I no longer want to hear the "Lakers got lucky" whines again.

[fedec51]

Originally Posted by revgen

Besides Kwame and Critt, the Grizz also got Marc Gasol, who's done a solid job at C, averaging 11ppg and 7reb. Certainly better than Kwame Brown would have done for them.Sure he's nothing like his brother, but for a rookie contract, he's not a bad value. Lopsided trade? Yes. Gift? No. Grizzlies did get a solid starting center.

You actually think the Cavs would have been Lucky if they got Amare instead of Shaq?

IMO, Amare has been a disappointment. He's a no-defense, scoring PF, who wants to shoot 3-pointers. No wonder Golden State wants him. Shaq, on the other hand, draws doubles in the paint. If the Suns thought Amare was all that, they wouldn't have went after Shaq. Is Amare supposed to stop Dwight or guard Rashard Lewis? I don't think so.

The thing with Amare is you know how good the guy can be, and with Shaq in the other hand it's all said and done.

[Chronz]

Originally Posted by revgen

Which is my point. Neither Pau, Shaq, or RJ are franchise players right now. But they are certainly great bargains for what they had to give up.

Even if I agreed with you that Pau wasnt a franchise caliber player, that doesnt mean they are all equal. Its not like the tiers are separated by franchise caliber players and bargain All-Stars.

The whole point is that all teams got lucky in the trade deals. Giving up less for way more.

The whole point is that the Lakers were by far the LUCKIEST Team in every comparison you listed. Nobody ever said salary dumps didnt exist, quite frankly Wilt Chamberlain was the Lakers best acquisition considering the rules in place at the time. But none of that changes the fact that in our time, Pau for Kwame has been one of the biggest highway robberies.

EDIT) The Rockets got Artest for a few draft picks, thats another franchise altering freebie, they happen every year. Why are you so absorbed into this argument, what difference does it make where Pau came from?

He can still draw double-teams even this late in his career. "that" is all-star impact, especially in the east where the bigs aren't as good except for Dwight. Now of course Cleveland needs to make sure it has role players that will knock down the shots when the doubles happen.

You know what, I used to say this all the time but as Shaqs aged and I began seeing guys like Randolph more frequently here in LA, or Eddy Curry, the ability to draw double teams doesnt make you an All-Star alone. Shaq was an All-Star in Phx because he regained the bounce in his step (or ass) to go with that defensive attention. Unless your double teamed every possession (which he isnt anymore), you shouldnt be susceptible to being shut down, and if you saw Shaq the past few years in Miami it was looking like he was done, he still required a double team every now and then, but without the scoring prowess the team didnt benefit from his presence, like an All-Star would for his team.

That depends upon what you call "value". Either way, all teams get way more than what they gave up. Shaq gives them an all-star this season that they didn't have last season. If he can draw double-teams in the west even though he's facing way better big men, he can certainly draw doubles in the east. If it doesn't work out, then Cleveland can dump him and sign a FA in 2010. If Pau didn't work out for the Lakers, like Shaq didn't work out in Phoenix, the Lakers would have been stuck with his contract.

Value = Production X GP = Overall IMPACT on his new teams success VS The Value of the players LOST.

There was no question that Pau was going to fit in the triangle, players of his skill set and basketball IQ never dont mesh, his skills are too unique at his position not to.

Theres a reason every time Shaq gets traded the team that trades him away gets alittle less in return despite his contract shrinking in length. Pau entering his prime is exactly why the Lakers won so bad.

You said "RJ is clearly a franchise caliber player" in your first post. Sarcastically implying that Pau was a franchise player and therefore a huge step above whatever San Antonio got. Pau may be a better player than RJ, but he isn't a franchise player.

MAY be the better player? Let me know when you want to have an actual discussion and stop trying to marginalize Pau.

Puff is one of the posters on CL I rarely agree with.

Have you seen that thread? I can quote several more fanboys till I find one you agree with.

The Cavs can dump shaq in 2010 if it doesn't work out. They can go after FA and resign Lebron with Shaq's 21 million, Big Z's 11.5 million, and Varajo's 6.2 million off the books. That's 39 million bucks shaved off the payroll for the Cavs to go shopping. For Puff to say that Cleveland has only a "1 year run" is ridiculous under these circumstances. He completely ignores the 2010 FA market.

That has NOTHING to do with the Shaq trade as they would have had all that CAP space with or without the trade.

Look man I like you, youve really matured as a poster and overall fan/student of the game over the years, but your still really bad at this quantifying game.

[detrimental]

He's not trying to quantify, man. He's trying to make Kobe's ring Kobe's ring.

[revgen]

Originally Posted by Chronz

Even if I agreed with you that Pau wasnt a franchise caliber player, that doesnt mean they are all equal. Its not like the tiers are separated by franchise caliber players and bargain All-Stars.

All-Stars are all-stars as far as I'm concerned unless they are franchise players. What's more important is how they fit a certain team. One all-star may be better than another one, but if they don't fit the scheme, then it doesn't matter.

You can have your own opinion.

In any case, all teams acquired non-franchise all-stars for scrubs and picks.

Originally Posted by Chronz

[The whole point is that the Lakers were by far the LUCKIEST Team in every comparison you listed. Nobody ever said salary dumps didnt exist, quite frankly Wilt Chamberlain was the Lakers best acquisition considering the rules in place at the time. But none of that changes the fact that in our time, Pau for Kwame has been one of the biggest highway robberies.

Whether the Lakers are the luckiest doesn't matter. The Spurs and Cavs were lucky too. That's the whole point. All the teams acquired all-stars for scrubs and picks. Don't say "the Lakers got lucky" if they beat the Spurs in the playoffs next season if they have RJ, Manu, Tony, and Tim onboard. Don't say "the Lakers got lucky" if the Cavs and Lakers go to the finals and the Lakers win. The Lakers may have gotten the most impact in their "all-star for scrub" deal, but it's not like San Antonio and Cleveland didn't get theirs. That's the whole point. Those complaints are no longer warranted.

Originally Posted by Chronz

You know what, I used to say this all the time but as Shaqs aged and I began seeing guys like Randolph more frequently here in LA, or Eddy Curry, the ability to draw double teams doesnt make you an All-Star alone. Shaq was an All-Star in Phx because he regained the bounce in his step (or ass) to go with that defensive attention. Unless your double teamed every possession (which he isnt anymore), you shouldnt be susceptible to being shut down, and if you saw Shaq the past few years in Miami it was looking like he was done, he still required a double team every now and then, but without the scoring prowess the team didnt benefit from his presence, like an All-Star would for his team.

That's because Shaq isn't a franchise player anymore. Also, Shaq usually thrives with perimeter scorers like Kobe and Wade. With Lebron instantly drawing doubles on the perimeter, and Shaq drawing doubles here and there in the post, he'll probably be more beneficial than he was in Phoenix, especially if he still has the "bounce" as you call it. Like with RJ in San Antonio, we don't know for sure.

Originally Posted by Chronz

Value = Production X GP = Overall IMPACT on his new teams success VS The Value of the players LOST.

There was no question that Pau was going to fit in the triangle, players of his skill set and basketball IQ never dont mesh, his skills are too unique at his position not to.

Theres a reason every time Shaq gets traded the team that trades him away gets alittle less in return despite his contract shrinking in length. Pau entering his prime is exactly why the Lakers won so bad.

Value is subjective. They acquire an all-star player right now to try to win it this season plus 39 million bucks off the payroll in the summer. It's not a bad deal. Otherwise it's another season with a player who says he wants to retire.

Pau is one of those few players that you bring into the triangle and all of the sudden he just fits. Even though most thought he would, it wasn't a complete guarantee, especially since the triangle isn't exactly P&R. If it didn't work, we're probably talking about Kobe leaving again this summer. At least Cleveland can tell Lebron in 2010, "we can get any FA you want, name it and we'll get it" if Shaq doesn't work out.

Originally Posted by Chronz

MAY be the better player? Let me know when you want to have an actual discussion and stop trying to marginalize Pau.

You're right. I goofed. What I should have said was "impact" instead of "player". We don't yet know what impact RJ will make for the Spurs. My guess is that it won't be like Pau did for LA, but that's still to be determined.

Originally Posted by Chronz

That has NOTHING to do with the Shaq trade as they would have had all that CAP space with or without the Shaq trade.

It does have to do with it since Puffy said that Cleveland's championship run is only for "1 year". If Cleveland brings lack LBJ and the FA he wants in 2010, then that's not the case. If Puffy didn't state "1 year" then I wouldn't have brought it up since, as you already said, it will happen regardless of whether Ben stays or goes.

Originally Posted by Chronz

Look man I like you, youve really matured as a poster over the years, but your still really bad at this quantifying game.

I've always posted my opinions regardless of what anybody thinks.

If you think I don't what I'm talking about, you're entitled to think so. I can't make everybody happy.

[detrimental]

So really, you're admitting your opinion sucks and are completely changing your standpoint to the foundation of hypothetical situations. "We don't know how valuable x will be...", "nobody really knew if Pau would work out in the triangle"...

C'mon man, stop it. A 3 year old can play the semantics game.

[revgen]

Originally Posted by fedec51

The thing with Amare is you know how good the guy can be, and with Shaq in the other hand it's all said and done.

He can be a good defender if he's willing. Mike Brown would certainly be the best defensive coach Amare ever had, so you have a point there. But I doubt it.

[Chronz]

I was going to just post something short to summarize my thoughts but what they hey, I got time to kill in between not going to sleep and work in the morning.

Originally Posted by revgen

All-Stars are all-stars as far as I'm concerned. What's more important is how they fit a certain team. One all-star may be better than another one, but if they don't fit the scheme, then it doesn't matter.

Thats the difference between perennial All-Star caliber players and guys who have All-Star caliber seasons, the ones that cant fit and help his new teams are the ones that arent really All-Stars by my definition. Pau fits that definition, in that he would produce regardless of his situation.

You can have your own opinion.

Thank you, I implore you to expand yours. If you treat every All-Star equally, your not going to be very good at analyzing/projecting a teams or players performance with any given addition.

Whether the Lakers are the luckiest doesn't matter.The Spurs and Cavs were lucky too. That's the whole point. All the teams acquired all-stars for scrubs and picks.

Imagine an average Joe finding a lottery ticket worth 1M and becoming a millionaire overnight, now imagine an already successful man who found a lottery ticket worth 100G's making him richer. Both guys were LUCKY, but who would you rather be? Who gained the most from doing nothing? You cant just say both guys were lucky when the degrees of luck vary like this.

Its weird, measuring luck is usually comes down to the eye of the beholder but your a Laker fan and yet your still not getting the picture, the whole idea behind the Lakers being lucky is that they were granted an opportunity seldom seen in the NBA, they were able to get a bigman of Pau's caliber amidst the prime of his career without blowing up their team. The Spurs and Cavs werent so lucky. See how I twisted that, eye of the beholder my friend.

Don't say "the Lakers got lucky" if they beat the Spurs in the playoffs next season if they have RJ, Manu, Tony, and Tim onboard. Don't say "the Lakers got lucky" if the Cavs and Lakers go to the finals and the Lakers win. The Lakers may have gotten the most impact in their "all-star for scrub" deal, but it's not like San Antonio and Cleveland didn't get theirs. That's the whole point.

Ahhh so thats where this stems from, why would I say the Lakers got lucky? Every team that wins a championship got lucky, its like me saying the sky is blue. I only measure what the players have control over. But still the fact that your so insecure about this is saddening, Ill act like that guy you probably argued with before making this thread....

If the Lakers do indeed win, wouldnt that only cement the fact that they were LUCKIER, particularly if they win because Pau shines like never before and Shaq/RJ struggle.
Facts are you put no context to how the Lakers won, therefore how would I know what the underlying factor was in their victory?

That's because Shaq isn't a franchise player anymore. Also, Shaq usually thrives with perimeter scorers like Kobe and Wade. With Lebron instantly drawing doubles on the perimeter, and Shaq drawing doubles here and there in the post, he'll probably be more beneficial than he was in Phoenix, especially if he still has the "bounce" as you call it. Like with RJ in San Antonio, we don't know for sure.

I hope so, but I have no doubt Shaqs going to work out for them, he fits a glaring need. RJ Im not so sure about but one things for sure, even if he works out at the highest of his potential, he still wont have the same franchise altering impact that Pau had. So if you want to say they were all Lucky, yes that should be a given to every team that wins a homerun trade, but most people Ive met that have called the Lakers lucky, meant it in regards to how unique their luck was, isnt that the point of being lucky.

Value is subjective.

I disagree, to a degree everything is subjective(luck is subjective), the trick is using the most objective information when measuring ones worth.

They acquire an all-star player right now to try to win it this season plus 39 million bucks off the payroll in the summer. It's not a bad deal. Otherwise it's another season with a player who says he wants to retire.

Nobody ever said the Shaq trade wasnt a homerun, they shouldve made that trade last year.

Pau is one of those few players that you bring into the triangle and all of the sudden he just fits. Even though most thought he would, it wasn't a complete guarantee, especially since the triangle isn't exactly P&R. If it didn't work, we're probably talking about Kobe leaving again this summer. At least Cleveland can tell Lebron in 2010, "we can get any FA you want, name it and we'll get it" if Shaq doesn't work out.

LOL your gonna fight this all the way huh, well its about as sure fire as a trade like this ever has been. If under some insane circumstance Pau didnt work out, he still has more value than either Shaq or RJ.

You're right. I goofed. What I should have said was "impact" instead of "player". We don't yet know what impact RJ will make for the Spurs. My guess is that it won't be like Pau did for LA, but that's still to be determined.

There is no plausible scenario where RJ has more of an impact, NONE.

It does have to do with it since Puffy said that Cleveland's championship hopes are only for "1 year". If Cleveland brings lack LBJ and the FA he wants in 2010, then that's not the case. If Puffy didn't state "1 year" then I wouldn't have brought it up since, as you already said, it will happen regardless of whether Ben stays or goes.

Your not making any sense, you would have a point if the Shaq trade opened up the possibility for 2010, but they had that window without him. The 1 year run was probably in regards to Shaqs ability to stay at his current level of dominance, which may or may not be championship caliber. Obviously if they get Wade in 2010 they stay contenders but thats going way too deep down the rabbit hole, and definitely not what the Shaq trade was about.

Look Im not gonna argue what puff would say, nor will I argue semantics with you, but the fact remains regardless of how long their title window lasts due to this trade, it wont outlast the Pau trade.

Originally Posted by detrimental

So really, you're admitting your opinion sucks and are completely changing your standpoint to the foundation of hypothetical situations. "We don't know how valuable x will be...", "nobody really knew if Pau would work out in the triangle"...

C'mon man, stop it. A 3 year old can play the semantics game.

I find it funny how we both got the gist of his post.

I could just as easily say, everyone is expecting Shaq to disrupt LeBrons game, and several have claimed that RJ wont be of use to a team if he isnt scoring.

There are concerns that never existed with Pau, the Lakers were in desperate need of some talent and everyone knew his skills fit the triangle to a tee. So really hes only digging his own grave with that kind of talk.

[detrimental]

Who the f*ck is puff and why do you visit the basketball cesspool that is Club Lakers?

[Chronz]

Thats all the time I have for now, so Ill close by saying this. Should we really call this luck, or is it just the nature of the business. Teams dump talented players all the time, the Lakers got the better end of most of those luck deals but why should that discredit their title, or Kobe's legacy. Wasnt MJ lucky that Seattle took Olden Polynice? Every one gets lucky at some point, the whole idea that we have to defend or attack these actions is sad and totally not what matters in the big picture.

So dont let it get to you rev, but if you persist, can you atleast tell me what it was the other guy said to enrage you so fully?

Originally Posted by detrimental

Who the f*ck is puff and why do you visit the basketball cesspool that is Club Lakers?

You dont remember my Laker bashing days do you, I used to go for the lulz. But Ive gotten to know and respect a few posters there. Dont visit often, but when the debates are scarce I'll check it out.

[detrimental]

Originally Posted by Chronz

You dont remember my Laker bashing days do you, I used to go for the lulz. But Ive gotten to know and respect a few posters there. Dont visit often, but when the debates are scarce I'll check it out.

Somebody linked me there and I instantly raged. Wrote a 1,000 word post in a thread, nobody ever responded. I never even check it anymore, it's too rage inducing.