| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stojan
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1405
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Devon george Luke walton Aaron mckie Slava medvedenko Chris mihm 1# pick from Miami
so we r giving trash like that to get
marbury frye ariza
and some of u r complaining bout marbury
we would be instant contenders with a team like that
kwame frye bynum
frye cook turiaf
odom ariza green
kobe ariza wafer
marbury smush sahsa
no way kobe can be double teamed with a line up like that
u have a 2nd scoring option
big man that can score
a athletic gurad forward in ariza thats a good 6th man.
even with new york getting cap space there is no way that isiah would ever trade those players.
personally i think the kobe marbury duo would be quite nice both can penetrate both can score outside if one has an of night the other can pick up the slack thats something the lakers now cant do if kobe is having a slump.
_________________
Jerome James being asked what he thought about his coach calling him selfish, his response was:
"I don't have the first clue who he is talking about, because all I worry about is Jerome." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Isn't that the point of being a #2 option on offense? What do you think is Odom's main problem trying to be the #2 option? Hasn't PJ asked him to be more assertive attacking the basket and criticized Odom? |
There's assertive and then there's all you want to do is handle the ball and attack.
One of Odom's biggest weaknesses is that he doesn't move off the ball. The fact that he was constantly driving actually angers Phil more. He has told Lamar to shoot any jumpers the defense gives him.
| Quote: | | Even if he isn't traded, we'd actually have 2 2-way PF/Cs up front anyway. There's the steal. |
You have rated Frye way higher than me. I don't think of him as a defensive player at all.
Very talented on offense though.
| Quote: | | There's the irony. You're getting the bigman. When Marbury's contract is up, you can pay him the big bucks too |
Frye isn't the big I would want to invest in the west longterm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles
Star Player
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would do it - no way New York does it. Knick fans would burn down MSG if they traded both Frye AND Ariza for spare change. The Jalen Rose trade shows that the Knicks don't really value expiring contracts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | One of Odom's biggest weaknesses is that he doesn't move off the ball. The fact that he was constantly driving actually angers Phil more. He has told Lamar to shoot any jumpers the defense gives him. |
Even then, where's the 2nd option on offense? Still want to rely on Odom from the perimeter? Or actually get a scorer?
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/channing_frye/index.html
For a rookie PF/C in 26 minutes, that's a steal.
Like it's easy to attain athletic quality bigs in the first place...
Think Kwame could've played defense before? Now look under Kareem's tutelage.
Sorry, I only see this benefitting the Lakers. Essentially instead of relying on 2007 capspace, they lose Mihm and get Frye and Marbury and keep their players are can use their MLE. Kobe can actually contend with young active bigs. Frye has some high post game. Marbury is a triple threat player. Unlike Cook, Frye can actually play some defense and rotate to swat a little. I just don't really see what the downside is here, when the risk of waiting for capspace jeopardizes the roster highly.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles
Star Player
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would definetely do it, but why would New York? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. EiGhTy-OnE
Star Player
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 8272
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if steph wanted to be here. my worry is that he would pout and want to go back to NY
_________________
"When (Kobe) gets you on life support, he won't give you mouth to mouth. HE PULLS THE PLUG." -stu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sodapoppenski
Star Player
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 7364
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | sodapoppenski wrote: | No way.
Cap space killed. |
Odom's deal is just as long and with Kwame's 3rd year guaranteed, we're not going to have capspace for a while anyway.
| Quote: | | Starbury = ball-dominant (not a good match with Kobe anyways). |
LO is ball dominant, too. The question is - what will he do with the ball? He worked pretty well when he had talented teammates (Garnett, a healthy Amare and Marion) - the guy is a 20pt/10ast type and Kobe is thriving as a catch&shoot/slash player. The two together would be a better version of Drexler/Porter or Frazier/Monroe (for the greybeards).
| Quote: | Only way we contend HAS to be with Starbury, Kobe, Lamar...
NOT enough. |
Disagree - if we sent LO/Slava/McKie for Starbury/Frye:
Stephon
Kobe
Devean
Frye
Mihm
with
Smush
Sasha/Wafer
Walton
Cook
Brown/Bynum
Is a 46-50 win team, easily. People forget, but Steph can score outside AND inside, plus he finishes as well as anyone under 6'5" in the league - he and Kobe would average 20FTA per game. |
Ya lost me at "with Kwame's 3rd year guaranteed."
It's not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawai442
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 946
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: Not quite write... |
|
|
> Odom's deal is just as long and with Kwame's 3rd year guaranteed, we're not going to have capspace for a while anyway.
Kwame's 3rd year is an option. Kwame's contract fits in nicely if either we sucks (we have 2007 FA money) or if he turns out to be good (we have the option). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawai442
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 946
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: | No.
Marbury is not a good fit. More important - I wouldn't want Buss to pay so much to a point guard that doesn't fit the Triangle.
If Buss is going to pay 10+ million - It needs to be for a bigman. |
Why do you think Starbury doesn't fit the Triangle?
He's got a decent outside shot, though admitedly he's doing pretty poor this year from the arch.
He's really more of a combo guard than a true PG which fits triangle requirements. It would probably be a better match for Marbury's game than what Larry Brown is trying to do with him by trying to make him a pure PG. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawai442
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 946
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NOODLESTYLE wrote: | | add Toronto's 1st rd pick or a future 1st rd from the KNICKS (unprotected) and you got yourself a deal. We could probaly deal Stephon in the future, but at least he'd be a legit 2nd scorer and under the triangle he'll get a lot of open jump shots and would basically being a consistent Smush Parker and add toughness to the team...and Lamar wouldn't be blamed for all the turnovers and could come on in and be the 3rd scorer. It wouldn't be a bad idea. BUt the 1st rd pick must be included! |
Why would NY give you a 1st round pick? They are taking our trash for a good young player.
Once we get Stephon, don't expect to ever move him unless like this trade - we package him with a good young guard. Basically with this move, he has to be the last piece we require to win it all since all you are going to get after the trade are MLE, vet min and draft selections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawai442
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 946
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | | One of Odom's biggest weaknesses is that he doesn't move off the ball. The fact that he was constantly driving actually angers Phil more. He has told Lamar to shoot any jumpers the defense gives him. |
Even then, where's the 2nd option on offense? Still want to rely on Odom from the perimeter? Or actually get a scorer?
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/channing_frye/index.html
For a rookie PF/C in 26 minutes, that's a steal.
Like it's easy to attain athletic quality bigs in the first place...
Think Kwame could've played defense before? Now look under Kareem's tutelage.
Sorry, I only see this benefitting the Lakers. Essentially instead of relying on 2007 capspace, they lose Mihm and get Frye and Marbury and keep their players are can use their MLE. Kobe can actually contend with young active bigs. Frye has some high post game. Marbury is a triple threat player. Unlike Cook, Frye can actually play some defense and rotate to swat a little. I just don't really see what the downside is here, when the risk of waiting for capspace jeopardizes the roster highly. |
If we go through with the 2007 plan, I don't believe we can keep Mihm any ways since he needs to go in order to free up cap space.
If you look at what we are giving up...
> Devon george Luke walton Aaron mckie Slava medvedenko Chris mihm 1# pick from Miami
the only guy in that list that would stay here if we go through with the 2007 plan is Luke Walton if he doesn't play well enough to earn a MLE from some other team. I don't believe we'll even keep the #1 pick from Miami regardless since the money we pay for the free agent will rob us a few mil to spend in 2007. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawai442
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 946
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Charles wrote: | | I would definetely do it, but why would New York? |
The only reason why NY would do it would be to get rid of Marbury's contract.
I also think that if you are thinking of pushing this trade through you have to ask for Frye or Ariza not both. Not that it matters since IMO Ariza doesn't have the all around game that would fit the triangle any how. I'd probably ask for Matt Barnes though since his game and defense would fit well in the triangle IMO. In terms of NY, they don't need Matt Barnes any how and they'd need to create some roster spots to absorb all of the players we are sending.
NY has already put a big $$$ investment in Curry so I'm not even sure that Mihm has any attraction to them either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sodapoppenski
Star Player
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 7364
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Think Kwame could've played defense before? Now look under Kareem's tutelage. |
Did Kareem forget to mention that whole "rotation" thing? :roll: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kawai442 wrote: | | Charles wrote: | | I would definetely do it, but why would New York? |
The only reason why NY would do it would be to get rid of Marbury's contract.
I also think that if you are thinking of pushing this trade through you have to ask for Frye or Ariza not both. Not that it matters since IMO Ariza doesn't have the all around game that would fit the triangle any how. I'd probably ask for Matt Barnes though since his game and defense would fit well in the triangle IMO. In terms of NY, they don't need Matt Barnes any how and they'd need to create some roster spots to absorb all of the players we are sending.
NY has already put a big $$$ investment in Curry so I'm not even sure that Mihm has any attraction to them either. |
Ariza isn't an All-around player, but like Patterson, is aggressive with the basketball and works off-the-ball. He plays defense and works hard at both ends, and that's why after 4 years, Phil Jackson regretted letting go of Patterson.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | | One of Odom's biggest weaknesses is that he doesn't move off the ball. The fact that he was constantly driving actually angers Phil more. He has told Lamar to shoot any jumpers the defense gives him. |
Even then, where's the 2nd option on offense? Still want to rely on Odom from the perimeter? Or actually get a scorer?
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/channing_frye/index.html
For a rookie PF/C in 26 minutes, that's a steal.
Like it's easy to attain athletic quality bigs in the first place...
Think Kwame could've played defense before? Now look under Kareem's tutelage.
Sorry, I only see this benefitting the Lakers. Essentially instead of relying on 2007 capspace, they lose Mihm and get Frye and Marbury and keep their players are can use their MLE. Kobe can actually contend with young active bigs. Frye has some high post game. Marbury is a triple threat player. Unlike Cook, Frye can actually play some defense and rotate to swat a little. I just don't really see what the downside is here, when the risk of waiting for capspace jeopardizes the roster highly. |
I'm not saying I don't make this deal beacuse of the cap plan. I don't make this deal because I feel strongly that Marbury-Jackson-Triangle wouldn't pan out.
The "PG" I would like too see come here is Jason Terry. He is a good fit in Jackson's system IMO.
As for Frye - He is a talented scorer. But his defense isn't good under Larry Brown. I would be suprised if he became a very good defender under Phil ...
If it's a choice between doing this one and the K-Mart one - I would do the Martin deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
^That I find ironic, since Terry was a ball-dominant PG for the Hawks. Change the system and the players around him, and it's not the same.
Same goes for Andre Miller with the Cavs. 11apg wasn't uncommon for him. Change the system and the players around him and he isn't so ball-dominant anymore.
I wouldn't do the Martin deal. All of KMart's athleticism and strength but poor IQ.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wanted Terry before he re-signed with Atlanta in 2003. He was always a great Tri fit in my book.
Not because of Dallas - I have liked his game and mentioned here on LG way back when he was a FA 3 summers ago.
Kenyon Martin is stupid, agreed. But he also would have the toughness and low post defense this team needs. He also would be the only big on the team (for now let's assume Andrew isn't part of the equation since he is not a rotation player) that would be able to finish plays in the post - especially off screen and rolls.
Martin + Terry >> Frye + Marbury |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
^Wait, how do we land KMart and Terry again?
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | ^Wait, how do we land KMart and Terry again? |
If we are going to pay - 20+ million to Marbury - might as well pay Martin and Terry that amount instead.
Ofcourse we are just talking hypothetical here. I rather have Martin and Terry.
Though, Terry coming here for the Full MLE or Dallas doing a sign and trade with us is unrealistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29077
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is the most idiotic post i've seen in a while. I can't believe how many Lakers fans actually think we could get Marbury and Frye for Slava, mihm, george and luke. How does that trade help the Knicks at all? You honestly think they couldn't get a better deal than our garbage? Please, for god's sake, somebody bury this pipe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29077
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh yeah, i forgot, we give them Aaron Mckie too. Never mind, this is a great deal for the Knicks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kawai442 wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | No.
Marbury is not a good fit. More important - I wouldn't want Buss to pay so much to a point guard that doesn't fit the Triangle.
If Buss is going to pay 10+ million - It needs to be for a bigman. |
Why do you think Starbury doesn't fit the Triangle?
He's got a decent outside shot, though admitedly he's doing pretty poor this year from the arch.
He's really more of a combo guard than a true PG which fits triangle requirements. It would probably be a better match for Marbury's game than what Larry Brown is trying to do with him by trying to make him a pure PG. |
I think Larry Brown is actually trying to make him more of a SG that passes the ball once bringing it upcourt too. Kinda like Eric Snow and then Chauncey Billups were for LB.
That's the problem with some of these guys. They have no ability to play the game at a PRO level without being ball dominant.
There are some players that can play the PG spot without being ball dominant. But then there's others who just can't ...
Marbury IMO is alot like Payton. He just won't fit well with Phil. Marbury needs a coach that will give him free reign to be aggressive and push the ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Frye might turn out to be a better player, but KMart can help Kobe immediately.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValisJason
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 1418
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do the trade. I really respect MikeLG's opinion on this one. And, I think that Phil would be able to bend Marbury into his Kobe-centric system. Marbury is truly a talented offensive basketball player.
But, I dont understand the genesis of the thread. Has this been solidly rumored? And, I havent heard a real reason why NYK do the trade.
Also, Marbury is the absolute definition of locker room cancer. Lived in NYC the last few years and made friends with a personal trainer who worked for the Knicks. He told me many stories about how Marbury altered and dominated the bad chemistry in the locker room. Even in NY he didnt make friends with any teamates, he had his own posse and was isolated in the locker room. He was barely part of the team except when on the court. Its the kind of thing we fans dont really hear about, but that explains why Marbury has NEVER found an NBA home. Only Phil Jackson could work with this young man. And maybe Larry Brown, after breaking him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teej
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 222
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, even without Frye i'd still consider it. Hate on Steph all you want but he can flat out ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
