It's Time To Hate The Lakers Again

[tc1]

Were they a team that plateaued and got stuck in the middle of the pack for years without any real progress?

Again, this happens so rarely that it is difficult to find examples of such. I have requested same several times now, to only crickets.

Sorry, but we talk about this stuff all the time. Everyone else here knows what I meant by it.

"We" is a couple dozen people without much willingness to actually do their homework on a topic, so that's not very impressive. Simply repeating the same poorly thought-out remarks is "talking" but it is not productive nor educational.

If you aren’t sure, maybe ask next time instead of making assumptions and telling everyone it is a stupid claim.

I am sure, and didn't need to ask.

And it was still a fantastically stupid claim.

Conventional wisdom is you can’t get stuck in the middle for too long.

That doesn't happen.

You claim “clearly superior package”

But you honestly saying that adding Scola, Martin and Odom to a roster with Jarret Jack and Belinelli as 2 of their leading scorers is better than adding Eric Gordon (who was their best best player) a 2nd lottery pick and making your own pick more valuable by losing more games?

You left out All-star Dragic, who went on to play a decade at an extremely high level.

Your arguments may improve if you do your homework and get the premise correct.

Anthony Davis isn’t drafted by the Hornets/Pelicans if they take the Laker deal.

Oh right, and they never win all those titles with Davis.

It's rare, but if any team ever has been "stuck in the middle" it is New Orleans __with__ Davis. They were solidly middle-of-the-pack for his entire career there, and they have been since he left, as well, despite a rotating cast of stars.

So again, your entire argument is baseless.

 

[tlance]

Again, this happens so rarely that it is difficult to find examples of such. I have requested same several times now, to only crickets.




"We" is a couple dozen people without much willingness to actually do their homework on a topic, so that's not very impressive. Simply repeating the same poorly thought-out remarks is "talking" but it is not productive nor educational.



I am sure, and didn't need to ask.

And it was still a fantastically stupid claim.



That doesn't happen.


You left out All-star Dragic, who went on to play a decade at an extremely high level.

Your arguments may improve if you do your homework and get the premise correct.



Oh right, and they never win all those titles with Davis.

It's rare, but if any team ever has been "stuck in the middle" it is New Orleans __with__ Davis. They were solidly middle-of-the-pack for his entire career there, and they have been since he left, as well, despite a rotating cast of stars.

So again, your entire argument is baseless.

It doesn’t happen often because when teams plateau most are smart enough to rebuild.

Warriors and Suns are examples of teams that aren’t bad, but have aging cores and are moving in the wrong direction. Trending down instead of up.

So they will either try to make a big move to change trajectory (unlikely) or start to sell pieces and rebuild.

The way the Wizards have run their franchise is the perfect example of what not to do.

Lots of sustained mediocrity going back to the mid 90s.

Bottomed out a couple times, but always short cutted the rebuild trading away valuable future assets for pieces that made them marginally better today. Moves like trading Rip Hamilton for Jerry Stackhouse. Or Chris Webber for Mitch Richmond. Limiting future upside for a few more wins today.

Or failing to trade Wall and Beal when they actually had value to help kick start a rebuild and waiting until they were bad contracts to deal them.

2019 should have been the time that the Wizards knew they weren’t going anywhere with Wall and Beal. They held on too long and built mid 30 win rosters around Beal instead of trading him when he would have returned a haul.

Wizards have finally moved on and have bottomed out. Hopefully they can learn from past mistakes, land a future star in this year’s draft and start to build a core around that player, Coulibaly and Sarr

But it took far to long to get where they are today. It is better to be where they are today than where they were 3 years ago.

Which is the entire point.

 

[tlance]

Again, this happens so rarely that it is difficult to find examples of such. I have requested same several times now, to only crickets.




"We" is a couple dozen people without much willingness to actually do their homework on a topic, so that's not very impressive. Simply repeating the same poorly thought-out remarks is "talking" but it is not productive nor educational.



I am sure, and didn't need to ask.

And it was still a fantastically stupid claim.



That doesn't happen.


You left out All-star Dragic, who went on to play a decade at an extremely high level.

Your arguments may improve if you do your homework and get the premise correct.



Oh right, and they never win all those titles with Davis.

It's rare, but if any team ever has been "stuck in the middle" it is New Orleans __with__ Davis. They were solidly middle-of-the-pack for his entire career there, and they have been since he left, as well, despite a rotating cast of stars.

So again, your entire argument is baseless.

I left out Dragic because he was not a highly regarded prospect like Gordon was.

Nobody thought Dragic would be as good was he was.

24 year old 2nd round pick averaging 7.5 points a game in his 3rd season at the time of the deal.

Nobody saw that coming

 

[Wamu]

What exactly would you call it, then? The claim was that being in the middle-of-the-pack in the NBA is a hopeless situation. I showed that, in reality, almost all recent NBA champions came directly from the middle-of-the-pack of the league, by building gradually over a few seasons. That is exactly the procedure that the original claim said was impossible.

What more could you possibly want?

The Lakers were "middle of the pack" before they won it all in '20?

How about the Cavs in '15? Where do you think they were before LeBron returned? Worse than middle of the pack.

And didn't the Warriors go from bottom of the pack, not middle, and win it all recently?

 

[shopson67]

The Lakers were "middle of the pack" before they won it all in '20?

How about the Cavs in '15? Where do you think they were before LeBron returned? Worse than middle of the pack.

And didn't the Warriors go from bottom of the pack, not middle, and win it all recently?

Warriors dropped down artificially due to injuries. They managed to wrangle a few high picks Spurs style by riding injuries into the lottery. No Duncan level success out of the lottery for them though.

 

[Wamu]

Warriors dropped down artificially due to injuries. They managed to wrangle a few high picks Spurs style by riding injuries into the lottery. No Duncan level success out of the lottery for them though.

True. But they dropped far enough to end up in the lottery. Okay maybe that wasn't the best example and the core did have championship experience.

As far as what I said about the '15 Cavs. They went from a 33 win team the year before to the Finals. And before that they had the # 1 pick. Think they took Andrew Wiggins?

 

[tlance]

True. But they dropped far enough to end up in the lottery. Okay maybe that wasn't the best example and the core did have championship experience.

As far as what I said about the '15 Cavs. They went from a 33 win team the year before to the Finals. And before that they had the # 1 pick. Think they took Andrew Wiggins?

And I was talking about a similar circumstance with the Lakers.

That Cleveland team and the 2020 Lakers are hard to compare with any other build.

They both signed LeBron as a free agent which immediately changed their future.

Just not something a GM can ever count on.

 

[tc1]

The way the Wizards have run their franchise is the perfect example of what not to do.

Going to keep this short, because I have already explained the many issues with your claims several times, and they are obvious to everyone.

Five times in the past fifteen years, the Wizards have won 25 or fewer games. Just a relative moment ago, you called that bottoming-out, and the path to contention. Now you are calling it stuck in the middle.

Take a step back. Think about what story you want to believe. Do your homework, and see if comports with any known evidence in NBA. If not, repeat.

When you find a story that you can stand behind, without changing it with each comment, let me know. Until then, I'm done with this nonsensical conversation.

PS The actual problem in Washington is that they cannot draft, hardly at all. Johnny Davis at #10. Deni Avidija at #9. Otto Porter at #3. Troy Brown Jr at #15. Jan Vesely at #6. Etcetera. They've made like 2 good picks in over a dozen years, and their second rounders have been almost universally useless. You just can't win like that.

 

[msgkings322]

No, it doesn't. All of these teams spent at least multiple seasons in the middle-of-the-pack. The claim was that there is no escape from that situation -- and that claim has been demonstrated to be wrong.



That's a stretch -- Curry was a #7 pick and Thompson was #11. Those are picks that are, or are very close to, middle-of-the-pack draft picks.

This is an example of an opinion you assert as if it's fact. It's not.

There are an awful lot of unicorns roaming around this League these days. Almost a herd. In addition to those two, you've got Gilgeous-Alexander, Curry, Lilliard, Brunson, Booker, Leonard, Mitchell, Maxey, Butler, and maybe others -- none of whom were high picks.

Disingenuous. No one calls Brunson, Booker, Mitchell, Butler, Maxey, Lillard, or even Kawhi 'unicorns'. Don't really hear that about SGA either. 'Unicorn' means a superstar player with no historical comps, with a combination of skills and traits never seen before. Curry sort of qualifies. The main unicorns in the league now are LeBron, Wemby, and Jokic. Maybe Giannis. That's it.

It is tempting to believe -- especially if one's team is bad or is bad at drafting -- that the best players are all top 5 picks. They are not. Last year's All-star game featured 11 top-5 picks, and 13 players who were drafted later.

True

Point being, a team does not have to be bad to acquire top-end talent in the draft.

It's a lot easier but sure, lower draft picks do sometimes hit

 

[tc1]

The Lakers were "middle of the pack" before they won it all in '20?

What else would you call 35 and 37 wins?

How about the Cavs in '15? Where do you think they were before LeBron returned? Worse than middle of the pack.

If so, not by much -- they were 33-49.

And didn't the Warriors go from bottom of the pack, not middle, and win it all recently?

Missing players due to injury is a bit of a different situation, but even then, they were 39-33 the year before their title.

 

[tc1]

They both signed LeBron as a free agent which immediately changed their future.

Not that "immediately" in the latter case, as the Lakers spent their first season with James precisely in mediocrity, going 37-45. But they, like all the other examples here, did not wind up in this imaginary situation of being "stuck" in the middle, which has almost never happened.

 

[tlance]

Going to keep this short, because I have already explained the many issues with your claims several times, and they are obvious to everyone.

Five times in the past fifteen years, the Wizards have won 25 or fewer games. Just a relative moment ago, you called that bottoming-out, and the path to contention. Now you are calling it stuck in the middle.

Take a step back. Think about what story you want to believe. Do your homework, and see if comports with any known evidence in NBA. If not, repeat.

When you find a story that you can stand behind, without changing it with each comment, let me know. Until then, I'm done with this nonsensical conversation.

PS The actual problem in Washington is that they cannot draft, hardly at all. Johnny Davis at #10. Deni Avidija at #9. Otto Porter at #3. Troy Brown Jr at #15. Jan Vesely at #6. Etcetera. They've made like 2 good picks in over a dozen years, and their second rounders have been almost universally useless. You just can't win like that.

The Wizards have a lot of issues running their franchise.

But it doesn’t matter. Conventional wisdom is that once the franchise stops moving forward, you usually have to get worse before getting better.

Not talking about 1 or 2 year blips either.

There is a reason tanking is a thing in the NBA.

Because if teams aren’t contending or on the rise, getting high picks is the most likely way to draft the star a team needs to build the next contender.

There is a reason why it is conventional wisdom to rebuild by tearing down to the studs when forward progress stops.

No matter what you say.

 

[tlance]

Not that "immediately" in the latter case, as the Lakers spent their first season with James precisely in mediocrity, going 37-45. But they, like all the other examples here, did not wind up in this imaginary situation of being "stuck" in the middle, which has almost never happened.

Because LeBron got hurt, and they traded all those players you claim were some amazing haul for Anthony Davis.

A legit second star.

No chance they win in 2020 without that trade.

 

[tc1]

This is an example of an opinion you assert as if it's fact. It's not.

It is demonstrable fact that middle-of-the-pack teams often draft in the #7 and #11 slots. I have no actual idea what you could possibly be thinking to suggest otherwise, but please, in the future, don't waste our time with such nonsense.

Disingenuous. No one calls Brunson, Booker, Mitchell, Butler, Maxey, Lillard, or even Kawhi 'unicorns'. Don't really hear that about SGA either. 'Unicorn' means a superstar player with no historical comps, with a combination of skills and traits never seen before. Curry sort of qualifies. The main unicorns in the league now are LeBron, Wemby, and Jokic. Maybe Giannis. That's it.

Allegedly unique skill sets don't matter unless they translate into wins, and titles. Neither Jokic nor Antetokounmpo are unprecedented in that regard. And I don't know what skill set you imagine the latter possesses that might be considered unique.

And for the record, people call Porzingis a unicorn, too -- in fact, if one googles "NBA unicorn", the result is Porzingis.

We're talking about building teams to win, and one does not need to acquire a player with an imagined-unique skill set in order to do so.

 

[msgkings322]

It is demonstrable fact that middle-of-the-pack teams often draft in the #7 and #11 slots.

But those aren't middle of the pack slots.

I have no actual idea what you could possibly be thinking to suggest otherwise, but please, in the future, don't waste our time with such nonsense.

Just 'talking basketball' eh? Grow up, sperg.

Allegedly unique skill sets don't matter unless they translate into wins, and titles. Neither Jokic nor Antetokounmpo are unprecedented in that regard. And I don't know what skill set you imagine the latter possesses that might be considered unique.

Don't pivot. You listed a bunch of people that you claim are called unicorns. You were wrong and I exposed it. Please, in the future, don't waste our time with such nonsense.

And for the record, people call Porzingis a unicorn, too -- in fact, if one googles "NBA unicorn", the result is Porzingis.

I checked, you're correct here. That's weird to me, but I am not responsible for the Google algorithm.

We're talking about building teams to win, and one does not need to acquire a player with an imagined-unique skill set in order to do so.

Sure, never said or implied otherwise.

 

[tc1]

No chance they win in 2020 without that trade.

It is very likely they win in 2020 without Davis, in fact. James/Ball/Ingram/Kuzma/Zubac would have been the best lineup in the League, and they'd have still had some combination of Green, Hart, Rondo, Hunter, McGee, Caldwell-Pope, Bradley, Howard, Morris, Wagner off the bench. They'd have had the best starting lineup and by-far the deepest bench.

And if that wasn't good enough, they had a raft of picks to make a few judicious upgrades -- like picking up Jimmy Butler for a relative song on the same day Davis was traded.

Unless they did something stupid like blow a decade of assets to rent Davis for one season, they had a team that should've at least gone the Finals a bunch of times.

 

[Wamu]

It is very likely they win in 2020 without Davis, in fact. James/Ball/Ingram/Kuzma/Zubac would have been the best lineup in the League, and they'd have still had some combination of Green, Hart, Rondo, Hunter, McGee, Caldwell-Pope, Bradley, Howard, Morris, Wagner off the bench. They'd have had the best starting lineup and by-far the deepest bench.

And if that wasn't good enough, they had a raft of picks to make a few judicious upgrades -- like picking up Jimmy Butler for a relative song on the same day Davis was traded.

Unless they did something stupid like blow a decade of assets to rent Davis for one season, they had a team that should've at least gone the Finals a bunch of times.

"It is very likely they win 2020 without Davis" <---wrong

Just stop that nonsense. There's no way the Lakers win it all in '20 without Davis. What an incredibly insane thing to say.

His Finals numbers. 25 ppg, 10.7 rebs, 3.2 asts, 1.3 stls and 2.0 blks (6 games)

His playoff numbers. 27.7, 9.7, 3.5, 1.2, 1.4 (21 games)

 

[tlance]

It is very likely they win in 2020 without Davis, in fact. James/Ball/Ingram/Kuzma/Zubac would have been the best lineup in the League, and they'd have still had some combination of Green, Hart, Rondo, Hunter, McGee, Caldwell-Pope, Bradley, Howard, Morris, Wagner off the bench. They'd have had the best starting lineup and by-far the deepest bench.

And if that wasn't good enough, they had a raft of picks to make a few judicious upgrades -- like picking up Jimmy Butler for a relative song on the same day Davis was traded.

Unless they did something stupid like blow a decade of assets to rent Davis for one season, they had a team that should've at least gone the Finals a bunch of times.

LOL.

Stop it.

Not even close.

Not even the biggest Laker homers actually believe that.

 

[tc1]

But those aren't middle of the pack slots.

How narrow do you think the middle is? There are only 30 teams. If #11 is not the middle, I'd like to know why. Also, there's a thing called the "draft lottery", so a middle-of-the-pack team may absolutely be assigned a #7 or #11 slot. I cannot believe that I had to explain this is in a forum of alleged basketball masterminds.

Come on guys.

I checked, you're correct here.

Not a newsflash.

 

[tc1]

"It is very likely they win 2020 without Davis" <---wrong

Look at the roster I just posted. Tell me who exactly beats it.

Just stop that nonsense. There's no way the Lakers win it all in '20 without Davis. What an incredibly insane thing to say.

His Finals numbers. 25 ppg, 10.7 rebs, 3.2 asts, 1.3 stls and 2.0 blks (6 games)

His playoff numbers. 27.7, 9.7, 3.5, 1.2, 1.4 (21 games)

Yes, great numbers -- now recall that the Lakers traded four good players for him, and those players' production swamps those numbers.

Also recall that the Lakers walked through the West that year, so even if they weren't quite as good, they'd still make the Finals. And Miami is not beating the roster I described, especially if they don't have Butler.