"We Gave Away A Decade Worth of Talent for AD"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:26 pm    Post subject:

lonesoul wrote:
Seriously have times is this dumb topic going to keep getting posted. They need to create a separate forum for these dumb imaginary championships with players who have done nothing with their other teams posts.


AD, KG, KD, Kyrie, and a few others "did nothing" with their other teams as well.

If you don't like a thread simply ignore it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:30 pm    Post subject:

slavavov wrote:
I think all of us on this board need to put aside our feelings and realize how special a player AD is.

When I heard he was trying to force his way here, I wanted him badly, but he turned out to be a better player than I thought he was.

His agility, dexterity and ability to break guys off at almost 7 feet tall is phenomenal. He became a really good outside shooter last season. We've seen him rip offensive rebounds out of an opponent's hands, then attack the basket, finish strong and let out a primal yell. He's a pretty good passer. He's also one of the best defensive players in the NBA in more ways than one.

Maybe he, and not Porzingis, should be called the "unicorn."

Plus, he wants to play even when he's hurt or even injured, like in Game 4 (left knee sprain) and Game 6 (groin strain). He is not soft, full stop.

BI, Lonzo, Randle, etc. are good or even real good, but the value of a true superstar like AD goes beyond his stats. A player like that gives his team a supreme confidence that can't be measured with numbers. Just look at how deflated our team became when he got hurt in game 4.

Was trading "a decade's worth of talent" for AD worth it? HELL YEAH!!!

Remember, he's just 28. If he avoids any major injuries, he could have 7 more years of being an elite player.


This is pretty apparent, we all know this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Triumph
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3103
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:57 pm    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
Same argument over and over. We won ONE chip.

I'll keep repeating my counter argument... We averaged 2.5 championships per decade for the last forty years.

Your argument for doing the trade was that we won ONE chip.

This is like the Yankees completely scrapping their farm system for ONE chip.

We are the Yankees of the NBA... ONE chip is nothing to a team that won 10 titles in forty years.

We are performing at 40% of our normal pace and you think this is a justification?

Even if we won this year... we'd only be at 80% of normal.

It was better to add a different elite to the best of the young players and keep #4 and the rest of the draft picks, than trade so much for AD and try for pipe dream Kawhi.

We aren't some desperate small market team that needs to give up everything for one shot at a title.

We are now forced into a position where we have to sign Dennis Schroder for 84 to 100 million dollars and you think it's worth because we're on a pace to win one title in ten years instead of our usual 2.5 titles in ten years.

I'm sorry but this is the Lakers not the Sacramento Kings.


Your argument is this isn't up to the Lakers standards, but what was your solution? How do you propose we were going to keep our average of winning 2.5 chips?

By keeping Julius, Jordan Clarkson, BI, D'Lo, etc? Do you believe we would be in a better position with them vs. LeBron + AD + role players? You think magically if we wait long enough we would match our average # of chips simply because we are the Lakers?

We were striking out in free agency every single year before LeBron agreed to come here, with no other superstars to join him by the way. Guys like PG13 and Aldridge were turning us down.

LeBron coming and convincing AD to demand a trade here is the best thing that has happened to the Lakers in almost a decade.

There aren't many better scenarios in terms of accumulating star talent that could have happened for us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:02 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
lonesoul wrote:
Seriously have times is this dumb topic going to keep getting posted. They need to create a separate forum for these dumb imaginary championships with players who have done nothing with their other teams posts.


AD, KG, KD, Kyrie, and a few others "did nothing" with their other teams as well.

If you don't like a thread simply ignore it.


Otoh, this topic gets to flogging dead horses level after awhile. The people who bemoan our station on this topic over and over again don't seem to understand that the rest of us GET IT. We get it, the youths we had, they want them back only after the team won a championship. It's over with, spilled milk. Nothing good comes from whining about it incessantly. I would be cool to simply ignore it if I didn't already know how this kind of 20/20 hindsight crying spreads and then bogs up the General Board (it's happened before), but I know that it'll continue throughout a long ass offseason. It's as if the fans of the young kids think the Lakers will never have young draftees in the future. It'll happen again, we aren't anywhere NEAR that point yet, which makes crying about it that much more unnecessary. When we're back to the 20 win seasons is when we'll get out new kids on the block who don't push the needle, who need 5 years to mature into players because they have to get to the pros to learn how to pass-shoot-dribble (like Ingram and Randle had to do...yeah, those guys), and how to win more than 30 games by themselves.

The Lakers rarely if ever even go thru the kind of total dismantling that puts us in contention for drafting high level picks and we traded a few of them (picks) away already, so starting this soon-to-be-inevitable-unless-others-squash-it marathon of pitiful "I miss this teen idol", "I miss that teen idol" threads is a bit much. This franchise isn't Tiger Beat magazine, they go for championships and/or have to sign old superstars just to be able to get them. They don't grow on trees and rarely fall in your laps a la 24 yr old Shaq. Next year if Brawn comes back and he and AD can manage now to tear their groins 3x apiece, we can push the talk about past boyz that we loved for another year or two.

There is no toldya so's, tho, they won a title whether Covid screwed it up or not. It's not their fault that Covid came along when it did.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mad55557777
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 22801

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:07 pm    Post subject:

Triumph wrote:
BILBJH wrote:
Same argument over and over. We won ONE chip.

I'll keep repeating my counter argument... We averaged 2.5 championships per decade for the last forty years.

Your argument for doing the trade was that we won ONE chip.

This is like the Yankees completely scrapping their farm system for ONE chip.

We are the Yankees of the NBA... ONE chip is nothing to a team that won 10 titles in forty years.

We are performing at 40% of our normal pace and you think this is a justification?

Even if we won this year... we'd only be at 80% of normal.

It was better to add a different elite to the best of the young players and keep #4 and the rest of the draft picks, than trade so much for AD and try for pipe dream Kawhi.

We aren't some desperate small market team that needs to give up everything for one shot at a title.

We are now forced into a position where we have to sign Dennis Schroder for 84 to 100 million dollars and you think it's worth because we're on a pace to win one title in ten years instead of our usual 2.5 titles in ten years.

I'm sorry but this is the Lakers not the Sacramento Kings.


Your argument is this isn't up to the Lakers standards, but what was your solution? How do you propose we were going to keep our average of winning 2.5 chips?

By keeping Julius, Jordan Clarkson, BI, D'Lo, etc? Do you believe we would be in a better position with them vs. LeBron + AD + role players? You think magically if we wait long enough we would match our average # of chips simply because we are the Lakers?

We were striking out in free agency every single year before LeBron agreed to come here, with no other superstars to join him by the way. Guys like PG13 and Aldridge were turning us down.

LeBron coming and convincing AD to demand a trade here is the best thing that has happened to the Lakers in almost a decade.

There aren't many better scenarios in terms of accumulating star talent that could have happened for us.

You know how weak his argument is? Yankees won 0 World Series in the last 10 years and won 1 total since 2000(2009), total of 5 after 1978. Lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8288
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:11 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
slavavov wrote:
I think all of us on this board need to put aside our feelings and realize how special a player AD is.

When I heard he was trying to force his way here, I wanted him badly, but he turned out to be a better player than I thought he was.

His agility, dexterity and ability to break guys off at almost 7 feet tall is phenomenal. He became a really good outside shooter last season. We've seen him rip offensive rebounds out of an opponent's hands, then attack the basket, finish strong and let out a primal yell. He's a pretty good passer. He's also one of the best defensive players in the NBA in more ways than one.

Maybe he, and not Porzingis, should be called the "unicorn."

Plus, he wants to play even when he's hurt or even injured, like in Game 4 (left knee sprain) and Game 6 (groin strain). He is not soft, full stop.

BI, Lonzo, Randle, etc. are good or even real good, but the value of a true superstar like AD goes beyond his stats. A player like that gives his team a supreme confidence that can't be measured with numbers. Just look at how deflated our team became when he got hurt in game 4.

Was trading "a decade's worth of talent" for AD worth it? HELL YEAH!!!

Remember, he's just 28. If he avoids any major injuries, he could have 7 more years of being an elite player.


This is pretty apparent, we all know this.

Yeah, but I feel like some don't fully appreciate him. We've seen some on this board lately who seem done with him and want to trade him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:13 pm    Post subject:

Triumph wrote:
BILBJH wrote:
Same argument over and over. We won ONE chip.

I'll keep repeating my counter argument... We averaged 2.5 championships per decade for the last forty years.

Your argument for doing the trade was that we won ONE chip.

This is like the Yankees completely scrapping their farm system for ONE chip.

We are the Yankees of the NBA... ONE chip is nothing to a team that won 10 titles in forty years.

We are performing at 40% of our normal pace and you think this is a justification?

Even if we won this year... we'd only be at 80% of normal.

It was better to add a different elite to the best of the young players and keep #4 and the rest of the draft picks, than trade so much for AD and try for pipe dream Kawhi.

We aren't some desperate small market team that needs to give up everything for one shot at a title.

We are now forced into a position where we have to sign Dennis Schroder for 84 to 100 million dollars and you think it's worth because we're on a pace to win one title in ten years instead of our usual 2.5 titles in ten years.

I'm sorry but this is the Lakers not the Sacramento Kings.


Your argument is this isn't up to the Lakers standards, but what was your solution? How do you propose we were going to keep our average of winning 2.5 chips?

By keeping Julius, Jordan Clarkson, BI, D'Lo, etc? Do you believe we would be in a better position with them vs. LeBron + AD + role players? You think magically if we wait long enough we would match our average # of chips simply because we are the Lakers?

We were striking out in free agency every single year before LeBron agreed to come here, with no other superstars to join him by the way. Guys like PG13 and Aldridge were turning us down.

LeBron coming and convincing AD to demand a trade here is the best thing that has happened to the Lakers in almost a decade.

There aren't many better scenarios in terms of accumulating star talent that could have happened for us.



Yeah, his argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Basically, he's saying he won't be satisfied unless the Lakers perpetually have teams with the success of Showtime and the Shaq/Kobe three-peat team.

Good luck with that.

Those are nearly impossible standards to reach in the modern NBA.

We just went through a 10-year period of not winning a ring, so the idea that we have some god-given right to win 2.5 rings every decade is pretty ridiculous.

That's like Boston saying "We've averaged 3 rings a decade over the past 64 years, so anything less is unacceptable." We all knows those kind of numbers games extrapolating the success of long-retired players from long ago are meaningless.


Last edited by activeverb on Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:14 pm    Post subject:

non-player zealot wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
lonesoul wrote:
Seriously have times is this dumb topic going to keep getting posted. They need to create a separate forum for these dumb imaginary championships with players who have done nothing with their other teams posts.


AD, KG, KD, Kyrie, and a few others "did nothing" with their other teams as well.

If you don't like a thread simply ignore it.


Otoh, this topic gets to flogging dead horses level after awhile. The people who bemoan our station on this topic over and over again don't seem to understand that the rest of us GET IT. We get it, the youths we had, they want them back only after the team won a championship. It's over with, spilled milk. Nothing good comes from whining about it incessantly. I would be cool to simply ignore it if I didn't already know how this kind of 20/20 hindsight crying spreads and then bogs up the General Board (it's happened before), but I know that it'll continue throughout a long ass offseason. It's as if the fans of the young kids think the Lakers will never have young draftees in the future. It'll happen again, we aren't anywhere NEAR that point yet, which makes crying about it that much more unnecessary. When we're back to the 20 win seasons is when we'll get out new kids on the block who don't push the needle, who need 5 years to mature into players because they have to get to the pros to learn how to pass-shoot-dribble (like Ingram and Randle had to do...yeah, those guys), and how to win more than 30 games by themselves.

The Lakers rarely if ever even go thru the kind of total dismantling that puts us in contention for drafting high level picks and we traded a few of them (picks) away already, so starting this soon-to-be-inevitable-unless-others-squash-it marathon of pitiful "I miss this teen idol", "I miss that teen idol" threads is a bit much. This franchise isn't Tiger Beat magazine, they go for championships and/or have to sign old superstars just to be able to get them. They don't grow on trees and rarely fall in your laps a la 24 yr old Shaq. Next year if Brawn comes back and he and AD can manage now to tear their groins 3x apiece, we can push the talk about past boyz that we loved for another year or two.

There is no toldya so's, tho, they won a title whether Covid screwed it up or not. It's not their fault that Covid came along when it did.


I was annoyed with all the DLo threads.. but the mods allowed it. And eventually we stopped seeing them. Took a while lol.. but yea we/LG got over it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BILBJH
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5105

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:40 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:


Yeah, his argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Basically, he's saying he won't be satisfied unless the Lakers perpetually have teams with the success of Showtime and the Shaq/Kobe three-peat team.

Good luck with that.

Those are nearly impossible standards to reach in the modern NBA.

We just went through a 10-year period of not winning a ring, so the idea that we have some god-given right to win 2.5 rings every decade is pretty ridiculous.

That's like Boston saying "We've averaged 3 rings a decade over the past 64 years, so anything less is unacceptable." We all knows those kind of numbers games extrapolating the success of long-retired players from long ago are meaningless.


My argument makes plenty of sense in the context that people are saying in a simplistic argument... we won a chip so it justifies overpaying.

I actually was being generous by counting the last decade.

If I counted the period from 1980 to 2010... we were averaging over 3 a decade... but I didn't want to cherry pick so I chose the modern era from Showtime onward.

I don't get this argument that the NBA has changed so this can't happen anymore. The Spurs won all the time... The Warriors would have won a bunch if they hadn't gotten injured... The Heat should have won more.

The good franchises win multiple titles and we were in the position to sign two elites... add them to the best of the young core and cost controlled assets and keep all of our draft picks.

Instead we gave it all up for LBJ's last stand.

The most common justification I read... is we won one title so it was worth it.

So all I did was point out is that is below the Lakers standards.

Then I read that dynasties are no longer possible... I'm sorry but that is horsesh*t. If Luka and Zion teamed up... you would probably see a dynasty... the Warriors should have been a dynasty... we all thought they would win a bunch of titles in a row before KD left and Klay got injured.

If you like our chances of winning the next five years with aging LBJ... with fragile AD.... and overmatched Schroder... that is your opinion and your right to hold that opinion.

But if someone believes another path might have been more productive, I think that opinion should be respected as much as the other one without the simplistic one chip defense... which is sad by Lakers standards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
anth2000
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 12070
Location: Pasadena, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:55 pm    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
activeverb wrote:


Yeah, his argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Basically, he's saying he won't be satisfied unless the Lakers perpetually have teams with the success of Showtime and the Shaq/Kobe three-peat team.

Good luck with that.

Those are nearly impossible standards to reach in the modern NBA.

We just went through a 10-year period of not winning a ring, so the idea that we have some god-given right to win 2.5 rings every decade is pretty ridiculous.

That's like Boston saying "We've averaged 3 rings a decade over the past 64 years, so anything less is unacceptable." We all knows those kind of numbers games extrapolating the success of long-retired players from long ago are meaningless.


My argument makes plenty of sense in the context that people are saying in a simplistic argument... we won a chip so it justifies overpaying.

I actually was being generous by counting the last decade.

If I counted the period from 1980 to 2010... we were averaging over 3 a decade... but I didn't want to cherry pick so I chose the modern era from Showtime onward.

I don't get this argument that the NBA has changed so this can't happen anymore. The Spurs won all the time... The Warriors would have won a bunch if they hadn't gotten injured... The Heat should have won more.

The good franchises win multiple titles and we were in the position to sign two elites... add them to the best of the young core and cost controlled assets and keep all of our draft picks.

Instead we gave it all up for LBJ's last stand.

The most common justification I read... is we won one title so it was worth it.

So all I did was point out is that is below the Lakers standards.

Then I read that dynasties are no longer possible... I'm sorry but that is horsesh*t. If Luka and Zion teamed up... you would probably see a dynasty... the Warriors should have been a dynasty... we all thought they would win a bunch of titles in a row before KD left and Klay got injured.

If you like our chances of winning the next five years with aging LBJ... with fragile AD.... and overmatched Schroder... that is your opinion and your right to hold that opinion.

But if someone believes another path might have been more productive, I think that opinion should be respected as much as the other one without the simplistic one chip defense... which is sad by Lakers standards.


Just thank god we have Lebron and Davis. The two best moves the franchise has made since Kobe, Shaq and Gasol.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Outspoken
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8447

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:01 pm    Post subject:

Halflife wrote:
Outspoken wrote:
RG73 wrote:
Goldenwest wrote:

If AD doesn't get injured Lakers are preparing for Round 2 and these threads do not exist.


This is LG--these threads would exist even if they won the championship this year. It would be "yeah, we won, but if we had Randle/Ingram/DLO/Zo/etc. we would have won even bigger..."


They didn't win a championship this year though. They lost in the 1st round and the team they won a championship with, Rob shipped them away. The FO seems to have no sustainable plan towards success.

rondo left for more money. I think
Dwight couldnt wait
McGee?
Green didnt do anything for us in the post season and he isnt great thus far

front office upgraded talent across the board. Unfortunately we got injured too close to the end.

Replace new talent with last years and we arent in playoffs. DS carried us while ad/bron were out and even though the record wasnt amazing he won games.


We could have kept them all, but the FO chose not to. Dwight, they gave him some IOU type of contract that he thought was legitimate contract, but it wasn't. Remember he tweeted that he was re-signing, but then deleted the tweet. We weren't prioritizing him, even though he helped win us a championship. I don't understand why people say Green didn't do anything just because he wasn't hitting 3's like that? He played solid defense and has good bball IQ. As well as chemistry with the team, so he was making the extra pass. The team last year was just all around better and more fitting with 1 another. I don't necessarily think that DS carried us. I feel that's over exaggerated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26087

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:31 pm    Post subject:

"decades worth of talent" ... Alright assuming we somehow kept the young talent we drafted(and didn't get AD) which roster is the better one? I'll only put Kuzma and THT on one of these teams.

Team 1:
Starters:
Lonzo Ball
D'Angelo Russell
LeBron James
Julius Randle
Thomas Bryant

Bench:
Jordan Clarkson / Isaac Bonga
Josh Hart / Svi Mykhailiuk
Brandon Ingram
Larry Nance Jr
Ivica Zubac

Or

Team 2
Starters:
Dennis Schroeder
KCP
LeBron James
Anthony Davis
Andre Drummond

Bench:
Alex Caruso / THT
Wes Matthews / Ben McLemore
Kyle Kuzma
Montrezl Harrell
Marc Gasol


Which team would you pick in a 7 game series, or to lead a team to a Championship?


Also we don't talk about Thomas Bryant enough.. even I didn't think he'd make the leap he did.. but darned if the kind of player he became wouldn't have been the perfect athletic stretch big for the team. Hope he has a speedy recovery and can come back looking as great as he did to start the season.




Just replace Drummond(on our current roster) with a healthy Thomas Bryant and that one stings.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DLaker
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1536

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:44 pm    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
activeverb wrote:


Yeah, his argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Basically, he's saying he won't be satisfied unless the Lakers perpetually have teams with the success of Showtime and the Shaq/Kobe three-peat team.

Good luck with that.

Those are nearly impossible standards to reach in the modern NBA.

We just went through a 10-year period of not winning a ring, so the idea that we have some god-given right to win 2.5 rings every decade is pretty ridiculous.

That's like Boston saying "We've averaged 3 rings a decade over the past 64 years, so anything less is unacceptable." We all knows those kind of numbers games extrapolating the success of long-retired players from long ago are meaningless.


My argument makes plenty of sense in the context that people are saying in a simplistic argument... we won a chip so it justifies overpaying.

I actually was being generous by counting the last decade.

If I counted the period from 1980 to 2010... we were averaging over 3 a decade... but I didn't want to cherry pick so I chose the modern era from Showtime onward.

I don't get this argument that the NBA has changed so this can't happen anymore. The Spurs won all the time... The Warriors would have won a bunch if they hadn't gotten injured... The Heat should have won more.

The good franchises win multiple titles and we were in the position to sign two elites... add them to the best of the young core and cost controlled assets and keep all of our draft picks.

Instead we gave it all up for LBJ's last stand.

The most common justification I read... is we won one title so it was worth it.

So all I did was point out is that is below the Lakers standards.

Then I read that dynasties are no longer possible... I'm sorry but that is horsesh*t. If Luka and Zion teamed up... you would probably see a dynasty... the Warriors should have been a dynasty... we all thought they would win a bunch of titles in a row before KD left and Klay got injured.

If you like our chances of winning the next five years with aging LBJ... with fragile AD.... and overmatched Schroder... that is your opinion and your right to hold that opinion.

But if someone believes another path might have been more productive, I think that opinion should be respected as much as the other one without the simplistic one chip defense... which is sad by Lakers standards.


We won championship not because of keeping talent. We won because we are smart. In the 80’s u can see magic is a generational talent, so we just need to build around that talent. The late nineties early 2000, with all the talent we accumulated its the generational talent of shaq and Kobe that led to the chips. Our last back to back we still have generational talent Kobe to build around to get those chips. Last years chip is due to the generational talent of LBJ and AD. None of the talent we let go show me generational talent. If we drafted Luka or Tatum maybe I would change my tune cause you can build around them and can be a generational talent imo. Generational talent is what the Lakers have done through the years that leads to championship. So getting LBJ and AD is still the right move cause u know if u put the right pieces around them it can lead to a chip.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nevitt_smrek
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 2800

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:59 pm    Post subject:

Health bug struck the Lakers this year. It's unfortunate, but it happens. The short turnaround time didn't help. Lebron is getting older, can't quite carry a team like he used to. There's no fix for high paid guys getting hurt. But they won it all last year, let's count the blessings. Repeating is tough.

They have a winning formula that can be successfully imposed on others, despite a league that's mostly centered on small ball and outside shooting. Just gotta stay healthy. That goes for any team.

Lakers tried their best, didn't work out this year. That's life. Looking forward to next year.
_________________
Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8288
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:59 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
"decades worth of talent" ... Alright assuming we somehow kept the young talent we drafted(and didn't get AD) which roster is the better one? I'll only put Kuzma and THT on one of these teams.

Team 1:
Starters:
Lonzo Ball
D'Angelo Russell
LeBron James
Julius Randle
Thomas Bryant

Bench:
Jordan Clarkson / Isaac Bonga
Josh Hart / Svi Mykhailiuk
Brandon Ingram
Larry Nance Jr
Ivica Zubac

Or

Team 2
Starters:
Dennis Schroeder
KCP
LeBron James
Anthony Davis
Andre Drummond

Bench:
Alex Caruso / THT
Wes Matthews / Ben McLemore
Kyle Kuzma
Montrezl Harrell
Marc Gasol


Which team would you pick in a 7 game series, or to lead a team to a Championship?


Also we don't talk about Thomas Bryant enough.. even I didn't think he'd make the leap he did.. but darned if the kind of player he became wouldn't have been the perfect athletic stretch big for the team. Hope he has a speedy recovery and can come back looking as great as he did to start the season.




Just replace Drummond(on our current roster) with a healthy Thomas Bryant and that one stings.

Team 2, and it's not even close.

The value of a superstar like AD goes beyond stats. He gives his teammates a supreme confidence that he can make up for their mistakes and carry them when needed, among other things.

In other words, the value of all the guys we traded for AD is still less than AD himself.

Plus, team 1 has no rim protection and is soft. I'd also wonder if Russell would create problems in the locker room.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersboy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 8518
Location: Left coast

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:30 pm    Post subject:

[quote="activeverb"]
lakersboy wrote:

Your last line sums up my ambivalence toward the end of this season. They gave away guys I identified with and wanted to grow with, in exchange for the yearly mercenaries of Lebron's choosing. I have few favorites whose box scores I watch for and now the thrill is virtually gone. When the team turns to nuclear waste without assets, my emotions will be protected because I won't care while the picks given away become top talent. Once upon a time, trading Gail Goodrich got a future pick that turned into Earvin Johnson. Cleveland gave up a pick that turned into James Worthy. Both # 1's. People discard the meaning of worthless picks until they see what they could have had.


activeverb wrote:
The Lakers have had lots of mercenaries. We gave up picks/prospects for Wilt, Kareem, Dwight Howard, Gasol, Nash, and Wilkes. We gave away picks and prospects to clear room for Shaq.

Notice I specifically said "yearly mercenaries of Lebron's choosing." Last year, for example. What did JR Smith contribute that I or anyone else should care about? Now Schroeder, Harrell, Gasol, and Matthews could fit that question next season. In 4 seasons with the Lakers, Wilt had epic battles with Kareem, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, and others. They went to 3 finals, lost 2 in 7 games, and set the record for wins in '72. Kareem won 5 rings in 14 seasons in L.A. Wilkes was a fan favorite for 8 years, known for being silky smooth, a good defender, fast break finishes, and making 20 foot (automatic) layups. Gasol won 2 rings, one against Boston. One losing year of Nash and Howard was a waste of time.


activeverb wrote:
But I have no doubt that back in the day there were Lakers fans who lamented that we gave up "true Lakers" like Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers and Brian Winters who they identified with for a mercenary like Kareem who forced the Bucks to trade him to either Los Angeles or New York -- either destination would have suited him.
I rooted for Winters and wanted to see Myers and Bridgeman play here, but when the trade happened, I didn't question it a bit. None of my friends or anyone on L.A. sports talk radio or in the newspaper made reference to regretting the trade.

activeverb wrote:
Showtime, the threepeat, and the Kobe/Gasol team rings were constructed by "giving away" talent, if you consider trading guys giving them away.
I'm 100% familiar with all of the history you mention. I lived it. I didn't make mention anywhere in this post about giving guys away. My reference to that in a different post referred to Randle who walked for zero assets, Bryant who was cut, picked up, and became immediately productive, and Zubac, who could have been included as an asset to N.O. My problem with the '20/21 squad is not valuing last year's team achievement and guys who played significant roles on the best team in basketball. Scoring averages from different systems and chemistries, as well as past accolades, were valued over current team chemistry and current proof of being the best. These playoffs revealed critical flaws at a time when they should have been milking their winning squad.

activeverb wrote:
To construct show time, we "gave away" Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, George Lynch, Elden Campbell, Anthony Peeler, and Vlade Divac -- basically all our draft picks between 1989 and 1995.
Showtime was the '80 to '91. I saw and followed it all. Those players were moved strategically, to acquire Shaq, Glenn Rice, and J.R. Reid. Van Exel was moved because Shaq demanded it.

activeverb wrote:
The notion of players have career-long affiliations with a single team is more of a fan fantasy than a reality, especially in the modern free agency era.
If wanting to see someone I can identify with play on my team for more than a year isn't reality, then consider me in fantasyland. That's why after over 5 decades, for the first time ever, I'm not even sad that the team lost the playoff round. Call me a bad fan if you want. Short term guys don't have my loyalty and won't earn my merchandise dollars. Next year they'll be fading memories so I'm ahead of the game and I've stopped caring about them already. I follow the Lakers for the long haul, unlike Lebron, who won't care what happens when he leaves in a year or 2.

activeverb wrote:
More common in the modern era are guys like Gasol, who played for one team before he came here, and three teams after he left. Or Shaq, one team before, and four teams after he left.
Gasol and Shaq had significant Lakers history. That's what matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13709

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:25 am    Post subject:

You hadn’t won a title in a decade, so I think giving away a decade of talent was worth it. Davis is still young. Y’all will have plenty of chances to add talent around him and at least those doing the recruiting can now say they know how to put a winner together.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
phantasyman
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 635

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:35 am    Post subject:

Let's run the triangle offense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Outspoken
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8447

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:12 am    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
"decades worth of talent" ... Alright assuming we somehow kept the young talent we drafted(and didn't get AD) which roster is the better one? I'll only put Kuzma and THT on one of these teams.

Team 1:
Starters:
Lonzo Ball
D'Angelo Russell
LeBron James
Julius Randle
Thomas Bryant

Bench:
Jordan Clarkson / Isaac Bonga
Josh Hart / Svi Mykhailiuk
Brandon Ingram
Larry Nance Jr
Ivica Zubac

Or

Team 2
Starters:
Dennis Schroeder
KCP
LeBron James
Anthony Davis
Andre Drummond

Bench:
Alex Caruso / THT
Wes Matthews / Ben McLemore
Kyle Kuzma
Montrezl Harrell
Marc Gasol


Which team would you pick in a 7 game series, or to lead a team to a Championship?


Also we don't talk about Thomas Bryant enough.. even I didn't think he'd make the leap he did.. but darned if the kind of player he became wouldn't have been the perfect athletic stretch big for the team. Hope he has a speedy recovery and can come back looking as great as he did to start the season.




Just replace Drummond(on our current roster) with a healthy Thomas Bryant and that one stings.


I can't lie, team 1 looks better and seems like they would work better. More youthful, more agile, and funner to watch. They look like they wouldn't more so be reliant on Bron. I think that Randle would come off the bench though, seeing he already did with us. Bron would move down to 4 at this point of his career or Ingram would. They would be interchangeable.


Last edited by Outspoken on Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Outspoken
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8447

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:47 am    Post subject:

anth2000 wrote:
BILBJH wrote:
activeverb wrote:


Yeah, his argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Basically, he's saying he won't be satisfied unless the Lakers perpetually have teams with the success of Showtime and the Shaq/Kobe three-peat team.

Good luck with that.

Those are nearly impossible standards to reach in the modern NBA.

We just went through a 10-year period of not winning a ring, so the idea that we have some god-given right to win 2.5 rings every decade is pretty ridiculous.

That's like Boston saying "We've averaged 3 rings a decade over the past 64 years, so anything less is unacceptable." We all knows those kind of numbers games extrapolating the success of long-retired players from long ago are meaningless.


My argument makes plenty of sense in the context that people are saying in a simplistic argument... we won a chip so it justifies overpaying.

I actually was being generous by counting the last decade.

If I counted the period from 1980 to 2010... we were averaging over 3 a decade... but I didn't want to cherry pick so I chose the modern era from Showtime onward.

I don't get this argument that the NBA has changed so this can't happen anymore. The Spurs won all the time... The Warriors would have won a bunch if they hadn't gotten injured... The Heat should have won more.

The good franchises win multiple titles and we were in the position to sign two elites... add them to the best of the young core and cost controlled assets and keep all of our draft picks.

Instead we gave it all up for LBJ's last stand.

The most common justification I read... is we won one title so it was worth it.

So all I did was point out is that is below the Lakers standards.

Then I read that dynasties are no longer possible... I'm sorry but that is horsesh*t. If Luka and Zion teamed up... you would probably see a dynasty... the Warriors should have been a dynasty... we all thought they would win a bunch of titles in a row before KD left and Klay got injured.

If you like our chances of winning the next five years with aging LBJ... with fragile AD.... and overmatched Schroder... that is your opinion and your right to hold that opinion.

But if someone believes another path might have been more productive, I think that opinion should be respected as much as the other one without the simplistic one chip defense... which is sad by Lakers standards.


Just thank god we have Lebron and Davis. The two best moves the franchise has made since Kobe, Shaq and Gasol.


How is it the best move since Kobe, Shaq, and Gasol, when they won multiple chips in a row? That's more sustainable success, with no 4 month rest period in between. We won 1 and then got bounced out. We were never looking like the best team. We always seen where we lack and was masked by over working Bron and AD. To the point that when they went down, what we lack was exploited. We have never had such a fragile superstar. We have never given up so much for a fragile superstar. We have no youthful talent. We traded them all away. We were already in position to get to max players. We could've kept the best of the young core, while getting the 2 players and had more sustainable success.

I don't agree it was the best move since who you named. I think we went down the wrong path and now we gotta reroute ourselves out of the mess. Simply to accommodate a fair well tour for Bron his last years, when he just became a Laker. I don't get happy just off of 1 championship because our success was not sustainable. Rob keeps making mistake after mistake. I mean even if you say you are happy with the championship... Rob dismantled that championship squad, which is a big mistake and that's why I don't have faith in him right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:50 am    Post subject:

Another thread of this?

This argument is dead once we got #17

merge it with all the other same thread
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Outspoken
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8447

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:55 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Another thread of this?

This argument is dead once we got #17

merge it with all the other same thread


It seems you don't like to read. Try reading the thread and not just the title.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
eddiejonze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7192

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:54 am    Post subject:

Outspoken wrote:
governator wrote:
Another thread of this?

This argument is dead once we got #17

merge it with all the other same thread


It seems you don't like to read. Try reading the thread and not just the title.

The Thread has been done.
The subject is wack.
The premise is lame.
Is that easy enough to read?
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigJosh951
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 2414

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:04 am    Post subject:

"I don't get happy off of one championship..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:37 am    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
I don't get this argument that the NBA has changed so this can't happen anymore. The Spurs won all the time... The Warriors would have won a bunch if they hadn't gotten injured... The Heat should have won more.

The good franchises win multiple titles and we were in the position to sign two elites... add them to the best of the young core and cost controlled assets and keep all of our draft picks.

Instead we gave it all up for LBJ's last stand.

The most common justification I read... is we won one title so it was worth it.

So all I did was point out is that is below the Lakers standards.


I'm more sympathetic to your argument than some of the other posters. In my view, the bubble title was the minimum acceptable return, but that doesn't mean that it was a great return. If that is the only title from the Lebron era, and if we wind up back in rebuilding mode afterwards, I'll look back on this era and shrug. It wouldn't be the worst of times, but it wouldn't be the best of times, either.

As for the NBA, there are now 30 teams with a salary cap, a luxury cap, and revenue sharing. We've struggled to adapt to that reality. We've tended to focus on quick fixes instead of organic growth and strategic planning. The Nash/Howard quick fixes contributed to the malaise for the rest of the decade. Lebron basically bailed us out for a short time, but at the cost of possibly dropping us back into rebuilding mode in a year or two. As I said, the bubble title was the minimum acceptable return for this, but I agree with you that one title doesn't make all of the negatives go away.

But as for the idea of an expected return of 2.5 or 3 titles per decade, that's not a reasonable benchmark under any conditions. Winning a title in 25-30% of the seasons is a sensational return. The fact that we have sometimes hit that mark, or exceeded it, does not mean that we could ever consistently win titles at that rate in a 30 team league.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Page 8 of 42
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