| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: Q Rich => KG |
|
|
Hear me out...
NYK doesn't want Q...at ALL...if we offer them draft picks and DG (cap space) who is also a decent defender, they may just take it.
If not, they may take Mihm/Slava for Q..
But getting Q Rich is the key...why?
LO/Q/Bynum equals KG/filler...maybe even Hassel thrown in.
LO and Q even without Bynum is a good trade for KG...
Why hasn't anyone brought this up???
_________________
Build around team players, not ISO players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Walter Sobchak
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 4520
Location: Hollywood, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mihm/Slava/Odom/Bynum is too much to give up for KG.
So is Devean/Odom/Bynum, IMO.
Also, McHale isn't going to trade KG to the Lakers unless Garnett makes that demand.
_________________
"People don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble
Just a reminder folks: "a lot" is two words. So is "no one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Walter Sobchak wrote: | Mihm/Slava/Odom/Bynum is too much to give up for KG.
So is Devean/Odom/Bynum, IMO.
Also, McHale isn't going to trade KG to the Lakers unless Garnett makes that demand. |
I'm going to write this in another way so you can READ what you WROTE:
Kwame
KG
Hassell
Kobe
Smush
Is NOT AS GOOD AS
Mihm/Kwame
Cook
LO
Kobe
Smush
????
Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else???
_________________
Build around team players, not ISO players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KingKobeDubbz
Starting Rotation
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 734
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I mean all I gotta say for all those comments and different scenarios is .....NEH!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
4OnTheFloor
Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Posts: 1148
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | | Walter Sobchak wrote: | Mihm/Slava/Odom/Bynum is too much to give up for KG.
So is Devean/Odom/Bynum, IMO.
Also, McHale isn't going to trade KG to the Lakers unless Garnett makes that demand. |
I'm going to write this in another way so you can READ what you WROTE:
Kwame
KG
Hassell
Kobe
Smush
Is NOT AS GOOD AS
Mihm/Kwame
Cook
LO
Kobe
Smush
????
Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
OWNED  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vlade
Star Player
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2373
Location: valley of dry bone dreams
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's bad enough we'd be asking Minny to take on one overpaid player in Odom... you think they'd want to add another one in Q as well?
_________________
-
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smel Counts
Star Player
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 1744
Location: corner of Prairie and Manchester
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to write this in another way so you can READ what you WROTE:
Kwame
KG
Hassell
Kobe
Smush
Is NOT AS GOOD AS
Mihm/Kwame
Cook
LO
Kobe
Smush
????
Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else???[/quote]
Not really, if that team IS better, it's not much better. Plus, we'll never be able to add anything after the move and Bynum is gone in the meantime.
Never say never, but I wouldn't move Bynum for anything less than multiple guaranteed Finals appearances. No way does your proposed trade offer that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walter Sobchak
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 4520
Location: Hollywood, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the Lakers trade for Q, can't they not re-trade him in a package deal till after the trade deadline?
Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any chance McHale is looking to trade Garnett to the Lakers without Garnett demanding it?
Correct me if I'm wrong but if Garnett demanded a trade, what would he have to force the TWolves to trade him to the Lakers and not an Eastern Conference team?
Despite all that, yes, you read what I wrote correctly. I think that it is too early to give up on Lamar Odom (despite your pointless petition), and it would really be stupid to give up on Bynum already. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.
_________________
"People don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble
Just a reminder folks: "a lot" is two words. So is "no one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walter Sobchak
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 4520
Location: Hollywood, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 4OnTheFloor wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
OWNED |
Funny how his scenario doesn't take into account at all what Andrew Bynum could represent to the future of a franchise, isn't it?
Yes, the Lakers would be better this year with that lineup. But would they be good enough to win it all?
No.
Would that team get better over the next couple years?
No.
So what is the point? I'll never understand all these Johnny-come-lately Laker fans who seem to think that the goal is to just be better than we are now. The goal is championships and until you show me a lineup that will win one, then I don't think trading the future of the franchise away is worth it just so the Lakers can have two All-Stars again or so that they can finish slightly closer to Phoenix in the standings.
Does that make any sense? Sheesh 
_________________
"People don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble
Just a reminder folks: "a lot" is two words. So is "no one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the Lakers would do that deal.
Richardson has a big contract. I don't think Q would be the final piece in a KG trade as if the Wolves dealt KG, they would want LO, a young big, capspace and draft picks.
LO's contract is significant itself - that adding Q to the mix wouldn't really entice them.
Plus, you don't make moves just to get a player that might demand a trade. The Lakers are happy with Mihm's progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magic_bryant
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 18179
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah. I'm willing to try just about anything to get KG. These things have crossed my mind, adding the necessary talent to eventually trade for KG.
But I still wouldn't do that.
_________________
Stephon Marbury on Kobe: "He's the only person on 'dis earth that can do 'dat. He guards people, like shuts 'em down. Then, to do 'dat on 'da offensive end. It's like 'Damn, I can't score on him AND he about to bust my ass." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18410
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Smel Counts wrote: |
I'm going to write this in another way so you can READ what you WROTE:
Kwame
KG
Hassell
Kobe
Smush
Is NOT AS GOOD AS
Mihm/Kwame
Cook
LO
Kobe
Smush
????
Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
Not really, if that team IS better, it's not much better. Plus, we'll never be able to add anything after the move and Bynum is gone in the meantime.
Never say never, but I wouldn't move Bynum for anything less than multiple guaranteed Finals appearances. No way does your proposed trade offer that.[/quote]
As I type this, I am shocked to do so, but... I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU! Just kidding, I'm not really shocked about that (just thought it was funny), but I do completely agree with you. Kobe and Bynum are untouchable in my book.
It's okay if others disagree but Kobe and KG still wouldn't get past the Pistons, and their combined salaries would absolutely kill any ability we had to add talent around them. I'll also point out that KG isn't the player he was even last year. He's nowhere near the force. Perhaps it's because he's lost his fire playing for that crap franchise, perhaps it's because he's had to carry them all alone for all these years. In all likelihood, it's a little of both. Either way, it IS a red flag. I do think KG would suddenly be a new man somewhere else, but his years of dominance are beginning to lessen a bit.
Last edited by LakerJam on Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18410
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Walter Sobchak wrote: | | 4OnTheFloor wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
OWNED |
Funny how his scenario doesn't take into account at all what Andrew Bynum could represent to the future of a franchise, isn't it?
Yes, the Lakers would be better this year with that lineup. But would they be good enough to win it all?
No.
Would that team get better over the next couple years?
No.
So what is the point? I'll never understand all these Johnny-come-lately Laker fans who seem to think that the goal is to just be better than we are now. The goal is championships and until you show me a lineup that will win one, then I don't think trading the future of the franchise away is worth it just so the Lakers can have two All-Stars again or so that they can finish slightly closer to Phoenix in the standings.
Does that make any sense? Sheesh |
OWNED !!! 
...sorry, couldn't resist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walter Sobchak
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 4520
Location: Hollywood, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerJam wrote: | | Walter Sobchak wrote: | | 4OnTheFloor wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
OWNED |
Funny how his scenario doesn't take into account at all what Andrew Bynum could represent to the future of a franchise, isn't it?
Yes, the Lakers would be better this year with that lineup. But would they be good enough to win it all?
No.
Would that team get better over the next couple years?
No.
So what is the point? I'll never understand all these Johnny-come-lately Laker fans who seem to think that the goal is to just be better than we are now. The goal is championships and until you show me a lineup that will win one, then I don't think trading the future of the franchise away is worth it just so the Lakers can have two All-Stars again or so that they can finish slightly closer to Phoenix in the standings.
Does that make any sense? Sheesh |
OWNED !!!
...sorry, couldn't resist. |
Thanks
_________________
"People don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble
Just a reminder folks: "a lot" is two words. So is "no one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CorkyTomjanovich
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 3486
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Q Rich => KG |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | Hear me out...
NYK doesn't want Q...at ALL...if we offer them draft picks and DG (cap space) who is also a decent defender, they may just take it.
If not, they may take Mihm/Slava for Q..
But getting Q Rich is the key...why?
LO/Q/Bynum equals KG/filler...maybe even Hassel thrown in.
LO and Q even without Bynum is a good trade for KG...
Why hasn't anyone brought this up??? |
Because "Q RICH" Freaking blows thats why. Lakers don't need garbage who specializes in jacking bad 3's. He plays defense once a month, don't let that effort he had against Kobe recently fool you.
_________________
JVG FOR LAKERS HEAD COACH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CorkyTomjanovich
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 3486
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Q Rich => KG |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: |
LO and Q even without Bynum is a good trade for KG...
|
He will be here all week folks.
_________________
JVG FOR LAKERS HEAD COACH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sage_10
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2005
Posts: 6668
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Walter Sobchak wrote: | | 4OnTheFloor wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
OWNED |
Funny how his scenario doesn't take into account at all what Andrew Bynum could represent to the future of a franchise, isn't it?
Yes, the Lakers would be better this year with that lineup. But would they be good enough to win it all?
No.
Would that team get better over the next couple years?
No.
So what is the point? I'll never understand all these Johnny-come-lately Laker fans who seem to think that the goal is to just be better than we are now. The goal is championships and until you show me a lineup that will win one, then I don't think trading the future of the franchise away is worth it just so the Lakers can have two All-Stars again or so that they can finish slightly closer to Phoenix in the standings.
Does that make any sense? Sheesh |
Agree with you 100%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakez34
Star Player
Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 6101
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We can get Q for Devean and filler, yet LO and Q can get us KG. Looks like Isiah Thomas isn't the only one who needs to go to General Managing 101. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this a messageboard or amateur night at the Apollo?
To hell in a hand basket...
Noone comes to offer insight. Just add to the funnies...
Sad...
Back on topic. LAL wants KG. MINN wants talent in return that they can either use or turn around and trade for somethin better...
LO/Bynum for KG? Salaries don't match...and they don't want to trade him here anyway...
Add more talent at the avg price and you have a win-win for both...McHale can have something good for KG and LA can get KG for what they were or would have trade for him anyway...
People who say LAL would NOT trade Bynum and LO for KG, get back on you meds (or stop taking the illegal ones)...
People who say LAL would NOT trade DG/LO/Bynum for KG, clean your BONG, kiddo.
So basically what I offered was DG to NYK for Q Rich --- LO/Bynum/Q to MINN for KG...
And for that, I get bum-rushed?
WTF? Some of you need to put down the hate and try to contribute instead of acting like VULTURES, attacking anything that doesn't fit the status quo...
And WP,
You KNOW that LO/Bynum/Q is a better package than LO/Bynum/DG...why are you dogging this???
_________________
Build around team players, not ISO players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerJam wrote: | | Walter Sobchak wrote: | | 4OnTheFloor wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Does that make sense to you? Or anyone else??? |
OWNED |
Funny how his scenario doesn't take into account at all what Andrew Bynum could represent to the future of a franchise, isn't it?
Yes, the Lakers would be better this year with that lineup. But would they be good enough to win it all?
No.
Would that team get better over the next couple years?
No.
So what is the point? I'll never understand all these Johnny-come-lately Laker fans who seem to think that the goal is to just be better than we are now. The goal is championships and until you show me a lineup that will win one, then I don't think trading the future of the franchise away is worth it just so the Lakers can have two All-Stars again or so that they can finish slightly closer to Phoenix in the standings.
Does that make any sense? Sheesh |
OWNED !!!
...sorry, couldn't resist. |
Yeah, right...
Says the guys who think LO/Bynum is better than KG!!!!!!
How can you own me with nonsense?
_________________
Build around team players, not ISO players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thugnomoe
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 14660
Location: unfortunately not Los Angeles anymore
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kobe+KG=Championship contenders... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vlade
Star Player
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2373
Location: valley of dry bone dreams
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gamecock,
Not everyine in here is "bumrushing" you... I and others pointed out that your scenario might not be so attractive to Minny. Why would they want to trade an elite player for two guys who are way overpaid? If anything, they'd rather get young talent plus expiring K's and high draft picks. Even then, moving a guy like KG is not easy to do... they have to consider their fanbase.
_________________
-
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walter Sobchak
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 4520
Location: Hollywood, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | Is this a messageboard or amateur night at the Apollo?
To hell in a hand basket...
Noone comes to offer insight. Just add to the funnies...
Sad...
|
Scroll up and you'll notice a couple things:
#1 - You started in with the jokes (check out your entire second post in this thread, did you contribute anything or just try to mock me for disagreeing with you in a sarcastic manner?)
#2 - There's been plenty of legitimate info given to you in this thread, but you're ignoring all of it. First off, from my understanding of the NBA's rules you can't trade for a player and immediately turn around and re-trade him in a package deal. If I'm wrong about that, someone let me know. Also, people (myself included) have been giving you our opinions that Bynum's future is worth holding onto if all the Lakers are getting is KG because KG alone won't get the Lakers a title. That's a valid opinion, you apparently just think because it differs from your opinion that we're all being funny or are just crazy. Try to be a little more open-minded.
| Quote: |
Back on topic. LAL wants KG. MINN wants talent in return that they can either use or turn around and trade for somethin better...
|
You're making the assumption that Minnesota wants to trade KG, which as far as I know is a mistaken assumption. There are rumors that KG may want to be traded, although he's publicly said he doesn't want to be traded, and I can pretty much guarantee that McHale definitely is not exploring ways to trade him to the Lakers.
| Quote: |
People who say LAL would NOT trade Bynum and LO for KG, get back on you meds (or stop taking the illegal ones)...
People who say LAL would NOT trade DG/LO/Bynum for KG, clean your BONG, kiddo.
|
See, here you go with more sarcasm and jokes. We disagree with you and are being serious about it. I'm sorry you can't handle that.
| Quote: |
So basically what I offered was DG to NYK for Q Rich --- LO/Bynum/Q to MINN for KG...
And for that, I get bum-rushed?
WTF? Some of you need to put down the hate and try to contribute instead of acting like VULTURES, attacking anything that doesn't fit the status quo...
|
It is not "hating" or "bum rushing" you if we disagree. My original response to you was not sarcastic or insulting in any way whatsoever. You decided to respond by basically saying because I disagreed that I must be crazy and you emphasized it with large capitalized letters (which let's face it, is not a good way to make an argument). Then surprise surprise but most people who posted agreed with me and suddenly you feel like we "bum rushed" you. We didn't, we just disagree. Get over yourself.
_________________
"People don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble
Just a reminder folks: "a lot" is two words. So is "no one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DocK36
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2001
Posts: 19454
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Q, who the heck would want him? The guy is way overpaid and offer nothing but jacks up 3 pt shots, and he's not even really good at it. Every team who acquired him quickly developes buyers remorse. Phoenix got rid of him after one season, now NY is shopping him around. If Minnesota decides to deal KG, they're looking to rebuild, they're looking for young talents, draft picks, expiring contracts, not a one dimensional gunner with a hugh contract. Offering up Q in any deal is a hindrance to making the deal, not a positive. Heck, the Wolves would rather have Mihm than Q straight up. Much cheaper bigman whose contract will be up in a year or two.
_________________
Ringo "You retired too?"
Doc "Not me, I'm in my prime." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrimsonLaker
Star Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 2268
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: Q Rich => KG |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | Hear me out...
NYK doesn't want Q...at ALL...if we offer them draft picks and DG (cap space) who is also a decent defender, they may just take it.
If not, they may take Mihm/Slava for Q..
But getting Q Rich is the key...why?
LO/Q/Bynum equals KG/filler...maybe even Hassel thrown in.
LO and Q even without Bynum is a good trade for KG...
Why hasn't anyone brought this up??? |
No one else has brought it up because its dumb. The idea has no merit whatsoever. And any GM who traded for Q in the hopes of getting KG would be fired when the plan inevitably failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
