Reply With Quote
I'm not a Laker fan; pro football is my favorite sport but if LA ever got an NFL team (expansion not retread), I would want Jerry Buss or someone like him to be the owner of that team because he's a winner and he cares about winning.
Nice backtrack nonetheless.
What can the LAKERS do that other teams cannot? Please tell us.
Free agent theory is crap as New York and the Clippers have proven. The 'spend more' argument doesn't hold water as I've already pointed out. The current CBA allows the richest owners to prosper if they so choose - they feel less of financial hit from forking over the lux tax. Buss doesn't fall into that category. But despite the fact that the Lakers are his only real income, he's still willing to pay the luxury tax because he cares about winning first and foremost. Whereas guys like Sterling are content on being mediocre/terrible while never paying the tax as long as his franchise is profitable.
I'm not a Laker fan; pro football is my favorite sport but if LA ever got an NFL team (expansion not retread), I would want Jerry Buss or someone like him to be the owner of that team because he's a winner and he cares about winning.
Actually we do have a football team which many support.....called USC Trojans!!!
I don't miss professional football that much because now we get 4 games on TV...unfortunately it's usually the Chargers or less frequently the Raiders........i.e....everyone east of the Rockies probably got to see an exciting Indy-Pittsburgh game....in la area, we had chargers-chiefs which actually turned out to be a good game but still....I don't have DirecTV so other than going to a sports bar, my options are limited.
And Odom's a better ballhandler and slasher.
By physical attributes and general skillset, they're still very comparable.
Tell that to those teams who have been overpaying players since the past decade.
NBA Players generally don't peak until they hit 30.
Bad reasoning.
Hasn't stopped players like Tim Thomas and Eddy Curry from getting paid.
He's a role player, on the Lakers. Because the team has enough weapons that his skills are mostly redundant.
On any other team without as many weapons, he's almost a sure starter.
I'm not sure Buss could own an NFL team. He bought the Lakers from Jack Kent Cooke who also owned the Redskins. He was given a choce by the NFL I think who to keep, who to sell. Of course that's nearly 30 years ago now, but it's what I know about the subject. I lost interest in pro football and couldn't care less if the NFL comes back to LA. Besides, I am a 5 hour drive away from attending a game in LA anyway.I'm not a Laker fan; pro football is my favorite sport but if LA ever got an NFL team (expansion not retread), I would want Jerry Buss or someone like him to be the owner of that team because he's a winner and he cares about winning.
Raiders and Cowgirls make up most % of the fans here.
Shooters are more valuable. Especially around Dwight. But you're kidding yourself if you think anyone is stupid enough overpay Lamar Odom like that.
It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Lamar Odom. And no, generally, players don't peak at 30. Great players generaly peak at 28-30 which is something Odom is no where near close to being. And thats without considering he hasn't improved his game in 9 NBA seasons. Lamar Odom went from the next Magic, to the next Pippen, to overpaid player, to overpaid 2nd option should be third option, to overpaid roleplayer coming off the bench.
NBA Players generally don't peak until they hit 30.
Bad reasoning.
It will on Curry's next contract and did on Tim Thomas' last contract. Odom at most is worth what Caron Butler got from Washington. Any more than that and you're just overpaying a lost cause that has no chance to improve,on the wrong side of 30. Within 3 years he'll be on "one of the worst contracts in the league that no one wants" status.
Even then, that kind of money is pushing it since Caron's contract scales up. Fair deal for what you're paying for would be what the Clippers gave Maggette a few years back (7-8 million a year) across the board. Odom is just a step above of MLE money at this point in his career.
Wrong. Lamar had his shot at a 2nd option, failed miserably. On another bad team he's a 3rd option at best and only a starter if said team is paper thin at power forward.
Last edited by 21_Blessings; 11-10-2008 at 09:52 PM.
Backtrack? Do you know how to ing read?
Are you serious?What can the LAKERS do that other teams cannot? Please tell us.
Get Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he's a free agent.
Get Gary Payton for the MLE and Karl Malone for the LLE, wayyyyyyyy below market value.
Get Glen Rice for nothing to play third wheel to Shaq and Kobe.
Get Phil Jackson to coach the team when he could have had any NBA coaching job in the league. Basically fire him, and get him to come back.
Get Derek Fisher to get out of his contract and come back and play for the Lakers for less than the contract he had.
You want to tell me Los Angeles didn't help those things happen? Definitely the franchise brand of the Lakers plays a huge role first and foremost, but LA does too.
Didn't the Clippers just get one of the best free agent players this past summer in Baron Davis despite being a wretched franchise? Of course, the Lakers have an edge over the Clippers because of the franchise history. The City of Los Angeles helps as well. You really can't say it doesn't.Free agent theory is crap as New York and the Clippers have proven. The 'spend more' argument doesn't hold water as I've already pointed out. The current CBA allows the richest owners to prosper if they so choose - they feel less of financial hit from forking over the lux tax. Buss doesn't fall into that category. But despite the fact that the Lakers are his only real income, he's still willing to pay the luxury tax because he cares about winning first and foremost. Whereas guys like Sterling are content on being mediocre/terrible while never paying the tax as long as his franchise is profitable.
New York has had problems since Scott Layden ed them up and Isiah ed them up worse, but they've had succuess in their history of luring players and coaches. Allan Houston appeared to be a breakout star in the NBA and signed with the Knicks. Knicks also got Pat Riley, who basically had his choice of any NBA job. They were also able to make deals for guys like Dave DeBusschere, Earl Monroe, Bernard King, Latrell Sprewell, that other teams probably couldn't pull of, financially or otherwise if the players refused to sign on those trades. Obviously, in recent years, the Knicks have been such a mess and poor management that they haven't had many good moves. But, there's a reason why the Knicks is among a handful of teams that are given serious rumors as to having a legit chance at LeBron James in 2010, despite the mess that franchise has been the past 8 years or so.
the spurs were worth $415 mil last season, dope (according to Forbes)
how much you think your precious lakers are worth in a tv market 5x larger? I dont have any clue to be honest, but its surely much, much more than that.
I'm not arguing his true value, whatever that's worth. I'm saying there will be teams or owners willing to pay that amount, based on what we've seen in the past for similar players.
I was responding to your original implication that his age should be a factor in considering him washed up.
Assuming a player below 30, with no career-threatening injuries, is already past his physical prime is bordering on the ridiculous.
The next Pippen? Is that what the Lakers were expecting of him when they got him? If so, then part of the disappointment in his play should be blamed on those unreasonable expectations.
Overpaid? 2nd banana pay for 3rd banana production? Probably. Not really going to argue that.
Role player? Again, the fact that the Lakers have a lot of weapons on the team right now is making Odom essentially redundant. It's hardly his fault that the team is loaded.
Considering players like Beno Udrih drew MLE-level money this past offseason, assuming Odom's going to settle for 'a step above' that amount is bordering on the ridiculous, again.
In the NBA, market value relative to other players and perceived value often triumph over true value.
On a team like the Thunder or Bobcats (disregarding salary cap considerations for the sake of this argument), there's a pretty good chance Odom gets plugged in as the 2nd option, let alone be considered as a starter.
It all depends on which teams you consider to be 'bad'.
Shaq wanted to be a Laker because Jerry West, the best General Manager of all time, sold on him on the fact that he had a better chance at winning multiple championships with the Lakers than in Orlando. Well do ented. And ended up being proven.
Despite playing in LA for 8 years he still lived in Orlando during the entire off season and still lives there.
This has nothing to do with Los Angeles the market or city.
Are you ing stupid? Prime Eddie Jones is nothing?
Again, nothing to do with Los Angeles, the market. Had everything to with the fact that he wanted to coach a team that had the best chance of winning championships.
Phil was never fired. He had a hissy fit over the fact that Buss chose Kobe over him so he quit, wrote his stupid book in protest while the Lakers go through the rebuilding process. He has been ing Buss' daughter for years so I don't see how it's surprising that he was rehired and fences were mended.
You're seriously the dumbest person posting on the internet if you believe this. Los Angeles didn't give his daughter eye cancer. LA didn't make Utah buy Derek Fisher out. Fisher played in LA most of his career and his wife's family lives in the LA area. Yes LA was factor but not for the reasons you are purporting.
The franchise brand is what made that happen through a rich history of winning which was bred from stellar ownership and great players. Respect was earned, was never a given.
While losing the BEST free agent player on the market in Elton Brand due being a wretched franchise. And another key free agent in Corey Magette. Baron was born and raised in LA and went to UCLA. And please explain to the class what other team was offering Baron a better offer. Golden State pretty much kicked him to the curb.
Hasn't helped the Clippers one iota. You can't really say it has.
None of that has amounted to Jack the last 30 years. As for Lebron, wake me up when he's a New York Knick.
Regardless, your original claim was and still is unvalidated and re ed. You said despite the CBA's current model the Lakers can do things that no other teams can which is complete and utter bull . None of which you tried to argue makes what Jerry Buss has accomplished any less impressive.
Last edited by 21_Blessings; 11-10-2008 at 11:34 PM.
I already acknowledged that the Laker brand was a big part as well.
Did Shaq not make multiple "Hollywood" movies while in LA? I even remember him stating how he loved the fact that Hollywood and better opportunities to make music were in Los Angeles.
So if the Lakers never moved from Minneapolis, think the Minneapolis Lakers would have been able to lure Shaq? Even if Jerry West was the GM still? no.
The other examples are stretches, but not complete stretches. And, if Shaq is the only example that is on point, it's enough. That alone gave the Lakers three les. Los Angeles the city helped lure Shaq.
Clippers still got one of the best free agents on the market. We were talking about advantages. The Clippers had an advantage to lure Baron Davis. How it affected the team isn't part of what we're debating.
The Knicks history is relevant. It's more than just the cities. But, if things are equivalent between say the Knicks and the Memphis Grizzlies, a free agent is going to the Knicks. A Hall of Fame coach is going to the Knicks. All things equal, New York and Los Angeles have advantages. They still sell tickets when the teams are average or below average. Those franchises still make money. A bad team in a Seattle or Vancouver or San Diego or St. Louis or Memphis or Atlanta, they don't make money. Knicks and Lakers will still make money, so they can still afford to go over the cap and over the luxury. That's the advantage. Add to that the cities are big metropolitans with great nightlifes and an endless amount to do, they have advantages. After winning 6 NBA les, is Phil Jackson going to go to the Lakers or to the Seattle Supersonics? 4 NBA les in his pocket, is Pat Riley going to go take over the Minnesota Timberwolves or the New York Knicks? Are teams with those kinds of winning coaches in great big U.S. cities with the willingness to go over the luxury tax going to lure the top free agents or is Eric Musselman and Terry Stotts going to get those players?
It's not just the cities. I never said it was "just" the cities. Obviously tradition, the brand name, the history, the players already on the team help. But, to discount Los Angeles the city is naive and foolish. Los Angeles helps sell the Lakers. The city and the fans that sell out the Staples Center every year to help raise ticket prices helps lure players, coaches. You keep that same franchise, the Lakers and their brand with the same amount of championships, and put it in North Dakota, Shaq doesn't go the Lakers as a free agent, Kobe doesn't re-sign with the Lakers, Phil Jackson doesn't coach the Lakers. But, of course, the Lakers would never go to North Dakota.
What I'm telling you is that it's going to extremely unlikely that happens this offseason. Tell us which franchises are going to blow their load on Lamar Odom and killing any chance they have at the 2010 free agent class. He won't get many good offers, which is why it's likely he takes a severe pay cut and resigns with LA.
Huh? Basketball players athleticism goes down hill pretty quickly post 30. We aren't talking about any player though, we are talking about Lamar Odom. If you paid attention to his career you would realize why age is a factor for the guy. Once athleticism goes, so goes his value. That is unless he finds that midrange jumper and post game he never developed the past 9 seasons.
Odom was drafted 4th overall with many comparisons to Magic Johnson. Had back to back triple doubles his rookie season. Couple drug possesions later, he gets a HUGE contract solely based on his potential. Lamar is one of the biggest 'could have been' we've seen in the past decade.
Yes roleplayer. And it is his fault that he isn't starting. He came into the league as a shooting forward and now Vladimir Radmonvic is starting over him because Odom is incapable of filling team needs at that position.
Are you stupid? Manu makes 10 million a year and you think Odom is worth that much? A step above MLE is exactly what a declining, 30 year old who can rebound well roleplayer is worth.
Odom's market value isn't very high right now. And just because Rashard Lewis got 120 million doesn't mean every decent SF in the league will get that much. Especially considering the state of our economy and 2010 FA frenzy coming.
Westbrook is already a better scorer than Odom. So no there. Bobcats? He would start at PF because his only compe ion is Sean May and they could move Gerald back to SF. He would be the 3rd option behind Wallace and Richardson. That team would suck really bad while have zero cap space to improve.
It's the biggest part of it, which is what you don't understand.
Shaq has stated many times that he would have never come to LA if wasn't for Jerry West. Sorry, but you're wrong. And Shaq was an icon playing in Orlando. You do realize Blue Chips was filmed when he was with the Magic, right? Yeah thats right dumbass. If anything Hollywood killed his acting career with kazam
Let me spell it out for you: Shaq has stated he would have never become a Laker if wasn't for Jerry West. Shaq is a glory . West sold him on the product of the "Lakers", not LA. Mikan. Wilt. Kareem.....Shaq.
Your other examples were either re ed speculation or a flat out lie. Glen Rice for nothing??? Eddie Jones was an all-star for the Lakers. Your Shaq example was already proven to be unvalidated.
They lost the best free agent on the market. LA was only a factor because Baron grew up there. The biggest factor remains is that the Clippers had cap space to blow and made an offer.
Yes we all get that captain obvious. But in Jerry Buss' case, it's irrelevant. Paul Allen has about 30 times the wealth of Buss. Cuban goes over the cap every season not just because Dallas sells out, because hes a rich with billions to blow. The Lakers insane popularity (that puts people in the seats) is based on their history, not just because of playing in Los Angeles. Sterling is barely making a profit in LA with the Clippers. Good chance they leave in the few seasons for Anaheim.
Your argument doesn't work. If the Seattle Supersonics had Kobe, Shaq and owner dedicated to winning and Lakers were like the Clippers then he would have went to Seattle.
Brad Lohuas or Patrick Ewing? Hmm, tough decision.
You keep backtracking your argument.
If LA stayed in Minny and had the same success as the LA Lakers and Jerry West was still the GM - Shaq is going to the Lakers. Already explained this to you.
Phil Jackson's motive was to coach a winner, not an expansion franchise. If he had a choice between the Clippers or a Duncan/Robinson San Antonio team it's pretty obvious which one he's taking.
Yes big markets have lots of people with money to blow. But LA didn't make the Lakers what they are. Just as Green Bay didn't make the Packers.
You still don't understand the fact that I never said the cities themselves are the only reason. Never said that. But, to discount that the cities don't play a role at all is just plain foolish. I didn't say Los Angeles made the Lakers.
You need to learn to read.
I said Los Angeles offers advantages other cities and teams don't have. That's not debatable yet you continue to debate it.
How come Shaq didn't demand to be traded to the Memphis Grizzlies then in 2004? Jerry West was still the GM in Memphis.
Shaq wanted to come to Los Angeles. The fact it was the Lakers and Jerry West helped the cause, no doubt. But, don't believe for a second that the city didn't help. Why didn't he demand to get traded to Memphis again? Why didn't he demand to get traded once Jerry West was pushed out of his GM job? Don't tell me the bull that he stepped down. Everyone knows Jerry West was pushed out. Why didn't Shaq demand to get traded then?
Los Angeles the city played a factor. Not the only factor. Never said that. You have to be a re not to know that cities like Los Angeles and New York have an added appeal to players and coaches.
You need to learn how to keep your arguments straight.
You said LA can do things other teams couldn't do despite the current CBA model which was utterly re ed and baseless.
Nice strawman. Different situations.
Why are you still using this strawman? How does 2004 have anything to do with 1996. How come Shaq didn't demand a trade to NEW YORK?? Using your re ed logic by the way.
See, can't keep your arguments straight. This a whole another subject and you're trying (failing) to connect them like they're relevant to what were talking about.
Not having West around only hastened the Shaq - Kobe fallout. West leaving the Lakers in 01 has nothing to do with West/Shaq in 1996.
Although, Shaq has stated more than once that if West never left the Lakers wouldn't have been blown up like it was.
You have to be a re not to know that cities with a rich tradition of winning and great owners have an added appeal to players and coaches. Much, much more than location. And you have to be extra re ed to think that the Lakers are what they are just because they play in LA.
Never changed my argument. Me having to explain what I said to you is not changing arguments.
I said Los Angeles has advantages. Here I go having to explain what I said to someone who has poor reading comprehension. I said "the Los Angeles market even in the current CBA financial landscape allows for the Lakers to do things many if not most other franchises simply cannot." That is a true statement. Los Angeles can offer players and coaches easy access to Hollywood and people in other entertainment industries, Sunset Blvd, parties at the Playboy mansion, Venice Beach, a greater opportunity at endorsement deals. Those are things other cities and teams cannot offer.You said LA can do things other teams couldn't do despite the current CBA model which was utterly re ed and baseless.
Of course different situations. Memphis is not Los Angeles. That's the point. You said Shaq came to the Lakers because of Jerry West. Well, Jerry West was in Memphis. Why didn't Shaq try to go to Memphis. Because it wasn't JUST Jerry West.Nice strawman. Different situations.
Not a strawman argument. In 2004, Shaq forced a trade. He was still highly sought after. He was still considered the best center in the game. Jerry West was in Memphis. Yous said the reason Shaq went to the Lakers was because of Jerry West. Why didn't Shaq try to get traded to Memphis? Not a strawman argument. It exemplifies that Shaq didn't go to the Lakers ONLY because of Jerry West. That's the point.Why are you still using this strawman? How does 2004 have anything to do with 1996. How come Shaq didn't demand a trade to NEW YORK?? Using your re ed logic by the way.
It's not a new argument. It's called a counter-argument to YOUR argument that Shaq came to the Lakers because of Jerry West. It directly addresses that argument. Not a strawman argument. No need to straighten out my arguments.See, can't keep your arguments straight. This a whole another subject and you're trying (failing) to connect them like they're relevant to what were talking about.
It does if as you say Jerry West was the reason Shaq came to the Lakers.Not having West around only hastened the Shaq - Kobe fallout. West leaving the Lakers in 01 has nothing to do with West/Shaq in 1996.
So why not demand a trade to Memphis?Although, Shaq has stated more than once that if West never left the Lakers wouldn't have been blown up like it was.
You have to be re ed to think I said the Lakers are what they are because they play in LA. I didn't. The Lakers are who they are because of their history. But, it's not just one thing that lures free agents and highly sought after coaches to teams. Again, put the Lakers back in Minneapolis, and Shaq doesn't go there in 1996. Phil Jackson doesn't coach for the Lakers. Kobe does not re-sign with the Lakers.You have to be a re not to know that cities with a rich tradition of winning and great owners have an added appeal to players and coaches. Much, much more than location. And you have to extra re ed to think that the Lakers are what they are just because they play in LA.
The Detroit Pistons have as rich a history as any team in the NBA after the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs. Bill Davidson is considered one of the best owners in all of sports. The Pistons were the first team with its own private jet. Davidson built the Palace privately with no public funds, and two decades later is still among the best state of the arts facilities in sports. They were one of the first franchises to have an auxiliary practice gym within walking distance of the actual stadium. All of that and a tradition of winning. And, they still have an immensely hard time getting top free agents. They have to get lucky with trades and diamonds in the rough. Grant Hill left. Chris Webber even rebuked a courting by the Pistons back in 2003. Their stars had to come in perceived lopsided deals like Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton or under the radar signings like Billups and McDyess. It's not just the tradition and history. A city with great tradition of winning and a great owner. They've lost players to Orlando and Sacramento.
It's not just the history and tradition. To fail to acknowledge that Los Angeles the city plays a factor at all again is simply re ed.
You have moved the goal post on your argument multiple times already. It's hilarious.
From doing things that others teams cannot, to advantages. You can stop lying now. You also said the Lakers 'can afford to go over the lux tax' because they play in LA. So why doesn't Sterling go over the tax? Exactly. Paul Allen trumps any would be advantage LA provides the Lakers since he has an unlimited bank account to throw around.
Teams don't offer players that. Your argument makes no sense in regards to the original claim with the Lakers. "Parties at the Playboy mansion" is the dumbest thing you could have possibly used to back up your unvalidated bull . The greater opportunity for endorsement deals is just as stupid. The 'escalator clause' in the Nike contract is nothing but fiction. Lebron is doing just fine getting his endorsement deals playing in Ohio. His income isn't going to suddenly increase because he's playing LA. He won't all of sudden attain 20 new shoe deals or commercials. With the good come to bad. If Lebron does leave Cleveland I think it will because he wants to win. And thats not going to happen with the Cavs and Ferry running things.
Look how ing stupid you are? Completely different situations. No one can take you seriously when use re ed fallacies like this. Jerry West was the one who courted Shaq, borderline tampering and convinced him to sign with the Lakers as a free agent. Shaq has admitted multiple times that without Jerry West convincing him to play for a storied franchise like the Lakers, he wouldn't have left his HOME in Orlando.
You didn't answer the question. Using your re logic, why didn't Shaq demand a trade to New York? Yeah thats what I thought you have no answer. You'll just ignore it like you keep ignoring every time I shoot down the stupid you say like the Lakers got Glen Rice for nothing.
Yes it is. And with you saying it just makes you look even more stupid. Trade is not the same thing as a free agent. 1996 is no 2004. Shaq was under contract for the LA Lakers and did not get to dictate where he went.
Thats what Shaq said. And evidence backs that up. You said Shaq wanted to make movies and be hollywood. Shaq was making movies before LA.
That's the definition of a straw man. Completely misrepresented my position with another. One of which doesn't even hold any water nor relation.
Jerry West convinced Shaq to be a Laker. He wanted to be a legend and win multiple rings. Best GM in the game sold on him a storied franchise with ridiculous young talent and the best owner in the league dedicated to winning. Has nothing to do whatsoever with Shaq being traded in 2004.
Haha, no it's a straw man and you don't even realize. I really didn't think you were this stupid after all this time.
I guess your reading comprehension sucks? Shaq is a free agent. Without Jerry West convincing Shaq to take less money so he could win multiple championships and become the next great Laker center, it wouldnt have happened. Nothing to do with 2004. None, whatsoever.
You just called yourself re ed by implying none of that happened if the Lakers weren't in LA. Good job, dumbass.
Shaq signed because Jerry West convinced him based on the Lakers history. Phil Jackson still coaches the Lakers because he saw, like everybody else that Kobe/Shaq duo had the potential to be one of the best the game has ever seen. Kobe still re-signs with the Lakers. You have no rational claim or evidence to say otherwise.
No they don't. Thats reality. Spurs? Sure. Lakers, Bulls Celtics? Nope. But congrats on the couple les you won against the Lakers soley due to injuries.
I didn't fail to acknowledge that. But players have varying preferences based on their experience. Fact remains, Shaq didn't come to LA because of Hollywood like you lied about. He came because of the tradition Jerry West sold him on and promises of rings. That's just the reality of it.
Buss only owns 51% at this point and the Lakers remain his only source of reported income. The majority of the owners in the NBA have multiple sources of income outside of their basketball franchises.
Yeah I know....just a thought....
It's quite apparent you need reading comprehension.
I have said multiple times that the city of Los Angeles is a factor to lure players and coaches, not the only factor.
You can't seem to understand that I have not once said it's the ONLY factor or reason why a player or coach would choose the Lakers. Advantages. Things being in Los Angeles would have to offer. It's part of the lure.
You honestly keep attacking my argument in a manner that suggests that I am saying the City of Los Angeles is the only reason a player or coach would come to the Lakers. That's not what I've said.
Get better reading comprehension.
To emphasize this point, here is another example of you not being able to read well.
I didn't say they had as rich a history of the Lakers, Bulls or Celtics. Read the word "after" in my quote. After those franchises, meaning they don't have as rich a tradition.No they don't. Thats reality. Spurs? Sure. Lakers, Bulls Celtics? Nope. But congrats on the couple les you won against the Lakers soley due to injuries.
Reading comprehension.
Oh, and the 2004 NBA le against the Lakers wasn't due to injury. It was do to Laker implosion with Kobe jealousy and Shaq hate.
And, the 1989 le was due to injury. Fully admit that. The 1988 NBA le the Lakers won was aided by a shaky call on Laimbeer on a Kareem sky hook and because Isiah had no foot. Lakers won that because Isiah was injured. So, good talk.
I'm done with this. You have poor reading comprehension.
That's assuming as well that the Lakers feel they can take the probable lux tax hit that even an MLE-level contract for Odom will bring, once all their other contract issues are completed this coming offseason.
This also assumes that contract offers take into consideration projected production in the latter stages of the contract.
If this were indeed the case, no player above 30 would receive anything beyond a 3-year contract at most, which simply isn't happening in the league right now.
I'll take your Odom and raise you Jay Williams.
Radmanovic is a better fit on the starting team because he doesn't need the ball. With that many scoring options in the Lakers' starting five, another playmaker isn't needed.
Doesn't necessarily mean Radmanovic > Odom on any other team in the NBA, or that Odom doesn't fit other team's needs.
Injuries aside, Ginobili is underpaid relative to other 'starter-level' (30 minutes a game, crunchtime) SGs. Bad example.
Again, it's not about true value. I haven't been arguing how much Odom really is worth, I've been saying how much other teams will perceive him to be worth will be higher than what you perceive he is (regardless of whether that is his true worth or not).
Never underestimate the stupidity/desperation of certain franchises.
Considering that Wallace is on the trading block, that doesn't necessarily hold.
You keep saying that, but the original claim was that the Lakers can do things that other teams cannot. Which is bull and baseless. You then implied Shaq, Phil would have never come and Kobe doesn't resign based solely on the fact that the Lakers weren't in LA.
Nope, sorry. Third best player on the Lakers team was injured unable to perform. Enjoy the fluke le. Isiah was healthy enough to play and play well. Just because he made it look worse than it really was for the camera doesn't mean .
Ironic, coming from the guy arguing with a straw man all night. Learn to read. Learn to not make re ed arguments. You really had some gems like the Glen Rice for nothing, Clippers enormous advantage because they got Baron (hometown guy) while losing Brand/Magette. Genius dude. I know you're bitter and all that your franchise is going nowhere and they're only plan is to go after players in 2010 that they could have drafted back in 03. Sorry about that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
