Source: Howard to Lakers

[caw]

I mean they have Jameer Nelson and um, um, Ryan Andersen, um Big Baby, um JJ Reddick, Aaron Afflalo, and I can't remember who else (sorry). The best thing for them, is they dumped a great player, but a malcontent, on a Western Conference team, giving him what he wanted (unfortunately). They didn't get much value in return for said talent.

Ryan Anderson is now on the Hornets, I believe.

Orlando might be worse than Charlotte this year. Just a horrid trade for them.

Affalo is decent but he doesn't give them a ton more than Reddick offensively, though he is a major upgrade defensively. Harkless is a nice young player, but he's years away from being decent in the NBA. The 3 draft picks will be late in the draft.

I guess Orlando has:
PG: Nelson
SG: Affalo, Reddick
SF: Hedo, Harrington EDIT (Forgot Harkless)
PF: Big Baby, Nicholson, O'Quinn
C: Ayon, Vucevic

Am I crazy or does Charlotte look better on paper? I mean, that's just a craptastic roster.

 

[Huskies4ever]

Ryan Anderson is now on the Hornets, I believe.

Orlando might be worse than Charlotte this year. Just a horrid trade for them.

Affalo is decent but he doesn't give them a ton more than Reddick offensively, though he is a major upgrade defensively. Harkless is a nice young player, but he's years away from being decent in the NBA. The 3 draft picks will be late in the draft.

I guess Orlando has:
PG: Nelson
SG: Affalo, Reddick
SF: Hedo, Harrington
PF: Big Baby, Nicholson, O'Quinn
C: Ayon, Vucevic

Am I crazy or does Charlotte look better on paper? I mean, that's just a craptastic roster.

Yikes! It's worse than I thought!

 

[alexrgct]

Not shocked im not even mad to me its like ho hum what else is new. The Lakers have always fleeced everyone it goes way back.

The Lakers traded away a washed up Gail Goodrich for New Orleans Jazz highest pick in 1979 which turned out to be Magic Johnson. Lakers trade away Don Ford and a first round pick for Clevelands future first round pick which was James Worthy which was the same year the Lakers won a title. Not to mention the Lakers traded away 5 average role players for Kareem back in 75. On a smaller scale the Lakers traded away Norm Nixon who was a very solid player who maxed out his potential for rookie Byron Scott which turned into a great trade for the Lakers. Then onto the 90s.

Trading Vlade Divac for Kobe on draft day lmao. Of course there is the Gasol trade even though the Grizzlies did get the other Gasol.

Players who forced with way to the Lakers through trades: Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Dwight

Kobe for Divac was not an awful trade at the time. Charlotte was losing 'Zo, and Divac was a proven big. Not a superstar or anything, but pretty good, better than they were going to be able to get elsewhere. Meanwhile, Kobe was considered a bit of a gamble. High schoolers going straight to the pros was still not common. Dawkins had done it, Moses had done it, Shawn Kemp did it, but that was sporadic and rare. Garnett had done it the year before, but he was such a unique physical specimen that it was understandable. People were not as sure about Kobe. The Lakers knew they were getting Shaq in free agency (not signed yet, but they obviously had a hunch) and had guys such as Eddie Jones, Elden Campbell, and Nick Van Exel on the roster. In other words, they could afford to lose their current center because they knew they'd be able to upgrade that position the following month, and they had enough talent to gamble on Kobe and give him time to mature. Charlotte did not.

 

[alexrgct]

Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Minnesota, Orlando, Indiana, Milwaukee, Portland, Denver, Memphis, etc., should commit hari-kari at this point. There's no point in continuing NBA basketball in those markets.

Why? It's a business- run it well, and it will flourish. The Lakers will always get great players, but that doesn't mean all teams have to operate under the same business model as the Lakers. Why aren't OKC and San Antonio on your list? They have the exact same SWOT profiles as the cities you've mentioned- they just happen to have career franchise guys on their squads right now. They also happen to be exceptionally well-run franchises. In the past 20 years, Cleveland, Utah, Orlando, Indiana and Portland have all made the NBA finals, and Denver, Memphis, Minnesota and Sacramento have all at least been interesting at some point. New Orleans was in critical condition recently. Now they have Anthony Davis and Austin Rivers.

Smaller markets may not be able to compete year in and year out like the Lakers can, but they can certainly be well-run businesses that take seriously being a part of the communities they represent. And when things fall into place, they will sometimes get franchise guys who allow them to contend for a period of time.

 

[UConnSwag11]

Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Minnesota, Orlando, Indiana, Milwaukee, Portland, Denver, Memphis, etc., should commit hari-kari at this point. There's no point in continuing NBA basketball in those markets.

all those teams are up and coming minus portland and milwuakee... cleveland and sac are getting good talent... minn has love rubio williams, orlando is a good market but they were stupid with surrounding howard with talent and memphis and indiana are good teams in their conferences small markets who have built their team up with talent through the draft and trades

 

[upstater]

Why? It's a business- run it well, and it will flourish. The Lakers will always get great players, but that doesn't mean all teams have to operate under the same business model as the Lakers. Why aren't OKC and San Antonio on your list? They have the exact same SWOT profiles as the cities you've mentioned- they just happen to have career franchise guys on their squads right now. They also happen to be exceptionally well-run franchises. In the past 20 years, Cleveland, Utah, Orlando, Indiana and Portland have all made the NBA finals, and Denver, Memphis, Minnesota and Sacramento have all at least been interesting at some point. New Orleans was in critical condition recently. Now they have Anthony Davis and Austin Rivers.

Smaller markets may not be able to compete year in and year out like the Lakers can, but they can certainly be well-run businesses that take seriously being a part of the communities they represent. And when things fall into place, they will sometimes get franchise guys who allow them to contend for a period of time.

They should be on the list. Durant will leave the way Howard did and he'll leave before they ever win.

I don't think the NBA is a competitive league. You can call it well run, but they certainly aren't as popular as the NFL where there is great parity.

In the last decade and a half, you've had Tampa, Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, St. Louis win championships. This is why the league is so incredibly popular. They fill the seats even in places like Buffalo where they haven't even been in the playoffs (due to mismanagement) in the last decade and a half.

 

[upstater]

all those teams are up and coming minus portland and milwuakee... cleveland and sac are getting good talent... minn has love rubio williams, orlando is a good market but they were stupid with surrounding howard with talent and memphis and indiana are good teams in their conferences small markets who have built their team up with talent through the draft and trades

Up and coming, up and coming, Orlando was up and coming. Cleveland too, and then the players leave and they are back at square 1, and that's if they get lucky enough to land a Lebron or Durant. The league is deeply uncompetitive.

 

[alexrgct]

They should be on the list. Durant will leave the way Howard did and he'll leave before they ever win.

I don't think the NBA is a competitive league. You can call it well run, but they certainly aren't as popular as the NFL where there is great parity.

In the last decade and a half, you've had Tampa, Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, St. Louis win championships. This is why the league is so incredibly popular. They fill the seats even in places like Buffalo where they haven't even been in the playoffs (due to mismanagement) in the last decade and a half.

I actually hate the current NFL model. Yes, if you purchase season tickets, you want your team to be competitive, but taking a step back from an individual franchise perspective, I like watching greatness. The 1980s 49ers and 1990s Cowboys were great. The 9-7 Giants were not.

The 1980s were generally considered a golden era in the NBA, but realistically, only five teams made the NBA finals: Lakers, Rockets, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons. In the 2000s, meanwhile, 11 teams made the NBA finals: Lakers, Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Spurs, Pistons, Heat, Mavericks, Cavs, Celtics, and Magic. In the 2010s, five teams have already made the finals: Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Mavs, and Thunder. I'd argue there's actually more parity than there used to be.

 

[BlueMAB]

Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Minnesota, Orlando, Indiana, Milwaukee, Portland, Denver, Memphis, etc., should commit hari-kari at this point. There's no point in continuing NBA basketball in those markets.

Cleveland - NBA finals
Sacramento - Conference finals
Utah - NBA finals
Minnesota - Sucks
Orlando - Sucks
Indiana - Conference finals
Milwaukee - Sucks
Portland - NBA finals
Denver - Playoff team
Memphis - Sucks

Memphis , Milwaukee, and Minnesota have made terrible moves. However, the rest of those teams have come close to winning it all at some point. They have been competitive and can be again.

Shaq/Kobe kept Sacramento out of the NBA finals and Indiana from winning the NBA finals
Jordan/Pippen kept Utah and Portland from winning the NBA finals

It's not easy for smaller market teams to compete, but it's not impossible. The Dallas Mavericks were never considered a major market, but they won it all.

 

[BlueMAB]

Has everyone forgotten that Howard only has one year left, and hasn't yet signed an extension? The lakers gave up the second best center in the league, who said he was willing to sign a long term contract with LA, for the best center in the league, who said he isn't.

It's an incredible gamble that could win them a ring next year, and leave them without Howard, Kobe, Nash, or Gasol...and now without Bynum... in 3 years. What do they get in 3 years when the contracts are up? Nothing.

 

[UConn990411]

Has everyone forgotten that Howard only has one year left, and hasn't yet signed an extension? The lakers gave up the second best center in the league, who said he was willing to sign a long term contract with LA, for the best center in the league, who said he isn't.

It's an incredible gamble that could win them a ring next year, and leave them without Howard, Kobe, Nash, or Gasol...and now without Bynum... in 3 years. What do they get in 3 years when the contracts are up? Nothing.

No, it gets them a ring. You take that every time.

Plus, I have a feeling Howard isn't gonna take $25 million less to sign somewhere else. If he does, he'd be the first athlete I can remember to take that much less money.

 

[ihatepants]

I notice that the Lakers haven't addressed their two biggest needs this offseason: perimeter defense and their godawful bench. I don't think these moves have done anything to help them beat the Thunder in the west. They still don't have anyone that can stop Westbrook or Durant.

With the age of their players and Howard's bad back, I hope they suck. It will be very enjoyable to see them fail.

 

[BlueMAB]

No, it gets them a ring. You take that every time.

Plus, I have a feeling Howard isn't gonna take $25 million less to sign somewhere else. If he does, he'd be the first athlete I can remember to take that much less money.

Having Howard, a much better defender than Bynum, will help. But Nash isn't slowing anyone down on the perimeter. They will be more competitive, they are hardly a lock to beat OKC, or Miami (who also got better in the offseason with the addition of Ray). Crowning the Lakers champs now is foolish, many analysts still don't think they are the best in the West.

Why would Howard have to take $25 million less to sign with Dallas?

 

[BlueMAB]

I notice that the Lakers haven't addressed their two biggest needs this offseason: perimeter defense and their godawful bench. I don't think these moves have done anything to help them beat the Thunder in the west. They still don't have anyone that can stop Westbrook or Durant.

With the age of their players and Howard's bad back, I hope they suck. It will be very enjoyable to see them fail.

Howard is a much better pick and roll defender than Bynum. Their defense will be better, but nobody can stop Westbrook or Durant on the perimeter anyway.

You're hopes are going to be dashed. They will not suck. They will be even better than last year, but maybe not quite good enough.

The bench is a concern, but if you think they didn't improve this offseason you're probably a celtics fan who thinks a deep bench is going to be enough to get you past the Heat next year. It's not.

 

[UConn990411]

Having Howard, a much better defender than Bynum, will help. But Nash isn't slowing anyone down on the perimeter. They will be more competitive, they are hardly a lock to beat OKC, or Miami (who also got better in the offseason with the addition of Ray). Crowning the Lakers champs now is foolish, many analysts still don't think they are the best in the West.

Why would Howard have to take $25 million less to sign with Dallas?

Um, I'm not crowning the Lakers. I was responding to your post that implied winning a championship wasn't worth starting from scratch in three years.

My apologies if that wasn't what you were implying.

 

[BlueMAB]

Um, I'm not crowning the Lakers. I was responding to your post that implied winning a championship wasn't worth starting from scratch in three years.

My apologies if that wasn't what you were implying.

I understand now, thanks for the explanation.

For the Cavaliers or some other franchises, it's absolutely worth it. However, only the Celtics have more championships than the Lakers. It's not a franchise that wants to start from scratch, they want to be in the finals every year.

And I'm just saying, if they don't win it all this year (and I think we agree they are not even the favorites) then they are taking a HUGE risk. The talk that the Lakers just stole Howard, IMO, is just dumb. They gave up one of the best centers in the league, just coming into his prime, and willing to sign a long term deal. For 1 season with a better player, and the hope that he can be convinced to stick around.

 

[Scoe]

Kobe for Divac was not an awful trade at the time. Charlotte was losing 'Zo, and Divac was a proven big. Not a superstar or anything, but pretty good, better than they were going to be able to get elsewhere. Meanwhile, Kobe was considered a bit of a gamble. High schoolers going straight to the pros was still not common. Dawkins had done it, Moses had done it, Shawn Kemp did it, but that was sporadic and rare. Garnett had done it the year before, but he was such a unique physical specimen that it was understandable. People were not as sure about Kobe. The Lakers knew they were getting Shaq in free agency (not signed yet, but they obviously had a hunch) and had guys such as Eddie Jones, Elden Campbell, and Nick Van Exel on the roster. In other words, they could afford to lose their current center because they knew they'd be able to upgrade that position the following month, and they had enough talent to gamble on Kobe and give him time to mature. Charlotte did not.

That is true at the time Kobe didnt have the hype that Lebron had coming out of high schoo, that was a very deep draft class btwl. Divac was a good Center but they were getting Shaq(yes I know shaq didnt sign yet) and Elden Campbell wasnt much worse then Divac. I remember Kobe coming off the bench backing up Eddie Jones obviously they let Jones go in FA thats why you always get the best player available in the draft. With the NFL draft you get position of need, the NBA best player available.

 

[Scoe]

So are the Lakers gonna put Phil Jackson on speed dial

 

[upstater]

Cleveland - NBA finals
Sacramento - Conference finals
Utah - NBA finals
Minnesota - Sucks
Orlando - Sucks
Indiana - Conference finals
Milwaukee - Sucks
Portland - NBA finals
Denver - Playoff team
Memphis - Sucks

Memphis , Milwaukee, and Minnesota have made terrible moves. However, the rest of those teams have come close to winning it all at some point. They have been competitive and can be again.

Shaq/Kobe kept Sacramento out of the NBA finals and Indiana from winning the NBA finals
Jordan/Pippen kept Utah and Portland from winning the NBA finals

It's not easy for smaller market teams to compete, but it's not impossible. The Dallas Mavericks were never considered a major market, but they won it all.

You can't include Cleveland, it's pointless to include them. They were incredibly lucky to land James in the first place, and just when they had someone to build around, he took off. Just like Shaquille did, like Howard, and like Durant certainly will.

Dallas Mavericks are in a big city with a billionaire owner. Can't see how they could possibly be considered anything but a major market.

 

[upstater]

I actually hate the current NFL model. Yes, if you purchase season tickets, you want your team to be competitive, but taking a step back from an individual franchise perspective, I like watching greatness. The 1980s 49ers and 1990s Cowboys were great. The 9-7 Giants were not.

The 1980s were generally considered a golden era in the NBA, but realistically, only five teams made the NBA finals: Lakers, Rockets, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons. In the 2000s, meanwhile, 11 teams made the NBA finals: Lakers, Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Spurs, Pistons, Heat, Mavericks, Cavs, Celtics, and Magic. In the 2010s, five teams have already made the finals: Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Mavs, and Thunder. I'd argue there's actually more parity than there used to be.

What made the 49ers and Cowboys great were retaining their own players over the entire span of their careers. The NFL still allows this with franchising. And that's how the formerly woeful 9ers became a great team, by drafting well.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Um, I'm not crowning the Lakers. I was responding to your post that implied winning a championship wasn't worth starting from scratch in three years.

My apologies if that wasn't what you were implying.

By adding Nash & much more importantly Howard, Lakers went from at best 12-1 (would have been a stupid bet with roster as it was but probably reflected odds of getting Howard at some point I'd say with no roster moves 20-1 or higher) to win the championship to 3-1. They addressed their biggest need in that they stunk last year outside of Kobe.

Pre Nash 12-1, post Nash 8-1, post Howard 3-1
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/05/sports/la-sp-ln-lakers-odds20120705

 

[BlueMAB]

You can't include Cleveland, it's pointless to include them. They were incredibly lucky to land James in the first place, and just when they had someone to build around, he took off. Just like Shaquille did, like Howard, and like Durant certainly will.

Dallas Mavericks are in a big city with a billionaire owner. Can't see how they could possibly be considered anything but a major market.

If you're argument is that it's tough to maintain a high level team in a small market, then I agree.

You're argument was they should stop trying. If you have to ignore reality, ignore the fact that a lot of the teams you mentioned actually made the NBA finals, and/or lost to teams that had some of the greatest all time players on the way, to prove your point, then you're clearly wrong.

The Mavericks were a laughingstock for a long time until they got an owner willing to pay up. The Nets have been a laughingstock, now they have owners willing to pay up. Charlottes has owners willing to pay up, the Knicks have owners willing to pay up, they have still become jokes.

Big city + billionaire owner (which team has owners that aren't billionaires??) doesn't guarantee success.

 

[UConn990411]

By adding Nash & much more importantly Howard, Lakers went from at best 12-1 (would have been a stupid bet with roster as it was but probably reflected odds of getting Howard at some point I'd say with no roster moves 20-1 or higher) to win the championship to 3-1. They addressed their biggest need in that they stunk last year outside of Kobe.

Pre Nash 12-1, post Nash 8-1, post Howard 3-1
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/05/sports/la-sp-ln-lakers-odds20120705

The Lakers are, without a doubt, top 4 preseason. But I hate the way people like to crown teams before they've played a single game together.

Remember when the Clippers were supposed to contend after acquiring Chris Paul? Or when the Heat were gonna win 70 games after getting Wade and LeBron (but didn't even win the Eastern Conference regular season)? Basketball, more than any other sport, is a game that isn't won on paper.

Not only will the Thunder's young stars be even better, but they also match up extremely well with the Lakers. Perkins defends Howard better than anyone in the NBA, Durant/Ibaka can do a respectable job on Kobe/Gasol, and it's going to be laughable watching Nash try to defend Westbrook.

The Lakers' biggest problem last year was their lack of athleticism on the defensive end. And while Howard is a HUGE remedy for that problem, Nash and Jamison will - and Kobe/Artest being older - will only exacerbate it. I still think LA is right there with OKC (and now ahead of the Spurs), but let's wait and see how things play out before anointing them the WC champions.​

 

[aceboon]

So Gasol and Bynum were trash? The Lakers biggest weaknesses were lack of athleticism and youth on the perimeter, one of the worst benches in the league, and mediocre PG play. They addressed only one of these areas in getting Nash, while at the same further weakening their perimeter defense. They still don't have the horses to defend Durant, Westbrook, and Harden on the perimeter, and while I bag on Perkins on the regular, he showed throughout his career the ability to defend Howard straight up, and now we're talking about Howard coming off of a back injury.

By adding Nash & much more importantly Howard, Lakers went from at best 12-1 (would have been a stupid bet with roster as it was but probably reflected odds of getting Howard at some point I'd say with no roster moves 20-1 or higher) to win the championship to 3-1. They addressed their biggest need in that they stunk last year outside of Kobe.

Pre Nash 12-1, post Nash 8-1, post Howard 3-1
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/05/sports/la-sp-ln-lakers-odds20120705

 

[BlueMAB]

So Gasol and Bynum were trash? The Lakers biggest weaknesses were lack of athleticism and youth on the perimeter, one of the worst benches in the league, and mediocre PG play. They addressed only one of these areas in getting Nash, while at the same further weakening their perimeter defense. They still don't have the horses to defend Durant, Westbrook, and Harden on the perimeter, and while I bag on Perkins on the regular, he showed throughout his career the ability to defend Howard straight up, and now we're talking about Howard coming off of a back injury.

Other than Miami, who has the horses to defend Durant, Westbrook and Harden?

They didn't weaken their perimiter defense because Howard is a better pick and roll defender than Bynum. Howard is a much better defender and rebounder than both Bynum and Gasol.

So what Perkins can defend Howard? They still have Kobe, Nash, and Gasol. Howard is probably the third option on offense on a good night.

Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that the Lakers got better, even if they might not be better than OKC? Was there something else they could have done and decided not to in order to get better? Was Lebron James suddenly available and they passed?

And they helped address the bench by signing Antwan Jamison. You keep ignoring that.

 

[aceboon]

Lol @ Antwan Jamison, the reason everyone keeps ignoring him is because no one gives a about him. Who cares about what numbers he's been putting up on garbage teams, when is the last time he's contributed anything to a winning team? Those 1st round and out Wizards? Or when he was nowhere to be found after being picked up to be a sidekick for Lebron? He's not making a difference for the Lakers. Howard is a better pick and roll defender and better at defending the rim than Bynum but Nash is still going to cause all of kinds of breakdowns on team D with letting PGs get by him, which Westbrook(or Harden) will do at will. The Lakers are a better team than they were last year but my point is that I still don't think they're better than OKC, if you think they are that's fine, we'll agree to disagree, I'm not going any further beyond this.

Other than Miami, who has the horses to defend Durant, Westbrook and Harden?

They didn't weaken their perimiter defense because Howard is a better pick and roll defender than Bynum. Howard is a much better defender and rebounder than both Bynum and Gasol.

So what Perkins can defend Howard? They still have Kobe, Nash, and Gasol. Howard is probably the third option on offense on a good night.

Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that the Lakers got better, even if they might not be better than OKC? Was there something else they could have done and decided not to in order to get better? Was Lebron James suddenly available and they passed?

And they helped address the bench by signing Antwan Jamison. You keep ignoring that.

 

[JaYnYcE]

Heat are still the favorites, with OKC being 2a and Lakers 2b. Lakers also added Antwan Jamison front court they will dominate, how will they defend the speed of OKC and Miami is the question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JaYnYcE]

I actually hate the current NFL model. Yes, if you purchase season tickets, you want your team to be competitive, but taking a step back from an individual franchise perspective, I like watching greatness. The 1980s 49ers and 1990s Cowboys were great. The 9-7 Giants were not.

The 1980s were generally considered a golden era in the NBA, but realistically, only five teams made the NBA finals: Lakers, Rockets, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons. In the 2000s, meanwhile, 11 teams made the NBA finals: Lakers, Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Spurs, Pistons, Heat, Mavericks, Cavs, Celtics, and Magic. In the 2010s, five teams have already made the finals: Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Mavs, and Thunder. I'd argue there's actually more parity than there used to be.

Include 1999 when my Knicks made the Finals please!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[upstater]

If you're argument is that it's tough to maintain a high level team in a small market, then I agree.

You're argument was they should stop trying. If you have to ignore reality, ignore the fact that a lot of the teams you mentioned actually made the NBA finals, and/or lost to teams that had some of the greatest all time players on the way, to prove your point, then you're clearly wrong.

The Mavericks were a laughingstock for a long time until they got an owner willing to pay up. The Nets have been a laughingstock, now they have owners willing to pay up. Charlottes has owners willing to pay up, the Knicks have owners willing to pay up, they have still become jokes.

Big city + billionaire owner (which team has owners that aren't billionaires??) doesn't guarantee success.

I don't understand the logic here.

I didn't say get rid of the Knicks and Dallas. Those are big markets that can compete and attract talent. Obviously. Some teams are poorly run. So what? My point is that half the league shouldn't even bother. A lot of the teams I mentioned made the NBA finals? Uh, no. In the last 10 years, only 1 did. And that was because they had Lebron James, who promplty left that team as soon as he could. Before LeBron, the Cavs were the laughingstock of the NBA. Basically, they got a once in a lifetime player, lost him, then returned to the cellar.

 

[NOTaDIME]

I notice that the Lakers haven't addressed their two biggest needs this offseason: perimeter defense and their godawful bench. I don't think these moves have done anything to help them beat the Thunder in the west. They still don't have anyone that can stop Westbrook or Durant.

With the age of their players and Howard's bad back, I hope they suck. It will be very enjoyable to see them fail.

I'm not sure if Howard had a bad back or a case of bitchitis. I tend to think the latter
, but that is my humble opinion.