Source: Howard to Lakers

[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.

 

[tzznandrew]

I really like Steve Nash. I always root for him, and wished he went to any other team where he could have won a title other than the Lakers. Now I have to root for him to lose in the first round every year. That upset me.

A saving grace: Kobe isn't great anymore. Maybe he still thinks he's the best player on that team--but he only is in an historic sense. He's a volume scorer who isn't very good on the defensive end any more. He and Nash will get killed on the perimeter.

This team has a lot of personalities. I'm really just hoping they don't meld well together, and that they get beat by the Thunder (or earlier), so that I don't have to root for the Heat to win the title.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

1) He's a bench player, he doesn't have to put up big numbers.
2) I never said they were better than OKC
3) They have had the best off season of any team. Unless there was someone else available that they could have picked up to make themselves better that they passed on.

It's funny watching people hate on the moves they were able to make, that were the best possible moves they could make, just because they didn't find that mythical defender who can stop Westbrook and Durant. When you find that guy, please let us know.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

As has been posted elsewhere, in the last 10 years a larger plurality of teams have made the finals than in the previous 10 years.

There is more parity in the NBA now than in the past.

 

[upstater]

As has been posted elsewhere, in the last 10 years a larger plurality of teams have made the finals than in the previous 10 years.

There is more parity in the NBA now than in the past.

Parity means any team can win it all.

The fact that out of the last 20 participants in the Finals, only 1 was of the small market teams I listed, tells me everything. The fact that a more diverse set of the big market teams make it to the final than ever before doesn't change that, especially since the 80s were a Lakers-Celtics affair, and the 90s were all Jordan's Bulls.

 

[aceboon]

1) He's a bench player, he doesn't have to put up big numbers.
2) I never said they were better than OKC
3) They have had the best off season of any team. Unless there was someone else available that they could have picked up to make themselves better that they passed on.

It's funny watching people hate on the moves they were able to make, that were the best possible moves they could make, just because they didn't find that mythical defender who can stop Westbrook and Durant. When you find that guy, please let us know.

So do you think the Lakers are now better than OKC or not?

 

[BlueMAB]

So do you think the Lakers are now better than OKC or not?

I don't know. While the series wasn't close, they didn't get blown out in any of the games either.

The Lakers were terrible on offense at times. With Nash opening things up for everyone on the court, most importantly Kobe, Gasol, and Howard, they should be much better on offense. I think if they meet in the playoffs, I think it goes 7 games and may come down to home court advantage.

Gun to my head, I'd still pick OKC, but the lakers are a lot closer to beating OKC than they were 2 months ago, which should be painfully obvious.

Now answer my question, what move should they have pulled to be able to defend Westbrook/Durant? If you're going to knock the moves they made, how about pointing out what other options were available.

 

[aceboon]

Yea, no, I'm not going to map out what Kupchack should've done or who he should've traded for to address the Laker's biggest weaknesses, which is lack of youth and athleticism and perimeter on the perimeter, I'm just going to tell you that they are still weaknesses that didn't get addressed. Let's recap how this thread has went so you can understand my posts.

Jaynyce: Lakers are the favorites to win the title
Me: I still go with the Thunder because the Lakers don't match up well on the perimeter with them, which is what killed them in their series.
Dogdeacon: Lakers addressed their biggest weakness, which is they had no one to help Kobe
Me: That wasn't their biggest weakness, it was lack of athleticism and youth on the perimeter, which stil hasn't been addressed
You: Hold on now, the Lakers have improved and addressed their weaknesses.

So basically, I say the Lakers still aren't better than the Thunder, you say the Lakers have improved but you still think the Lakers are better. WTF ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT???

I don't know. While the series wasn't close, they didn't get blown out in any of the games either.

The Lakers were terrible on offense at times. With Nash opening things up for everyone on the court, most importantly Kobe, Gasol, and Howard, they should be much better on offense. I think if they meet in the playoffs, I think it goes 7 games and may come down to home court advantage.

Gun to my head, I'd still pick OKC, but the lakers are a lot closer to beating OKC than they were 2 months ago, which should be painfully obvious.

Now answer my question, what move should they have pulled to be able to defend Westbrook/Durant? If you're going to knock the moves they made, how about pointing out what other options were available.[/quote]

 

[Dogdeacon]

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.

I didn't say they were trash, but I did say they stunk last year. Gasol did compared to his most recent Laker seasons (almost all of his regular season stats dropped and then he averaged 12.5 ppg in postseason), Bynum didn't really stink didn't until the playoffs and then I guess I would charitably say he was inconsistent. Less than the sum or their parts.

 

[BlueMAB]

Yea, no, I'm not going to map out what Kupchack should've done or who he should've traded for to address the Laker's biggest weaknesses, which is lack of youth and athleticism and perimeter on the perimeter, I'm just going to tell you that they are still weaknesses that didn't get addressed. Let's recap how this thread has went so you can understand my posts.

Jaynyce: Lakers are the favorites to win the title
Me: I still go with the Thunder because the Lakers don't match up well on the perimeter with them, which is what killed them in their series.
Dogdeacon: Lakers addressed their biggest weakness, which is they had no one to help Kobe
Me: That wasn't their biggest weakness, it was lack of athleticism and youth on the perimeter, which stil hasn't been addressed
You: Hold on now, the Lakers have improved and addressed their weaknesses.

So basically, I say the Lakers still aren't better than the Thunder, you say the Lakers have improved but you still think the Lakers are better. WTF ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT???

Maybe the problem is you're recap is wrong. I didn't say they addressed those specific weaknesses. I said they got better. They got better in the paint, they got better on the glass, they got better defending the pick and roll, and they got better and more diverse on offense.

They're a lot closer to beating OKC now, than they were in May. I think it's a toss up, but won't (and haven't) argued that the Lakers are the favorite.

I'm not arguing, I'm commenting that I find it funny the way people go out of the way to say the Lakers failed because they didn't find anyone to stop Durant/Westbrook. I've asked it half a dozen times, but nobody seems to be able to tell me who they were supposed to go out and get that can stop Durant/Westbrook. When you find that/those guy(s), let us all know.

 

[aceboon]

I actually had a typo in my post, I meant to say "you think the Lakers have improved, but stil think the Thunder are better", which makes it even more baffling as to what in the hell you are even debating, SINCE THAT WAS MY POINT. I guess I will have to repeat myself again because you don't seem to quite understand, nobody is saying the Lakers haven't improved, I just don't think these moves have put them over the top. By me saying that, that doesn't mean I should then propose what they should've done to put them over the top. I guess to entertain your silly question, the Lakers should now also trade 2 future 2nd round picks to acquire Lebron and a healthy DWade, that should get them over the hump and undoubtedly make them better than the Thunder.