|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should we trade for Westbrook? |
| Yes. Can't pass him up and assume he comes. |
|
19% |
[ 91 ] |
| No. Free agent in 2018. |
|
80% |
[ 373 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 464 |
|
| Author |
Message |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FanOfFour wrote: | | 60 pages down and the answer is still NO. |
And fanoffour, 4 of 5 are with you! 
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rak617
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 6932
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't mind trading some future draft picks for Westbrook but not any current rookies. Current young talent is very good and Westbrook's leadership will help this team, but again, not at the cost of trading any rookies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I ignored it because I don't really see the relevance. So what if they said that about Dirk and Lebron? What's your point? That if people say a player isn't championship caliber then he is always going to go on and win a championship? All those examples mean, is that sometimes the naysayers are wrong, and sometimes they are right in the cases of guys like Iverson, CP3, Melo, etc.
Just because they were wrong about Dirk doesn't mean they are definitely wrong about Westbrook as well.
To me, Westbrook has yet to show the intangibles needed to win games period. Doesn't even have to be championship. I want to see that he can elevate his team, make the smart plays, rise to the occasion. I haven't seen it. When Durant was out, his team missed the playoffs entirely. When Durant was in, he struggled to rise to the occasion.
I have never said Westbrook isn't capable of becoming that type of player. It's all between the ears for him. What I've said is that he is an 8-year vet that is 27 years old and hasn't shown it yet, IMO. And so that makes me leary about adding him to our team, let alone in exchange for young assets with massive potential that have 7+ seasons of NBA ball before they reach Westbrook's age.
Once Westbrook displays he can be that heady, mature type of leader, the type that can thrive rather than conflict with a player like Durant, I'd welcome him with open arms. Until then, for me, it's a gamble I'm not yet willing to take. Show me leadership and I'll show him an opportunity. |
My point is when people lose, which happens for all sorts of reasons beyond the limitations of a single star player, people will post hoc blow out of proportion whatever flaw instead of acknowledging what a dynamic sport it is and how much of winning is based on luck anyways.
I agree with you on Westbrook's flaws. I still see no reason to believe, as he is today, he wouldn't be a championship player with the right team around him. Like Carmelo needed Billups to be on a true contender (which was just out-talented by the Lakers), I think Westbrook needs a steadying force. That's different than saying he's not a championship caliber player due to intangibles or whatever.
I feel exactly the same way about Chris Paul, by the way. I blame circumstance as much as I blame him. (No comment on Iverson. I don't feel qualified to hold an opinion there.)
By the way, Westbrook's team started something like 3-14 before he came back, and he dealt with scrubs like Perry Jones III playing in '14-'15. It's ridiculous to use that season as "he couldn't get to the playoffs without Durant." It's as ridiculous as using '04-'05 as evidence Kobe couldn't make it to the playoffs.
Anyways we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this, and in a sense it doesn't even matter since we agree on his flaws and also don't want to trade for him. So it's whatever. |
It's interesting because we actually, for the most part, agree with Westbrook's contributions and limitations.
I don't even see where we disagree, really.
The only difference between you and I, I think, is that I'm not willing to risk our young assets, whether via trade or because he continues to be a curmudgeon and as a result, pushes our players away, to find out if Westbrook can be that type of transcendent, next level caliber player.
And it's funny to me because you'll even say Westbrook "just needs a steadying force". Who exactly are you referring to?
Because the guy had Kevin Durant for his entire near decade long career and that clearly wasn't nearly steadying a force enough. So who are we supposed to get that is more steadying than Durant? Lebron or bust?
And what will the fallout be, in your opinion, if we don't acquire that steadying force? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rwongega
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 20510
Location: UCLA -> NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I ignored it because I don't really see the relevance. So what if they said that about Dirk and Lebron? What's your point? That if people say a player isn't championship caliber then he is always going to go on and win a championship? All those examples mean, is that sometimes the naysayers are wrong, and sometimes they are right in the cases of guys like Iverson, CP3, Melo, etc.
Just because they were wrong about Dirk doesn't mean they are definitely wrong about Westbrook as well.
To me, Westbrook has yet to show the intangibles needed to win games period. Doesn't even have to be championship. I want to see that he can elevate his team, make the smart plays, rise to the occasion. I haven't seen it. When Durant was out, his team missed the playoffs entirely. When Durant was in, he struggled to rise to the occasion.
I have never said Westbrook isn't capable of becoming that type of player. It's all between the ears for him. What I've said is that he is an 8-year vet that is 27 years old and hasn't shown it yet, IMO. And so that makes me leary about adding him to our team, let alone in exchange for young assets with massive potential that have 7+ seasons of NBA ball before they reach Westbrook's age.
Once Westbrook displays he can be that heady, mature type of leader, the type that can thrive rather than conflict with a player like Durant, I'd welcome him with open arms. Until then, for me, it's a gamble I'm not yet willing to take. Show me leadership and I'll show him an opportunity. |
My point is when people lose, which happens for all sorts of reasons beyond the limitations of a single star player, people will post hoc blow out of proportion whatever flaw instead of acknowledging what a dynamic sport it is and how much of winning is based on luck anyways.
I agree with you on Westbrook's flaws. I still see no reason to believe, as he is today, he wouldn't be a championship player with the right team around him. Like Carmelo needed Billups to be on a true contender (which was just out-talented by the Lakers), I think Westbrook needs a steadying force. That's different than saying he's not a championship caliber player due to intangibles or whatever.
I feel exactly the same way about Chris Paul, by the way. I blame circumstance as much as I blame him. (No comment on Iverson. I don't feel qualified to hold an opinion there.)
By the way, Westbrook's team started something like 3-14 before he came back, and he dealt with scrubs like Perry Jones III playing in '14-'15. It's ridiculous to use that season as "he couldn't get to the playoffs without Durant." It's as ridiculous as using '04-'05 as evidence Kobe couldn't make it to the playoffs.
Anyways we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this, and in a sense it doesn't even matter since we agree on his flaws and also don't want to trade for him. So it's whatever. |
It's interesting because we actually, for the most part, agree with Westbrook's contributions and limitations.
I don't even see where we disagree, really.
The only difference between you and I, I think, is that I'm not willing to risk our young assets, whether via trade or because he continues to be a curmudgeon and as a result, pushes our players away, to find out if Westbrook can be that type of transcendent, next level caliber player.
And it's funny to me because you'll even say Westbrook "just needs a steadying force". Who exactly are you referring to?
Because the guy had Kevin Durant for his entire near decade long career and that clearly wasn't nearly steadying a force enough. So who are we supposed to get that is more steadying than Durant? Lebron or bust?
And what will the fallout be, in your opinion, if we don't acquire that steadying force? |
Oh, sorry, I said it in my previous post, but to reiterate, I don't want to trade for Westbrook. Like, at all. That's what I meant: we actually pretty much agree on Westbrook's game, and we also agree on whether or not the Lakers should trade. That's why there wasn't really a point of continuing. Where we disagree is on whether Westbrook's game as constructed or not can win a ring. Just because I think it can doesn't mean I think we should trade for him, mind you.
As far as "steadying force" goes, it doesn't really need to be a superstar. Like, Billups was really good in 2009 but it's not like he was a remarkable talent. But he brought that savvy (you might call it "intangibles") that playoff teams need to win it all. The issue is that Westbrook plays point and it's hard to find the right sort of player. It's kind of an odd choice, but even with his age, someone like Dirk would be perfect.
And no, I don't think Durant was that guy in the playoffs at all. His shot creation was really shaky, and he was just as prone as Westbrook to going for hero ball in the worst possible way. I do agree with you in theory he should be that guy, but Durant has been underwhelming in basically every playoffs since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | Oh, sorry, I said it in my previous post, but to reiterate, I don't want to trade for Westbrook. Like, at all. That's what I meant: we actually pretty much agree on Westbrook's game, and we also agree on whether or not the Lakers should trade. That's why there wasn't really a point of continuing. Where we disagree is on whether Westbrook's game as constructed or not can win a ring. Just because I think it can doesn't mean I think we should trade for him, mind you.
As far as "steadying force" goes, it doesn't really need to be a superstar. Like, Billups was really good in 2009 but it's not like he was a remarkable talent. But he brought that savvy (you might call it "intangibles") that playoff teams need to win it all. The issue is that Westbrook plays point and it's hard to find the right sort of player. It's kind of an odd choice, but even with his age, someone like Dirk would be perfect.
And no, I don't think Durant was that guy in the playoffs at all. His shot creation was really shaky, and he was just as prone as Westbrook to going for hero ball in the worst possible way. I do agree with you in theory he should be that guy, but Durant has been underwhelming in basically every playoffs since 2012. |
Dirk is staying with the Mavericks. Billups has been retired for a little while now. So who is this steadying force you say Westbrook needs?
I think the thing for me on this is -- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Westbrook, with his style of play and approach to the game in terms of leadership and maturity, can be a leader that a team needs let alone a championship one.
What I have seen, is a knack for making the wrong plays down the stretch and an ability to push out top 3 player talent from his own team.
So it sounds like your opinion is based on ... a gut feeling about WB perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fortysixn2
Star Player
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Posts: 2849
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. Only caviat is that we get to have a sit down beforehand and gauge his interest in extending after the season is over. If he just says "we will see", the it's a no go. If you can lay out our basic plan with him moving forward and he buys in and has an interest in resigning if things are headed in the right direction I say go for it.
PG - WB, Calderon, frodo
SG - Russell, Clarkson
SF - Ingram, AB
PF - Deng, Nance
C - Mosgov, Zubac, black
Looks like a .500 team to me. Clarkson plays some backup PG too and becomes a 6th man candidate. If WB resigns and Russell/Ingram both hit them we are in position to contend again in 2-3 years
Doubt OKC does this unless they love Randle. I'm not that High on him personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. Only caviat is that we get to have a sit down beforehand and gauge his interest in extending after the season is over. If he just says "we will see", the it's a no go. If you can lay out our basic plan with him moving forward and he buys in and has an interest in resigning if things are headed in the right direction I say go for it.
PG - WB, Calderon, frodo
SG - Russell, Clarkson
SF - Ingram, AB
PF - Deng, Nance
C - Mosgov, Zubac, black
Looks like a .500 team to me. Clarkson plays some backup PG too and becomes a 6th man candidate. If WB resigns and Russell/Ingram both hit them we are in position to contend again in 2-3 years
Doubt OKC does this unless they love Randle. I'm not that High on him personally. |
Well, if it works in the trade machine.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nash
Star Player
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 8194
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. Only caviat is that we get to have a sit down beforehand and gauge his interest in extending after the season is over. If he just says "we will see", the it's a no go. If you can lay out our basic plan with him moving forward and he buys in and has an interest in resigning if things are headed in the right direction I say go for it.
PG - WB, Calderon, frodo
SG - Russell, Clarkson
SF - Ingram, AB
PF - Deng, Nance
C - Mosgov, Zubac, black
Looks like a .500 team to me. Clarkson plays some backup PG too and becomes a 6th man candidate. If WB resigns and Russell/Ingram both hit them we are in position to contend again in 2-3 years
Doubt OKC does this unless they love Randle. I'm not that High on him personally. |
Well, if it works in the trade machine.... |
I'd reluctantly send Huertas too if it's needed 
Last edited by nash on Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:32 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers2015
Star Player
Joined: 16 Feb 2015
Posts: 2315
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
This non sense about Westbrook not being able to win a championship is exactly that. You people forget about that idiotic Harden trade? They literally just made the Finals and all those games against Miami went down to the wire with the exception of Game 5 and then they decide to trade a guy everyone and their mother knew as gonna be a superstar. Jerry Buss would never do that. He would overpay to keep a great core together. Neither would those guys with the Spurs front office or Golden State. They won't have any issue with keeping their core four together because of the fact they'll be winning.
Then there's the health factor. Westbrook went down the next season in the playoffs and if Durant is so much better off without him why is it that team collapsed without Westbrook? Meanwhile without Durant in 2015 they were a miracle shot by Anthony Davis away from making the postseason because of a historic season by Westbrook. In 2014 they lost their defensive anchor in Ibaka and even though he made it back in Game 3 against the Spurs in the West Finals he wasn't the same player. I just mentioned Durant's injury which obviously ended any chance they had at winning it all.
This past season they hire a new coach, it clearly took awhile to get acclimated to him as one might expect, they have this unbelievable playoff run upsetting a 67 win team, going up 3-1 on a 73 win team, mostly due to the brilliance of Westbrook, KD, and Adams. In Game 6 it took a historic shooting performance from Klay to save the day and obviously Westbrook struggled, but so did Durant. Why does Durant get a free pass? I don't get it.
_________________
#CowboysNation
#LakeShow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers2015 wrote: | This non sense about Westbrook not being able to win a championship is exactly that. You people forget about that idiotic Harden trade? They literally just made the Finals and all those games against Miami went down to the wire with the exception of Game 5 and then they decide to trade a guy everyone and their mother knew as gonna be a superstar. Jerry Buss would never do that. He would overpay to keep a great core together. Neither would those guys with the Spurs front office or Golden State. They won't have any issue with keeping their core four together because of the fact they'll be winning.
Then there's the health factor. Westbrook went down the next season in the playoffs and if Durant is so much better off without him why is it that team collapsed without Westbrook? Meanwhile without Durant in 2015 they were a miracle shot by Anthony Davis away from making the postseason because of a historic season by Westbrook. In 2014 they lost their defensive anchor in Ibaka and even though he made it back in Game 3 against the Spurs in the West Finals he wasn't the same player. I just mentioned Durant's injury which obviously ended any chance they had at winning it all.
This past season they hire a new coach, it clearly took awhile to get acclimated to him as one might expect, they have this unbelievable playoff run upsetting a 67 win team, going up 3-1 on a 73 win team, mostly due to the brilliance of Westbrook, KD, and Adams. In Game 6 it took a historic shooting performance from Klay to save the day and obviously Westbrook struggled, but so did Durant. Why does Durant get a free pass? I don't get it. |
I have never seen so many what if excuses in a single post for a non-Laker. If this then that then this and then bazing! That!
Part of the reason it is different for KD vs WB, is that KD doesnt seem to be a guy that brings drama, tension, and disruption to his team. Meanwhile, WB does in a similar way that Kobe did. But the difference, for me anyway, is that by this age Kobe had already showed himself to be a guy who can carry and elevate his team beyond expectations.
Westbrook has never reslly done that on a consistent basis. So that is a big question mark on an otherwise solid resume that if not resolved, could end up hurting you in the long run. For example, he could Durant-ify one or more players on his next teams as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | Oh, sorry, I said it in my previous post, but to reiterate, I don't want to trade for Westbrook. Like, at all. That's what I meant: we actually pretty much agree on Westbrook's game, and we also agree on whether or not the Lakers should trade. That's why there wasn't really a point of continuing. Where we disagree is on whether Westbrook's game as constructed or not can win a ring. Just because I think it can doesn't mean I think we should trade for him, mind you.
As far as "steadying force" goes, it doesn't really need to be a superstar. Like, Billups was really good in 2009 but it's not like he was a remarkable talent. But he brought that savvy (you might call it "intangibles") that playoff teams need to win it all. The issue is that Westbrook plays point and it's hard to find the right sort of player. It's kind of an odd choice, but even with his age, someone like Dirk would be perfect.
And no, I don't think Durant was that guy in the playoffs at all. His shot creation was really shaky, and he was just as prone as Westbrook to going for hero ball in the worst possible way. I do agree with you in theory he should be that guy, but Durant has been underwhelming in basically every playoffs since 2012. |
Dirk is staying with the Mavericks. Billups has been retired for a little while now. So who is this steadying force you say Westbrook needs?
I think the thing for me on this is -- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Westbrook, with his style of play and approach to the game in terms of leadership and maturity, can be a leader that a team needs let alone a championship one.
What I have seen, is a knack for making the wrong plays down the stretch and an ability to push out top 3 player talent from his own team.
So it sounds like your opinion is based on ... a gut feeling about WB perhaps? |
All of our opinions are gut feelings, let's not pretend like there's any basis in fact here. They are counterfactuals and by definition there is no right or wrong. Anyways I was tired of this argument a few posts ago and I'm tired of it now.
To answer your last question, anyone who can rein in Westbrook works as the kind of guy you need around him. It could be someone like Noah, it could be a coach like Popovich, etc. KD was actually the perfect guy except for the fact that he wasn't; ordinarily he plays really composed, but in the playoffs, he was just as wild as Westbrook at times and made really poor decisions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | Oh, sorry, I said it in my previous post, but to reiterate, I don't want to trade for Westbrook. Like, at all. That's what I meant: we actually pretty much agree on Westbrook's game, and we also agree on whether or not the Lakers should trade. That's why there wasn't really a point of continuing. Where we disagree is on whether Westbrook's game as constructed or not can win a ring. Just because I think it can doesn't mean I think we should trade for him, mind you.
As far as "steadying force" goes, it doesn't really need to be a superstar. Like, Billups was really good in 2009 but it's not like he was a remarkable talent. But he brought that savvy (you might call it "intangibles") that playoff teams need to win it all. The issue is that Westbrook plays point and it's hard to find the right sort of player. It's kind of an odd choice, but even with his age, someone like Dirk would be perfect.
And no, I don't think Durant was that guy in the playoffs at all. His shot creation was really shaky, and he was just as prone as Westbrook to going for hero ball in the worst possible way. I do agree with you in theory he should be that guy, but Durant has been underwhelming in basically every playoffs since 2012. |
Dirk is staying with the Mavericks. Billups has been retired for a little while now. So who is this steadying force you say Westbrook needs?
I think the thing for me on this is -- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Westbrook, with his style of play and approach to the game in terms of leadership and maturity, can be a leader that a team needs let alone a championship one.
What I have seen, is a knack for making the wrong plays down the stretch and an ability to push out top 3 player talent from his own team.
So it sounds like your opinion is based on ... a gut feeling about WB perhaps? |
All of our opinions are gut feelings, let's not pretend like there's any basis in fact here. They are counterfactuals and by definition there is no right or wrong. Anyways I was tired of this argument a few posts ago and I'm tired of it now.
To answer your last question, anyone who can rein in Westbrook works as the kind of guy you need around him. It could be someone like Noah, it could be a coach like Popovich, etc. KD was actually the perfect guy except for the fact that he wasn't; ordinarily he plays really composed, but in the playoffs, he was just as wild as Westbrook at times and made really poor decisions. |
Ok, then why get him at all?
Let's stick with what we got and have good gut feelings about our current team.
Then we don't have to worry about acquiring Joakim Noah firing Luke and hiring coach Popovich to steady Westbrook!
We can win without Westbrook, I mean why couldn't we? Look what they about Dirk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | This non sense about Westbrook not being able to win a championship is exactly that. You people forget about that idiotic Harden trade? They literally just made the Finals and all those games against Miami went down to the wire with the exception of Game 5 and then they decide to trade a guy everyone and their mother knew as gonna be a superstar. Jerry Buss would never do that. He would overpay to keep a great core together. Neither would those guys with the Spurs front office or Golden State. They won't have any issue with keeping their core four together because of the fact they'll be winning.
Then there's the health factor. Westbrook went down the next season in the playoffs and if Durant is so much better off without him why is it that team collapsed without Westbrook? Meanwhile without Durant in 2015 they were a miracle shot by Anthony Davis away from making the postseason because of a historic season by Westbrook. In 2014 they lost their defensive anchor in Ibaka and even though he made it back in Game 3 against the Spurs in the West Finals he wasn't the same player. I just mentioned Durant's injury which obviously ended any chance they had at winning it all.
This past season they hire a new coach, it clearly took awhile to get acclimated to him as one might expect, they have this unbelievable playoff run upsetting a 67 win team, going up 3-1 on a 73 win team, mostly due to the brilliance of Westbrook, KD, and Adams. In Game 6 it took a historic shooting performance from Klay to save the day and obviously Westbrook struggled, but so did Durant. Why does Durant get a free pass? I don't get it. |
I have never seen so many what if excuses in a single post for a non-Laker. If this then that then this and then bazing! That!
Part of the reason it is different for KD vs WB, is that KD doesnt seem to be a guy that brings drama, tension, and disruption to his team. Meanwhile, WB does in a similar way that Kobe did. But the difference, for me anyway, is that by this age Kobe had already showed himself to be a guy who can carry and elevate his team beyond expectations.
Westbrook has never reslly done that on a consistent basis. So that is a big question mark on an otherwise solid resume that if not resolved, could end up hurting you in the long run. For example, he could Durant-ify one or more players on his next teams as well. |
you feel that way cause of your preconceived opinion against westbrook which is ok
you have any articles to prove the bolded 1? before durant left not after when the media is trying to put the blame on RW? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | Oh, sorry, I said it in my previous post, but to reiterate, I don't want to trade for Westbrook. Like, at all. That's what I meant: we actually pretty much agree on Westbrook's game, and we also agree on whether or not the Lakers should trade. That's why there wasn't really a point of continuing. Where we disagree is on whether Westbrook's game as constructed or not can win a ring. Just because I think it can doesn't mean I think we should trade for him, mind you.
As far as "steadying force" goes, it doesn't really need to be a superstar. Like, Billups was really good in 2009 but it's not like he was a remarkable talent. But he brought that savvy (you might call it "intangibles") that playoff teams need to win it all. The issue is that Westbrook plays point and it's hard to find the right sort of player. It's kind of an odd choice, but even with his age, someone like Dirk would be perfect.
And no, I don't think Durant was that guy in the playoffs at all. His shot creation was really shaky, and he was just as prone as Westbrook to going for hero ball in the worst possible way. I do agree with you in theory he should be that guy, but Durant has been underwhelming in basically every playoffs since 2012. |
Dirk is staying with the Mavericks. Billups has been retired for a little while now. So who is this steadying force you say Westbrook needs?
I think the thing for me on this is -- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Westbrook, with his style of play and approach to the game in terms of leadership and maturity, can be a leader that a team needs let alone a championship one.
What I have seen, is a knack for making the wrong plays down the stretch and an ability to push out top 3 player talent from his own team.
So it sounds like your opinion is based on ... a gut feeling about WB perhaps? |
All of our opinions are gut feelings, let's not pretend like there's any basis in fact here. They are counterfactuals and by definition there is no right or wrong. Anyways I was tired of this argument a few posts ago and I'm tired of it now.
To answer your last question, anyone who can rein in Westbrook works as the kind of guy you need around him. It could be someone like Noah, it could be a coach like Popovich, etc. KD was actually the perfect guy except for the fact that he wasn't; ordinarily he plays really composed, but in the playoffs, he was just as wild as Westbrook at times and made really poor decisions. |
Ok, then why get him at all?
Let's stick with what we got and have good gut feelings about our current team.
Then we don't have to worry about acquiring Joakim Noah firing Luke and hiring coach Popovich to steady Westbrook!
We can win without Westbrook, I mean why couldn't we? Look what they about Dirk. |
yupe 17 games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2019
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 10812
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the good news in all this is that we actually have the pieces/ability to trade for a top 3 player in the NBA.
Stark contrast from just 2-3 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boldarblood
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. |
OKC hangs up on you with that trade. Why would they trade a top 5 player for basically trash (Randle is good, but look at what fans think of him here, they want to bench him for Nance. There is zero motivation for OKC to even field this call.
Plus there is no way you are going to get any commitment out of WB, I feel he's the kind of player that WANTS to be wined and dined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fortysixn2
Star Player
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Posts: 2849
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Boldarblood wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. |
OKC hangs up on you with that trade. Why would they trade a top 5 player for basically trash (Randle is good, but look at what fans think of him here, they want to bench him for Nance. There is zero motivation for OKC to even field this call.
Plus there is no way you are going to get any commitment out of WB, I feel he's the kind of player that WANTS to be wined and dined. |
You can say OKC will hang up, but the 6th man of the year a couple of years back who averaged 15 ppg and a PF who just finished his first year in the NBA and averaged a double double...both of who are cost controlled are valuable assets. Trading that for a player who is not going to resign is actually a good deal for OKC. We just know Lou and Randles limitations because we watch them all the time.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Truck Turner
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 3937
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trading for Russell Westbrook is a DUMB idea.
I've said before I love Russ' game and attitude, but I'll be damned if I'm giving up any of our young assets for him as he's heading into free agency.
If you're that confident he wants to be a Laker then you just wait till he hits free agency and sign him. If you're not confident you can sign in free agency that makes trading for him that much dumber of a decision.
Russell isn't going to immediately make this team a contender by himself, and as much as i love the guy there's no evidence other players will flock to play with him. And spare me the "but we're the Lakers, we're in L.A." speech, because that just doesn't matter to these players anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fortysixn2 wrote: | | Boldarblood wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. |
OKC hangs up on you with that trade. Why would they trade a top 5 player for basically trash (Randle is good, but look at what fans think of him here, they want to bench him for Nance. There is zero motivation for OKC to even field this call.
Plus there is no way you are going to get any commitment out of WB, I feel he's the kind of player that WANTS to be wined and dined. |
You can say OKC will hang up, but the 6th man of the year a couple of years back who averaged 15 ppg and a PF who just finished his first year in the NBA and averaged a double double...both of who are cost controlled are valuable assets. Trading that for a player who is not going to resign is actually a good deal for OKC. We just know Lou and Randles limitations because we watch them all the time.... |
If there is one thing that OKC doesn't need it is another big. They would ask for DLO or Ingram or no deal.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLand247
Star Player
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 4809
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | | Boldarblood wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. |
OKC hangs up on you with that trade. Why would they trade a top 5 player for basically trash (Randle is good, but look at what fans think of him here, they want to bench him for Nance. There is zero motivation for OKC to even field this call.
Plus there is no way you are going to get any commitment out of WB, I feel he's the kind of player that WANTS to be wined and dined. |
You can say OKC will hang up, but the 6th man of the year a couple of years back who averaged 15 ppg and a PF who just finished his first year in the NBA and averaged a double double...both of who are cost controlled are valuable assets. Trading that for a player who is not going to resign is actually a good deal for OKC. We just know Lou and Randles limitations because we watch them all the time.... |
If there is one thing that OKC doesn't need it is another big. They would ask for DLO or Ingram or no deal. |
Counter with an offer of Randle and Clarkson... if and only if Westbrook commits to resign with us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
Ok, then why get him at all?
Let's stick with what we got and have good gut feelings about our current team.
Then we don't have to worry about acquiring Joakim Noah firing Luke and hiring coach Popovich to steady Westbrook!
We can win without Westbrook, I mean why couldn't we? Look what they about Dirk. |
Bruh, I already said I don't want to trade for him. Like three times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerLand247 wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | | Boldarblood wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. |
OKC hangs up on you with that trade. Why would they trade a top 5 player for basically trash (Randle is good, but look at what fans think of him here, they want to bench him for Nance. There is zero motivation for OKC to even field this call.
Plus there is no way you are going to get any commitment out of WB, I feel he's the kind of player that WANTS to be wined and dined. |
You can say OKC will hang up, but the 6th man of the year a couple of years back who averaged 15 ppg and a PF who just finished his first year in the NBA and averaged a double double...both of who are cost controlled are valuable assets. Trading that for a player who is not going to resign is actually a good deal for OKC. We just know Lou and Randles limitations because we watch them all the time.... |
If there is one thing that OKC doesn't need it is another big. They would ask for DLO or Ingram or no deal. |
Counter with an offer of Randle and Clarkson... if and only if Westbrook commits to resign with us. |
Better yet, do what pretty much everyone thinks the Lakers should do and just wait until next summer and see if he will sign as a Free Agent - no risks involved and the Lakers don't have to give up anything. If he won't come them, there's no point in trading for him now.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Truck Turner
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 3937
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | LakerLand247 wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | | Boldarblood wrote: | | Fortysixn2 wrote: | I say yes.
Lou + Nick + Randle for him...which works In the trade machine. |
OKC hangs up on you with that trade. Why would they trade a top 5 player for basically trash (Randle is good, but look at what fans think of him here, they want to bench him for Nance. There is zero motivation for OKC to even field this call.
Plus there is no way you are going to get any commitment out of WB, I feel he's the kind of player that WANTS to be wined and dined. |
You can say OKC will hang up, but the 6th man of the year a couple of years back who averaged 15 ppg and a PF who just finished his first year in the NBA and averaged a double double...both of who are cost controlled are valuable assets. Trading that for a player who is not going to resign is actually a good deal for OKC. We just know Lou and Randles limitations because we watch them all the time.... |
If there is one thing that OKC doesn't need it is another big. They would ask for DLO or Ingram or no deal. |
Counter with an offer of Randle and Clarkson... if and only if Westbrook commits to resign with us. |
Better yet, do what pretty much everyone thinks the Lakers should do and just wait until next summer and see if he will sign as a Free Agent - no risks involved and the Lakers don't have to give up anything. If he won't come them, there's no point in trading for him now. |
I don't know why that's such a hard thing for people to grasp. If you're confident Russ wants to be here it's outright stupid to give up any assets for him. Hell from Russ' perspective it'd be a better idea to sign with Lakers in Free Agency than have them gut their entire roster to sign him.
All this talk of trading for Westbrook is just nonsensical and reeks of people being desperate for a Superstar regardless of if it'll equal wins or long term success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget
Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 46684
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I will be estatic if we got WB, especially if there is a agreement to give him a extention, I don't think he's gonna pull another Howard... |
|
| 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
|
|
