"We Gave Away A Decade Worth of Talent for AD"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LBJ23
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 6062

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:43 am    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.


Lol.

Average 2000 to 2020 we average about 3 a decade also.

Since AD has been a Laker, they have 1 in 2 years. Still have 8 more years to get 1 or 2 more.

Pretty weak argument. What if I said AD has won a championship in 50 percent of his seasons with the Lakers?

Anyone can skew numbers to fit a narrative.
_________________
Previously PG13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Beir32
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Feb 2016
Posts: 1699
Location: Western PA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:55 pm    Post subject:

Wonder if the Celtics are glad they hung onto their young core.

Also is Sentient Meat back?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
32
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 64885

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:57 pm    Post subject:

Beir32 wrote:
Wonder if the Celtics are glad they hung onto their young core.

Also is Sentient Meat back?


Yep.
_________________
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
Annihilator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 3877

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:59 pm    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
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.

So, the examples that the poster gives for why dynasties are still possible are in fact situations of when dynasties did not happen.

This has devolved into a very weird discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 20510

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:06 pm    Post subject:

Outspoken wrote:
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i07nGsYjQHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NUMPHJXoCo

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 would more so 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.


That could definitely work too.
_________________
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
mad55557777
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 9226

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:03 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Outspoken wrote:
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i07nGsYjQHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NUMPHJXoCo

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 would more so 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.


That could definitely work too.

You have assume they all play at their all star seasons then because randle was pretty much a joke before this year, and DLO has been horrible after his only all star appearance in the East. Clarkson shined this year, BI was good last season, ok this season. Lonzo had his best season this year. You know what they have in common, they Did NOT play with lebron. I don’t think they can be all stars playing with lebron who dominates the ball a lot.
Pure fantasy. The team was not even possible since DLO /JC/nance had to be traded to create cap space for lebron.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mad55557777
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 9226

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:22 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.

Lakers standard is winning championships, and in order to do it, you need super stars like lebron and AD, not mediocre random season all stars like randle/Bi/DLO.
Modern day NBA (all other sports) pretty much made sure not one team can dominate the league like the old days.
The only exception is you draft the franchise player. The salary cap rules are very strict and it would almost make no sense for a star to change teams while he was young. Take Luka for example, after his rookie contract,(4 years), mavs can match any contract offer . The only way you can get stars like this is through trades.
Lakers got the 5 championships 2000-2010 because Kobe was here since rookie, and we built around him. Lebron signed with us at 33, so totally different situations and different expections.
Warriors drafted klay, curry, DG so they can be a dynasty
Spurs drafted GDP
Mavericks drafted Luka and if you want him to team up with Zion, wait 8 years or mavs would have to OVERPAY
The nets have a very short championship window, 2-3 years at most which is similar to us and they haven’t won yet.
Unless you think Bi/DLO/Randle etc are generational talents, I don’t see any reason not giving them up.

Yankees won 1 championship in the last 20 years and 5 in the last 42 years.
This is how modern day sports work. Get use to it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Outspoken
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 4097

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:30 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Outspoken wrote:
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i07nGsYjQHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NUMPHJXoCo

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 would more so 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.


That could definitely work too.


I meant wouldn't be so reliant on Bron, but I agree it could work. We had a good collective of youth. We can't go back and I think it was a mistake of how we handled them. People didn't understand Mitch's plan, they thought he didn't have 1. Keep dwelling on the Deng's and Moz contracts, when it was about the youth. By time their contracts were up, the youth would have been developed. We could've had more sustainable success for the future. We don't even have any good homegrown talent as we usually do. It really sucks, and bringing in Magic was the worst thing that ever happened to this franchise. My goodness! I digress. AD is an amazing talent, but he can't even remain healthy and Bron's time is ticking. It sucks the position we are in, but I guess we will see what we do this off season, and the draft, but I, as of now do not have any faith in Rob. He still has to prove his self.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 31065

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:12 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.


Sure, your argument is great:

FACT: The Kareem Magic Lakers won 5 rings between 80 and 88.

BILBJH's argument: The Lakers averaged 5 rings a decade in the 1980s, so that is the standard all teams will be held accountable for in the future.

FACT: The Shaq-Kobe Lakers won 3 rings between 00 and 02.

BILBJH's argument: The threepeat was a failure because they did not meet the average of wins of the teams that preceded them.

FACT: The Kobe-Gasol Lakers won 2 rings in 09 and 10.

BILBJH's argument: The Kobe-Gasol team was a failure because they did not meet the average of wins of the Lakers teams that preceded them.

I mean, isn't that argument? Because over the past four decades Lakers teams have not reached the average number of rings of the Lakers teams before them. If it isn't your argument, why is the current Lakers team accountable for the "average" but all the preceding teams aren't?

HERE'S THE ACTUAL REALITY: The success of the Magic-Kareem Lakers decades ago (which is the main influence of the "average" you think is so important) will have absolutely no effect on how Lakers teams do from this point forward. So forget the silly "average." Forget the success of past Lakers teams. The only question is: What are the best moves we can do today?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BILBJH
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 1213

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:02 pm    Post subject:

activeverb 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.


Sure, your argument is great:

FACT: The Kareem Magic Lakers won 5 rings between 80 and 88.

BILBJH's argument: The Lakers averaged 5 rings a decade in the 1980s, so that is the standard all teams will be held accountable for in the future.

FACT: The Shaq-Kobe Lakers won 3 rings between 00 and 02.

BILBJH's argument: The threepeat was a failure because they did not meet the average of wins of the teams that preceded them.

FACT: The Kobe-Gasol Lakers won 2 rings in 09 and 10.

BILBJH's argument: The Kobe-Gasol team was a failure because they did not meet the average of wins of the Lakers teams that preceded them.

I mean, isn't that argument? Because over the past four decades Lakers teams have not reached the average number of rings of the Lakers teams before them. If it isn't your argument, why is the current Lakers team accountable for the "average" but all the preceding teams aren't?

HERE'S THE ACTUAL REALITY: The success of the Magic-Kareem Lakers decades ago (which is the main influence of the "average" you think is so important) will have absolutely no effect on how Lakers teams do from this point forward. So forget the silly "average." Forget the success of past Lakers teams. The only question is: What are the best moves we can do today?


If one person invests money in a growth portfolio averaging a 10% yield but gets wiped out in a bear market correction... and another person invests money playing lotto and scratchers and hits the Powerball numbers... who is the wiser investor?

This is the level of argument I've encountered regarding the AD trade.

We hit the jackpot for number 17... nothing else matters. Doesn't matter how dumb the plan might be, as long as you win in the end.

In spite of the inarguable proof that we have been relegated to begging Dennis Schroder to play for us for 21 to 25 million per year... some here believe we made the best decision. How can we have made the best decision when we are forced into such a poor bargaining position?

The answer is clear... because we spent too much... Not just the trade... but clearing space for an elite... and then throwing the plan out the window... then clearing more space for Kawhi without any concrete evidence he wanted to come here.

But we won 17... so apparently it doesn't matter how stupid everything we did was.

All I've said is that winning one title is nothing special for the Lakers.

We have averaged 2.5 titles per decade for the last 40 years... we've averaged 3 titles per decade the last two decades... we've averaged 2.5 titles over the two decades before that... All of these things are true... yet people have told me that winning multiple titles is probably a thing of the past... Yet the Warriors... the Heat... the Spurs have all won multiple titles recently and now perhaps the Nets may be the next team positioned to do so.

The defense of putting ourselves in a position where we must sign Schroder is simply... well, we can no longer expect to win more than one title... so we should be grateful that we won one.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying that. Whether it's Luka... or Zion... or the Nets super team... someone will start winning in bunches again... and if we want to be one of those teams, we need to do better than go all in on one player and completely cripple our supporting cast.

Do I believe we can recover? Sure... we've made a start in the right direction by nurturing THT, Kuzma, and Caruso... we also perhaps can find a gem at 22. I wanted us to drop to the 10 slot so we'd have a shot at drafting Juzang or Giddey but maybe we can find another player who can create offense or shoot.

All I want is for us to stop throwing good money after bad which is why I don't want us to overpay for Schroder. If Rob can find a taker at 25 million or 21 million I'm fine with whatever we sign him for... but if he can't find anyone we need to search every roster, every G-League team... every Euroleague team for a hidden gem. I refuse to believe we can't replace him. We found Hart... we found Kuzma... we found Clarkson low in the draft... we will find someone to replace Schroder if he doesn't listen to reason.

TLDR?

We are begging Schroder to sign for us. That's all the evidence you need that we spent too much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DrDent
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Jun 2016
Posts: 10393

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:14 pm    Post subject:

Beir32 wrote:
Wonder if the Celtics are glad they hung onto their young core.

Also is Sentient Meat back?


You, sir, can now Mic drop
_________________
"One thing I admire about Kuzma is his unwavering confidence. He truly has no idea that he’s not as good as he thinks." - Killer_Z
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 31065

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:53 am    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
activeverb 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.


Sure, your argument is great:

FACT: The Kareem Magic Lakers won 5 rings between 80 and 88.

BILBJH's argument: The Lakers averaged 5 rings a decade in the 1980s, so that is the standard all teams will be held accountable for in the future.

FACT: The Shaq-Kobe Lakers won 3 rings between 00 and 02.

BILBJH's argument: The threepeat was a failure because they did not meet the average of wins of the teams that preceded them.

FACT: The Kobe-Gasol Lakers won 2 rings in 09 and 10.

BILBJH's argument: The Kobe-Gasol team was a failure because they did not meet the average of wins of the Lakers teams that preceded them.

I mean, isn't that argument? Because over the past four decades Lakers teams have not reached the average number of rings of the Lakers teams before them. If it isn't your argument, why is the current Lakers team accountable for the "average" but all the preceding teams aren't?

HERE'S THE ACTUAL REALITY: The success of the Magic-Kareem Lakers decades ago (which is the main influence of the "average" you think is so important) will have absolutely no effect on how Lakers teams do from this point forward. So forget the silly "average." Forget the success of past Lakers teams. The only question is: What are the best moves we can do today?


If one person invests money in a growth portfolio averaging a 10% yield but gets wiped out in a bear market correction... and another person invests money playing lotto and scratchers and hits the Powerball numbers... who is the wiser investor?

This is the level of argument I've encountered regarding the AD trade.

We hit the jackpot for number 17... nothing else matters. Doesn't matter how dumb the plan might be, as long as you win in the end.

In spite of the inarguable proof that we have been relegated to begging Dennis Schroder to play for us for 21 to 25 million per year... some here believe we made the best decision. How can we have made the best decision when we are forced into such a poor bargaining position?

The answer is clear... because we spent too much... Not just the trade... but clearing space for an elite... and then throwing the plan out the window... then clearing more space for Kawhi without any concrete evidence he wanted to come here.

But we won 17... so apparently it doesn't matter how stupid everything we did was.

All I've said is that winning one title is nothing special for the Lakers.

We have averaged 2.5 titles per decade for the last 40 years... we've averaged 3 titles per decade the last two decades... we've averaged 2.5 titles over the two decades before that... All of these things are true... yet people have told me that winning multiple titles is probably a thing of the past... Yet the Warriors... the Heat... the Spurs have all won multiple titles recently and now perhaps the Nets may be the next team positioned to do so.

The defense of putting ourselves in a position where we must sign Schroder is simply... well, we can no longer expect to win more than one title... so we should be grateful that we won one.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying that. Whether it's Luka... or Zion... or the Nets super team... someone will start winning in bunches again... and if we want to be one of those teams, we need to do better than go all in on one player and completely cripple our supporting cast.

Do I believe we can recover? Sure... we've made a start in the right direction by nurturing THT, Kuzma, and Caruso... we also perhaps can find a gem at 22. I wanted us to drop to the 10 slot so we'd have a shot at drafting Juzang or Giddey but maybe we can find another player who can create offense or shoot.

All I want is for us to stop throwing good money after bad which is why I don't want us to overpay for Schroder. If Rob can find a taker at 25 million or 21 million I'm fine with whatever we sign him for... but if he can't find anyone we need to search every roster, every G-League team... every Euroleague team for a hidden gem. I refuse to believe we can't replace him. We found Hart... we found Kuzma... we found Clarkson low in the draft... we will find someone to replace Schroder if he doesn't listen to reason.

TLDR?

We are begging Schroder to sign for us. That's all the evidence you need that we spent too much.


Sorry, dude I can't talk with you if you remain obsessed about this meaningless2.5 rings average.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BILBJH
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 1213

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:03 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:


Sorry, dude I can't talk with you if you remain obsessed about this meaningless2.5 rings average.


Good... one ring... so meaningful that it justifies decimating our team to the point where we must beg Schroder to sign for over 21 million.

2.5 rings per decade... meaningless because some of you decided teams winning multiple titles is a thing of the past even though it's happened recently

Got it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 112270

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:06 am    Post subject:

Yes. One ring is worth it if it comes down to that. Ask the 11-12 other teams with zero rings about this.
_________________
Never underestimate the heart of a champion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18311

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:07 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Yes. One ring is worth it if it comes down to that. Ask the 11-12 other teams with zero rings about this.


One ring PLUS you still have Bron and AD, c'mon now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 31065

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:19 am    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
activeverb wrote:


Sorry, dude I can't talk with you if you remain obsessed about this meaningless2.5 rings average.


Good... one ring... so meaningful that it justifies decimating our team to the point where we must beg Schroder to sign for over 21 million.

2.5 rings per decade... meaningless because some of you decided teams winning multiple titles is a thing of the past even though it's happened recently

Got it.


Sorry, dude, can't talk with you if you remain obsessed about this meaningless average of 2.5 rings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AD23
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jul 2019
Posts: 1263

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:26 am    Post subject:

Winning a ring is easy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakersARETheGOAT
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Posts: 2503

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:54 am    Post subject:

I just seen the lakers gave up 8 players for one ring on Twitter and it’s just funny because if lakers would’ve kept that group even with lebron and didn’t win anything, the takes would’ve been lakers should’ve traded for AD. lakers were on the verge back to the number 1 seed before injuries happened. Let’s see iwhat lakers and those other traded players do with their teams the next 4-5 years to decide if it was worth it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Halflife
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 5696

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:55 am    Post subject:

we didnt give away any trae's, Lukas, tatums, bookers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
32
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 64885

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:56 am    Post subject:

AD23 wrote:
Winning a ring is easy


Yep. The Lakers should win one every 2.5 years.
_________________
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
AD23
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jul 2019
Posts: 1263

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:56 am    Post subject:

I'm gonna say it.... Kuz, Caruso and THT have more rings than those YUTES the Lakers gave up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BILBJH
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 1213

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:57 am    Post subject:

AD23 wrote:
I'm gonna say it.... Kuz, Caruso and THT have more rings than those YUTES the Lakers gave up.


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


Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18292
Location: The Garden Island

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:08 am    Post subject:

mad55557777 wrote:
more like a decade of mediocrity for AD and ring 17.





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


Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18292
Location: The Garden Island

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:11 am    Post subject:

BILBJH wrote:
activeverb wrote:


Sorry, dude I can't talk with you if you remain obsessed about this meaningless2.5 rings average.


Good... one ring... so meaningful that it justifies decimating our team to the point where we must beg Schroder to sign for over 21 million.

2.5 rings per decade... meaningless because some of you decided teams winning multiple titles is a thing of the past even though it's happened recently

Got it.


It is a meaningless number that has nothing to do with present day reality.

Do you understand that there is a world of difference in the ability of a NBA team to construct and keep a championship roster together today vs in the '80's ?

There was no salary cap, luxury tax or need to match salary in making trades back then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18292
Location: The Garden Island

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:19 am    Post subject:

mad55557777 wrote:
title is misleading
should be "We traded away decade of Talent for Lebron and AD and Ring 17"



This is spot on.

Some of the young players listed were traded/let go to make room for Lebron.

Teams have historically won NBA titles with superstars in their roster.

Since 1980, the '04 Pistons are the only team that I can think of that has won a title without a superstar on the team.

And even on that team, Chauncey and Sheed were better players than any of the young guys that the Lakers traded/let walk.
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 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11
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