that."

Bryant has done a credible job of finding open teammates, although his turnover level has almost doubled over the last three games, which led to a question of whether he could figure out how to be more effective in breaking double teams single-handedly.

"To say 'yeah' would be to say I need to get 45 points to win a game," Bryant said. "Is that what we need to win ball games?"

[Darkndeep]

The LA Times article talks about three games, Tony, are you going to base the Lakers entire future on that?