Woj: "LeBron to Lakers is very well a Target" (LA setting stage for LBJ - p.25)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 32, 33, 34  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 117621
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:27 am    Post subject:

LakerSD wrote:
Not a coincidence that lebron "I like to send cryptic, calculated messages" James showed up to a lakers summer league game on the day it was reported that Houston is close to landing melo.

The Gilbert/Lebron beef might reach epic levels this season.


He also saw Denver, Houston and Philadelphia games. Maybe wanting to join his buddy CP3 in Houston?
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PHILosophize
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 2377

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:28 am    Post subject:

Lebron to Philly you heard it here first
_________________
KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZMA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 28392
Location: Holland

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:30 am    Post subject:

PHILosophize wrote:
Lebron to Philly you heard it here first


Hey I posted that a month ago
_________________
also sprach magic johnson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 117621
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:32 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)


I disagree, I think he will sign a 4 year contract to take him to the over 38 rule. 4 years full max. Signing for less dilutes his future earning power. 2018 is his last chance at that full max contract.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PHILosophize
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 2377

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:32 am    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
PHILosophize wrote:
Lebron to Philly you heard it here first


Hey I posted that a month ago


Second then
_________________
KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZMA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSD
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2016
Posts: 1900

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
LakerSD wrote:
Not a coincidence that lebron "I like to send cryptic, calculated messages" James showed up to a lakers summer league game on the day it was reported that Houston is close to landing melo.

The Gilbert/Lebron beef might reach epic levels this season.


He also saw Denver, Houston and Philadelphia games. Maybe wanting to join his buddy CP3 in Houston?


Yeah could happen. I don't think he is staying in Cleveland. Could be Houston, Philly, LA, maybe even the Celtics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 38715
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)


I think it is a stretch to say that LeBron suddenly propels Lakers to contenders given the current state of the league. It would take a collection of great moves and a good deal of luck for that. But I totally agree with the idea that he makes the Lakers relevant again, and that's why I think the Lakers make the move if they can. I think the FO feeling would be, "hey, if we can win in a season or two that'd be great, but in the meantime we get the face of the NBA in our house again" and that's just good for business.

I get why people would salivate at the idea of getting LeBron, But while I am not totally against it, I do fear that it it is a temporary fix intended to do some temporary damage control more than it is a wise move that is going to have longterm effects that get the Lakers back on track as not only an elite franchise, but one that wins and does so for many, many years. I'm just not a fan of leveraging everything to chase two or three seasons of possible "success".
_________________
"How could it get worse?" some Lakers fans asked . . .

"Hold my beer" said the Jeanie Magic Buss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Travis Bickle
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Posts: 2645

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:46 am    Post subject:

LakerSD wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
LakerSD wrote:
Not a coincidence that lebron "I like to send cryptic, calculated messages" James showed up to a lakers summer league game on the day it was reported that Houston is close to landing melo.

The Gilbert/Lebron beef might reach epic levels this season.


He also saw Denver, Houston and Philadelphia games. Maybe wanting to join his buddy CP3 in Houston?


Yeah could happen. I don't think he is staying in Cleveland. Could be Houston, Philly, LA, maybe even the Celtics.


I don't see any condition in which he stays in cleveland. He dissed the owner when they fired the GM. Not saying he comes to the Lakers but noway he returns to cleveland. I have a strange feeling he goes back to the heat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Luke
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 4896
Location: Deep Europe

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:03 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)


I think it is a stretch to say that LeBron suddenly propels Lakers to contenders given the current state of the league. It would take a collection of great moves and a good deal of luck for that. But I totally agree with the idea that he makes the Lakers relevant again, and that's why I think the Lakers make the move if they can. I think the FO feeling would be, "hey, if we can win in a season or two that'd be great, but in the meantime we get the face of the NBA in our house again" and that's just good for business.

I get why people would salivate at the idea of getting LeBron, But while I am not totally against it, I do fear that it it is a temporary fix intended to do some temporary damage control more than it is a wise move that is going to have longterm effects that get the Lakers back on track as not only an elite franchise, but one that wins and does so for many, many years. I'm just not a fan of leveraging everything to chase two or three seasons of possible "success".





Since getting James would NOT make us contenders (he is not a top 5 all time; he is top 15all time), I agree with you that it would only be a temporary fix to sell to the fans.



The only way we would become a contender with James, would require a lot of things :


1) Free our cap room from Deng and Clarkson


2) James should take a big paycut in order for us to sign two other max free agents ( he should do it in order to compete for the championship )


3) we should be very lucky , clever and creative, in order to sign the right role players for peanuts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 9033

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:26 am    Post subject:

even that is not enough. Ball and Ingram will not be ready to help Lebron take on the Warriors as 20-21 year olds next year and Lebron knows this. He also is smart enough to realize he dont have enough prime years left to wait on them to develop out.
_________________
tank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSD
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2016
Posts: 1900

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:53 am    Post subject:

Travis Bickle wrote:
LakerSD wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
LakerSD wrote:
Not a coincidence that lebron "I like to send cryptic, calculated messages" James showed up to a lakers summer league game on the day it was reported that Houston is close to landing melo.

The Gilbert/Lebron beef might reach epic levels this season.


He also saw Denver, Houston and Philadelphia games. Maybe wanting to join his buddy CP3 in Houston?


Yeah could happen. I don't think he is staying in Cleveland. Could be Houston, Philly, LA, maybe even the Celtics.


I don't see any condition in which he stays in cleveland. He dissed the owner when they fired the GM. Not saying he comes to the Lakers but noway he returns to cleveland. I have a strange feeling he goes back to the heat.


Agree. Heat definitely are in the mix imo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 7002
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:44 am    Post subject:

LakerSD wrote:
Travis Bickle wrote:
LakerSD wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
LakerSD wrote:
Not a coincidence that lebron "I like to send cryptic, calculated messages" James showed up to a lakers summer league game on the day it was reported that Houston is close to landing melo.

The Gilbert/Lebron beef might reach epic levels this season.


He also saw Denver, Houston and Philadelphia games. Maybe wanting to join his buddy CP3 in Houston?


Yeah could happen. I don't think he is staying in Cleveland. Could be Houston, Philly, LA, maybe even the Celtics.


I don't see any condition in which he stays in cleveland. He dissed the owner when they fired the GM. Not saying he comes to the Lakers but noway he returns to cleveland. I have a strange feeling he goes back to the heat.


Agree. Heat definitely are in the mix imo.


The Heat took themselves out of it by giving out a bunch of multi-year contracts to so-so players this summer. As has been noted, the Spurs could potentially get to two max slots if they maneuver correctly. (Three guys could decline player options, or they could trade those guys, etc.) The Spurs don't offer the LA stage, but they certainly offer a Belichick-ean coach in Pop and a top-5 NBA player already there in Kawhi. If LeBron to LA is not a done deal, the Spurs could be a team to watch.
_________________
My current plan of attack:

Get involved in this Melo-to-Houston trade, making it a 4-teamer with MIL and us. Deng ends up going to the Knicks, who get picks from us and MIL; we absorb Monroe's expiring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ahaider
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 2679

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:55 am    Post subject:

Lol @ Lebron being top 15.

The guy is obviously in the top 5 already. If he leads the Lakers to beat the Warriors and then wins the Finals - he will be the greatest player of all time.

You remove - the eastern conference argument
You remove - he can't beat the Warriors
You restore the Laker Brand. They tie the Celtics in championships.

If and it's a major if - he pulls off a ring in LA - he will have his jersey retired by 3 separate franchises and he will have won rings with three different franchises. The hype globally and in LA would be insane.

That's the upside of the Lakers pitch. We're not even talking off court opportunities. We're in no position to turn down Lebron - you have to check that ego at the door.
_________________
Author of James Harden and the Strip Club


"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding. We are swimming in the former. We are desperately lacking in the latter." - Malcom Gladwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Lebrons
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 1693

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)


I disagree, I think he will sign a 4 year contract to take him to the over 38 rule. 4 years full max. Signing for less dilutes his future earning power. 2018 is his last chance at that full max contract.


No he won't. He's going to keep signing 1+1s to maintain his power over his team. Even once he declines as a player, he will still be the most recognizable player in the league like Kobe was. He can sign for whatever he wants, wherever he wants. He's a walking ratings and revenue machine for any team.

And his real future earning power is off the court, not on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 14517
Location: The Garden Island

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:13 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
James told Goodman on Wednesday that he was in town to work out and mentor some of the young players on Cleveland's summer league team, visit with former Cavs assistant and current Sixers summer league coach Lloyd Pierce, and catch a glimpse of Lonzo Ball.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 14517
Location: The Garden Island

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)



All of this.

The whole "I don't want him on the Lakers- he's on the wrong side of 30" argument is laughable given where the Lakers have been as a franchise lately and the fact that Lebron's alien DNA allows him to play at an incredibly high level despite his age. Have the people who don't want him been watching the last 3 NBA Finals ?


(Lebron's genetics are such an outlier that I'm only half-kidding about the alien part.)


Lebron will start to slow down eventually (unless he really is an alien), but as that start's to happen, BI, Lonzo and the other young guys are all hitting their primes. 80% effective Lebron with BI and Lonzo in their primes and PG in his late prime would still be an incredible team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 38715
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:22 pm    Post subject:

The Lebrons wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)


I disagree, I think he will sign a 4 year contract to take him to the over 38 rule. 4 years full max. Signing for less dilutes his future earning power. 2018 is his last chance at that full max contract.


No he won't. He's going to keep signing 1+1s to maintain his power over his team. Even once he declines as a player, he will still be the most recognizable player in the league like Kobe was. He can sign for whatever he wants, wherever he wants. He's a walking ratings and revenue machine for any team.

And his real future earning power is off the court, not on it.


Agreed. LeBron is hardly the player at the twilight of his career who needs to maximize his last few years of earning power by locking in that last contract. His financial future is solidly set and he has nothing to really gain for trying to max his contracts. What he is going to want is ultimate control over his playing situation over his last few seasons.
_________________
"How could it get worse?" some Lakers fans asked . . .

"Hold my beer" said the Jeanie Magic Buss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersfan32
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1203

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:24 pm    Post subject:

PHILosophize wrote:
Lebron to Philly you heard it here first


That would make the most sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RCS926
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 15617

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:44 pm    Post subject:

babyskyhook wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)



All of this.

The whole "I don't want him on the Lakers- he's on the wrong side of 30" argument is laughable given where the Lakers have been as a franchise lately and the fact that Lebron's alien DNA allows him to play at an incredibly high level despite his age. Have the people who don't want him been watching the last 3 NBA Finals ?


(Lebron's genetics are such an outlier that I'm only half-kidding about the alien part.)


Lebron will start to slow down eventually (unless he really is an alien), but as that start's to happen, BI, Lonzo and the other young guys are all hitting their primes. 80% effective Lebron with BI and Lonzo in their primes and PG in his late prime would still be an incredible team.


Yup. That's 3 perimeter players who will seriously ease Lebron's workload. Lebron already leans heavily on Kyrie to carry the Cavs for significant stretches at a time. I think he'll welcome the fact that the Lakers will have plenty of guys who can take away from his scoring and playmaking workload.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 10845

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:18 pm    Post subject:

imo LeBron hasn't surpassed Larry Bird yet in legacy or as a player, thanks to my dad who had a lot of NBA tapes and the many Lakers vs Celtics rivalries, Larry was something spectacular. I preferred Magic, but you watch Larry and in his prime he was doing things you see LeBron do now, but he was also a deadeye shooter on top of it. LeBron was more athletic obviously and faster, but Larry had a more complete game, was a hell of a passer and finisher and a better shooter.


Anyway, LeBron isn't top 5 imo. He's also 1-3 in his last 4 finals but you'd never know it the way he's talked about. Yet they put Kobe either at the tail end of the top 10 or outside of it, and how the 2nd greatest shooting guard of all time isn't top 5 is beyond me.



But outside of that as far as LeBron goes, I don't see him leaving his easy path to the Finals every year to try to bring us out of the West. People can go "Yeah but his legacy means more if he does it in LA!!!"

They are going to make his legacy matter regardless of what happens. LeBron could lose the next 3 Finals as a Cav and they will still not make it matter to his legacy and will never move him all-time where they've already promoted him to be. Pretty sure he'd rather just go to the Finals every year and try to muster what it took to beat the Warriors, than having to play through every tough team in the West just to get to the Warriors on a team where he could no longer coast through the season.
_________________
"You can't scream TANK all year and then cry when free agents don't want to sit down with you."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
32
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 51104
Location: 818

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:23 pm    Post subject:

I have LeBron in the top 5 all time.
_________________
Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 7002
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:30 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
imo LeBron hasn't surpassed Larry Bird yet in legacy or as a player, thanks to my dad who had a lot of NBA tapes and the many Lakers vs Celtics rivalries, Larry was something spectacular. I preferred Magic, but you watch Larry and in his prime he was doing things you see LeBron do now, but he was also a deadeye shooter on top of it. LeBron was more athletic obviously and faster, but Larry had a more complete game, was a hell of a passer and finisher and a better shooter.


Anyway, LeBron isn't top 5 imo. He's also 1-3 in his last 4 finals but you'd never know it the way he's talked about. Yet they put Kobe either at the tail end of the top 10 or outside of it, and how the 2nd greatest shooting guard of all time isn't top 5 is beyond me.



But outside of that as far as LeBron goes, I don't see him leaving his easy path to the Finals every year to try to bring us out of the West. People can go "Yeah but his legacy means more if he does it in LA!!!"

They are going to make his legacy matter regardless of what happens. LeBron could lose the next 3 Finals as a Cav and they will still not make it matter to his legacy and will never move him all-time where they've already promoted him to be. Pretty sure he'd rather just go to the Finals every year and try to muster what it took to beat the Warriors, than having to play through every tough team in the West just to get to the Warriors on a team where he could no longer coast through the season.


The debate about LeBron's exact place among the all-time greats aside, his reasons for leaving Cleveland would be about just not wanting to be there with that owner any longer. It is no secret that LeBron hates the guy. He went back there because he deeply wanted to win a title for his hometown team and he wanted to heal scars from his leaving there the first time. I don't think he could've left had they not won a title there 2 years ago. But since he delivered the title, I don't think the fans there would despise him like they did the first time he left. I think the fans would understand that the owner there is a dipstick. LeBron went back there in spite of this man. Now that he's won a title there and he has a chance to depart, I believe that he will do just that. And as for a "free ride to the Finals" argument, I just think he has more interest in playing for a team that has the best chance to field the best team possible (that's not in Cleveland lol). Maybe we can't craft that kind of team for him, but I think that we can get him a pretty damn good team, with 2 maxes and a lot of young talent.

Oh, and by the way, being 40, I have some memories of Larry Bird playing back in the day. The dude was great. There is no doubt about that, and I do tend to think that he gets underrated, if anything, in terms of weighing his place on all-time lists. But not only was he not as good as LeBron, he also had a much shorter career.
_________________
My current plan of attack:

Get involved in this Melo-to-Houston trade, making it a 4-teamer with MIL and us. Deng ends up going to the Knicks, who get picks from us and MIL; we absorb Monroe's expiring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 10069
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:40 pm    Post subject:

RCS926 wrote:
babyskyhook wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^^
Yep, why would a Lakers team coming off its 4 worst seasons in a row in franchise history have interest in a top 5 player of all time? That would be absolutely ludicrous. Ludicrous, I tell you!

Look, I get it if some people don't like him personally. But he's not going to sign a 4-year deal, folks. Even on a slight decline, this guy is going to be great. You can make the case that he's still the best player in the league. Kobe was still awesome at 34, right up until the very moment that he blew out his Achilles. LeBron is more of a physical beast than Kobe was and has more of an advantage because of his size. To put it another way, LeBron doesn't have to work as hard at scoring his points than Kobe did around the same age; at that point, Kobe had become a contested shooting mid-range maestro, which isn't easy to do. Barring a serious injury, there's no reason that LeBron wouldn't be awesome for 2-3 more seasons.

I do not understand how Laker fans could think that getting such a historically great player who is still dominating would be a bad thing for the on-court product, all personal feelings aside. I suppose you could try to craft an argument that it would be a bad thing if he were to demand that we trade off Ingram and/or Lonzo, but that's not what was just suggested above. What was suggested above was that signing LeBron wasn't worth it because he simply won't be that good in a year. And that's a bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Oh, and of course LeBron would be expensive. You know who else is expensive? Kyle Lowry. DeMar DeRozan. Mike Conley. Marc Gasol. Al Horford. Blake Griffin. DeAndre Jordan. Gordon Hayward. I mean, those are nice players, but they are nowhere near LeBron's caliber, even a LeBron at 33-34. I will say it again: this man is a legendary player.

It's also worth pointing out that getting LeBron would instantaneously restore all of the Lakers' cache. I think we're making good strides towards getting that back; having LeBron automatically would restore us to contender status, it would greatly enhance the brand, and it would actually increase the value of the franchise, too. With that back, even if LeBron walked in 2-3 years, we'd still presumably have the second max free agent that signed, plus our young dudes, so we wouldn't be left in a position where we'd have to tear it all down and rebuild. (And if the 2nd max free agent also left, then we'd have cap space to rebuild around the young guys.)



All of this.

The whole "I don't want him on the Lakers- he's on the wrong side of 30" argument is laughable given where the Lakers have been as a franchise lately and the fact that Lebron's alien DNA allows him to play at an incredibly high level despite his age. Have the people who don't want him been watching the last 3 NBA Finals ?


(Lebron's genetics are such an outlier that I'm only half-kidding about the alien part.)


Lebron will start to slow down eventually (unless he really is an alien), but as that start's to happen, BI, Lonzo and the other young guys are all hitting their primes. 80% effective Lebron with BI and Lonzo in their primes and PG in his late prime would still be an incredible team.


Yup. That's 3 perimeter players who will seriously ease Lebron's workload. Lebron already leans heavily on Kyrie to carry the Cavs for significant stretches at a time. I think he'll welcome the fact that the Lakers will have plenty of guys who can take away from his scoring and playmaking workload.


Interestingly enough - all very good points, guys. Nothing that I can debate (well - intelligently debate).

Yet - there is something that rubs me wrong way about all of this "LeBron to the Lakers" thing.

May be "the mercenary" part of it Omar elaborated on. May be the fact that LeBron is too often in this "passive-aggressive" mode. I don't know - simply can't formulate it, perhaps. And that's coming from a guy that counts as the most important thing, no matter how you got 'em...
_________________
"I guarantee you, guarantee, Kobe will not be traded. Put that in your sig for me. Please." - CorkyTomjanovich, 08/01/2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RCS926
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 15617

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:41 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
imo LeBron hasn't surpassed Larry Bird yet in legacy or as a player, thanks to my dad who had a lot of NBA tapes and the many Lakers vs Celtics rivalries, Larry was something spectacular. I preferred Magic, but you watch Larry and in his prime he was doing things you see LeBron do now, but he was also a deadeye shooter on top of it. LeBron was more athletic obviously and faster, but Larry had a more complete game, was a hell of a passer and finisher and a better shooter.


Anyway, LeBron isn't top 5 imo. He's also 1-3 in his last 4 finals but you'd never know it the way he's talked about. Yet they put Kobe either at the tail end of the top 10 or outside of it, and how the 2nd greatest shooting guard of all time isn't top 5 is beyond me.



But outside of that as far as LeBron goes, I don't see him leaving his easy path to the Finals every year to try to bring us out of the West. People can go "Yeah but his legacy means more if he does it in LA!!!"

They are going to make his legacy matter regardless of what happens. LeBron could lose the next 3 Finals as a Cav and they will still not make it matter to his legacy and will never move him all-time where they've already promoted him to be. Pretty sure he'd rather just go to the Finals every year and try to muster what it took to beat the Warriors, than having to play through every tough team in the West just to get to the Warriors on a team where he could no longer coast through the season.


You've made it clear that you're absolutely convinced that there's no way that Lebron is coming next summer. I think some of your assumptions are incorrect, but I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Luke
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 4896
Location: Deep Europe

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:25 pm    Post subject:

ahaider wrote:
Lol @ Lebron being top 15.

The guy is obviously in the top 5 already. If he leads the Lakers to beat the Warriors and then wins the Finals - he will be the greatest player of all time.

You remove - the eastern conference argument
You remove - he can't beat the Warriors
You restore the Laker Brand. They tie the Celtics in championships.

If and it's a major if - he pulls off a ring in LA - he will have his jersey retired by 3 separate franchises and he will have won rings with three different franchises. The hype globally and in LA would be insane.

That's the upside of the Lakers pitch. We're not even talking off court opportunities. We're in no position to turn down Lebron - you have to check that ego at the door.


In no particular order:

MJ
Kareem
Kobe
Duncan
Magic
Shaq
Bird
Olajuwon
Wilt
Bill Russell

There are already 10, so James is not top 10 but top 15 at best...


Also, he will not win anything with us , unless he play for the minimum, and he is able make other superstars take a paycut to play here.

Make no mistake: the only way James beat the Warriors ( unlesss they have big injuries) is joining Kawai Leonard, Popovich and other superstars/good system players in S. Antonio. Since he is the biggest ring chaser of all times, I expect him to do it the next season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 32, 33, 34  Next
Page 20 of 34
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB