WINNING ENVIRONMENT. Denver has let go of Marcus Camby (to the Clippers) for a bag of potato chips, Linus Kleiza for nothing, and what's-his-name mediocre 2-guard to Indiana. That's two starters and a valuable bench player. Denver's starting to reap what they've sown. That's part of why Anthony wants out. San An did it the right way. Sean Elliott finished as a Spur. They kept their role players, and kept their stars happy, and used their money wisely. Denver could have been in that category. Instead, they're squandering what they have. [/quote]
They let Camby go to make space for free agents....except no one wanted to goto Denver. Even though they did show a winning environment by getting to the 2nd and 3rd round of the playoffs back to back years only losing to the eventual NBA champs.
Kleiza left to Greece to get more money. With them being over the luxury tax they couldn't match what Greece offered him. So yeah, they got nothing...BECAUSE HE WALKED.
Anthony wants out because he sees his buddies teaming up and hes envious. Also his wife Lala is in the entertainment industry and is in New York or LA more than she is in Denver.
Can we please stop with San Antonio? There is no other team, including the Lakers/Celtics, who have been able to maneuver their franchise quite like them. No other small market team has been able to do what they do. To act like it is easy to emulate is inaccurate and to me somewhat down plays just how great of a job they do. If it was easy to mirror what the Spurs do wouldn't more teams be doing it? And again, it is easier to do all this when you happen to draft the greatest power forward of all time. No small feat and just as much luck as it is anything else.
Relying on the stupidity of GM's like Wallace is no way to build a winning franchise. Getting Kwame Brown for Caron Butler was *STUPID*. It hurt Los Angeles and improved Washington. It took something DRASTICALLY STUPID to save Los Angeles from it. (And if you don't think it was stupid, those playoff defeats to Phoenix apparently didn't sink in.)
Actually, Caron was moved in part because they were stacked up at the same position. Caron couldn't play the 4 but Lamar can and does. The Lakers felt that Odom's versatility and rebounding prowess was more important than Caron's slashing ability. At the time, the Lakers needed a big man, and they went after Kwame. Clearly a bad choice in hindsight but to act like the deal was made with no thoughts?
I don't think it was stupid because I don't see how Caron Butler was going to get the Lakers past PHX. He wasn't a top notch defender and his offensive game was streaky when he was in LA. Also, I don't see how keeping Caron would address the obvious problem the Lakers had which was defending the pick and roll with the 1 and 4. While getting Kwame didn't help that, keeping Caron wouldn't have made a difference either.
Where's Al Jeffereson in that? Oh - that's right. Garnett wears a ring, and the player you dealt him for had to be dumped. And wasn't that 5th pick their own - because it's sure not Boston's? And with this young core, where are they? Basement of the West? And this is what they aspire to? They'd have been more relevant by keeping Kevin Garnett.
The traded off players they got from the Garnett trade to get that pick in 2009 which landed them Ricky Rubio. You are thinking of the 2008 draft when they picked up Kevin Love in a swap for OJ Mayo.
This young core doesn't play together because their distributor and one of the best PGs to come from Europe (same say better than a young Tony Parker) never came. He stiffed the Wolves.
Keeping Garnett? HE WAS GOING TO WALK.
No argument that they go lucky getting Duncan. But let's also not mistake that the "uniqueness" of the organization is why Duncan has role-players around him, instead of wasting away Duncan's talent. They didn't trade away Robinson to save money like Denver did with Marcus Camby.
They didn't have to because they were able to draft European players. They haven't been exactly great at attractive free agents from this country down there. Jason Kidd didn't want to go down there even coming right off a title. Teams here do that because they need to shed contracts to pay for the big names. When your big names came drafted overseas the money factor is a lot different.
I think it is worth mentioning that when you bring a player in from another country and you make them feel at home in a foreign country they are more willing to stick it out with your franchise because the basis of American life is that.
The Lakers acquired Gasol because they got him for a bag of stale potato chips. It wasn't a "we have to win now" thing. It was a "you'd be stupid not to do this" deal. Let's get that straight.
No, that is incorrect. It was a 'we have to win now' thing because Andrew Bynum went down after a hot start in December and the team started to sputter. Kobe started to complain that they were short handed in the front court. That is when they went out to make the trade. The trade didn't just pop up and they are like 'duh we would be stupid not to do this, glad you pointed it out Memphis!' They had a need and they went out to seek a trade, not vice versa.
Sorry Joe, I live out here, I follow the Lakers very closely, I know exactly how this all went down.
The reason that they were looking, and not complacent, was because Bryant felt that Bynum had no shot - which is why he was upset that the Lakers didn't deal him and get Jason Kidd, if you'll recall.
First that was in the summer and that was Kobe Bryant's idea, not what the Lakers were looking to do. Bynum had Jerry Buss' son in his corner as that was his pick and there was no talks of moving him among the people who make those decisions.
Kobe said after they started off the 2008 season well that Bynum made him a believer. They started that season 21-3. When Bynum went down with the severe knee injury that year in December is when they went after a trade because they knew this team was clicking but with out a big body were going to sputter. They did it to stay on pace with getting on fire.
Your memory of the situation is a little bit off. All this stuff is easy to Google up if you don't want to take my word for how this all went down.
Agreed. Which is why you don't accept him in a deal for Carmelo Anthony if you're Denver.
Why not? Artest + Bynum for a guy who is going to leave anyways? They are on pace to get NOTHING when he leaves. Not a pick, not a player, nothing.
So was Eddy Curry, at one point. But it's fool's gold, and accepting such a player becomes an albatross to the cap flexibility needed to create a winner.
Eddy Curry has never shown what Bynum has on a consistent basis nor has he been a key contributor to an NBA title like Bynum. You are severely down playing him for no apparent reason. We are not talking about a guy who can't pay his rent on time and averages 4 rebounds a game. We are talking about a 7 footer with legit post moves who was a key part of last years championship team.
Chris Paul and Deron Williams will not be with their respective teams next time around. If you're going to acquire players, acquire cap-friendly, young players - not cap-killing mediocre big men.
Why would Deron Williams leave Utah to goto Denver? The situation is almost exactly the same in every which way you slice it.
If Deron was to leave to go somewhere I bet it would be to a team that has a big body that can help him similar to Carlos Boozer. I think right about now he wishes he had another big man to take the scoring load off him.
Nope. Gives a different message - "We're not going to just give up. We'll TRY to keep you. We'll TRY to give you a winner."
Melo is not staying Joe. I don't know how many times he has made it clear that he is not staying. If he wanted to stay he would have signed the extension but he didn't. If he wanted to stay he wouldn't tell the media he wanted to talk to New Jersey. If he wanted to stay, he would say, I want to stay. He hasn't and he isn't.
By not making moves it sends the message "We are in rebuilding mode, if you are looking to win now, this is not the place, but if you like skiing head on over!!"
Two cases:
1. The big man is worthless. (See Kwame Brown for Caron Butler.)
2. The franchise is run by idiots. (See Gasol for Javaris Crittendon, Love for Mayo, etc.)
1. One time in how many years?
2. Gasol for a 16 million dollar expiring contract, the rights to Marc Gasol, and Javaris Crittendon. Not sure why you purposely left those two off.
OJ Mayo for Kevin Love on game day is hardly what I am talking about but okay. We are talking about established big men being traded for guards. Not a player swap for two guys who played 1 year of college basketball in Southern California.
Same two reasons as above. If the offer is there to you, it's either not as good as it looks...or the GM you're dealing with is an idiot. I think we can safely rule out the latter one when you're dealing with a franchise that's been in the last 3 Finals.
You don't trade Gasol for Anthony for any of the ideas listed above.
Nope, not at all. Getting nothing is preferable, because all you'll get is a rotten draft pick, a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, or a trade exception to use on another disgruntled player. If you're going to re-build, you want flexibility.
These are all assumptions Joe. You don't really know if a draft pick would be rotten or any players you go after are 'disgruntled'. I don't think this is a fair argument at all.
Better to have all the more cap space rather than "just enough for one guy," as we saw this year in Miami. Especially if you have a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse.
Like when Denver cleared out Marcus Camby and let Linus Kleiza walk to free cap space to go after another free agent for Melo and failed because Denver is not Miami?
Potentially. Last year, absolutely. And that's one more reason to question the deal if LA offered it, because a contender doesn't offer a deal that HURTS their chances.
They do if they need to shake up the team that has become complacent.
Disagree. They gain because there is a star to TEAM with Kobe Bryant. Make no mistake - Kobe's not going anywhere.
Yes Kobe is going somewhere...retirement. The guy is not going to be on this squad in 3 years and if he is it will be in a very very diminished role.
Utah - CORRECT! That's why that team is quickly becoming irrelevant.
Cleveland - NOT CORRECT! They traded away their player INSTEAD of letting him walk. All they got were low draft picks - which means a chance to overpay a gamble player that likely won't help your team a whole lot. That eats in to your cap space.
Um...Lebron walked. He wasn't traded to Miami.
I think it could be a potenitally bad move for LA, as well, but more from a team balance standpoint than a team talent standpoint. Then again, it's easier to get someone like Dwight Howard if you offer Carmelo Anthony than if you offer Andrew Bynum - especially if Dwight Howard is threatening to walk away from where he is. LA should adopt a "maintain winning environment" approach, and they traditionally have. Any team that thinks they will get the better of a deal with the Lakers is kidding themselves while LA is winning. Two teams got the better of a deal with LA - Miami in the Shaq deal, and Washington in the Butler deal. One was predicated on the necessity of LA of making the deal. The other was a mistake that nearly jeopardized the future by upsetting Kobe Bryant,and, that had Memphis not been fools, Los Angeles would have had to choke on.
Ron Artest + Bynum for Anthony? What do you think of that?
On a side note, I enjoy this kind of debate quite a bit. I took a little break from the board and kinda forgot that we have some interesting back and forths here at times.
Show Posts
