It's Time To Hate The Lakers Again

[True Lakers Fan]

Comical stuff on MSN - I found this:

It's been a little over 36 hours and I thought I'd be over the Luka Doncic-Anthony Davis trade by now.

I'm not.

This deal sucks, man. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Short term. Long term. Somewhere in the middle. It screams, "Hey, this is a bad idea!" But the Mavericks did it anyway. There's a reason we all thought this trade was fake.

TRADE GRADES: Here are our grades for the deal. As I'm sure you can imagine, Dallas didn't do too well here.

I don't need to break down the details here. You've surely seen them all by now. You know exactly how much this deal sucks — well, unless you're a Laker fan. Then it's great for you.

But that's the thing, man. It's always great for you. I cannot think of a time in my life when it has not been great for Lakers fans.

It always works out. Why? No idea, man. Because it's the Lakers. That's the only answer I have at this point. And you can't say it's not valid because look at how many stars they've lucked into.

I already have one friend - who is calling it a conspiracy - I am going to go with - It's not the Laker's fault because they are smarter traders

Here is the link if anyone is interested.

MSN

 

[MHSL82]

Comical stuff on MSN - I found this:

It's been a little over 36 hours and I thought I'd be over the Luka Doncic-Anthony Davis trade by now.

I'm not.

This deal sucks, man. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Short term. Long term. Somewhere in the middle. It screams, "Hey, this is a bad idea!" But the Mavericks did it anyway. There's a reason we all thought this trade was fake.

TRADE GRADES: Here are our grades for the deal. As I'm sure you can imagine, Dallas didn't do too well here.

I don't need to break down the details here. You've surely seen them all by now. You know exactly how much this deal sucks — well, unless you're a Laker fan. Then it's great for you.

But that's the thing, man. It's always great for you. I cannot think of a time in my life when it has not been great for Lakers fans.

It always works out. Why? No idea, man. Because it's the Lakers. That's the only answer I have at this point. And you can't say it's not valid because look at how many stars they've lucked into.

I already have one friend - who is calling it a conspiracy - I am going to go with - It's not the Laker's fault because they are smarter traders

Here is the link if anyone is interested.

MSN

And the one time it didn’t work out was the Chris Paul nixed trade. My favorite in-the-moment trade besides the Jeff Hornacek to Utah trade was the Keith Van Horn comeback to fake that you are returning so that Dallas can trade for Kidd. I don’t like or dislike Kidd, but to come back for a few months for 20 million or something? Crazy. I like Keith Van Horn because I‘m a Utes fan. #CoolStoryBro.

 

[tc1]

But that's the thing, man. It's always great for you. I cannot think of a time in my life when it has not been great for Lakers fans.

This author is not very old, then.

As recently as 2019, long-suffering fans around the league were thoroughly enjoying a rare chance to mock and insult the Lakers because they had acquired no less than LeBron James and still missed the playoffs -- for the sixth consecutive season. Not many cared that the reason was 3 full seasons dedicated to Bryant's farewell tour, because it was a cherished opportunity to take a little revenge on Los Angeles.

It always works out. Why? No idea, man. Because it's the Lakers. That's the only answer I have at this point. And you can't say it's not valid because look at how many stars they've lucked into.

And it very demonstrably does not "always work out" for Los Angeles. Apparently this alleged author is also unfamiliar with the infamous "Basketball reasons" situation. Not to mention the Westbrook trade, which is not exactly ancient history. Or the Leonard saga.

But, like I previously wrote in another thread, the Lakers are "the Lakers" because they draft better than anyone, in any sport, over their history. That enables them to take a lot of chances -- some of which work out, and some of which do not. The Westbrook trade would probably be the biggest trade in the history of most franchises, but it's not even top 5 for the Lakers.

I'm not sure that it is useful to promote such garbage as this article you found, unless it was intended to be comedy.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

And the one time it didn’t work out was the Chris Paul nixed trade. My favorite in-the-moment trade besides the Jeff Hornacek to Utah trade was the Keith Van Horn comeback to fake that you are returning so that Dallas can trade for Kidd. I don’t like or dislike Kidd, but to come back for a few months for 20 million or something? Crazy. I like Keith Van Horn because I‘m a Utes fan. #CoolStoryBro.

Without that NBA blocking that trade, The Lakers might have won a title that year - Personally - I liked the Chris Paul trade for the Lakers - but for the other team - I think Stern was right -

 

[tc1]

Without that NBA blocking that trade, The Lakers might have won a title that year - Personally - I liked the Chris Paul trade for the Lakers - but for the other team - I think Stern was right -

What the Hornets could have had: Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic

What the Hornets wound up with: Chris Kaman, Eric Gordon, Al-Farouq Aminu, Austin Rivers, ( - $350k ), ( -1 second round pick )


The first package is easily better, even with Odom basically ceasing to play after the trade broke his heart.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

What the Hornets could have had: Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic

What the Hornets wound up with: Chris Kaman, Eric Gordon, Al-Farouq Aminu, Austin Rivers, ( - $350k ), ( -1 second round pick )


The first package is easily better, even with Odom basically ceasing to play after the trade broke his heart.

What would have made the Lakers legitimate contenders is Trading Andrew Bynum - and getting back a player for Kobe, Chris Paul and ???? Chris Paul and Kobe still would have needed a third player and I think Andrew Bynum got the Lakers a pretty good return when they traded him

 

[tc1]

What would have made the Lakers legitimate contenders is Trading Andrew Bynum - and getting back a player for Kobe, Chris Paul and ???? Chris Paul and Kobe still would have needed a third player and I think Andrew Bynum got the Lakers a pretty good return when they traded him

That's a pivot to a completely difference question. We were discussing the idea that Stern vetoed the Paul trade for "basketball reasons". If he did, it's lucky for him that he was not a GM, because he would not have lasted long in that profession.

All that said, in 2011, Bryant, Paul, and Bynum -- 2 Hall of Famers and an All-star -- was absolutely a contender. Of course no one knew what the future held for young Bynum.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

That's a pivot to a completely difference question. We were discussing the idea that Stern vetoed the Paul trade for "basketball reasons". If he did, it's lucky for him that he was not a GM, because he would not have lasted long in that profession.

All that said, in 2011, Bryant, Paul, and Bynum -- 2 Hall of Famers and an All-star -- was absolutely a contender. Of course no one knew what the future held for young Bynum.

He had no choice - Too many of the other owners were screaming bloody murder -

 

[tc1]

He had no choice - Too many of the other owners were screaming bloody murder -

It was mainly Cuban and Gilbert.

And he still had a choice not to perform a completely unprecedented action -- and damage the very team that he was charged with operating.


And the league had explicitly promised to stay out of the Hornets' operations, which is why Demps was their GM. So that promise gave Stern all the cover he needed.

"The NBA purchased the Hornets from owner George Shinn in 2010, so as commissioner, Stern had the liberty to make the decision to nix the trade. However, the NBA put Dell Demps in the general manager position for the Hornets and in that role, he had the authority to ship Paul elsewhere if he thought the move made sense for the franchise. Demps was specifically given the position to show the league would stay out of the Hornets’ affairs and given the first opportunity to intervene, the NBA reneged." (ibid)

 

[tlance]

What the Hornets could have had: Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic

What the Hornets wound up with: Chris Kaman, Eric Gordon, Al-Farouq Aminu, Austin Rivers, ( - $350k ), ( -1 second round pick )


The first package is easily better, even with Odom basically ceasing to play after the trade broke his heart.

Nope.

Because what you ignore is that the deal also enabled them to be bad enough to get Anthony Davis.

The deal was for a bunch of vets who would have kept the Hornets closer to middle of the pack which is precisely where you can’t be as an NBA franchise.

What the Clippers deal accomplished for the Hornets was more of a blank slate to rebuild from, which is a lot more appealing to a perspective buyer than a team led by Odom, Scola etc.

And a big part of why that package end up looking respectable was Goran Dragic turned out to be far better than anyone expected.

Eric Gordon + an unprotected lotto pick (Rivers) and the odds of Hornet’s own pick being better is far easier to sell to a new ownership group. They don’t get Anthony Davis if they took the Laker deal.

 

[tlance]

That's a pivot to a completely difference question. We were discussing the idea that Stern vetoed the Paul trade for "basketball reasons". If he did, it's lucky for him that he was not a GM, because he would not have lasted long in that profession.

All that said, in 2011, Bryant, Paul, and Bynum -- 2 Hall of Famers and an All-star -- was absolutely a contender. Of course no one knew what the future held for young Bynum.

Ironically, the return of the voided Chris Paul deal was very similar to what people are complaining the Mavs did not get enough of in the Doncic trade.

Future building blocks.

The problem was the conflict of interest in the league office controlling one of its own franchises.

Should have never happened.

 

[tc1]

Nope.

Because what you ignore is that the deal also enabled them to be bad enough to get Anthony Davis.

If that was the goal, they could've flipped the superior package of players that I just described for future draft picks, and then been able to build around Davis and actually win something.

So, no, you're wrong.

...the Hornets closer to middle of the pack which is precisely where you can’t be as an NBA franchise.

This tripe is one of the stupidest comments that is constantly repeated by many people.

Boston was a middle-of-the-pack team for most of the past decade -- then won a title.
Denver was a middle-of-the-pack team for a decade -- then won their title.
Milwaukee was a middle-of-the-pack team for many years -- then became very good, and then won a title.
Los Angeles was a middle-of-the-pack team for two years -- then won a title.
Toronto was a middle-of-the-pack team for several years -- then gradually improved, and won a title.

Repeating this rank nonsense is an excellent way to mark oneself as having no grasp on the NBA at all.

 

[tlance]

If that was the goal, they could've flipped the superior package of players that I just described for future draft picks, and then been able to build around Davis and actually win something.

So, no, you're wrong.



This tripe is one of the stupidest comments that is constantly repeated by many people.

Boston was a middle-of-the-pack team for most of the past decade -- then won a title.
Denver was a middle-of-the-pack team for a decade -- then won their title.
Milwaukee was a middle-of-the-pack team for many years -- then became very good, and then won a title.
Los Angeles was a middle-of-the-pack team for two years -- then won a title.
Toronto was a middle-of-the-pack team for several years -- then gradually improved, and won a title.

Repeating this rank nonsense is an excellent way to mark oneself as having no grasp on the NBA at all.

Later package was not a good trade package for a rebuilding team.

All of those teams had superstars when they won. Most franchises have to rely on the draft or a big trade to get a superstar.

The Hornets got theirs in the draft. Because they bottomed out.

And you are making stuff up again.

Celtics middle of the pack? They have gone to the East Finals 6 of the last 8 years

Nuggets were not middle of the pack either. Hovering around 50 wins and winning 1 or more playoff series 3/4 years with a conference finals trip is not middle of the pack.

Bucks were steadily rising with Giannis. Lost in East Finals and 2nd round 2 years prior and won 60 games 2 years prior. Not close to mid pack.

The Lakers signed LeBron James and traded for Anthony Davis. That is not a typical build by any stretch of the imagination. That is the type of thing only possible in a destination market like LA.

Raptors won 56, 51, and 59 games the 3 years prior to their title and won at least 1 playoff series each of those years also with 1 East Finals appearance. They went from 23 wins to 48 wins in 2 seasons. That is not middle of the pack. That is a team ascending and then being good for a sustained period.

Why you insist on making stuff up?

 

[tc1]

All of those teams had superstars when they won. Most franchises have to rely on the draft or a big trade to get a superstar.

So? Your comment was still absolutely as wrong as anything could possibly be.

Celtics middle of the pack? They have gone to the East Finals 6 of the last 8 years

Celtics wins per season, pre-title: 57, 51, 36, 48, 49, 55, 53, 48, 40. Mostly middle-of-the-pack, as I said.

Nuggets were not middle of the pack either. Hovering around 50 wins and winning 1 or more playoff series 3/4 years with a conference finals trip is not middle of the pack.

Denver wins per season, pre-title: 48, 47, 46, 54, 46, 40, 33. The very definition of middle-of-the-pack, as I said.

Bucks were steadily rising with Giannis. Lost in East Finals and 2nd round 2 years prior and won 60 games 2 years prior. Not close to mid pack.

Milwaukee wins per season, pre-title: 56, 60, 44, 42, 33, 41. Middle-of-the-pack to title, as I said.

The Lakers signed LeBron James and traded for Anthony Davis. That is not a typical build by any stretch of the imagination. That is the type of thing only possible in a destination market like LA.

Lakers wins per season, pre-title: 37, 35. Middle-of-the-pack, as I said.

Raptors won 56, 51, and 59 games the 3 years prior to their title and won at least 1 playoff series each of those years also with 1 East Finals appearance. They went from 23 wins to 48 wins in 2 seasons. That is not middle of the pack. That is a team ascending and then being good for a sustained period.

Toronto wins per season, pre-title: 59, 51, 56, 49, 48, 34. Middle-of-the-pack, once again.

I cannot actually believe that you tried to double-down on one of the stupidest comments that it is possible to write.

 

[tlance]

So? Your comment was still absolutely as wrong as anything could possibly be.



Celtics wins per season, pre-title: 57, 51, 36, 48, 49, 55, 53, 48, 40. Mostly middle-of-the-pack, as I said.



Denver wins per season, pre-title: 48, 47, 46, 54, 46, 40, 33. The very definition of middle-of-the-pack, as I said.



Milwaukee wins per season, pre-title: 56, 60, 44, 42, 33, 41. Middle-of-the-pack to title, as I said.



Lakers wins per season, pre-title: 37, 35. Middle-of-the-pack, as I said.



Toronto wins per season, pre-title: 59, 51, 56, 49, 48, 34. Middle-of-the-pack, once again.

I cannot actually believe that you tried to double-down on one of the stupidest comments that it is possible to write.

LOL dude.

Calling Celtics mid is about as dumb as it gets. 50 wins is not middle of the pack. And some of those totals were fewer than 82 games.

And no, those were all ascending teams that took time to figure it out on the playoffs.

Mid pack teams are late lottery or play in teams. Hovering around 40 wins with no hope of contending.

None of these teams fit that description.

Be better.

 

[tc1]

Calling Celtics mid is about as dumb as it gets. 50 wins is not middle of the pack.

Look up Dallas' record and seed last year. 50-32. #5 seed. Middle-of-the-pack. And you embarrassingly ignored the seasons with 40, 48, 49, and 48 wins.

And some of those totals were fewer than 82 games.

They were 36-36. Can't wait to hear how that isn't middle-of-the-pack.

And no, those were all ascending teams that took time to figure it out on the playoffs.

You almost -- almost -- learned something here. I am almost so proud of you. Middle-of-the-pack teams sometimes get better -- or ascend, to use the word you probably just looked up -- and become very good teams, and win titles. As those five recent champions did. In fact, this happens vastly more often than bad teams becoming very good and winning titles, which is actually quite rare.

Which makes your comment about the middle being a dead-end absolutely as stupid as a remark can possibly be. Like I said.

Mid pack teams are late lottery or play in teams. Hovering around 40 wins with no hope of contending.

It is almost like you are trying to be as stupid as possible. The Celtics went from .500 to a title in 3 seasons, without ever going backwards. The Lakers went from 37 to a title in one season. Toronto went from 34 wins to a title in 5 seasons without ever going backwards. Milwaukee went from 44 wins to a title in three seasons, without going backwards. Denver went from 47 to a title in two seasons, without going backwards.

You are as wrong as it is possible to be.

None of these teams fit that description.

Be better.

And you seemingly relish writing the absolute dumbest remarks possible, for reasons difficult to imagine.

 

[tlance]

Look up Dallas' record and seed last year. 50-32. #5 seed. Middle-of-the-pack. And you embarrassingly ignored the seasons with 40, 48, 49, and 48 wins.



They were 36-36. Can't wait to hear how that isn't middle-of-the-pack.



You almost -- almost -- learned something here. I am almost so proud of you. Middle-of-the-pack teams sometimes get better -- or ascend, to use the word you probably just looked up -- and become very good teams, and win titles. As those five recent champions did. In fact, this happens vastly more often than bad teams becoming very good and winning titles, which is actually quite rare.

Which makes your comment about the middle being a dead-end absolutely as stupid as a remark can possibly be. Like I said.



It is almost like you are trying to be as stupid as possible. The Celtics went from .500 to a title in 3 seasons, without ever going backwards. The Lakers went from 37 to a title in one season. Toronto went from 34 wins to a title in 5 seasons without ever going backwards. Milwaukee went from 44 wins to a title in three seasons, without going backwards. Denver went from 47 to a title in two seasons, without going backwards.

You are as wrong as it is possible to be.


And you seemingly relish writing the absolute dumbest remarks possible, for reasons difficult to imagine.

1 year of mediocre sandwiched between a conference finals trip and a finals trip.

50 wins and a #5 seed is not middle of the pack. There are 30 teams in the NBA. A top 5 seed is essentially in the top 1/3 of the league.

Be better.

 

[tc1]

1 year of mediocre sandwiched between a conference finals trip and a finals trip.

You have to pick one, and either way, you are wrong. You can measure mediocrity by record, or by playoff performance. The latter is a weak measure, because upsets happen. But, if we use the latter, we find that:

Denver won their title after winning just 1 series the previous two seasons combined -- which is middle-of-the-pack.
Golden State won their last title after missing the playoffs twice consecutively, and wasting the one high pick they earned, on a bust.
Milwaukee won their title after winning just 2 series in the previous four seasons combined -- which is middle-of-the-pack.
Los Angeles won their title after winning zero series in two years -- which is middle-of-the-pack.
Toronto won their title after winning 4 series in the previous 5 years -- which is middle-of-the-pack.

I could go on and on and on embarrassing you, but this will do, I'm sure.

 

[tlance]

You have to pick one, and either way, you are wrong. You can measure mediocrity by record, or by playoff performance. The latter is a weak measure, because upsets happen. But, if we use the latter, we find that:

Denver won their title after winning just 1 series the previous two seasons combined -- which is middle-of-the-pack.
Golden State won their last title after missing the playoffs twice consecutively, and wasting the one high pick they earned, on a bust.
Milwaukee won their title after winning just 2 series in the previous four seasons combined -- which is middle-of-the-pack.
Los Angeles won their title after winning zero series in two years -- which is middle-of-the-pack.
Toronto won their title after winning 4 series in the previous 5 years -- which is middle-of-the-pack.

I could go on and on and on embarrassing you, but this will do, I'm sure.

You are taking what I said out of context, applying your own definition and then acting like what I said was wrong.

And that is really all you have done since you got here.

We were taking about rebuilding teams. Like the Hornets were going to be when they traded Chris Paul.

I made the comment that middle of the pack is not where you want to be in the NBA.

Everyone here, apparently aside from knows what that means.

You either want to be a contender, building toward contention, or bottoming out and collecting future assets.

What you don’t want to be is that perpetual 35-45 win team that never has a chance to win anything and never gets those high lotto picks to build a better future.

That is what being in the middle of the pack means in terms of NBA discussion. It is not about playoff performance, because the playoff teams are already the top half half of the league.

Only person you are embarrassing is yourself.

You really need to gain some humility. You do not know nearly as much as you think.

 

[tc1]

You are taking what I said out of context, applying your own definition and then acting like what I said was wrong.

Actually, here is what you wrote:

"The deal was for a bunch of vets who would have kept the Hornets closer to middle of the pack which is precisely where you can’t be as an NBA franchise."

And that remains as wrong as just about any statement can be.

And that is really all you have done since you got here.

That is also as wrong as anything could be. Even if you are completely ignorant of basketball -- which you might be -- I have demonstrably posted an array of information on that topic.

We were taking about rebuilding teams. Like the Hornets were going to be when they traded Chris Paul.

No, we were not, and literally could not have been discussing "rebuilding teams" since we were discussing the Hornets, who have never been "built" in the first place! You cannot rebuild something that was never built.

I made the comment that middle of the pack is not where you want to be in the NBA.

Everyone here, apparently aside from knows what that means.

Okay. Given that almost every recent champion was in the middle-of-the-pack shortly before winning their title, what did you mean?

You either want to be a contender, building toward contention, or bottoming out and collecting future assets.

And where are you when "building toward contention"?

And how often does bottoming-out lead to a title, versus building from the middle of the pack? Are you still "trusting the Process"?

What you don’t want to be is that perpetual 35-45 win team that never has a chance to win anything and never gets those high lotto picks to build a better future.

Find a "perpetual 35-45 win team". They are vastly rarer than you seem to think.

The value of "high picks" is also overstated. Look at the best players in the league. How many were "high picks"? Not Jokic. Not Antetokounmpo. Not Brunson. Not Gilgeous-Alexander. Not Sabonis. Not Curry. Not Lilliard. Not Maxey. Not Adebayo. Not Halliburton. Not Booker. Not Leonard. Not George. Not Mitchell.

This past All-star game, we had 11 guys who were top 5 picks and 13 who were not.

That is what being in the middle of the pack means in terms of NBA discussion. It is not about playoff performance,

You were using playoff performance to define "middle of the pack" just a moment ago, as I'm sure you recall.

because the playoff teams are already the top half half of the league.

Buy a calculator. 16 teams out of 30 make the playoffs, so the first-round losers are precisely "middle of the pack".

You really need to gain some humility. You do not know nearly as much as you think.

At least I can do two-digit arithmetic.