Is Luka for AD the most shocking trade of all time

[UK Cowboy]

Yeah, and Allen Iverson is at 29.73. That stat is not everything -- especially considering that almost everyone's average declines as they approach retirement, seasons which Doncic has not yet played.


Read the context.

31/9/9 fella. You're embarrassing yourself

 

[tc1]

Kobe brought much more to the Lakers besides two more championships - Virtually every arena was sold out in every game he played- They make millions off Kobe - It was Lakers's front office that failed to get Kobe better players

The road team does not make money on tickets. The Lakers lost of a ton money during Bryant's farewell tour. A home playoff game netted a team $4M many years ago, when a last read an article on that topic. I can't imagine what the net from a playoff game is now.

The Lakers also had to overpay just about everyone who ever played with Bryant after 2004, because no one in the league except Pau Gasol wanted to play with him.

 

[tc1]

He is 25 and led them to the Finals last year. Really no idea what you are babbling about

It's clear that you are struggling to follow the conversation, but I'll have mercy on you and explain again. I will try to use small words.

Before that surprising -- maybe even shocking -- Finals run last year, almost no one would have suggested with a straight face that the Mavericks were contenders of any sort. In Doncic's career before April 2024, he had participated in exactly one game victory beyond the second round. And his team missed the playoffs in 40% of his seasons.

This notion that Doncic makes a team a contender is very new, and not well supported by facts.

Allen Iverson also once led a team to the Finals, but having him certainly did not make the Sixers annual contenders.

Doncic is a great player, but people are going completely overboard with respect to his value. He is, in reality, a not-very-efficient shooter who takes a massive quantity of shots to score his points -- and apart from April to June of last year, that has not contributed to a whole lot of winning in Dallas.

 

[msgkings322]

This sentence is a mixed bag. I never said that CW is always wrong. But when it is, I sometimes spend my free time educating people on exactly why their belief is wrong. An awful lot of "consensus opinions" exist because people are too lazy to think for themselves, and far too lazy to actually perform the necessary research that is required to inform that thought.



It doesn't reflect well on you when you resort to childish name-calling.

And I never said that. As I suggested, read the context of the comment which you are fixated on -- it was about the fact that breaks are a big part of winning championships.

That said, Doncic has played 9 playoff series, and his teams are 5-4 -- with him contributing a couple stinkers from an efficiency standpoint. He is not George Mikan is this regard, who never lost a series while healthy. Yes, Doncic always puts up huge counting stats, but inefficient volume scoring is not very contributory to winning basketball. And Doncic is not particularly efficient, in the playoffs or otherwise. For his career, he is shooting 46% from the field, and 35% from three in the playoffs -- both are below league average, and again, that's not a strong recipe for winning games.

This sentence is absolutely priceless

OK will read the rest now but thank you for that lol

 

[msgkings322]

This sentence is a mixed bag. I never said that CW is always wrong. But when it is, I sometimes spend my free time educating people on exactly why their belief is wrong. An awful lot of "consensus opinions" exist because people are too lazy to think for themselves, and far too lazy to actually perform the necessary research that is required to inform that thought.



It doesn't reflect well on you when you resort to childish name-calling.

And I never said that. As I suggested, read the context of the comment which you are fixated on -- it was about the fact that breaks are a big part of winning championships.

That said, Doncic has played 9 playoff series, and his teams are 5-4 -- with him contributing a couple stinkers from an efficiency standpoint. He is not George Mikan is this regard, who never lost a series while healthy. Yes, Doncic always puts up huge counting stats, but inefficient volume scoring is not very contributory to winning basketball. And Doncic is not particularly efficient, in the playoffs or otherwise. For his career, he is shooting 46% from the field, and 35% from three in the playoffs -- both are below league average, and again, that's not a strong recipe for winning games.

Last paragraph is solid, will adjust my priors

 

[msgkings322]

I gotta say, after seeing all the reactions from the media and this joint, I've adjusted my thinking a bit. Even the new prick is adding value.

Still favors the Lakers long term but Luka to me is a wee bit overrated overall. Just a smidge. Great player and LA had to do this for so little cost and to set up the future...but AD might have the game that is more likely to get a championship. Both great players in different ways and it's a team sport so who's around them matters.

Everyone crying that this is the worst trade in NBA history (for Dallas) when they got a superstar level guy plus a good role player and a 1st to avoid a supermax on a guy who isn't all about conditioning (Zion 2.0?), that's far from true. I've even seen people crying it's the worst trade in SPORTS history.

It's a lot more even than most are thinking.

 

[tlance]

You apparently attached to this to the wrong statement. My previous comment was demonstrably not "false".


Precisely.

In this case, Davis was highly motivated not to make a public spectacle of shopping around -- doing so a couple weeks after winning a title would have been an incredibly bad look in a league that at least pays lip service to the notion that players care most about winning.




Which is precisely calling him a one-year rental. Thank you for finally admitting it.



Why then did the Lakers have to include Ingram, Ball, Hart, Wagner, several other prospects and half-a-decade of draft capital?

We apparently just saw yesterday that Pelinka is not a complete moron when it comes to negotiating. He didn't give Dallas the 2031 pick as a tip. Why did he give New Orleans vastly more than necessary, in your story?




In other words, exactly as I said, Los Angeles outbid every one to rent Davis.


If they were certain Davis would sign a contract with them, they only had to offer New Orleans a reasonable offer -- not a Godfather one. If they declined, they would sign Davis a few months later and keep that pile of assets, and they'd have been a super team with several more rings by now.

Which is my point -- they ridiculously overpaid to rent Davis for one season.

There's no alternative story that comports with the facts of the situation.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Everyone, and I mean everyone including Davis and Rich Paul expected him to resign with the Lakers.

You provide one clip of a press conference with an emotional AD who said he didn’t know what he was going to do in FA as your proof.

Well, there are hundreds of articles, videos, etc saying the opposite.

While the odds weren’t 100% until the deal got done (they were probably more like 99.999%)

The expectation by the Laker franchise that they would be able to resign him means that he is NOT A RENTAL

The fact that you have spent so much time and energy arguing otherwise is absolutely staggering.

 

[tlance]

I gotta say, after seeing all the reactions from the media and this joint, I've adjusted my thinking a bit. Even the new prick is adding value.

Still favors the Lakers long term but Luka to me is a wee bit overrated overall. Just a smidge. Great player and LA had to do this for so little cost and to set up the future...but AD might have the game that is more likely to get a championship. Both great players in different ways and it's a team sport so who's around them matters.

Everyone crying that this is the worst trade in NBA history (for Dallas) when they got a superstar level guy plus a good role player and a 1st to avoid a supermax on a guy who isn't all about conditioning (Zion 2.0?), that's far from true. I've even seen people crying it's the worst trade in SPORTS history.

It's a lot more even than most are thinking.

Not even close to the worst trade.

Might have even been the best return the Mavs could get in terms of win now value.

But very clearly not the best value for the franchise long term.

 

[msgkings322]

Not even close to the worst trade.

Might have even been the best return the Mavs could get in terms of win now value.

But very clearly not the best value for the franchise long term.

They decided to go short term clearly, sometimes teams do that, push their chips in.

 

[tc1]

I gotta say, after seeing all the reactions from the media and this joint, I've adjusted my thinking a bit. Even the new prick is adding value.

The people who are actually reading what I'm writing, and not wasting their time on silly insults, are learning. This is good.

Still favors the Lakers long term but Luka to me is a wee bit overrated overall. Just a smidge. Great player and LA had to do this for so little cost and to set up the future...but AD might have the game that is more likely to get a championship. Both great players in different ways and it's a team sport so who's around them matters.

As a Laker fan, I don't love the trade, but I would still do it, if I were Pelinka. Davis being 7 years older is the key. If both key players were the same age, this would be a difficult trade to justify from the Los Angeles side. But they are not.

This is admittedly an episode of small-sample-size theater, but Doncic's numbers this season are down across the board from last year - which itself was an outlier in his career. The Lakers hope that's a blip, not a trend.

Basically, there are an awful lot of people who are assuming that the very best version of Doncic -- that we saw between April and June last year -- is who he is. That might be true. But it might not. He might also be the player who inspired an anonymous person in the Dallas FO to wonder how a player can gain weight during a season, while playing 40 minutes a night.

They are completely different in style, but Allen Iverson led a team to the Finals at 25 years old, too -- and he didn't have Kyrie Irving. Afterwards, he played in exactly two game victories beyond the first round, in his entire career.

Everyone crying that this is the worst trade in NBA history (for Dallas) when they got a superstar level guy plus a good role player and a 1st to avoid a supermax on a guy who isn't all about conditioning (Zion 2.0?), that's far from true. I've even seen people crying it's the worst trade in SPORTS history.

It's a lot more even than most are thinking.

Yes, people are losing their minds, and ignoring reality. I've read a bunch of times now the claim that Doncic makes the Lakers serious contenders for the next decade. That would mean that Doncic at 34 will be vastly better than LeBron James was, at the same age (!!). James, at 34, could not even sniff the playoffs with the Lakers.

To put it mildly, I am not betting that Doncic's body will hold up better than James' has.

Also, people are wildly overvaluing draft picks. Most draft picks do not turn out to be better players than Max Christie is right now -- and he's just 22, and on a great contract. And if you're Dallas, whose two best players are 33 and 32 years old, you absolutely want Christie instead of a draft pick or two.

 

[tc1]

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Repeating words does not imbue them with more value, especially when they are wrong.

Everyone, and I mean everyone including Davis and Rich Paul expected him to resign with the Lakers.

Not you, a moment ago, until I called you on it. You explicitly said that it was not guaranteed. Which makes him a rental.

You provide one clip of a press conference with an emotional AD who said he didn’t know what he was going to do in FA as your proof.

I just explained to you why Davis was motivated to maintain silence on this matter.

The expectation by the Laker franchise that they would be able to resign him means that he is NOT A RENTAL

Again, if they were so certain that they could sign Davis as a free agent, then that was a terrible decision to waste all those assets on a one-season rental.

They could've had James, Davis, Ingram, Ball, Hart, Hunter, Wagner, and a raft of draft picks to use, or to trade for anyone else they wanted. That team would've won several titles.

 

[tlance]

Repeating words does not imbue them with more value, especially when they are wrong.



Not you, a moment ago, until I called you on it. You explicitly said that it was not guaranteed. Which makes him a rental.


I just explained to you why Davis was motivated to maintain silence on this matter.



Again, if they were so certain that they could sign Davis as a free agent, then that was a terrible decision to waste all those assets on a one-season rental.

They could've had James, Davis, Ingram, Ball, Hart, Hunter, Wagner, and a raft of draft picks to use, or to trade for anyone else they wanted. That team would've won several titles.

Lakers fully expected to resign him.

Period. End of discussion.

That is not a rental to anyone except you.

You are arguing semantics and redefining words to fit your own narrative and then acting like you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Well you are not correct.

 

[tc1]

Lakers fully expected to resign him.

Period. End of discussion.

That is not a rental to anyone except you.

One of two cases has to have been true. Either a) the Lakers were certain they could sign Davis as a UFA. Or b) they were not.

If a) is true, they were completely stupid to spend a decade of assets to rent him for one season instead of waiting to sign him, and having a super team for years with James, Davis, and all those assets.

If b) is true, they were almost completely stupid to spend a decade of assets to rent him for one season. They could have lost everything if he signed elsewhere, and even if he did sign with them, they blew sufficient assets that they were never again seriously competitive in his term there.
Instead, they could have spent those assets more wisely, and likely wound up with more titles, or at least one and more competitive seasons.

You pick which you prefer to believe in. I really don't care anymore about the opinion of someone who is almost completely unfamiliar with the league in-question, as you repeatedly demonstrate. Have a good one.

 

[tlance]

One of two cases has to have been true. Either a) the Lakers were certain they could sign Davis as a UFA. Or b) they were not.

If a) is true, they were completely stupid to spend a decade of assets to rent him for one season instead of waiting to sign him, and having a super team for years with James, Davis, and all those assets.

If b) is true, they were almost completely stupid to spend a decade of assets to rent him for one season. They could have lost everything if he signed elsewhere, and even if he did sign with them, they blew sufficient assets that they were never again seriously competitive in his term there.
Instead, they could have spent those assets more wisely, and likely wound up with more titles, or at least one and more competitive seasons.

You pick which you prefer to believe in. I really don't care anymore about the opinion of someone who is almost completely unfamiliar with the league in-question, as you repeatedly demonstrate. Have a good one.

They got their guy, won a title and then resigned him.

Call it whatever you want.

But you continue to be wrong. And regardless, Lakers would have had to clear cap space to sign AD anyway.

Now the Raptors trading for Kawhi Leonard?

That was a rental. Because he made it clear his preferred destination was LA. Raptors took the chance and won.

And of course the price they paid to get him reflected the fact that he was a rental.

Completely unfamiliar with the league?

LOL. You are too much.

 

[tc1]

But you continue to be wrong. And regardless, Lakers would have had to clear cap space to sign AD anyway.

So they should donate assets to New Orleans, like its Goodwill? They could have cleared cap space by trading assets for future picks, and not been in the situation they've found themselves in for the past half-decade -- short of picks and relying on signing minimum wage veterans to plug holes.

Please stop wasting my time with your garbage.

You are too much.

Way too much for you to ague with, that's been proven.

Better luck next time. Do your homework first.

 

[UK Cowboy]

It's clear that you are struggling to follow the conversation, but I'll have mercy on you and explain again. I will try to use small words.

Before that surprising -- maybe even shocking -- Finals run last year, almost no one would have suggested with a straight face that the Mavericks were contenders of any sort. In Doncic's career before April 2024, he had participated in exactly one game victory beyond the second round. And his team missed the playoffs in 40% of his seasons.

This notion that Doncic makes a team a contender is very new, and not well supported by facts.

Allen Iverson also once led a team to the Finals, but having him certainly did not make the Sixers annual contenders.

Doncic is a great player, but people are going completely overboard with respect to his value. He is, in reality, a not-very-efficient shooter who takes a massive quantity of shots to score his points -- and apart from April to June of last year, that has not contributed to a whole lot of winning in Dallas.

You're making my case and don't even know it. The Mavs weren't considered contenders because they didn't have the same talent as some of the other teams. Luka CARRIED THEM to the Finals goofball. Now. go back to mama's tittie

 

[tc1]

You're making my case and don't even know it. The Mavs weren't considered contenders because they didn't have the same talent as some of the other teams. Luka CARRIED THEM to the Finals goofball.

Once, just like Iverson.

Now. go back to mama's tittie

If you think this type of remark improves your case, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Once, just like Iverson.


If you think this type of remark improves your case, you are sorely mistaken.

Once? He's 25 LMAO. It seems EVERY GM in the Association believes the Mavs got ripped off. But they aren't right. You're right. Yeah...

 

[tlance]

So they should donate assets to New Orleans, like its Goodwill? They could have cleared cap space by trading assets for future picks, and not been in the situation they've found themselves in for the past half-decade -- short of picks and relying on signing minimum wage veterans to plug holes.

Please stop wasting my time with your garbage.


Way too much for you to ague with, that's been proven.

Better luck next time. Do your homework first.

Here is some unsolicited free advice:

Just stop the act.

Most of us have been posting here for many years. We come here to chop it up, talk basketball and of course for the spirited debate. Most of the regulars here have quite profound NBA knowledge.

Many of us have been here long enough to see quite a few know it all newbs like you enter, spin around like crazy pissing people off before eventually getting booted.

You clearly have some knowledge. But you don’t know nearly as much as you think.

Want to discuss basketball? Welcome.

Want to act like you are somehow superior to everyone else here and like your word is gospel truth?

You won’t last 2 months.

Gain some humility and maybe you can learn a thing or two from the experienced people here.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Because the Lakers signed Davis as a UFA in December 2020. This is public knowledge, you can look it up.



Only the Chamberlain deal was one-sided in the Lakers' favor at the time. The Abdul-Jabbar deal didn't quite work out for Milwaukee as they hoped, but they still got 25% of the best players in the first 50 years of franchise history in that deal.

This Davis deal does not fit your story, either, because it didn't happen due to Doncic waiting to go West. It happened because somewhat inexplicably, Harrison believes that Anthony Davis is just about the most desirable player in the league.



Abdul-Jabbar is from New York. Everyone and their uncle assumed the Knicks would acquire him. The Knicks were outbid by the Lakers who had drafted, and were willing to risk, more assets.

In hindsight, we all know that Abdul-Jabbar played 14 more seasons at an incredibly high level. Not many would have predicted that, in '75. Even today, big men do not play at a high level in much of their thirties, and back then, the situation was even more pronounced. Russell retired at 34, and even that was considered very old for a big. Cowens was done at 31. Unseld made his last All-star game at 28. Thurmond's last was at 32, and that was basically only reputational. Elmore Smith's career ended with an injury at 29.

Trading four young, very good, players for ~6 years of Abdul-Jabbar was a big risk.

If Meyers doesn't go crazy and Smith's injury luck is better, and Abdul-Jabbar doesn't turn out to be an alien who can play 'til 42, that trade looks quite good for Milwaukee.

Da Fuck you talkin' about?. I did look it up just to confirm my memory:

The Los Angeles Lakers reached an agreement to acquire three-time All-NBA forward Anthony Davis from the New Orleans Pelicans for three players and three first-round draft picks on Saturday, league sources told ESPN.

Also from the article which show how LA fit the profile and got him under market:

The Bucks were able to generate a reasonable exchange given the limited number of teams Abdul-Jabbar preferred.

Sources: Lakers reach deal for Pelicans' Davis

The Pelicans have agreed to trade Anthony Davis to the Lakers for Lonzo Ball, Brandon Ingram, Josh Hart and three first-round picks -- including the No. 4 overall selection in Thursday's draft -- league sources told ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski.

www.espn.com

The rest of your post is equal nonsense. Everyone knew Kareem for those players was lopsided, Kareem was the dominant player in the game. David Myers was even quoted in the article claiming someday those 4 players would some day be a trivia question, which turned out to be true.