Source: Howard to Lakers

[Dann]

james dolan is on my top 5 kill list. so was obl but without him now im sure dolan moved up a spot. i couldn't name u any one else on that list.

 

[Scoe]

I just choose to be entertained following the Knicks is like following a never ending Reality TV show. I wish we could force Dolan to sell the team, you think he will ever set foot in China town without someone poisoning his food.

 

[mauconnfan]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8...rd-los-angeles-lakers-four-team-deal-complete

Just another sample of the NBA.......Howard!! yuck

 

[RayRay19]

...lets see how his back holds up...but horrible trade for the magic...they got 3 first rounders from deep playoff teams and affalo and harkless...that blows! i would have taken the nets deal in a heartbeat over that or the rockets deal...martin, lamb, white, jones plus cap relief and more draft picks...sucks for houston, they amnestied scola for no reason...unless they are trying to do bad this year and land a high pick next season...dayum lakers...always get a superstar when one is on the decline...if howard stays healthy they are set for the next few years...they still have a HUGE problem at trying to defend the pg position...westbrook and cp3 will s*** on nash

 

[UConn990411]

The Magic need to be disbanded immediately. Their only role in the NBA has been to produce Hall of Fame centers, which the Lakers in turn end up winnings championships with.

I'm still not sure the Lakers make it out of the West, but if they do... I can't believe there's now a team I'd root for the Heat to beat.

 

[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.