POLL The Lakers, Spurs, Leonard, DeRozan, and the idiot Raptors

[tlance]

Sure. IF the Lakers get Kawhi next year then this is a win for the Lakers.

If they DON'T get Kawhi next year, then it was not a win.

Either way, the Lakers are doing it right because they are thinking big. Trading for Kawhi is the safe play, but how many championship rosters are built without some risk taking on behalf of the GM building it?

I would say not many. The non-risk takers end up middle of the pack.

 

[flyerhawk]

You realize Leomard isn't the only major FA next summer, right?

I do. But they have nothing to do with the Kawhi trade.

It's entirely possible that the Lakers were right to keep Ingram because he will turn into an All-Star player. It's also possible that none of the young Lakers will become more than starter level players.

FTR, I don't think the Lakers lost out necessarily. I just don't see how them not getting Kawhi was a win at this juncture.

 

[flyerhawk]

Either way, the Lakers are doing it right because they are thinking big. Trading for Kawhi is the safe play, but how many championship rosters are built without some risk taking on behalf of the GM building it?

I would say not many. The non-risk takers end up middle of the pack.

It's odd that you give credit to the Lakers for not making the move to get Kawhi but think the Sixers failed because they wouldn't give up young assets for him.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Has to be Lakers.
Beasley pushes any team to the top.

 

[Inimical]

Has to be Lakers.
Beasley pushes any team to the top.

Nice avatar

 

[tducey]

I'm going with the Spurs. No guarantee Leonard goes to the Lakers nor any guarantee he sticks in Toronto. Derozan to the Spurs gets them a good player to build around for the next great Spurs dynasty.

 

[tlance]

It's odd that you give credit to the Lakers for not making the move to get Kawhi but think the Sixers failed because they wouldn't give up young assets for him.

It isn't really.

Had the Lakers landed George, I would have said the opposite. The 6ers already have 2 future superstars and Kawhi would be the 3rd piece that would put them over the top, IMO. The Lakers are further away than the 6ers are.

 

[tlance]

I'm going with the Spurs. No guarantee Leonard goes to the Lakers nor any guarantee he sticks in Toronto. Derozan to the Spurs gets them a good player to build around for the next great Spurs dynasty.

If by dynasty, you mean Toronto Raptors East, then sure.

Spurs are going to be a 50-55 win team with absolutely no chance at winning a title.

 

[bksballer89]

Toronto by far

 

[DJ Fieri]

I do. But they have nothing to do with the Kawhi trade.

It's entirely possible that the Lakers were right to keep Ingram because he will turn into an All-Star player. It's also possible that none of the young Lakers will become more than starter level players.

FTR, I don't think the Lakers lost out necessarily. I just don't see how them not getting Kawhi was a win at this juncture.

Well, they got the best player in the world so there's that....

 

[broncosmitty]

What boggles my mind is how anybody can think the Spurs are the winner here.

Addition by subtraction.


I have no idea what Kawhis problem is. But he's a problem imo.

 

[flyerhawk]

Well, they got the best player in the world so there's that....

Which was a win for the Lakers.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Everyone "won" to some extent or another, imo.

The overall winners are the Raptors. They got better and gave themselves a shot at making the finals. If Kawhi stay, great for them. They remain contenders. If he leaves, they start the rebuild that was coming anyway.

The Lakers/Lebron "won", imo, because they still have an excellent shot at landing Kawhi and didn't have to give up any of their young core.

Leonard "won" because he has a better chance at the finals than he did had he stayed in SA and can still go wherever he wants next off season.

The Spurs "won" because of what I said in post #13.

Even DeRozan "won" (he just doesn't know it yet) because I think Pop is going to make him a much better player.

I go with the Lakers being the greatest winners because they go straight to the playoffs from missing for five years. That was huge - and in the mean time there is no pressure or expectation for the Lakers to go to the finals and beat the Warriors before - The Spurs will be a good team, but they will not win - We could see Toronto in the Finals - but I have a hard time seeing them beat the Celtics, but they might be fun to watch

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Has to be Lakers.
Beasley pushes any team to the top.

Beasley?

 

[flyerhawk]

It isn't really.

Had the Lakers landed George, I would have said the opposite. The 6ers already have 2 future superstars and Kawhi would be the 3rd piece that would put them over the top, IMO. The Lakers are further away than the 6ers are.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about what the Spurs wanted and how risky the moves were for the 76ers.

If it were Fultz for Kawhi or maybe with some draft picks then maybe the deal makes sense. Simmons or Embiid were out of the question of course and Fultz, Saric, plus numerous picks was too much.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Is this a real question?

Because the biggest loser here is Philly.

Philly, on the other hand, never seemed to step up and make an aggressive offer even though it was reported that Kawhi was open to resigning in Philly. I have to think Philly had more attractive packages that didn't include either Simmons or Embiid.

Apparently you were not paying attention. Did Philly have an All-Star 20 point scorer under contract for the next 3 years in any of their trade proposals? Oh they didn't did they?

Its obvious to anyone paying attention that the Spurs interest in picks and young players was CLEARLY secondary to acquiring a bona-fide All Star under contract. If the Spurs wanted to go the pick route Boston had by far the best picks and was supposedly offering them.

The Spurs didn't want young guys that "could" someday be good. I mean- if Ingram someday BECOMES DeRozan that would be one of the very best possible outcomes for him.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Either way, the Lakers are doing it right because they are thinking big. Trading for Kawhi is the safe play, but how many championship rosters are built without some risk taking on behalf of the GM building it?

I would say not many. The non-risk takers end up middle of the pack.

thinking big? anytime you can sacrifice LeBron's age 34 season for the future is just what you have GOT to do. lol.

Unreal. Now I have hard it all.

 

[LogicMan]

Derozan

Raptors only if he resigns

no one else

wheres the potato salad?

 

[tlance]

thinking big? anytime you can sacrifice LeBron's age 34 season for the future is just what you have GOT to do. lol.

Unreal. Now I have hard it all.

No, I have heard it all from you though.

This time next year, you will be living on Mars with 1 nut.

 

[tlance]

Apparently you were not paying attention. Did Philly have an All-Star 20 point scorer under contract for the next 3 years in any of their trade proposals? Oh they didn't did they?

Its obvious to anyone paying attention that the Spurs interest in picks and young players was CLEARLY secondary to acquiring a bona-fide All Star under contract. If the Spurs wanted to go the pick route Boston had by far the best picks and was supposedly offering them.

The Spurs didn't want young guys that "could" someday be good. I mean- if Ingram someday BECOMES DeRozan that would be one of the very best possible outcomes for him.

It is clear what the Spurs wanted to do. That is true. It was also a mistake. The Spurs have no chance to be better than a second round playoff team and it will only be downhill from here. The Pop dynasty is over.