If you could rewind to Pre-Maginka era, would you?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Would you rewind to before Magic and Pelinka took over the front office?
Yes
73%
 73%  [ 61 ]
No
26%
 26%  [ 22 ]
Total Votes : 83

Author Message
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:33 am    Post subject:

Goldenwest wrote:
The Magic and Jim Buss regimes are linked. You really cant talk about the moves Magic made without a discussion of Jim and Mitch’s moves.


I agree that Magic operated in the environment left behind by the old regime, but if you are suggesting that the old regime's failures justify Magic's decisions, I disagree. There has been a long-term tendency by some people to answer every criticism with "But he's better than Jim Buss" or "But look at the mess Jim Buss left behind." That's an apology, not a justification. Magic operated under the circumstances that existed, but if a move sucked, it sucked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4180

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:43 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Goldenwest wrote:
The Magic and Jim Buss regimes are linked. You really cant talk about the moves Magic made without a discussion of Jim and Mitch’s moves.


I agree that Magic operated in the environment left behind by the old regime, but if you are suggesting that the old regime's failures justify Magic's decisions, I disagree. There has been a long-term tendency by some people to answer every criticism with "But he's better than Jim Buss" or "But look at the mess Jim Buss left behind." That's an apology, not a justification. Magic operated under the circumstances that existed, but if a move sucked, it sucked.



This doesn't make sense. Magic didn't make those decisions arbitrarily. Without the Moz/Deng signing, there is no reason to trade Russell and no reason not to keep Randle.

Deng's contract being unmovable is the reason we didn't have room to keep Randle, not Magic's decision not to re-sign him. No Deng and that's another 18M on top of a 30M max slot we have to spend last offseason AFTER signing LeBron.

Magic and Pelinka were far from perfect but let's be fair: they did not put us in a long-term bad situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:47 am    Post subject:

GameCock-MD wrote:
I disagree. Magic made room for 2 max slots and created a COMPETITIVE team this past year while waiting to get the next.

Magic didn't fail at what he had planned. He left before completing the job.

And I'd rather have those 2 max slots than Russell/Randle/Lopez/Lou Will.

In fact, if a team had ALL of those players right now and offered ALL of them for LeBron ALONE, we'd say no...so would all 29 other teams.

Lakers aren't about building a long-term development program...never have. We are about stars and star power.


Our fans are now revising history like we have EVER built a contender this way.


Jeanie and Magic were raised and taught by Dr. Jerry Buss to go get the best. That's what they knew and that's what they gave themselves room to do.

Just because you (not you specifically) disagree with that approach, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's a proven way to build a Championship team to the tune of 10 rings in my lifetime.


But because GSW did it differently and have won 3 rings, we think we need to do what they are doing? How weak does that sound?


We are Lakers. We get stars for a reason - being a Laker is FAR too hard to think you can take rookies/kids, put them under that much pressure and they all or most don't break.

I didn't think Magic was a great hire but I was willing to give him time to prove me wrong. Magic did exactly what he said he was going to do and it matches EXACTLY what Dr. Jerry Buss would have done.

I'm ok with that.


This has all been discussed ad nauseum, so I will make four short comments and move on.

1. Magic did not create two max slots. We already had one. Basically, he dumped all of those young players to create a max slot that, as of now, we have been unable to use. In fact, we've been holding the max slot open with guys like Rondo, Stevenson, and Casey P.

2. So the question is not whether someone would take all the young players over Lebron. The question is whether someone would take Russell, Randle, Nance, Bryant, and Zubac over, say, Kemba Walker.

3. Even if you insert Lebron into the equation, I'm not so sure that other teams would react the way you think, at least as of right now. Would other teams pass on the young players in favor of paying a max salary to Lebron at age 35, 36, and 37? Some teams might, but it would not be 29 out of 29. It probably would not be a majority now that Lebron has lost his aura of invincibility and immunity to aging.

4. We are living in 2019. The CBA is designed to stop teams from doing what Dr. Buss used to do. The internet era and explosion of TV coverage has eroded, but not eliminated, the attraction of playing in LA. If Magic and Jeanie are trying to play by 1996 rules, that is incompetence, not adherence to tradition. Do you think Jeanie should insist that the team use electric typewriters and fax machines because that's how the Lakers operated in the '80s?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Cutheon
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 8326
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:50 am    Post subject:

^might slow down some of the leaks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:53 am    Post subject:

GameCock-MD wrote:
Magic and Pelinka were far from perfect but let's be fair: they did not put us in a long-term bad situation.


This has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. As shown by the poll results in this thread, there are some people who agree with you. I can respect that. Most people do not agree with you. Can you respect that, or do you insist on viewing us all as Chicken Littles? I'm fine with opposing viewpoints, but in recent times we've been called racist, effeminate, and now Chicken Littles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:11 am    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:

i told you , these laker fans are officiall Bi-Polar.

They dont know what they want.


How is this bi-polar? We wanted Jim and Mitch to be replaced by someone better than them. Jeanie replaced them with two people who are worse. It's common sense to say that we'd rather have the less-incompetent previous administration back over the more incompetent current one.


Last edited by Threatt_Level on Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:14 am    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
What's funny is if not for Mozdeng, we would actually be in a pretty desirable place right now. The entire young core plus two max players.


Except the Russell trade was completely unnecessary. We could've packaged Moz as salary filler using Russell to help land us AD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:17 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

1. Magic did not create two max slots. We already had one. Basically, he dumped all of those young players to create a max slot that, as of now, we have been unable to use. In fact, we've been holding the max slot open with guys like Rondo, Stevenson, and Casey P.


I hate how much I find myself have to explain this to people over and over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4180

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:19 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:
Magic and Pelinka were far from perfect but let's be fair: they did not put us in a long-term bad situation.


This has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. As shown by the poll results in this thread, there are some people who agree with you. I can respect that. Most people do not agree with you. Can you respect that, or do you insist on viewing us all as Chicken Littles? I'm fine with opposing viewpoints, but in recent times we've been called racist, effeminate, and now Chicken Littles.


Majority doesn't equal fact.

What I said was factual. Magic and Pelinka did not put us in a long-term bad situation.

If you disagree, please explain how they did. The poll does not address that.

I wasn't calling you or anyone else a Chicken Little. I'm saying your reactions have been unreasonably hyperbolic in a situation that is 10 times better than where we were.

I'm not saying you have to agree with what's happened since Magic took over. I'm saying compared to where we were, we are MUCH better off.


As I said before, take all of the players we gave up - Russell/Randle/Lopez/Lou Will/Clarkson/Nance

Try to take that package and trade them for ANYONE in the top 10...it ain't happening.

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:27 am    Post subject:

GameCock-MD wrote:

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?


We could've kept Russell and still got LeBron. You keep ignoring this fact. If we still had Russell, he could've pushed us over the goal line to landing AD. New Orleans couldn't say No to a package that included a 23 year-old All-Star. They would've been crucified in the press.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4180

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:37 am    Post subject:

Threatt_Level wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?


We could've kept Russell and still got LeBron. You keep ignoring this fact. If we still had Russell, he could've pushed us over the goal line to landing AD. New Orleans couldn't say No to a package that included a 23 year-old All-Star. They would've been crucified in the press.


You keep ignoring that without 2 max slots, there is no evidence that we could have gotten LeBron to come.

Moz had to go.

Russell facilitated that. Simple.


And people keep acting like we missed on Russell. Russell doesn't play D, has a usage rate over 31%, higher than LeBron's and Randle had a better season than Russell did even though Russell was the clear cut #1 in BKN and Randle was clearly behind at least AD while landing on the trading block in Dec in NOP.

What's the point of even bringing him up? We got Kuzma out of the deal and to be perfectly honest, I'd take Kuzma over Russell everyday and twice on Sundays...sorry, not that sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:03 am    Post subject:

GameCock-MD wrote:

You keep ignoring that without 2 max slots, there is no evidence that we could have gotten LeBron to come.


We have all the evidence in the world. LeBron came here to this mess instead of Philadelphia, where he would probably be on his way to, yet another, NBA finals with Embiid and Simmons. And he's gone on record saying he was committed to coming here regardless.

There were zero obstacles to us clearing a second max slot to go along with him. If PG said he was going to jump ship to join us, we could've done that Moz/Russell trade last summer.


GameCock-MD wrote:

And people keep acting like we missed on Russell. Russell doesn't play D, has a usage rate over 31%, higher than LeBron's


I think Russell is overrated as well, but he still made the All-Star team at 23. He's not even at his peak yet. He's going to be a multiple-time All-Star by the time his career is over, and we got rid of him in a salary dump.


GameCock-MD wrote:
and Randle had a better season than Russell did even though Russell was the clear cut #1 in BKN and Randle was clearly behind at least AD while landing on the trading block in Dec in NOP.


By what measure? Russell beats Randle in most of the major advanced stats (BPM, VORP, RPM) and Russell led his team to the playoffs whereas the Pelicans are solidly in the lottery despite having AD on their team.


GameCock-MD wrote:

What's the point of even bringing him up?


Because we're discussing the Magic regime's moves.


GameCock-MD wrote:
We got Kuzma out of the deal and to be perfectly honest, I'd take Kuzma over Russell everyday and twice on Sundays...sorry, not that sorry.


And we probably could've still gotten Kuzma with the Hart pick. Even if we didn't, Russell is better than Kuzma. This shouldn't even be debatable. You want to complain about Russell's defense, but Kuzma is way worse on that end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Capt.Skyhook
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Posts: 3960
Location: Louisville, Ky.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:13 am    Post subject:

Threatt_Level wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?


We could've kept Russell and still got LeBron. You keep ignoring this fact. If we still had Russell, he could've pushed us over the goal line to landing AD. New Orleans couldn't say No to a package that included a 23 year-old All-Star. They would've been crucified in the press.


But who says DLo would have been the player he is now if he remained a Laker. His growth came from maturing and being traded. Plus, he wouldn't have been an All-Star as a Laker, even this year. he's not beating out Curry, Harden, Russ, Lillard etc.

This poll reminds me of the "should we have kept D'Antoni" poll after he found some success in Houston, forgetting how awful of a fit he was here and how everything was predicated on wait until 65-year-old Steve Nash gets healthy enough to run his offense.

Now all of a sudden, because of the failures of Magic, we are thinking the final Mitch and Jim years may have been more desirable. No way. Mozgov and Deng were immediately fireable offenses, and we all knew that then. That regime was also trying to preserve max slots, except no one was willing to take it. Terrible 1-year rentals now. Terrible 1-year rentals then. Morale is low now. Morale was just as low then.

Magic was not a good president but he still is leaving the franchise in better shape than he inherited it from Mitch and Jim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Username
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4540
Location: Out There

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:17 am    Post subject:

Capt.Skyhook wrote:
Threatt_Level wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?


We could've kept Russell and still got LeBron. You keep ignoring this fact. If we still had Russell, he could've pushed us over the goal line to landing AD. New Orleans couldn't say No to a package that included a 23 year-old All-Star. They would've been crucified in the press.


But who says DLo would have been the player he is now if he remained a Laker. His growth came from maturing and being traded. Plus, he wouldn't have been an All-Star as a Laker, even this year. he's not beating out Curry, Harden, Russ, Lillard etc.

This poll reminds me of the "should we have kept D'Antoni" poll after he found some success in Houston, forgetting how awful of a fit he was here and how everything was predicated on wait until 65-year-old Steve Nash gets healthy enough to run his offense.

Now all of a sudden, because of the failures of Magic, we are thinking the final Mitch and Jim years may have been more desirable. No way. Mozgov and Deng were immediately fireable offenses, and we all knew that then. That regime was also trying to preserve max slots, except no one was willing to take it. Terrible 1-year rentals now. Terrible 1-year rentals then. Morale is low now. Morale was just as low then.

Magic was not a good president but he still is leaving the franchise in better shape than he inherited it from Mitch and Jim.



It's a stretch to assume Russell or any of these young guys would still be Lakers. Jim was after stars. Impossible to assume he would have sat through Russell's first three up-and-down seasons without getting antsy and trying to clear the deck to chase LeBron/PG last year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:06 pm    Post subject:

GameCock-MD wrote:
Majority doesn't equal fact.

What I said was factual. Magic and Pelinka did not put us in a long-term bad situation.


So your opinion is a fact, but everyone else's opinion is an opinion. Gotcha.

Anyway, the rest of what you have to say has been discussed and refuted, over and over and over again. Yes, I think we are in a worse position than when Magic took over. We squandered the bulk of our young core for nothing, we signed an aging Lebron to a max contract that ends when he is 37, we pissed away yet another season by signing a bunch of mercenaries on one year contracts, and we made ourselves look like idiots in the Davis fiasco. The only way to bail out this mess is to hit a home run in the free agent market this summer, but Magic just made us look even more dysfunctional than usual by resigning with a rambling press conference. When all is said and done, we may see that Magic set back the rebuild by five years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
troy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1749

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:15 pm    Post subject:

Bottom line, Magic Johnson saved this Lakers franchise. I'm happy he came here and did the hard work to get this thing turned around. To be intelligent, hard working, athletic and beloved is an incredible feat.

Magic=Laker4Life
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 19980
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:16 pm    Post subject:

I'm taking receipts in this thread. Not in a mean way. But there are alot of people who prefer no Lebron. That is what you are voting on when you say "pre-Maginka".

Sure Bill Simmons (known Laker-hater/Celtics-lover) says we still get Lebron no matter who the GM is. But I sat through free agency after free agency after free agency watching Jim and Mitch strike out on lesser free agents. Like Aldridge, DROZ, Melo,

Remember when we were so unprepared, we couldn't get a meeting? I do. Even if Bill Simmons doesn't.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
troy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1749

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:23 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:
Magic and Pelinka were far from perfect but let's be fair: they did not put us in a long-term bad situation.


This has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. As shown by the poll results in this thread, there are some people who agree with you. I can respect that. Most people do not agree with you. Can you respect that, or do you insist on viewing us all as Chicken Littles? I'm fine with opposing viewpoints, but in recent times we've been called racist, effeminate, and now Chicken Littles.


You forgot panty pinchers.

Seriously, mob-opinions don't mean a point is valid. Mob-opinions just mean piling on is a seriously fun thing for the sheep-types out there.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RashardA
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 421
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:31 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
I'm taking receipts in this thread. Not in a mean way. But there are alot of people who prefer no Lebron. That is what you are voting on when you say "pre-Maginka".

Sure Bill Simmons (known Laker-hater/Celtics-lover) says we still get Lebron no matter what the GM. But I sat through free agency after free agency after free agency watching Jim and Mitch strike out on lesser free agents. Like Aldridge, DROZ, Melo,

Remember when we were so unprepared, we couldn't get a meeting? I do. Even if Bill Simmons doesn't.


Im of the belief that signing LeBron was not a good thing at all.

His impact has been mostly hype, fluff and no substance.

The Lakers finished just 2 games better with him.

I understand there were injuries, but the Lakers were not setting the world on fire with him. In fact, they were just one game above .500 when he played.

He is a liability on defense and his leadership was deplorable.

35 years old and going into his 17th season. He does not fit the Lakers timeline at all.

It takes TIME to build a championship squad because you not only need talent, you need chemistry & cohesiveness.

From the roster to the coaching staff.

You sign a player like Lebron, at his age, when you are ONE piece away.

Not when you've been a lottery team with a bunch of teenagers and 20 somethings on your team.

Its as though they were building towards something with young players and a young coach. LeBron says I wanna come and play in Hollywood and the Lakers chuck away what they had been building for a two year run with him.

It made no sense to me then, and it still doesnt now.

Signing LeBron was a mistake and I hope the incoming GM will see this and truly consider trading him.

Hit up the Rockets and ask for that Butler package.

Its in the best interest of the franchise long term.
_________________
Everyting negative - pressure, challenges - is all an opportunity for me to rise.
-Kobe Bryant


Last edited by RashardA on Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
trablos
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 May 2017
Posts: 2884

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:34 pm    Post subject:

Username wrote:
Capt.Skyhook wrote:
Threatt_Level wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?


We could've kept Russell and still got LeBron. You keep ignoring this fact. If we still had Russell, he could've pushed us over the goal line to landing AD. New Orleans couldn't say No to a package that included a 23 year-old All-Star. They would've been crucified in the press.


But who says DLo would have been the player he is now if he remained a Laker. His growth came from maturing and being traded. Plus, he wouldn't have been an All-Star as a Laker, even this year. he's not beating out Curry, Harden, Russ, Lillard etc.

This poll reminds me of the "should we have kept D'Antoni" poll after he found some success in Houston, forgetting how awful of a fit he was here and how everything was predicated on wait until 65-year-old Steve Nash gets healthy enough to run his offense.

Now all of a sudden, because of the failures of Magic, we are thinking the final Mitch and Jim years may have been more desirable. No way. Mozgov and Deng were immediately fireable offenses, and we all knew that then. That regime was also trying to preserve max slots, except no one was willing to take it. Terrible 1-year rentals now. Terrible 1-year rentals then. Morale is low now. Morale was just as low then.

Magic was not a good president but he still is leaving the franchise in better shape than he inherited it from Mitch and Jim.



It's a stretch to assume Russell or any of these young guys would still be Lakers. Jim was after stars. Impossible to assume he would have sat through Russell's first three up-and-down seasons without getting antsy and trying to clear the deck to chase LeBron/PG last year.

Wasn't that what got him fired? Wanting to move Ingram for DMC?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
maomao
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 635

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:38 pm    Post subject:

Those who voted yes, you think think we are any good with Luke coaching dlo, randle, Ingram, lance, ball, mosgov and dang? With zero cap space?

Even if you don’t like lebron, we still have cap space, and assets like kuzma

Magic did the right thing then, the majority of lakers fan base now don’t deserve any of this
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133313
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:39 pm    Post subject:

greek laker wrote:
Firing Mitch was the right thing to do. Hiring an unexperienced guy, with
bigger than the franchise ego, who wasnt sure if he wanted to live that life,
wasnt the right thing to do.


No, getting rid of Jim was the right thing to do, we should have kept Mitch. He proved what he could accomplish by keeping the team West built rolling by adding the right parts. At least the parts that Dr. Buss’ budget would allow. He could have been a valuable asset for Magic and Pelinka to use. It was no surprise that he didn’t stay unemployed for long.
_________________
How about those Blues!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Username
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 4540
Location: Out There

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:39 pm    Post subject:

trablos wrote:
Username wrote:
Capt.Skyhook wrote:
Threatt_Level wrote:
GameCock-MD wrote:

Take all of those players, add in Lonzo/Ingram/Kuzma...if LeBron was on another team, that team STILL wouldn't take that package for LeBron.

We got better. We have cap space. We got rid of Deng and Mozgov. Why is that not a good thing?


We could've kept Russell and still got LeBron. You keep ignoring this fact. If we still had Russell, he could've pushed us over the goal line to landing AD. New Orleans couldn't say No to a package that included a 23 year-old All-Star. They would've been crucified in the press.


But who says DLo would have been the player he is now if he remained a Laker. His growth came from maturing and being traded. Plus, he wouldn't have been an All-Star as a Laker, even this year. he's not beating out Curry, Harden, Russ, Lillard etc.

This poll reminds me of the "should we have kept D'Antoni" poll after he found some success in Houston, forgetting how awful of a fit he was here and how everything was predicated on wait until 65-year-old Steve Nash gets healthy enough to run his offense.

Now all of a sudden, because of the failures of Magic, we are thinking the final Mitch and Jim years may have been more desirable. No way. Mozgov and Deng were immediately fireable offenses, and we all knew that then. That regime was also trying to preserve max slots, except no one was willing to take it. Terrible 1-year rentals now. Terrible 1-year rentals then. Morale is low now. Morale was just as low then.

Magic was not a good president but he still is leaving the franchise in better shape than he inherited it from Mitch and Jim.



It's a stretch to assume Russell or any of these young guys would still be Lakers. Jim was after stars. Impossible to assume he would have sat through Russell's first three up-and-down seasons without getting antsy and trying to clear the deck to chase LeBron/PG last year.

Wasn't that what got him fired? Wanting to move Ingram for DMC?


Jim went hard after Cousins right before he was removed. Magic was already in as an adviser at that point and is probably the one who nixed including BI. There's no doubt in my mind Cousins would be a Laker now if Jim was left to his own devices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:42 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
I'm taking receipts in this thread. Not in a mean way. But there are alot of people who prefer no Lebron. That is what you are voting on when you say "pre-Maginka".


I'm of the belief that we would've still gotten LeBron even if Jim Buss was still in charge. So, that's not what I'm saying at all. The people saying we never should've gotten LeBron or that we should trade LeBron are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Threatt_Level
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 335

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:43 pm    Post subject:

trablos wrote:

Wasn't that what got him fired? Wanting to move Ingram for DMC?


No. Jeanie fired Jim for not moving Ingram for Cousins. Jim would've done the deal. It was Mitch who put the kibosh on it.


Last edited by Threatt_Level on Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
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, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
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
© 1995-2018 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