BREAKING: Lakers will acquire Hibbert from the Pacers

[Heisenberg]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25233319/reports-lakers-will-acquire-roy-hibbert-from-the-pacers

[Foster5k]

Mitch Kupchak: "We weren't able to get Aldridge. However, we have a back up plan."

Jeanie Buss: "And what's that?"

Mitch Kupchak: "Roy Hibbert."

Jeanie Buss: "You're fired."

[Beastmode88]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

kobe's def retiring.

[K Xerxes]

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/2055389/hibbertchug.gif

[CelticBaller]

Biggest free agent since Shaq


LA definitely a top FA spot like their fans say, everybody wants to play over there :applause:

[ArbitraryWater]

foster, make some kind of funny conversation with 'say my name!' (OP) and a hibbert connection in there..

[DMAVS41]

Well, really hope they don't end up having to give the Sixers the 6th pick in the draft or something.

Did they actually give up a 2nd rounder to get him as well? Am I hearing that right?

[dazzer87]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/36/46/50/36465038eb7dde2b29a4c5f301210933.jpg

[toxicxr6]

Pairing the worst chucker of all time with the worst rebounding centre of all time

Well this should be interesting to watch

:facepalm

[Foster5k]

foster, make some kind of funny conversation with 'say my name!' (OP) and a hibbert connection in there..
:oldlol:

See what I can do. :D

[ArbitraryWater]

:oldlol:

See what I can do. :D

:lol :cheers:

[outbreak]

https://www.nrcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/sinking-ship.jpg

[Optimus Prime]

"Indiana will likely get a future pick and cash in return."

As long as it's a second round pick, then I'm okay with it. If the Lakers give up a first rounder for HIBBERT... :facepalm

[outbreak]

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/869/381/00db493760f7b429a7bb4dd9e0b0b90e_crop_north.png?w= 500&h=333&q=75

http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBm7FmQVIQ AAL0z-.jpg

http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/tumblr_n51lruMwX81rs5ngxo1_500.jpg

https://alphoop.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/hibbert-anything.jpg

http://s.quickmeme.com/img/54/544a87799d986aa4bec8dcdd3c10aff49741d8abe724606e91 52538358ccb2a3.jpg

http://main.donthatemiami.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/selena-gomez-roy-hibbert.jpg

[StephHamann]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S_Ipl55IV0#t=2m22s

[Shade8780]

:roll:

[Smook A.]

http://i1.sinaimg.cn/dy/2014/0411/U10572P1117DT20140411073333.jpg

Have fun seeing him get outrebounded by other teams' small forwards

[Beastmode88]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S_Ipl55IV0

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Batz]

:facepalm

[dazzer87]

http://i.imgur.com/YpTAmuq.jpg

[Xoush]

http://i.imgur.com/YpTAmuq.jpg

:yaohappy:

[HylianNightmare]

Wcf

[Patrick Chewing]

http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/xaxyjtwsljgm17emb2vw.jpg

[branslowski]

Omfg...:facepalm

A miracle could happen though, Lakers might get 8th seed out here in these streets.:applause:

[HOoopCityJones]

Jared Dubin ‏@JADubin5 35m35 minutes ago

Hibbert's ranked 3rd and 1st in @SethPartnow's Points Saved Per 36 the last two years: http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/rim-protection/ …



Jared Dubin ‏@JADubin5 45m45 minutes ago

Pacers lost PG and Lance, didn't have Hill for half the year and they still finished 8th in defensive efficiency. Roy Hibbert is good.

[Patrick Chewing]

http://sportzmemes.astrochologistco.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ikkk.jpg

[dazzer87]

http://sportzmemes.astrochologistco.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ikkk.jpg
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[zoom17]

http://i.imgur.com/YpTAmuq.jpg

Spat out my drink:roll: :roll: :roll:

[inclinerator]

wtf hibbert is a 30 and 10 guy

[ArbitraryWater]

Spat out my drink:roll: :roll: :roll:

same.. and I wasnt even drinking anything :roll:

[coin24]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Bosnian Sajo]

same.. and I wasnt even drinking anything :roll:

Your boyfriend must of nutted in your mouth, you didn't even notice.

[sportsfan76]

So they sign a dude who trips over his own feet, has no offensive moves, and plays like he is 6'1 on defense?

[UK2K]

How desperate are the Lakers??

[COnDEMnED]

How desperate are the Lakers??
Well... which statement is untrue?
The Lakers have the best Center in L.A
The Lakers have the only Center in L.A

[Spaulding]

Dat Gomez pic rofl

[Bandito]

God please no...no....no....:cry:


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bandito]

Pairing the worst chucker of all time with the worst rebounding centre of all time

Well this should be interesting to watch

:facepalm
Lebron coming to LA as well...Well F*ck me...

[Megabox!]

Pairing the worst chucker of all time with the worst rebounding centre of all time

Well this should be interesting to watch

:facepalm
Immovable object meets unstoppable chucker :applause:

[Bandito]

same.. and I wasnt even drinking anything :roll:
It wasn't water what you spit though...if you know what I mean:roll: :roll: :roll:


You gave it too easy my friend ;)

[Bandito]

Well... which statement is untrue?
The Lakers have the best Center in L.A
The Lakers have the only Center in L.A
Neither.

[BallsOut]

ArbitraryWater aka RocketGreatness (RG) getting destroyed in this thread :oldlol:

[MrC1991]

Larry Bird couldn't resist the chance to fvck over the Lakers for old times sake.

[alanLA92]

Larry Bird couldn't resist the chance to fvck over the Lakers for old times sake.

1/3 :lol

[JZ600]

Lolakers taking another L

[COnDEMnED]

Lolakers taking another L
Who the **** are you, Mr. 193 posts?

[Heisenberg]

Lolakers taking another L
I didnt know his name was Loy Hibbert

[bdreason]

Well... which statement is untrue?
The Lakers have the best Center in L.A
The Lakers have the only Center in L.A


Don't forget Sacre.



And I hear Big Baby is moving to Center next season.

[COnDEMnED]

Don't forget Sacre.



And I hear Big Baby is moving to Center next season.
Jeebus have mercy on both LA teams. More mercy for the Lakers, preferably.

[rmt]

How stupid can that FO get? What would a rebuilding team like the Lakers need with Hibbert? Makes no sense at all.

[Heisenberg]

How stupid can that FO get? What would a rebuilding team like the Lakers need with Hibbert? Makes no sense at all.
The rebuilding process ended when we drafted the GOAT named D'Angelo Russell.

[chips93]

How stupid can that FO get? What would a rebuilding team like the Lakers need with Hibbert? Makes no sense at all.

The sixers get their pick next year, so there's no point tanking.

[jzek]

Spurs get LMA and Lakers get one of the worst All Stars in history! :oldlol:

[Hey Yo]

http://main.donthatemiami.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/selena-gomez-roy-hibbert.jpg


:lol :roll: :lol

[Magic 32]

This is a lot of laughing from non-millionaires on a saturday night.

Look...dummies.

It's one year and he could be part of a future deal with the Kings.

[COnDEMnED]

How stupid can that FO get? What would a rebuilding team like the Lakers need with Hibbert? Makes no sense at all.
His expiring contract. Any other team would be able to probably make some noise with around 40 million in cap space next year. The Lakers, on the other hand, who knows.

This is a punt with benefits.

[triangleoffense]

sad most people too stupid to understand a 1-year deal these days.

[oh the horror]

sad most people too stupid to understand a 1-year deal these days.



Apparently so. They whiffed on the free agents that were available so the next move for the front office was to fill the roster with contracts that won't be on the books next season. Roy is one that's expendable.



Apparently that's a hard concept for them to get.

[Fawker]

Kobe
Duncan
MJ
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Curry

It's a very short list.

[sportsfan76]

Kobe
Duncan
MJ
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Curry

It's a very short list.

Isiah Thomas is missing

[J Shuttlesworth]

http://main.donthatemiami.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/selena-gomez-roy-hibbert.jpg


:lol :roll: :lol
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk_HbhsIUAIBY52.jpg

[Lakers_Kobe_Fan]

sad most people too stupid to understand a 1-year deal these days.

the average age here is 8. what do u expect?

[Harison]

Pairing the worst chucker of all time with the worst rebounding centre of all time

Well this should be interesting to watch

:facepalm

+1 :lol

[Harison]

Larry Bird couldn't resist the chance to fvck over the Lakers for old times sake.
:roll:

[TheBigVeto]

The Lakers are back! WCF at least with Hibbert.

[kshutts1]

How stupid can that FO get? What would a rebuilding team like the Lakers need with Hibbert? Makes no sense at all.
This.

The Lakers owe their pick to Philly next year, BUT it is top 3 protected. So I was applauding Lakers for not doing anything; they should try to be as bad as possible, if tanking.

But then this? Makes little sense, unless they think they can spotlight him for a couple months then flip him for a first. But that's just a silly, unnecessary risk.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

This.

The Lakers owe their pick to Philly next year, BUT it is top 3 protected. So I was applauding Lakers for not doing anything; they should try to be as bad as possible, if tanking.

But then this? Makes little sense, unless they think they can spotlight him for a couple months then flip him for a first. But that's just a silly, unnecessary risk.

With that logic why go after anybody?

Should the Lakers not even pitched to LA?

[kennethgriffin]

hibbert is an underrated rebounder. the guy just doesnt play enough minutes

his per 36 minute is 15ppg, 10rpg, 2.5 bpg

and he makes his free throws


:confusedshrug:

[Rooster]

Apparently so. They whiffed on the free agents that were available so the next move for the front office was to fill the roster with contracts that won't be on the books next season. Roy is one that's expendable.



Apparently that's a hard concept for them to get.

I really don't like this move since we did not acquire any assets that usually comes with dumping a contract. So basically Pacers had a leftover and we have to eat it because we are so hungry and desperate.

There's only one upside to this deal and its Hibbert. This is his last chance to earn another big contract and if he works his butt of and play hard, he could get one or he could be out of the league.

[smoovegittar]

Well... which statement is untrue?
The Lakers have the best Center in L.A
The Lakers have the only Center in L.A
Neither, unfortunately.

[Magic 32]

I really don't like this move since we did not acquire any assets that usually comes with dumping a contract. So basically Pacers had a leftover and we have to eat it because we are so hungry and desperate.


The asset is the contract.

Not unlike Kwame in 07-08

[Rooster]

The asset is the contract.

Not unlike Kwame in 07-08

Yeah I know. This is basically like Jeremy Lin dumping last year. However we got a first round draft pick from Houston in that package. I think Mitch made the initial call so Bird took advantage.

[kshutts1]

With that logic why go after anybody?

Should the Lakers not even pitched to LA?
They should have pitched to LMA, but not offered the max. All signings should have been considered in the context of talent/fit vs potential for the third pick.

LMA, at thirty years old AND on a max deal, is not worth a top 3 pick to a rebuilding team.

You're a smart guy, I love your posts, so I know you won't misread that sentence, with all its qualifiers. But everyone else, please re-read it before flaming me.

Butler and Leonard were the only FAs that were worth more than a top 3 pick while being at the max, IMO, so target those.

All other signings should have been Knicks-style signings (love their offseason so far). Solid players on cheap deals, or young players with still room to grow.

The team is rebuilding and, without draft picks, the most important thing you can do is sign young players with room to grow. Luckily for the Lakers, "young players with room to grow" don't generally translate in to wins.

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

[oh the horror]

Roster shaping up nicely

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/horrorm0nez/7D3B58F6-DFD6-4C31-B664-74ED5C6C8D13.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/horrorm0nez/media/7D3B58F6-DFD6-4C31-B664-74ED5C6C8D13.jpg.html)

[Rooster]

They should have pitched to LMA, but not offered the max. All signings should have been considered in the context of talent/fit vs potential for the third pick.

LMA, at thirty years old AND on a max deal, is not worth a top 3 pick to a rebuilding team.

You're a smart guy, I love your posts, so I know you won't misread that sentence, with all its qualifiers. But everyone else, please re-read it before flaming me.

Butler and Leonard were the only FAs that were worth more than a top 3 pick while being at the max, IMO, so target those.

All other signings should have been Knicks-style signings (love their offseason so far). Solid players on cheap deals, or young players with still room to grow.

The team is rebuilding and, without draft picks, the most important thing you can do is sign young players with room to grow. Luckily for the Lakers, "young players with room to grow" don't generally translate in to wins.

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

The point of overpaying players is not that you get the value in return because most of the time you won't, but you get that asset and you can use it later in acquiring future assets. LMA is a good asset so it's easy to trade him or Lakers can used him as a precursor in hoping to add a marquee player next year.

[Springsteen]

http://i.imgur.com/Xb09Mx3.jpg

[ZenMaster]

They should have pitched to LMA, but not offered the max. All signings should have been considered in the context of talent/fit vs potential for the third pick.

LMA, at thirty years old AND on a max deal, is not worth a top 3 pick to a rebuilding team.

You're a smart guy, I love your posts, so I know you won't misread that sentence, with all its qualifiers. But everyone else, please re-read it before flaming me.

Butler and Leonard were the only FAs that were worth more than a top 3 pick while being at the max, IMO, so target those.

All other signings should have been Knicks-style signings (love their offseason so far). Solid players on cheap deals, or young players with still room to grow.

The team is rebuilding and, without draft picks, the most important thing you can do is sign young players with room to grow. Luckily for the Lakers, "young players with room to grow" don't generally translate in to wins.

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

Laker fan base won't keep turning on the TV to watch crap players who aren't supposed to be there after the season anyways. Myself as an example, I used to watch most games but last year only about 15 or so.

This strategy of loosing on purpose is a mockery of the game, hope Silver realizes it at some point.

[kshutts1]

The point of overpaying players is not that you get the value in return because most of the time you won't, but you get that asset and you can use it later in acquiring future assets. LMA is a good asset so it's easy to trade him or Lakers can used him as a precursor in hoping to add a marquee player next year.
Sorry. I would not HINGE my franchise's hopes on someone else being stupid.

If the situation were to present itself, I would not turn it down. But I'm not about to overpay someone and say "well, if it doesn't work out, at least I can fleece Sac for picks for this guy".

I'm all for risks, but that's beyond my threshold.

[kshutts1]

Laker fan base won't keep turning on the TV to watch crap players who aren't supposed to be there after the season anyways. Myself as an example, I used to watch most games but last year only about 15 or so.

This strategy of loosing on purpose is a mockery of the game, hope Silver realizes it at some point.
I hope so too. But until it changes, smart teams will take advantage of it.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

They should have pitched to LMA, but not offered the max. All signings should have been considered in the context of talent/fit vs potential for the third pick.

LMA, at thirty years old AND on a max deal, is not worth a top 3 pick to a rebuilding team.

You're a smart guy, I love your posts, so I know you won't misread that sentence, with all its qualifiers. But everyone else, please re-read it before flaming me.

Butler and Leonard were the only FAs that were worth more than a top 3 pick while being at the max, IMO, so target those.

All other signings should have been Knicks-style signings (love their offseason so far). Solid players on cheap deals, or young players with still room to grow.

The team is rebuilding and, without draft picks, the most important thing you can do is sign young players with room to grow. Luckily for the Lakers, "young players with room to grow" don't generally translate in to wins.

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

The Lakers would have been rightfully ridiculed for not offering a maximum contract to LA in this free agent environment. This would have further damaged their brand making it even less likely for future free agents to sign.

I would love a top 3 pick as well but its not that simple.

What if the Lakers are the worst team in the league without Hibbert and lose their pick anyway? What if they were just as terrible as last year and simply lose a coinflip? What was the point of tanking? How does not trying impact their young core especially defensively? How is it going to play out when old man Kobe is killing the Lakers management for not even trying? Are free agents going to want to follow that?

[DMAVS41]

With that logic why go after anybody?

Should the Lakers not even pitched to LA?


I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

You have a team of 3 young players to build around. Why would you add a guy like LMA on his own. A player almost 30 that just doesn't do a ton for you unless you are also trading for another superstar with your young guys...then it makes sense.

If the Lakers go after players...it should have been young players.

A guy like Middleton would have been an excellent signing imo. They should have gone after some 2nd tier free agents to get them locked into good long term deals and build around the young guys.

Trying to go after LMA or even Jordan (better because he's younger)...isn't a good plan.


As for this year....I think (and it's just my opinion) that the Lakers are better fielding a team likely to compete for the worst record in the league. That doesn't mean you don't try to win the games you play...it just means you don't go out and get vets on 1 year deals that add wins to the team.

I've said this before and nobody has addressed it. Take a look at the NBA this year. There simply aren't nearly as many bad teams...in fact, 4 of the 6 worst teams last year got way better. The Kings, Wolves, Knicks, and Magic will all be considerably better unless health plays a huge role.

What other teams are just truly terrible? The Sixers are. Is there one other team that will even try to be in full on tank mode? I don't see it.

Racing to the bottom would be easier this year.

[Rooster]

Sorry. I would not HINGE my franchise's hopes on someone else being stupid.

If the situation were to present itself, I would not turn it down. But I'm not about to overpay someone and say "well, if it doesn't work out, at least I can fleece Sac for picks for this guy".

I'm all for risks, but that's beyond my threshold.

If you look at the history of free agency, most of the team's if not all overpay players. The market will dictate the price, not the actual value. Teams does not want to lose an asset and always look to add an asset.

[DMAVS41]

The Lakers would have been rightfully ridiculed for not offering a maximum contract to LA in this free agent environment. This would have further damaged their brand making it even less likely for future free agents to sign.

I would love a top 3 pick as well but its not that simple.

What if the Lakers are the worst team in the league without Hibbert and lose their pick anyway? What if they were just as terrible as last year and simply lose a coinflip? What was the point of tanking? How does not trying impact their young core especially defensively? How is it going to play out when old man Kobe is killing the Lakers management for not even trying? Are free agents going to want to follow that?

Again, nothing is a lock. What if they lose the pick? They lose the pick.

I don't understand the argument...what is the upside to winning 30 games over winning 20 games...if one way gives you a legit chance at keeping the pick and or a guy like Ben Simmons.

Unless the Lakers make the playoffs or flip Hibbert for a real asset...this trade can really only do nothing but hurt. Well, if Hibbert helps them be terrible it won't hurt, but that isn't why the Lakers traded for him.

And it seems to be made even worse by giving up a 2nd rounder for him.

Now, he's still a legit NBA player...and retaining him on the cheap going forward could be nice...and the Lakers will have the inside track on that.

But I'm just not seeing the logic here...I'm open to it as I don't know everything, but these arguments seem really like a reach.

Everyone keeps saying "it's not worth it to tank again"....worth what? What is the upshot here? I can't see the future, but making the playoffs has to be like a 1% chance at this point.

[ZenMaster]

I hope so too. But until it changes, smart teams will take advantage of it.

Honestly I don't care, I want my Lakers to try as hard as possible, even if it means only winning 40 games.

Kobe, Russel, Clarkson, Randle, Hibbert, Black and Young will try hard and be hard to play against. There is a little bit of everything there.

This isn't 2K15 where you can just simulate the games in a second, we are talking about a whole year of watching basketball.

[kshutts1]

A smart GM doesn't let the market dictate value.

Smart teams do a few things:
1) Offer max to max-worthy players
2) Let other teams overpay the near-max and high-end role players
3) Come in later and find good fits.. players like Bellinelli (sp?) that are not high-end role players, but because of the role they are playing, they are perfect fits. The inverse example is Love to the Cavs. Perfect fit, but much too talented/costly.
4) Never get pushed around. If I'm a rebuilding team, and I know what I want, I'd pitch what I want. I would not cater to the FAs needs. I'd tell them my needs, I'd tell them where they fit in to the plan, and they can take it or leave it.

[Rooster]

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

You have a team of 3 young players to build around. Why would you add a guy like LMA on his own. A player almost 30 that just doesn't do a ton for you unless you are also trading for another superstar with your young guys...then it makes sense.

If the Lakers go after players...it should have been young players.

A guy like Middleton would have been an excellent signing imo. They should have gone after some 2nd tier free agents to get them locked into good long term deals and build around the young guys.

Trying to go after LMA or even Jordan (better because he's younger)...isn't a good plan.


As for this year....I think (and it's just my opinion) that the Lakers are better fielding a team likely to compete for the worst record in the league. That doesn't mean you don't try to win the games you play...it just means you don't go out and get vets on 1 year deals that add wins to the team.

I've said this before and nobody has addressed it. Take a look at the NBA this year. There simply aren't nearly as many bad teams...in fact, 4 of the 6 worst teams last year got way better. The Kings, Wolves, Knicks, and Magic will all be considerably better unless health plays a huge role.

What other teams are just truly terrible? The Sixers are. Is there one other team that will even try to be in full on tank mode? I don't see it.

Racing to the bottom would be easier this year.

There's no guarantee that the Lakers will get to keep the pick even with a worst record. If Russell and Randle shows potential and looks to be promising then the Lakers will rather see that. In ideal world, we rather see that and get to keep the top 3 pick.

[DMAVS41]

Honestly I don't care, I want my Lakers to try as hard as possible, even if it means only winning 40 games.

Kobe, Russel, Clarkson, Randle, Hibbert, Black and Young will try hard and be hard to play against. There is a little bit of everything there.

This isn't 2K15 where you can just simulate the games in a second, we are talking about a whole year of watching basketball.

Of course you want your team to try hard on the court.

Tanking is not your players not trying hard....that isn't what tanking is.

If the Lakers try to tank and end up winning...great. You have a better team and players than you thought. So be it...losing the pick in that situation is fine.

I'm talking about losing the pick because the franchise went out and added 1 year vets on the team that don't have a future on the team. That is different imo.

[DMAVS41]

There's no guarantee that the Lakers will get to keep the pick even with a worst record. If Russell and Randle shows potential and looks to be promising then the Lakers will rather see that. In ideal world, we rather see that and get to keep the top 3 pick.

1. I know they aren't for sure going to keep it

2. Those things aren't connected. You still try to win every single game as much as you can. You just don't sign certain guys in free agency. Tanking is not players/coach deciding to lose games on purpose.

3. You could see both. You could see Russell and Randle play very well together and still win like 22 games this year. It's just not connected the way you guys keep saying it is.

[Rooster]

A smart GM doesn't let the market dictate value.

Smart teams do a few things:
1) Offer max to max-worthy players
2) Let other teams overpay the near-max and high-end role players
3) Come in later and find good fits.. players like Bellinelli (sp?) that are not high-end role players, but because of the role they are playing, they are perfect fits. The inverse example is Love to the Cavs. Perfect fit, but much too talented/costly.
4) Never get pushed around. If I'm a rebuilding team, and I know what I want, I'd pitch what I want. I would not cater to the FAs needs. I'd tell them my needs, I'd tell them where they fit in to the plan, and they can take it or leave it.

Ideally, that's how it gotta be. The Spurs have done it that way but look at them, they still offered the max to Aldridge. When it comes to bidding, you have to put your best offer.

[kshutts1]

Ideally, that's how it gotta be. The Spurs have done it that way but look at them, they still offered the max to Aldridge. When it comes to bidding, you have to put your best offer.
Aldridge was worth the max to the Spurs. He's not to the Lakers. It's called Relative Value.

The Spurs are trying to compete and win right now. For that, you need some of the best players, and age doesn't play much of a factor.

The Lakers are trying to rebuild, and for that you need to let young guys play, and see what you have. Winning is secondary. You still try to win, but the main point is talent/fit evaluation and progress.

[catch24]

Of course you want your team to try hard on the court.

Tanking is not your players not trying hard....that isn't what tanking is.

If the Lakers try to tank and end up winning...great. You have a better team and players than you thought. So be it...losing the pick in that situation is fine.

I'm talking about losing the pick because the franchise went out and added 1 year vets on the team that don't have a future on the team. That is different imo.

What? That's exactly what tanking is.

Here are ESPN and SBnations defnition of tanking: "Tanking," is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

Stop looking for an argument that isn't there. You're simply wrong.

[DMAVS41]

And I'm not even for the Lakers tanking the season...at least I wasn't going into free agency.

But if I had been running the Lakers I would have tried to get solid 2nd and 3rd tier players locked up on 4 year deals now.

Even if you end up moving them for a trade or to open up cap or do a sign and trade with big free agents next summer...you actually have assets on your team.

There were a few really good deals out there to be had and that is where I would have looked as there wasn't a young enough superstar to sign that made sense for the Lakers this summer.

[DMAVS41]

What? That's exactly what tanking is.

Here are ESPN and SBnations defnition of tanking: "Tanking," is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

Stop looking for an argument that isn't there. You're simply wrong.


Tanking is about not putting the best team you can on the floor.

It's not players and coaches not trying hard while on the court.


That definition above agrees with me. You are wrong, as usual....

[ZenMaster]

Of course you want your team to try hard on the court.

Tanking is not your players not trying hard....that isn't what tanking is.

If the Lakers try to tank and end up winning...great. You have a better team and players than you thought. So be it...losing the pick in that situation is fine.

I'm talking about losing the pick because the franchise went out and added 1 year vets on the team that don't have a future on the team. That is different imo.

I knew someone would make the argument that "players try hard", but I meant I want my whole Lakers trying to win games and not just the players.
This means that GMs don't add players on purpose who are crap, even though they try. It means that coaches don't select bad lineups in the middle of games on purpose, that players aren't held out of game due to injuires being publicized as being worse than they really are.

Lakers tank for a coin flip of getting a top 3 pick, no thank you.

Yesterday Hibbert was probably the best C available without having to gut the team to get him, that's a good move in my book, especially when he fits the type of player Randle needs next to him. This isn't 2K15 Dmavs, the season won't be over in 15 minutes, it's a whole year of shit bball.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

You have a team of 3 young players to build around. Why would you add a guy like LMA on his own. A player almost 30 that just doesn't do a ton for you unless you are also trading for another superstar with your young guys...then it makes sense.

If the Lakers go after players...it should have been young players.

A guy like Middleton would have been an excellent signing imo. They should have gone after some 2nd tier free agents to get them locked into good long term deals and build around the young guys.

Trying to go after LMA or even Jordan (better because he's younger)...isn't a good plan.


As for this year....I think (and it's just my opinion) that the Lakers are better fielding a team likely to compete for the worst record in the league. That doesn't mean you don't try to win the games you play...it just means you don't go out and get vets on 1 year deals that add wins to the team.

I've said this before and nobody has addressed it. Take a look at the NBA this year. There simply aren't nearly as many bad teams...in fact, 4 of the 6 worst teams last year got way better. The Kings, Wolves, Knicks, and Magic will all be considerably better unless health plays a huge role.

What other teams are just truly terrible? The Sixers are. Is there one other team that will even try to be in full on tank mode? I don't see it.

Racing to the bottom would be easier this year.

How is it even debatable if you can sign LMA you take him. All day. He has tons of trade value at the very least.

What young players specifically should the Lakers have signed? Khris Middleton was a RFA and got $70 million. It may have taken the max to get him if at all. I want the Lakers to sign good young second tier players to good long term deals but look around. They don't exist.

There is no difference between going out on the floor and not trying to win or going out in the board room not trying to improve your roster within reason. Players are not complete idiots. A tanking losing culture is toxic.

[DMAVS41]

Aldridge was worth the max to the Spurs. He's not to the Lakers. It's called Relative Value.

The Spurs are trying to compete and win right now. For that, you need some of the best players, and age doesn't play much of a factor.

The Lakers are trying to rebuild, and for that you need to let young guys play, and see what you have. Winning is secondary. You still try to win, but the main point is talent/fit evaluation and progress.

Someone gets it.

LOL at people that think NBA players, especially young players, go out there trying to lose games.

That isn't what tanking is you clowns.

[catch24]

Tanking is about not putting the best team you can on the floor.

It's not players and coaches not trying hard while on the court.


That definition above agrees with me. You are wrong, as usual....

Wrong again. That is the literal definition as per most in the basketball community.

Everything in that definition contradicts what you claim. Literally.

[DMAVS41]

I knew someone would make the argument that "players try hard", but I meant I want my whole Lakers trying to win games and not just the players.
This means that GMs don't add players on purpose who are crap, even though they try. It means that coaches don't select bad lineups in the middle of games on purpose, that players aren't held out of game due to injuires being publicized as being worse than they really are.

Lakers tank for a coin flip of getting a top 3 pick, no thank you.

Again, what is the upside to doing it your way.

There are real upsides to the way I'm talking...keep the pick, Ben Simmons....

What is the upside to your way? I'm not saying you are wrong for sure...I just have not seen a tangible upside.

Think about the Spurs when they got Duncan. That wasn't worth it?

The chance to land a kid like Ben Simmons just clearly trumps the arguments against it I've seen so far. It's not even close.

[catch24]

Rebuilding and letting the "young players play" is what the Lakers already planned on doing. They're a young ****ing team.

That's not tanking you clown. :hammerhead:

[DMAVS41]

How is it even debatable if you can sign LMA you take him. All day. He has tons of trade value at the very least.

What young players specifically should the Lakers have signed? Khris Middleton was a RFA and got $70 million. It may have taken the max to get him if at all. I want the Lakers to sign good young second tier players to good long term deals but look around. They don't exist.

There is no difference between going out on the floor and not trying to win or going out in the board room not trying to improve your roster within reason. Players are not complete idiots. A tanking losing culture is toxic.

I think signing LMA would have been a huge mistake without another trade for a variety of reasons.

One is his age, two is that I think he's actually a pretty over-rated player in a vacuum and think he doesn't do much to help develop the young guys on the Lakers.

I'm more in favor of teams building organically like the Thunder.

As for the 2nd tier guys...you go after them up to the price that makes sense. If you get them...great...if you don't...then you don't spend money on other guys just because. Again, it's not complicated.

[DMAVS41]

Wrong again. That is the literal definition as per most in the basketball community.

Everything in that definition contradicts what you claim. Literally.

Actually it doesn't.

That is talking about a team not putting the best team they possibly could on the court. Which is exactly what I'm talking about.

Nowhere in that definition or in the basketball community that know anything do people actually think that within games that players don't try as hard as they can to win games.

You are so wrong here it's laughable.

[Rooster]

Aldridge was worth the max to the Spurs. He's not to the Lakers. It's called Relative Value.

The Spurs are trying to compete and win right now. For that, you need some of the best players, and age doesn't play much of a factor.

The Lakers are trying to rebuild, and for that you need to let young guys play, and see what you have. Winning is secondary. You still try to win, but the main point is talent/fit evaluation and progress.

Like I said, Lakers want Aldridge not because he can carry us to the playoff but because he can be the precursor to us landing marquee player in next year free agency. We want to have an establish player than can entice players to sign with us. In my opinion, I rather see our young guys play and develop but I can understand what Lakers are trying to do or hoping to do.

[catch24]

Actually it doesn't.

That is talking about a team not putting the best team they possibly could on the court. Which is exactly what I'm talking about.

Nowhere in that definition or in the basketball community that know anything do people actually think that within games that players don't try as hard as they can to win games.

You are so wrong here it's laughable.

Nope. The definition explicitly mentions effort and playing "deliberately to lose".

Enough of the delusional nonsense. The answer is staring right in front of you. :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Rebuilding and letting the "young players play" is what the Lakers already planned on doing. They're a young ****ing team.

That's not tanking you clown. :hammerhead:

:facepalm

God damn you are stupid man.


There is a difference between the following:

1. Lakers sign some vet free agents to 1 year deals or make trades (like the Hibbert trade) and try to put a decent team on the court this year that has a chance to win over 30 games.


2. Lakers don't sign these vets to 1 year deals and they pretty much just only play their young players and don't put a team on the court that can cain over 30 games.


They are different.

But both scenarios will see their players trying hard and their coaching staff working hard...to win games.

It's about the pieces you have to work with...

[Rooster]

Again, what is the upside to doing it your way.

There are real upsides to the way I'm talking...keep the pick, Ben Simmons....

What is the upside to your way? I'm not saying you are wrong for sure...I just have not seen a tangible upside.

Think about the Spurs when they got Duncan. That wasn't worth it?

The chance to land a kid like Ben Simmons just clearly trumps the arguments against it I've seen so far. It's not even close.

Was Okafor was hype like that before playing a minute of college.:rolleyes: I don't think Lakers wants to do what the Sixers have been doing. Though I hope we can keep that pick.

[DMAVS41]

Like I said, Lakers want Aldridge not because he can carry us to the playoff but because he can be the precursor to us landing marquee player in next year free agency. We want to have an establish player than can entice players to sign with us. In my opinion, I rather see our young guys play and develop but I can understand what Lakers are trying to do or hoping to do.


This makes sense, I'm just not that high on LMA on a team like that. I feel like he's pretty over-rated here...and his issues of efficiency and willingness to compete down low would be even more of an issue on a Lakers team.

I'd rather build organically and go after players that have a long future with a super young core than sign LMA to a 3 year deal now.

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

Maybe try signing Hibbert to a long term contract, 3-4 years, before the salary cap goes up? Lakers luck lately, Hibbert has career year, leaves for Lakers next year for the big bucks.

[Rooster]

:facepalm

God damn you are stupid man.


There is a difference between the following:

1. Lakers sign some vet free agents to 1 year deals or make trades (like the Hibbert trade) and try to put a decent team on the court this year that has a chance to win over 30 games.


2. Lakers don't sign these vets to 1 year deals and they pretty much just only play their young players and don't put a team on the court that can cain over 30 games.


They are different.

But both scenarios will see their players trying hard and their coaching staff working hard...to win games.

It's about the pieces you have to work with...

Do you really believe Hibbert can make a difference:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Was Okafor was hype like that before playing a minute of college.:rolleyes: I don't think Lakers wants to do what the Sixers have been doing. Though I hope we can keep that pick.

I don't think there should ever be a plan completely set in stone.

For example, if the Lakers could have signed Middleton (not likely) this year....they should have done it at whatever price they saw value in.

If they saw value in players...they should have gone after them imo. That trumps trying to keep the pick.

But if they didn't see value in guys...then you shouldn't just spend to spend.

You get my point?

[DMAVS41]

Do you really believe Hibbert can make a difference:confusedshrug:

Just him? A little difference. Mainly because the defense was going to be horrendous and he will definitely help.

We'll see...these margins are incredibly thin. 3 to 5 games can be the difference between a top pick and the 6th pick.

I just don't see the upside, but can see the downside.

[tpols]

Do you really believe Hibbert can make a difference:confusedshrug:

Hibbert played on a slow grind it out team in the east, perfect t for his big slow moving lane clogging ass. He's gonna get torched by the collection of great bigs and speed out west.. he doesn't make them any better really..

[ZenMaster]

Again, what is the upside to doing it your way.

There are real upsides to the way I'm talking...keep the pick, Ben Simmons....

What is the upside to your way? I'm not saying you are wrong for sure...I just have not seen a tangible upside.

Think about the Spurs when they got Duncan. That wasn't worth it?

The chance to land a kid like Ben Simmons just clearly trumps the arguments against it I've seen so far. It's not even close.

We got Randle, Russel and Clarkson for stinking the last two seasons, that is enough.

I see the Lakers as the greatest franchise in basketball, they're equivelant to Barcelona and Real Madrid within football. They have the biggest fan base and most viewers, losing on purpose can be for other clubs but not a great one like the Lakers. You lose too much trust from general fans by losing on purpose. Add to that, being one of the 3 worst teams in the NBA next season only gives us about 50% chance of actually keeping our pick. And what if our team is in the 4-8th worst team range, are we then going to see some real hardcore tanking trying to get to the 3rd spot? As a fan myself, all I can say is no thanks.

You can become good through the draft but you can fail as well, same thing goes with trying to sign a great FA like Durant or whoever is next. Difference is you don't have hope in the meantime of certain prospects becoming great, but I'm OK with that as long as the team is at least competing.

I understand all of your points, but being an actual fan of the team for many years I would prefer them not to tank.

[catch24]

Nope. The definition explicitly mentions effort and playing "deliberately to lose".

Enough of the delusional nonsense. The answer is staring right in front of you. :oldlol:

Hold this L, gino

idiot

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I think signing LMA would have been a huge mistake without another trade for a variety of reasons.

One is his age, two is that I think he's actually a pretty over-rated player in a vacuum and think he doesn't do much to help develop the young guys on the Lakers.

I'm more in favor of teams building organically like the Thunder.

Its not even worth talking about. You sign LA and trade him for expirings if it doesn't work out. Its not rocket science.

The Thunder didn't tank for multiple seasons. They just sucked, got lucky and drafted well. It happens. You know what happen more often. You suck, get lucky and draft poorly or you suck and get unlucky but mainly you just suck. How many NBA championship teams were born out of tanking for multiple years?

[DMAVS41]

We got Randle, Russel and Clarkson for stinking the last two seasons, that is enough.

I see the Lakers as the greatest franchise in basketball, they're equivelant to Barcelona and Real Madrid within football. They have the biggest fan base and most viewers, losing on purpose can be for other clubs but not a great one like the Lakers. You lose too much trust from general fans by losing on purpose. Add to that, being one of the 3 worst teams in the NBA next season only gives us about 50% chance of actually keeping our pick. And what if our team is in the 4-8th worst team range, are we then going to see some real hardcore tanking trying to get to the 3rd spot? As a fan myself, all I can say is no thanks.

You can become good through the draft but you can fail as well, same thing goes with trying to sign a great FA like Durant or whoever is next. Difference is you don't have hope in the meantime of certain prospects becoming great, but I'm OK with that as long as the team is at least competing.

Again, could you please explain the upside.

We all already know it's not a lock. We all already know you guys have sucked the last 2 years.

I don't think just saying..."enough is enough"...is a good argument.

None of the players you sign around that young core will be on more than 1 year deals at this point....so it's not like you are building a team with continuity for the future.

So I ask again:

Upside is clear. Ben Simmons...retain the pick.

Please tell me the upside your way.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't think there should ever be a plan completely set in stone.

For example, if the Lakers could have signed Middleton (not likely) this year....they should have done it at whatever price they saw value in.

If they saw value in players...they should have gone after them imo. That trumps trying to keep the pick.

But if they didn't see value in guys...then you shouldn't just spend to spend.

You get my point?


Who exactly should they have signed? Once again Middleton was a restricted free agent. He's only coming if the Lakers overpay.

[DMAVS41]

Its not even worth talking about. You sign LA and trade him for expirings if it doesn't work out. Its not rocket science.

The Thunder didn't tank for multiple seasons. They just sucked, got lucky and drafted well. It happens. You know what happen more often. You suck, get lucky and draft poorly or you suck and get unlucky but mainly you just suck. How many NBA championship teams were born out of tanking for multiple years?

It's all relative. Tanking and sucking here basically mean the same thing.

Those Thunder teams could gone out and signed better players to be better earlier. They didn't. That is what I consider here as to what the Lakers should do.

The Thunder won 20 games and then 23 games the first two years of Durant's career.

You guys haven't had Randle or Russell play a game yet and you are going nuts about being bad a year or two more....when there is a ton of upside to doing it? It doesn't make sense.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Again, could you please explain the upside.

We all already know it's not a lock. We all already know you guys have sucked the last 2 years.

I don't think just saying..."enough is enough"...is a good argument.

None of the players you sign around that young core will be on more than 1 year deals at this point....so it's not like you are building a team with continuity for the future.

So I ask again:

Upside is clear. Ben Simmons...retain the pick.

Please tell me the upside your way.

Upside is we get Ben Simmons anyway, accelerating the development of our young core, not damaging the Lakers brand, not pissing off our living legend, not developing of toxic losing culture and an inside track on resigning a resurrected Hibbert to a long term contract

:confusedshrug:

[Rooster]

Just him? A little difference. Mainly because the defense was going to be horrendous and he will definitely help.

We'll see...these margins are incredibly thin. 3 to 5 games can be the difference between a top pick and the 6th pick.

I just don't see the upside, but can see the downside.

The downside could be that Lakers wasted their money on a 1 year rental and Hibbert will fade into obscurity.

If Russell and Randle are special then the impact will be there. That's what we are hoping.

[DMAVS41]

Who exactly should they have signed? Once again Middleton was a restricted free agent. He's only coming if the Lakers overpay.

Nobody if there isn't value.

I don't know if anyone was even interested in coming to the Lakers this year.

If there wasn't good value...then you don't sign anybody.

But if you could have gotten some value...you sign them.

I'd have looked at Middelton just to see if it was a possibility at EV or better...

I'd have looked at a guy like Shane Larkin or Biyombo or Crowder....


If you don't see value...you don't do anything. I'm not saying they should have spent money regardless.

[Fire Colangelo]

So the Lakers will try to play a grind it out defensive style this year? Because that's the only thing they're playing with Hibbert on the floor....

[DMAVS41]

Upside is we get Ben Simmons anyway, accelerating the development of our young core, not damaging the Lakers brand, not pissing off our living legend, not developing of toxic losing culture and an inside track on resigning a resurrected Hibbert to a long term contract

:confusedshrug:

Accelerate the development of the core? What?

Agree with the long term Hibbert inside track...I mentioned that before.


Damage the Lakers brand? Oh come on now...I said real arguments.

Have you given any thought that playing with a center like Hibbert might hurt the development of the young core? The game is moving away in a big way from players like that. Learning to play in the NBA with a center like that is not preparing you for much at all...that isn't the type of team that the Lakers will having going forward.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's all relative. Tanking and sucking here basically mean the same thing.

Those Thunder teams could gone out and signed better players to be better earlier. They didn't. That is what I consider here as to what the Lakers should do.

The Thunder won 20 games and then 23 games the first two years of Durant's career.

You guys haven't had Randle or Russell play a game yet and you are going nuts about being bad a year or two more....when there is a ton of upside to doing it? It doesn't make sense.

That's the point. We don't even know how good this team is and you already saying we should just chase lottery balls despite the fact that teams that chase lottery balls over multiple seasons throughout NBA history just end up just chasing more and more lottery balls not winning championships.

[DMAVS41]

The downside could be that Lakers wasted their money on a 1 year rental and Hibbert will fade into obscurity.

If Russell and Randle are special then the impact will be there. That's what we are hoping.

Yea, that is the downside.

I was asking the upside.

I can see the downside to bringing in Hibbert just fine...can't really see the upside.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Accelerate the development of the core? What?

Agree with the long term Hibbert inside track...I mentioned that before.


Damage the Lakers brand? Oh come on now...I said real arguments.

As if the 76ers are not a laughingstock? How many years have they been taking? Whats taking so long for these guys to develop?

[DMAVS41]

That's the point. We don't even know how good this team is and you already saying we should just chase lottery balls despite the fact that teams that chase lottery balls over multiple seasons throughout NBA history just end up just chasing more and more lottery balls not winning championships.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying don't add players that don't make sense.

I've repeatedly said that if the Lakers are good on their own...great...I don't mind that at all.

I'm saying you don't actively add players that don't make sense for the long term future of this team.

You guys don't even read my posts....I repeatedly said that if the Lakers with this young group end up being good...I'm absolutely not saying they should then fake injuries or stop trying.

That isn't my argument and I've never said that.

I've said I would be in favor of adding talent to this team that makes sense long term. That isn't chasing ping pong balls.

I'm just not in favor of adding a guy like Hibbert....because I think he will be better on this team than you guys are giving him credit for. And if he is and you keep him all year...then some team will just snatch him from you next summer right off the bat like what happened to many teams this year...while you guys go after superstars again.

[Dro]

You guys are sleeping on the impact Roy will make on defense. No, they won't be a top 10 defense or anything but all those young guys on the team will see how hard he works on defense in practice and in games. If they care enough, they will put in the work to be better on defense. And he's an excellent help defender. Yeah, he's slow laterally but his not THAT slow and he's quick to cover up mistakes.

Half this forum used to tell me PG is an overrated defender and that Roy was the real reason the Pacers defense was so good. He covers up defenders mistakes and that builds chemistry and trust. Something the Lakers will definitely need with all these young guys trying to prove themselves. And he's a great team guy, a great team mate and great in the community.

This is why I hate ish sometimes. Its all about box scores. Dudes watch a guy play 10 times throughout the season and form an entire picture on the guy before he even gets to the team.

Roy didn't play as well last year but he ALWAYS does his job on defense. ALWAYS. You will see how many dunks he blocks. He great at blocking dunks. He rarely gets posterized, Durant and Deron Williams come to mind.

His impact goes beyond stats. If you want him to be your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, option then you're in trouble. But he can score at times and the Lakers defense will improve tenfold, mark this post. All that about fast pf's and c's, etc, just because the East sucks doesn't mean he hasn't seen that before. He's slow up the court. In the half court, he's quicker than you think and he has great timing.

He just needs to do what he does and he'll have extra motivation this year.

The Lakers have problems, Hibbert is not a problem, he will be a positive on defense.

I'm not even sure why I felt the need to defend him, a few of the comments just came off misinformed to me.....

[DMAVS41]

As if the 76ers are not a laughingstock? How many years have they been taking? Whats taking so long for these guys to develop?

You know what is funny. People act like the Sixers have been doing this for a decade.

Hinkie took over 2 years ago.

The Sixers barely missed the playoffs in 2013 in the East. Think they won 35 games iirc.

The year before they in the lockout they made the playoffs.

How long have they been doing this? 2 years.

:roll:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Have you given any thought that playing with a center like Hibbert might hurt the development of the young core? The game is moving away in a big way from players like that. Learning to play in the NBA with a center like that is not preparing you for much at all...that isn't the type of team that the Lakers will having going forward.

The same way the extremely slow Kareem hurt the development of Magic Johnson?

[Fire Colangelo]

As if the 76ers are not a laughingstock? How many years have they been taking? Whats taking so long for these guys to develop?

It's only been 2 seasons since Phily started tanking.... Injuries to Noel and Embiid holding them back mainly.

Noel was nice for the 2nd half of last season... And we'll see how Embiid and Okafor will do this year.

[Fire Colangelo]

The same way the extremely slow Kareem hurt the development of Magic Johnson?

Did you seriously just compare Hibbert to Kareem, and Russell to Magic? lol

[Rooster]

Yea, that is the downside.

I was asking the upside.

I can see the downside to bringing in Hibbert just fine...can't really see the upside.

The upside is we are done with Hibbert after a year and we still have that cap room (will be 2 max players ).
We still suck with Hibbert that we still have a chance to keep our pick for next year.
We can trade Hibbert if he magically shows up before the All Star break

[DMAVS41]

The same way the extremely slow Kareem hurt the development of Magic Johnson?

Holy ****ing shit....

[DMAVS41]

The upside is we are done with Hibbert after a year and we still have that cap room (will be 2 max players ).
We still suck with Hibbert that we still have a chance to keep our pick for next year.
We can trade Hibbert if he magically shows up before the All Star break

Yea, I'm just not sure what Hibbert is going to bring at the deadline. You guys gave up a 2nd rounder for him. I'm not sure much more than that. Like maybe a decent young player and a 2nd rounder back.

That is legit upside...I've already mentioned that though.

The other thing about cap room next summer isn't an upside. You'd have that with or without signing Hibbert.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying don't add players that don't make sense.

I've repeatedly said that if the Lakers are good on their own...great...I don't mind that at all.

I'm saying you don't actively add players that don't make sense for the long term future of this team.

You guys don't even read my posts....I repeatedly said that if the Lakers with this young group end up being good...I'm absolutely not saying they should then fake injuries or stop trying.

That isn't my argument and I've never said that.

I've said I would be in favor of adding talent to this team that makes sense long term. That isn't chasing ping pong balls.

I'm just not in favor of adding a guy like Hibbert.

Hibbert is 28 year old. He has more long term potential value with the team either himself or through another asset that he allows to acquire than the rumored 2nd round pick he cost us. :confusedshrug:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Did you seriously just compare Hibbert to Kareem, and Russell to Magic? lol

In terms of pace and speed? Sure.

How did old and slow Kareem impact the development of young Magic?

[Fire Colangelo]

In terms of pace and speed? Sure.

How did old and slow Kareem impact the development of young Magic?

Kareem could actually score?

Magic could actually pass the ball to Kareem and Kareem won't fumble and turn it over?

Not to mention Kareem was way mobile than Hibbert....

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's only been 2 seasons since Phily started tanking.... Injuries to Noel and Embiid holding them back mainly.

Noel was nice for the 2nd half of last season... And we'll see how Embiid and Okafor will do this year.

So in another words your chasing lottery balls again. Awesome!

[DMAVS41]

Hibbert is 28 year old. He has more long term potential value with the team either himself or through another asset that he allows to acquire than the rumored 2nd round pick he cost us. :confusedshrug:


Absolutely.

If there wasn't this whole pick situation....I wouldn't mind it nearly as much.

In your above response you ignore the crux of the issue.


I also think Lakers fans are being a bit delusional about the value of Hibbert's expiring contract at the deadline. A team is simply not giving up much for it.

The value of Hibbert's contract to another team would be them offloading a bad multi year deal they wanted to get rid of...and the Lakers would never take on a deal like that with their future plans in free agency.

Somebody negged me saying that the Hibbert contract is like the Haywood contract for the Cavs. It's not comparable at all. The Cavs can use the Haywood contract to take back players on multi year deals if they want because they don't care about adding salary and they are in a win now mode.

That is what makes it so valuable...than and the fact the other team doesn't have to pay Haywood.

This Hibbert contract owned by the Lakers isn't remotely like that at all.

I'm not saying trading Hibbert will be hard, I just don't think any team in the league is giving up much at all in this environment for him. Perhaps, but it would have to be a really strange situation.

[DMAVS41]

So in another words your chasing lottery balls again. Awesome!

Sometimes it's the smart thing to do. Sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes the smart thing to do doesn't work out. Sometimes it does.


It's abundantly clear that the Sixers have a huge incentive to not add guys in free agency this year because Ben Simmons is potentially waiting for them in the draft.

Yea, it sucks being terrible again, but teams have to do that.

I don't get the Sixers hate. The Sonics/Thunder were just as bad over a 3 year stretch....why wasn't everyone going crazy about them?

The chance for the Sixers to get Ben Simmons and then another top 10 pick from the Lakers....it just destroys any upside of trying to get better in free agency this summer.

Anyone denying that is an idiot.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Absolutely.

If there wasn't this whole pick situation....I wouldn't mind it nearly as much.

In your above response you ignore the crux of the issue.


I also think Lakers fans are being a bit delusional about the value of Hibbert's expiring contract at the deadline. A team is simply not giving up much for it.

The value of Hibbert's contract to another team would be them offloading a bad multi year deal they wanted to get rid of...and the Lakers would never take on a deal like that with their future plans in free agency.

Somebody negged me saying that the Hibbert contract is like the Haywood contract for the Cavs. It's not comparable at all. The Cavs can use the Haywood contract to take back players on multi year deals if they want because they don't care about adding salary and they are in a win now mode.

That is what makes it so valuable...than and the fact the other team doesn't have to pay Haywood.

This Hibbert contract owned by the Lakers isn't remotely like that at all.

I'm not saying trading Hibbert will be hard, I just don't think any team in the league is giving up much at all in this environment for him. Perhaps, but it would have to be a really strange situation.

If Hibbert has no trade value during the season then he must also not be harming the Lakers lottery chances in any meaningful way. There doesn't exist a player who simultaneously has a meaningful impact but has no trade value on a one year contract.

Large defensive anchors have value in this league. Always have and always will. A few weeks in the postseason doesn't change that.

[ZenMaster]

Again, could you please explain the upside.

We all already know it's not a lock. We all already know you guys have sucked the last 2 years.

I don't think just saying..."enough is enough"...is a good argument.

None of the players you sign around that young core will be on more than 1 year deals at this point....so it's not like you are building a team with continuity for the future.

So I ask again:

Upside is clear. Ben Simmons...retain the pick.

Please tell me the upside your way.

Upside is that you respect your fanbase and respect the fact that you are the greatest franchise in all of basketball. That you don't create a losing culture for the young players and instead try to do all you can for them to learn winning.

Make people watch the games and not just the boxscore.

Hurting the Laker brand is a real reason, seeing that name in the bottom of the standing is a disgrace given the history of the team.

And Hibbert can be there for more than a year if all goes right.

[DMAVS41]

If Hibbert has no trade value during the season then he must also not be harming the Lakers lottery chances in any meaningful way. There doesn't exist a player who simultaneously has a meaningful impact but has no trade value on a one year contract.

Large defensive anchors have value in this league. Always have and always will. A few weeks in the postseason doesn't change that.


I don't think this is true. Given where the game is going...and given Hibbert's history.

I don't see a team giving up much for him regardless of how he's playing.

How are we defining much? I don't see a team giving up a young player and a first rounder or something like that.

The Lakers already lost a 2nd rounder for him.

So in order to get plus value for him...you have to get more than a 2nd rounder back.

That seems of course possible, but a team just isn't giving up much for a Hibbert playing well for a 2 month rental on an expiring contract entering the bonanza free agency of next summer.

[DMAVS41]

Upside is that you respect your fanbase and respect the fact that you are the greatest franchise in all of basketball. That you don't create a losing culture for the young players and instead try to do all you can for them to learn winning.

Make people watch the games and not just the boxscore.

Hurting the Laker brand is a real reason, seeing that name in the bottom of the standing is a disgrace given the history of the team.

And Hibbert can be there for more than a year if all goes right.


this seems like an emotional argument. i don't think any of that actually matters.

also, how many wins does Hibbert add here?

Like I need to know...are you guys thinking Hibbert makes you a 45 win team?

I won't pretend to see the future and crazy things happen all the time, but I think you are going to have a losing year regardless. The culture is going to be a losing one this year most likely.

Does it really matter if you win 23 or 35 games?

Why didn't a losing culture submarine KD? When his team won 20 and 23 games his first two years. Did that kill the fan base and prevent Durant from learning how to win?

[Fire Colangelo]

So in another words your chasing lottery balls again. Awesome!

Not a 6ers fan so...... lol I'm just saying they've got promise and they're looking pretty good in terms of young talent.

Absolutely Hibbert has positive value on the basketball court (every NBA player does, or else they'd be working at KFC). If Kobe was in his prime, then this would be a good signing for the Lakers, they'd have young talent and veteran presence on the team which will maybe get them to 50~ wins with a playoff spot.

But in this situation, adding Hibbert to the team will basically turn the Lakers from a 21 win team into a 30-40 wins max team. You miss the playoffs and you lose your pick. What's the point in that? Where is the upside about that?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Sometimes it's the smart thing to do. Sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes the smart thing to do doesn't work out. Sometimes it does.


It's abundantly clear that the Sixers have a huge incentive to not add guys in free agency this year because Ben Simmons is potentially waiting for them in the draft.

Yea, it sucks being terrible again, but teams have to do that.

I don't get the Sixers hate. The Sonics/Thunder were just as bad over a 3 year stretch....why wasn't everyone going crazy about them?

The chance for the Sixers to get Ben Simmons and then another top 10 pick from the Lakers....it just destroys any upside of trying to get better in free agency this summer.

Anyone denying that is an idiot.

And when they don't get Ben Simmons next year? And the year after? And the year after? Why are we acting like getting a lot of consecutive lottery picks is some sort of new brilliant strategy? It just means you suck and have for a long time. That's happened plenty of times and 99% of time it doesn't amount to anything.

The Thunder didn't catch heat like the 76ers because they didn't draft 3 SFs, two of which had known injuries going into the draft. The Thunder actually drafted to win games, not get a prized "asset".

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Not a 6ers fan so...... lol I'm just saying they've got promise and they're looking pretty good in terms of young talent.

Absolutely Hibbert has positive value on the basketball court (every NBA player does, or else they'd be working at KFC). If Kobe was in his prime, then this would be a good signing for the Lakers, they'd have young talent and veteran presence on the team which will maybe get them to 50~ wins with a playoff spot.

But in this situation, adding Hibbert to the team will basically turn the Lakers from a 21 win team into a 30-40 wins max team. You miss the playoffs and you lose your pick. What's the point in that? Where is the upside about that?

You are telling me a player on an expiring contract can improve a team by 20 wins yet has no trade value on the open market?

[Springsteen]

Does it really matter if you win 23 or 35 games?

Why didn't a losing culture submarine KD? When his team won 20 and 23 games his first two years. Did that kill the fan base and prevent Durant from learning how to win?

This. Winning cures all woes. John Wall was on a REALLY shitty Wizards team a few years back, and look at him now.

[DMAVS41]

And when they don't get Ben Simmons next year? And the year after? And the year after? Why are we acting like getting a lot of consecutive lottery picks is some sort of new brilliant strategy? It just means you suck and have for a long time. That's happened plenty of times and 99% of time it doesn't amount to anything.

The Thunder didn't catch heat like the 76ers because they didn't draft 3 SFs, two of which had known injuries going into the draft. The Thunder actually drafted to win games, not get a prized "asset".


You do the best you can.

If they don't get Ben Simmons. They take the next best player. And assuming they get the Lakers pick...they take a player with that pick.

Hell, who knows...maybe Okafor and Noel is really good and they win more than expected.

When they are ready to build out the roster via free agency...they do that.

So you are honestly saying that if you were the Sixers....you would have tried to build the best team via free agency this year? That you would have gone out and tried to land guys?

Please answer.

It's not about if it works or not...it's about making smart decisions consistently and weighing the positives and negatives of actions.

What were the positives of the Sixers never getting real bad. To continue with Jrue Holiday for 4 years of being a fringe playoff team?

There was no upside going down that route....there was, however, huge upside to doing what they've done.

Doesn't mean this way will ultimately work...it just means it was smarter given the evidence.

[Fire Colangelo]

You are telling me a player on an expiring contract can improve a team by 20 wins yet has no trade value on the open market?

20 wins max, and that's not because of Hibbert alone. thats with the assumption that Kobe plays the full season, Randle + Russell playing the full season, improvement in Clarkson etc.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You do the best you can.

If they don't get Ben Simmons. They take the next best player. And assuming they get the Lakers pick...they take a player with that pick.

When they are ready to build out the roster via free agency...they do that.

So you are honestly saying that if you were the Sixers....you would have tried to build the best team via free agency this year? That you would have gone out and tried to land guys?

Please answer.

If I don't have Vlade on the line just giving me absurd assets for free? Sure.

Id go for max guys who have resell value and short term players with upside. :confusedshrug:

[Fire Colangelo]

If I don't have Vlade on the line just giving me absurd assets for free? Sure.

Id go for max guys who have resell value and short term players with upside. :confusedshrug:

Not to mention you're probably throwing picks to get the guy..... On a one year rental.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

20 wins max, and that's not because of Hibbert alone. thats with the assumption that Kobe plays the full season, Randle + Russell playing the full season, improvement in Clarkson etc.

The number isn't important.

The point is if Hibbert has no trade value then it must mean he has negligible difference on the Lakers lottery ball chances.

If he was actually significantly impacting them then he would help another team win as well and would have trade value.

[DMAVS41]

If I don't have Vlade on the line just giving me absurd assets for free? Sure.

Id go for max guys who have resell value and short term players with upside. :confusedshrug:

Well everyone would go for max guys...the Sixers aren't getting max guys right now though. Nor would it make sense for them given the construction of their team....to land a Kevin Love or LMA or Jordan.

You'd go for max guys...strike out...and then what? You'd do what? Add who? What players are you looking to add this season knowing the state of the team.

So you are against the Jrue Holiday trade?

[JerrySeinfeld]

:facepalm God dammit, Mitch

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Well everyone would go for max guys...the Sixers aren't getting max guys right now though. Nor would it make sense for them given the construction of their team....

You'd go for max guys...strike out...and then what? You'd do what? Add who? What players are you looking to add this season knowing the state of the team.

So you are against the Jrue Holiday trade?

If I didn't have 4 centers already then I would definitely consider Roy Hibbert.

I'd see if Reggie Jackson wants to sign an obnoxious one year maximum contract.

Id say whats up to Jeremy Lin to see if he wanted to bring his fanbase to my squad.

:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

If I didn't have 4 centers already then I would definitely consider Roy Hilbert.

I'd see if Reggie Jackson wants to sign an obnoxious one year maximum contract.

Id say whats up to Jeremy Lin to see if he wanted to bring his fanbase to my squad.

:confusedshrug:


Agree to disagree.

RJ on a 1 year max before the cap goes up?

Ugh...I can't think of a worse idea. The chance at Ben Simmons is worth infinitely more than bringing in a guy like RJ for a year to add some wins to a team...

You'd get me thinking about adding young players.

Like Aminu, Larkin, Crowder...guys that you could lock up for 4 years on good contracts that won't add many wins to the team this year, but allows them to be more competitive. Guys that will be assets on their contracts once the cap goes up.

That way, if you do get ready to be good with Embid or Okafor hitting...you have the pieces in place to have a real team. You'd still have loads of cap as well. That at least makes some sense.

Reggie Jackson as a 1 year rental? No thanks...LOL

[TheMarkMadsen]

You guys are sleeping on the impact Roy will make on defense. No, they won't be a top 10 defense or anything but all those young guys on the team will see how hard he works on defense in practice and in games. If they care enough, they will put in the work to be better on defense. And he's an excellent help defender. Yeah, he's slow laterally but his not THAT slow and he's quick to cover up mistakes.

Half this forum used to tell me PG is an overrated defender and that Roy was the real reason the Pacers defense was so good. He covers up defenders mistakes and that builds chemistry and trust. Something the Lakers will definitely need with all these young guys trying to prove themselves. And he's a great team guy, a great team mate and great in the community.

This is why I hate ish sometimes. Its all about box scores. Dudes watch a guy play 10 times throughout the season and form an entire picture on the guy before he even gets to the team.

Roy didn't play as well last year but he ALWAYS does his job on defense. ALWAYS. You will see how many dunks he blocks. He great at blocking dunks. He rarely gets posterized, Durant and Deron Williams come to mind.

His impact goes beyond stats. If you want him to be your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, option then you're in trouble. But he can score at times and the Lakers defense will improve tenfold, mark this post. All that about fast pf's and c's, etc, just because the East sucks doesn't mean he hasn't seen that before. He's slow up the court. In the half court, he's quicker than you think and he has great timing.

He just needs to do what he does and he'll have extra motivation this year.

The Lakers have problems, Hibbert is not a problem, he will be a positive on defense.

I'm not even sure why I felt the need to defend him, a few of the comments just came off misinformed to me.....


great post that will sadly be ignored due to a certain posters obsession with talking about this trade for the past 12 hours..

the bolded is huge and the main reason why i'm okay with Hibbert, building trust and good chemistry with a young team is sometimes very difficult and I believe Hibbert will help with that..

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Agree to disagree.

RJ on a 1 year max before the cap goes up?

Ugh...I can't think of a worse idea. The chance at Ben Simmons is worth infinitely more than bringing in a guy like RJ for a year to add some wins to a team...

You'd get me thinking about adding young players.

Like Aminu, Larkin, Crowder...guys that you could lock up for 4 years on good contracts that won't add many wins to the team this year, but allows them to be more competitive. Guys that will be assets on their contracts once the cap goes up.

Reggie Jackson as a 1 year rental? No thanks...LOL


What is up with your disconnect between win impact and market value?

If a player is impacting the team wins total in a meaningful they have trade value and are an asset at the very least. They can be traded.

You act as if teams should just hire fans to suit up or risk losing precious lottery balls.

[DMAVS41]

What is up with your disconnect between win impact and market value?

If a player is impacting the team wins total in a meaningful they have trade value and are an asset at the very least. They can be traded.

You act as if teams should just hire fans to suit up or risk losing precious lottery balls.

Why do you ignore the most important part of trades? The contract.

RJ has no trade value on a 1 year max deal. It doesn't matter how well he's playing...LOL

The notion that some team is giving up real assets to get Reggie Jackson on a 1 year max deal heading into next summer is absurd.

I don't think you grasp what trade value actually is.

The guys I mentioned would have trade value if they were playing well. Good players on good contracts locked up for 4 years. That is valuable.

Getting a guy like Reggie Jackson for half a year has very little trade value.

[ZenMaster]

this seems like an emotional argument. i don't think any of that actually matters.

also, how many wins does Hibbert add here?

Like I need to know...are you guys thinking Hibbert makes you a 45 win team?

I won't pretend to see the future and crazy things happen all the time, but I think you are going to have a losing year regardless. The culture is going to be a losing one this year most likely.

Does it really matter if you win 23 or 35 games?

Why didn't a losing culture submarine KD? When his team won 20 and 23 games his first two years. Did that kill the fan base and prevent Durant from learning how to win?

It does matter yes, as a paying customer for many years I refuse to watch a team that is losing on purpose as it's making a joke of the sport and league, and I enjoy watching basketball quite a bit mind you.

Free agency is not done yet either, it's not just about adding Hibbert and no one else, but about making the best team possible.

I will not watch a 23 win team who can only beat other bad teams, winning 35 games at least means you are going to be competitive vs good teams as well.

I'll also say that a losing season doesn't necessarily mean a losing culture, but tanking on purpose for sure does.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why do you ignore the most important part of trades? The contract.

RJ has no trade value on a 1 year max deal. It doesn't matter how well he's playing...LOL

The notion that some team is giving up real assets to get Reggie Jackson on a 1 year max deal heading into next summer is absurd.

I don't think you grasp what trade value actually is.

It's inconceivable that a contender could lose a player and trade for a rental for a playoff run? :confusedshrug:

[hawke812]

You guys are sleeping on the impact Roy will make on defense. No, they won't be a top 10 defense or anything but all those young guys on the team will see how hard he works on defense in practice and in games. If they care enough, they will put in the work to be better on defense. And he's an excellent help defender. Yeah, he's slow laterally but his not THAT slow and he's quick to cover up mistakes.

Half this forum used to tell me PG is an overrated defender and that Roy was the real reason the Pacers defense was so good. He covers up defenders mistakes and that builds chemistry and trust. Something the Lakers will definitely need with all these young guys trying to prove themselves. And he's a great team guy, a great team mate and great in the community.

This is why I hate ish sometimes. Its all about box scores. Dudes watch a guy play 10 times throughout the season and form an entire picture on the guy before he even gets to the team.

Roy didn't play as well last year but he ALWAYS does his job on defense. ALWAYS. You will see how many dunks he blocks. He great at blocking dunks. He rarely gets posterized, Durant and Deron Williams come to mind.

His impact goes beyond stats. If you want him to be your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, option then you're in trouble. But he can score at times and the Lakers defense will improve tenfold, mark this post. All that about fast pf's and c's, etc, just because the East sucks doesn't mean he hasn't seen that before. He's slow up the court. In the half court, he's quicker than you think and he has great timing.

He just needs to do what he does and he'll have extra motivation this year.

The Lakers have problems, Hibbert is not a problem, he will be a positive on defense.

I'm not even sure why I felt the need to defend him, a few of the comments just came off misinformed to me.....

Its just haters man. It is not a bad acquisition. My Clipper friends were not worried DJ left because they were so sure Hibbert would go there. Now they telling me he is trash. Luckily I screen shotted their texts:roll:

[DMAVS41]

It does matter yes, as a paying customer for many years I refuse to watch a team that is losing on purpose as it's making a joke of the sport and league, and I enjoy watching basketball quite a bit mind you.

Free agency is not done yet either, it's not just about adding Hibbert and no one else, but about making the best team possible.

I will not watch a 23 win team who can only beat other bad teams, winning 35 games at least means you are going to be competitive vs good teams as well.

I'll also say that a losing season doesn't necessarily mean a losing culture, but tanking on purpose for sure does.

So if you had been a Thunder fan and they had seasons of 35, 31, 20, and 23 wins in a 4 year stretch...you would have stopped watching and not come back to watching when they became a 50 win team the next year and one of the most exciting teams in the league?

If so...I give you credit for being consistent...I just don't buy that you'd completely abandon a team for a bad 4 year stretch.

[DMAVS41]

It's inconceivable that a contender could lose a player and trade for a rental for a playoff run? :confusedshrug:

No...they just aren't giving up anything of real value that trumps the upside of a Ben Simmons or top 3 pick the draft.

You keep ignoring the entire crux of the argument.

[catch24]

Losing games but having effort to actually win is NOT tanking. Not sure why the same posters continually repeat otherwise.

Fact is nobody wants to watch a team tank aka willfully drop games.

[ZenMaster]

So if you had been a Thunder fan and they had seasons of 35, 31, 20, and 23 wins in a 4 year stretch...you would have stopped watching and not come back to watching when they became a 50 win team the next year and one of the most exciting teams in the league?

If so...I give you credit for being consistent...I just don't buy that you'd completely abandon a team for a bad 4 year stretch.

You are right that I would be back, but if I saw the team tanking I wouldn't be following the team for the last 3 years of that 4 year period, that is for sure.

"Hey we'll lose on purpose for 4 years, but you can come back and enjoy us in the 4th year when we are actually trying to win" - That attitude to me is making a joke of the game and the fans and I appreciate the Lakes for not doing that anymore as I want to be able to watch them try and win - which is the point of a sports league - and not to be losing on purpose.

[DMAVS41]

Losing games and giving effort to actually win is NOT tanking. Not sure why the same posters continually repeat otherwise.

Fact is nobody wants to watch a team tank aka willfully drop games.


:facepalm

[catch24]

:facepalm

Facepalm all you want, but the literal definition is what I go by...not your own make believe fantasy.

[DMAVS41]

You are right that I would be back, but if I saw the team tanking I wouldn't be following the team for the last 3 years of that 4 year period, that is for sure.

"Hey we'll lose on purpose for 4 years, but you can come back and enjoy us in the 4th year when we are actually trying to win" - That attitude to me is making a joke of the game and the fans and I appreciate the Lakes for not doing that anymore as I want to be able to watch them try and win - which is the point of a sports league - and not to be losing on purpose.


Okay, but it's smart in this environment.

Look...I've written time and time again that I absolutely hate how the league rewards teams for being bad.

I'm actually in favor of no draft at all....or at least a completely randomized draft in which there is 0 incentive to be bad.

I feel like that is a separate argument though. The rules are the rules....and there is no way any Thunder fan is sitting there thinking that they wish the Thunder had really tried to be better in 07, 08, and 09....

[kshutts1]

It's inconceivable that a contender could lose a player and trade for a rental for a playoff run? :confusedshrug:
Your "trade Hibbert for more assets if we need to" argument is literally just as optimistic as getting a top 3 pick, with a much lower reward element.

Sorry to leave you to fend for yourself, DMavs, I had to go shoot around (and poorly, I might add). Seems like you did well, though.

Most of the Lakers fans in here don't seem to have a good sense of "long term plan" and how the high risk/high reward being presented by myself and DMavs is more appropriate to the team than a low risk/low reward, considering team context.

Fact: Lakers' pick is top 3 protected
Fact: A top 3 pick is a high-reward situation
Fact: Roster is terrible, with or without Hibbert
Fact: Hibbert makes the roster slightly better
Fact: The win difference by adding Hibbert, even if only 5 wins, could be enough to significantly lower odds of keeping the pick
Fact: Hibbert offers no long-term "high reward"
Fact: Lakers are VERY unlikely to make the playoffs, much less contend for a title this year

I see minimal evidence that trading for Hibbert was a move that is likely to pay off as well as being even more terrible this year.

Of course, there's the chance that you could have Hibbert and still keep the pick.. but that's (hypothetically) a lot less likely than keeping the pick without Hibbert.

Of course you could trade Hibbert, and you could get back more value than you gave away... But will that value be enough to off-set the decreased likelihood of keeping your 2016 pick? I don't see many scenarios where it would be.

And a last of course, in FAVOR of the Lakers... if they sign a SF that "moves the needle", and if Russell, Clarkson, Randle all play like first-team rookies, and if Kobe plays all year and is a 20/5/5 45% guy, and if the coach learns what he's doing, then maybe the team will be good enough to make the playoffs, potentially make some noise, and lure FAs next season. But look at all those "if"s in the sentence.

Fact is.. the above scenario is basically a "best case"... and I consider it a worse case than playing your guys, not having Hibbert, and "fighting" for a top 3 pick.

[longtime lurker]

Not a 6ers fan so...... lol I'm just saying they've got promise and they're looking pretty good in terms of young talent.

Absolutely Hibbert has positive value on the basketball court (every NBA player does, or else they'd be working at KFC). If Kobe was in his prime, then this would be a good signing for the Lakers, they'd have young talent and veteran presence on the team which will maybe get them to 50~ wins with a playoff spot.

But in this situation, adding Hibbert to the team will basically turn the Lakers from a 21 win team into a 30-40 wins max team. You miss the playoffs and you lose your pick. What's the point in that? Where is the upside about that?

The point is that the Lakers pick is only top 3 protected. I'd rather give the Sixers a number low lottery pick than a top 5 pick any day of the week. Lakers actually need to show improvement if they want even the 2nd tier free agents to take them seriously next season. I think the Pacers should have given the Lakers a pick to take on Hibbert's contract but we gave them a 2nd rounder which is minor in the grand scheme of things.

[DMAVS41]

Facepalm all you want, but the literal definition is what I go by...not your own make believe fantasy.

You don't understand the definition.

Players are going to try hard no matter what. You are so dense here. If you think players actively try to lose NBA games on the court...you just don't get it.

Nothing else I can say to you.

[catch24]

You don't understand the definition.

Players are going to try hard no matter what. You are so dense here. If you think players actively try to lose NBA games on the court...you just don't get it.

Nothing else I can say to you.


"Tanking," is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

^You are interpreting the definition the way you see fit, but it clearly states that to tank, you go out there and lose purposefully with a half-assed effort.

You're failing at epic levels tbh

[ZenMaster]

Okay, but it's smart in this environment.

Look...I've written time and time again that I absolutely hate how the league rewards teams for being bad.

I'm actually in favor of no draft at all....or at least a completely randomized draft in which there is 0 incentive to be bad.

I feel like that is a separate argument though. The rules are the rules....and there is no way any Thunder fan is sitting there thinking that they wish the Thunder had really tried to be better in 07, 08, and 09....

I completely agree with you, but I will applaud the team I have always been watching for not going with it and instead going a different route. Note though, that it's because I truly believe the Lakers can again become a great time with the young players we have and the rest added through free agency.

Just because "rules are the rules" I cannot pretend that time doesn't really exists. Say I want to watch 70 Laker games every year through the next thre years, a game takes about 2.5 hours, that is 525 hours of my life. Without blinking I can say, that I would rather watch a team trying for those 525 hours than one just looking to position itself for the next draft. Remember, we've already been terrible for 2 years now, which is more than enough.

[kshutts1]

^You are interpreting the definition the way you see fit, but it clearly states that to tank, you go out there and lose purposefully with a half-assed effort.

You're failing at epic levels tbh
I would argue that the GM/FO are the ones putting forth less-than-maximum effort by way of not signing "stars".

Some may argue that that culture seeps down to the coaches and players, but I like to believe that the young players view the additional minutes (without vets/stars) as an opportunity, and that the coaches do just that.. they coach. Mistakes are made, and instead of yanking the player, they let them play through it, then coach them through the issue in practice/video etc.

Edit: Also, if a team's goal is to contend in 5 years.. and since the NBA plays a season every year, I'd say that's an admirable goal, then there's nothing less genuine about looking for assets/picks and developing young talent.

[catch24]

I would argue that the GM/FO are the ones putting forth less-than-maximum effort by way of not signing "stars".

Some may argue that that culture seeps down to the coaches and players, but I like to believe that the young players view the additional minutes (without vets/stars) as an opportunity, and that the coaches do just that.. they coach. Mistakes are made, and instead of yanking the player, they let them play through it, then coach them through the issue in practice/video etc.

It's not just players. For sure. When teams decide to "tank" it goes all the way up top...and down to the players.

Last season everybody, including the Laker players, knew they were dropping games with intention. Scott hinted at in many pressers.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Your "trade Hibbert for more assets if we need to" argument is literally just as optimistic as getting a top 3 pick, with a much lower reward element.

Sorry to leave you to fend for yourself, DMavs, I had to go shoot around (and poorly, I might add). Seems like you did well, though.

Most of the Lakers fans in here don't seem to have a good sense of "long term plan" and how the high risk/high reward being presented by myself and DMavs is more appropriate to the team than a low risk/low reward, considering team context.

Fact: Lakers' pick is top 3 protected
Fact: A top 3 pick is a high-reward situation
Fact: Roster is terrible, with or without Hibbert
Fact: Hibbert makes the roster slightly better
Fact: The win difference by adding Hibbert, even if only 5 wins, could be enough to significantly lower odds of keeping the pick
Fact: Hibbert offers no long-term "high reward"
Fact: Lakers are VERY unlikely to make the playoffs, much less contend for a title this year

I see minimal evidence that trading for Hibbert was a move that is likely to pay off as well as being even more terrible this year.

Of course, there's the chance that you could have Hibbert and still keep the pick.. but that's (hypothetically) a lot less likely than keeping the pick without Hibbert.

Of course you could trade Hibbert, and you could get back more value than you gave away... But will that value be enough to off-set the decreased likelihood of keeping your 2016 pick? I don't see many scenarios where it would be.

And a last of course, in FAVOR of the Lakers... if they sign a SF that "moves the needle", and if Russell, Clarkson, Randle all play like first-team rookies, and if Kobe plays all year and is a 20/5/5 45% guy, and if the coach learns what he's doing, then maybe the team will be good enough to make the playoffs, potentially make some noise, and lure FAs next season. But look at all those "if"s in the sentence.

Fact is.. the above scenario is basically a "best case"... and I consider it a worse case than playing your guys, not having Hibbert, and "fighting" for a top 3 pick.

And when you end up shipping out the 4th pick of the draft to the 76ers and your young core has endured a season of playing with scrubs specifically sought out for their ability to help the team lose along with a living legend who has spent the entire season trashing management for their obvious anti competitive spirit how is that going to play out not only for next year but for years to come. When will this strategy end? Why haven't the vast majority of NBA champions not endured this strategy? What damage does it do to the brand?

[Fire Colangelo]

The number isn't important.

The point is if Hibbert has no trade value then it must mean he has negligible difference on the Lakers lottery ball chances.

If he was actually significantly impacting them then he would help another team win as well and would have trade value.

First of all, you guys are trading for him, not signing him outright to a one-year deal. From what I've read so far you guys are trading away picks to get him, hopefully 2nd round picks.

Second, what kind of assets do you expect to get out of Hibbert? Contending teams likely don't have cap room, and the tanking teams definitely don't want him. So you're banking on a team on the verge of contention to trade their young assets for him? Okay...

Third, and most importantly, you're most likely going to lose your 2016 draft pick.

The obvious upside to Hibbert is that he'll be bringing some defensive intensity to the team, and develop the young guys defensively (hopefully). But is that worth losing a first round pick for?


You are right that I would be back, but if I saw the team tanking I wouldn't be following the team for the last 3 years of that 4 year period, that is for sure.

"Hey we'll lose on purpose for 4 years, but you can come back and enjoy us in the 4th year when we are actually trying to win" - That attitude to me is making a joke of the game and the fans and I appreciate the Lakes for not doing that anymore as I want to be able to watch them try and win - which is the point of a sports league - and not to be losing on purpose.

This is the mentality that I hated when the Colangelo was managing the Raptors. Instead of blowing it up, he kept trying to trade for pieces that basically led to nothing but mediocracy. In the long run, I'd much rather have him blow everything up, and land a Kyrie or Anthony Davis from the draft.

What's difference between ~20 wins and ~40 wins this season for the Lakers in the long run? Absolutely no difference, and I'm being really generous giving you guys ~40 wins. So is the +20 wins for the season worth that top 3 pick which could potentially be a super star?

[kshutts1]

And when you end up shipping out the 4th pick of the draft to the 76ers and your young core has endured a season of playing with scrubs specifically sought out for their ability to help the team lose along with a living legend who has spent the entire season trashing management for their obvious anti competitive spirit how is that going to play out not only for next year but for years to come. When will this strategy end? Why haven't the vast majority of NBA champions not endured this strategy? What damage does it do to the brand?
Making the right choice doesn't always mean that you get what you want.

The smartest option is to keep that pick. If the Lakers choose that option and fail, they still made the correct choice. It just didn't work out.

But to actively choose a less-satisfactory option? That's just negligence, IMO.

Edit: No one is saying it will work. Just that it's the best option.

[DMAVS41]

^You are interpreting the definition the way you see fit, but it clearly states that to tank, you go out there and lose purposefully with a half-assed effort.

You're failing at epic levels tbh

Yes...what an epic fail trying to explain to you the difference between a franchise not putting the best team they can on the court (a team they think won't be good) and players/coaches actively trying to lose games (which doesn't happen...or rarely happens in end of year situations)


An example of this.

Remember how everyone refers to the Suns in 14 as a failed tanking? Why would people refer to that if it was about the players/coach actively trying to lose games on the court?

http://www.chatsports.com/phoenix-suns/a/The-Phoenix-Suns-of-Anarchy-A-Failed-Attempt-at-Tanking-9301

[B][I][SIZE="5"]Bryan Colangelo, former General Manager for the Toronto Raptors, made an interesting comment at the 2014 Sloan Analytics Conference.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Making the right choice doesn't always mean that you get what you want.

The smartest option is to keep that pick. If the Lakers choose that option and fail, they still made the correct choice. It just didn't work out.

But to actively choose a less-satisfactory option? That's just negligence, IMO.

Edit: No one is saying it will work. Just that it's the best option.

Why shouldn't the Lakers just sign me then? I'll be their Center. I'm 5 foot 10. Isn't that the really their best option?

[kshutts1]

Why shouldn't the Lakers just sign me then? I'll be their Center. I'm 5 foot 10. Isn't that the really their best option?
It would help them lose. But there's more to just losing games.

You want to lose games, but work together as a team. Build trust, cohesion, teamwork, work on your skills and abilities, learn to play with one another, and hope that your young guys improve.

Your being on the court would hinder all of that, and instead accomplish only the losing.

[DMAVS41]

Why shouldn't the Lakers just sign me then? I'll be their Center. I'm 5 foot 10. Isn't that the really their best option?

Because you are so bad that you actually would hurt all the development and chemistry things...etc.

:confusedshrug:

[Fire Colangelo]

And when you end up shipping out the 4th pick of the draft to the 76ers and your young core has endured a season of playing with scrubs specifically sought out for their ability to help the team lose along with a living legend who has spent the entire season trashing management for their obvious anti competitive spirit how is that going to play out not only for next year but for years to come. When will this strategy end? Why haven't the vast majority of NBA champions not endured this strategy? What damage does it do to the brand?

Um, vast majority of NBA champions had a terrible year to get their first star player? Obviously it's hard to win with one star, but you pretty much have to have one star player on the team to attract other star players.

- Spurs got Duncan with the #1 pick.
- Heat had a terrible year before they got Wade, which later led to LeBron and Bosh joining him.
- Celtics sucked for a couple of years and got Pierce, which led to the big 3 forming in 08.
- Warriors pretty much built their team from the draft
- Thunder had success rebuilding from the draft

So yeah... vast majority of NBA champions actually build from the draft. Just because some franchises suck at evaluating talent and fail year after year doesn't mean there are just as many franchises that are great at it.

[catch24]

Yes...what an epic fail trying to explain to you the difference between a franchise not putting the best team they can on the court (a team they think won't be good) and players/coaches actively trying to lose games (which doesn't happen...or rarely happens in end of year situations)


An example of this.

Remember how everyone refers to the Suns in 14 as a failed tanking? Why would people refer to that if it was about the players/coach actively trying to lose games on the court?

http://www.chatsports.com/phoenix-suns/a/The-Phoenix-Suns-of-Anarchy-A-Failed-Attempt-at-Tanking-9301

Bryan Colangelo, former General Manager for the Toronto Raptors, made an interesting comment at the 2014 Sloan Analytics Conference. “I tried to tank a couple of years ago,” remarked the two-time NBA Executive of the Year. “And I didn’t come out and say, ‘Coach you have to lose games.’


That is how it's done. Teams still try to establish a winning culture of playing hard and playing the right way...they just don't put what they think is the best team on the court for winning because they think the upside of a draft pick is greater than doing that.

A lot of words for saying pretty much nothing.


"Tanking," is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

The definition speaks for itself.

From up top...down to the players...tanking is deliberately losing

[DMAVS41]

And I'm still waiting to hear how that 4 year stretch for the Soncis/Thunder killed the brand and hurt their "winning" culture.

Anyone actually think that if the Thunder could do it over again that they would have tried to put the absolute best teams possible on the court in 08 and 09?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It would help them lose. But there's more to just losing games.

You want to lose games, but work together as a team. Build trust, cohesion, teamwork, work on your skills and abilities, learn to play with one another, and hope that your young guys improve.

Your being on the court would hinder all of that, and instead accomplish only the losing.

But isn't losing clearly the only thing that really matters. It won't be a long term contract. Its just one year. I clearly would give the greatest chance at keeping their pick. They can work on all of that other secondary feel good descriptors next year after I have done my job. Unless we miss out on the top 3, then I will reup again just for one more year. In case we miss out again then it will just be one more time. Then by that time Im sure we will have the top 3 pick, he wont be a bust and the Lakers can just cruise to glory without my services.

[DMAVS41]

A lot of words for saying pretty much nothing.

The definition speaks for itself.

From up top...down to the players...tanking is deliberately losing


The guy running a NBA team disagrees with you.

It's just not what you think it is. Teams don't have meetings in which they tell players and coaches to make sure they lose games for an entire season.

They have meetings in which they come up with a roster/plan that they think makes the most sense based on the situation of a team.

But as far as palyers/coaches just actively trying to lose games...it does not ****ing happen outside the extremely rare end of year scenarios...and even then...it's always just about how often certain players play.

You are wrong....just admit it.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And I'm still waiting to hear how that 4 year stretch for the Soncis/Thunder killed the brand and hurt their "winning" culture.

Anyone actually think that if the Thunder could do it over again that they would have tried to put the absolute best teams possible on the court in 08 and 09?

Nobody is a Thunder historian. You would have to show the Thunder's cap space and what their options were going into that year to even begin the conversation.

[kshutts1]

But isn't losing clearly the only thing that really matters. It won't be a long term contract. Its just one year. I clearly would give the greatest chance at keeping their pick. They can work on all of that other secondary feel good descriptors next year after I have done my job. Unless we miss out on the top 3, then I will reup again just for one more year. In case we miss out again then it will just be one more time. Then by that time Im sure we will have the top 3 pick, he wont be a bust and the Lakers can just cruise to glory without my services.
Sets back the rebuild too far.

That's why DMavs and I, and probably a few others whose names I don't remember, have been arguing that the Lakers should have targeted young players on value contracts. Maybe they did, and whiffed. But that would have been a great option.

[DMAVS41]

But isn't losing clearly the only thing that really matters. It won't be a long term contract. Its just one year. I clearly would give the greatest chance at keeping their pick. They can work on all of that other secondary feel good descriptors next year after I have done my job. Unless we miss out on the top 3, then I will reup again just for one more year. In case we miss out again then it will just be one more time. Then by that time Im sure we will have the top 3 pick, he wont be a bust and the Lakers can just cruise to glory without my services.

Your example is too extreme.

Forcing NBA players to play with you for an entire season would make them by far the worst team ever. There would fighting and chemistry issues that might cause serious damage.

Going out and filling out the roster with some young guys and creating a different type of team is completely different than putting out by far the worst roster in NBA history...which is what they would be with you.

[ZenMaster]

And I'm still waiting to hear how that 4 year stretch for the Soncis/Thunder killed the brand and hurt their "winning" culture.

Anyone actually think that if the Thunder could do it over again that they would have tried to put the absolute best teams possible on the court in 08 and 09?


Not sure of the specifics, but didn't the Sonics brand die completely because fans didn't turn out anymore?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Sets back the rebuild too far.

That's why DMavs and I, and probably a few others whose names I don't remember, have been arguing that the Lakers should have targeted young players on value contracts. Maybe they did, and whiffed. But that would have been a great option.

Who exactly? If they are young, they are restricted and those don't come cheap.

[DMAVS41]

Nobody is a Thunder historian. You would have to show the Thunder's cap space and what their options were going into that year to even begin the conversation.


That is actually not relevant. The point is to show that they won 20 and 23 games back to back...and it did nothing of the sort you guys are clamoring on and on about.

Them having the ability to add or not to add is irrelevant here to the point.

[DMAVS41]

Not sure of the specifics, but didn't the Sonics brand die completely because fans didn't turn out anymore?

It had been dying for some time....only the 20 win season was with the Sonics.

The next season was actually on the Thunder...the 23 win season.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Your example is too extreme.

Forcing NBA players to play with you for an entire season would make them by far the worst team ever. There would fighting and chemistry issues that might cause serious damage.

Going out and filling out the roster with some young guys and creating a different type of team is completely different than putting out by far the worst roster in NBA history...which is what they would be with you.

What's more important some fighting some chemistry issues for a year while I work my magic or a top 3 pick?

[DMAVS41]

What's more important some fighting some chemistry issues for a year while I work my magic or a top 3 pick?

It depends to be honest.

Given it's not a lock for the top 3 pick....putting out by far the worst team in NBA history doesn't seem like it makes much sense.

It's just a far cry from reality...hence it's a poor example.

This forum has a serious problem with wanting everything to be clear cut...black/white.

A guy either sucks or he's a scrub. A team should either sign Roy Hibbert or play the worst player in the history of the NBA starter minutes...etc.

There is balance here...you can suck while also developing young players...while also giving your franchise a chance to land a top 3 lottery pick. It doesn't have to be all or nothing...

[ZenMaster]

It had been dying for some time....only the 20 win season was with the Sonics.

The next season was actually on the Thunder...the 23 win season.

Completely unique scenario then as the Thunder was a brand new team in a city that didn't have basketball before it. Lakers viewership was down a lot last season and their games were scrapped from national TV during the season, a direct effect of having a shit team.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

That is actually not relevant. The point is to show that they won 20 and 23 games back to back...and it did nothing of the sort you guys are clamoring on and on about.

Them having the ability to add or not to add is irrelevant here to the point.

Of course its relevant. The Lakers are sitting on cap space and your basically criticizing them for having the audacity to try to improve their biggest weakness by using it. If the the Thunders sat on 20 million and made no effort to improve then it would something actually worth talking about.

[kshutts1]

Who exactly? If they are young, they are restricted and those don't come cheap.

This was a part of my post from page 5 or 6...

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

And "cheap" is relative.

[catch24]

The guy running a NBA team disagrees with you.

It's just not what you think it is. Teams don't have meetings in which they tell players and coaches to make sure they lose games for an entire season.

They have meetings in which they come up with a roster/plan that they think makes the most sense based on the situation of a team.

But as far as palyers/coaches just actively trying to lose games...it does not ****ing happen outside the extremely rare end of year scenarios...and even then...it's always just about how often certain players play.

You are wrong....just admit it.

I'm going off of the literal definition, and you're using a freak occurrence in Phoenix...where tanking actually went wrong because the lineups randomly meshed. And if we really want to get technical, this happened because Bledsoe got hurt. We would have seen the smallest backcourt in years, and it would've been a disaster.

Once again, tanking is deliberately losing...how ever you slice it.

[Genaro]

Hibbert isn't a game changer. Lakers won't win that many games. 35 if everything goes right but more probable 25 witch would put us in the top 5 bad records so a top 3 pick isn't so far.
The main thing right now is try to show upcoming FAs that the Lakers has a good future, even if we lose our pick. No one will want to sign with a terrible team.

Off - Topic: What's the Pacers big men rotation right now? I mean I know they lost both West and Hibbert.

[DMAVS41]

I'm going off of the literal definition, and you're using a freak occurrence in Phoenix...where tanking actually went wrong because the lineups randomly meshed. And if we really want to get technical, this happened because Bledsoe got hurt. We would have seen the smallest backcourt in years, and it would've been a disaster.

Once again, tanking is deliberately losing...how ever you slice it.

So you admit the suns were trying to tank?

If so...you then agree with me.

:confusedshrug:

[kshutts1]

This was a part of my post from page 5 or 6...

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

And "cheap" is relative.
What a jerk I am to quote my own post.. I wanted to edit it, but figured people would miss it.

The players I mentioned are, mostly, still FAs. Williams and Koufos are obviously signed.

I could expand on that list by adding players that have long-since signed.

[DMAVS41]

This was a part of my post from page 5 or 6...

Lakers could have signed McDaniels, Biyombo, Koufos, Derrick Williams, Beasley, Kanter, Teletovic, Jimmer, Seraphin, Shved.. players like that... to cap-friendly, short deals. Obviously some are much better options than others, and I tried to list them in order. Minimal risk, but the potential is there. If they turn in to something? Great. If not, not a big deal. And the team would likely still be bad enough to have a bottom 3 record, which would be a pretty high percent chance to keep the pick.

And "cheap" is relative.

Larkin, Crowder, and Aminu are all guys I'd look at there as well. Aminu and Crowder might have been a little too expensive, but those guys actually would be trade assets...especially as they'd produce well on a team like the Lakers.

Teams would realize how good those contracts actually were...and teams in need would be willing to trade for them either this year at the deadline or in the off season.

Crowder and Aminu on 4 year deals at 7 million per is going to look amazing after next summer...teams would realize this.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It depends to be honest.

Given it's not a lock for the top 3 pick....putting out by far the worst team in NBA history doesn't seem like it makes much sense.

It's just a far cry from reality...hence it's a poor example.

This forum has a serious problem with wanting everything to be clear cut...black/white.

A guy either sucks or he's a scrub. A team should either sign Roy Hibbert or play the worst player in the history of the NBA starter minutes...etc.

Either collecting lottery balls is extremely important or it isn't. I would guarantee the Lakers the top spot in lottery balls. The same reasons why you wouldn't sign me are the same reasons why I don't have a problem with the Lakers attempting to improve their team without risking long term financial flexibility. You can still lose the pick. You can pick a bust. It can result in negative chemistry issues. it can harm development of the "core' etc..

[catch24]

So you admit the suns were trying to tank?

If so...you then agree with me.

:confusedshrug:

Their intentions WERE to tank...but it failed when one of the players who would've gotten starter minutes got hurt.

I will just continue to repost this, but its all we need:


"Tanking," is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

:cheers:

[DMAVS41]

Either collecting lottery balls is extremely important or it isn't. I would guarantee the Lakers the top spot in lottery balls. The same reasons why you wouldn't sign me are the same reasons why I don't have a problem with the Lakers attempting to improve their team without risking long term financial flexibility. You can still lose the pick. You can pick a bust. It can result in negative chemistry issues. it can harm development of the "core' etc..

This is your response after I just got done talking about the extremes you people are trying to portray?

It can be extremely important and also not be worth putting out by far the worst roster in NBA history to get.

Your example is terrible.

[DMAVS41]

There intentions WERE to tank...but it failed when one of the players who would've gotten start minutes got hurt.

I will just continue to repost this, but its all we need:



:cheers:



Ahhh...but when you admit they tried to tank.

What are you talking about? You are talking about the front office putting together a team they didn't think would be good.

The players and coaches still tried their hardest...didn't they?

See? You are now making my points for me. LOL


Keep posting it all you want...you just shot your own argument in the foot.

[kshutts1]

Larkin, Crowder, and Aminu are all guys I'd look at there as well. Aminu and Crowder might have been a little too expensive, but those guys actually would be trade assets...especially as they'd produce well on a team like the Lakers.

Teams would realize how good those contracts actually were...and teams in need would be willing to trade for them either this year at the deadline or in the off season.

Crowder and Aminu on 4 year deals at 7 million per is going to look amazing after next summer...teams would realize this.
Yeah, I remember you mentioning some that I really agreed with. Just couldn't remember the names. Thanks

[DMAVS41]

Completely unique scenario then as the Thunder was a brand new team in a city that didn't have basketball before it. Lakers viewership was down a lot last season and their games were scrapped from national TV during the season, a direct effect of having a shit team.

If you think the Lakers brand is at a big risk if they aren't good next year...fine.

I just could not disagree more.

And you guys do realize that you can't be good every year...right? Like even if you try to be good...you won't be good every year...

I know Lakers fans don't understand this because you've been so lucky throughout the years, but sometimes a team is just going to be bad regardless....and it actually makes sense for them to be bad.

Hence why you see certain teams in certain situations..."punt" on a year or a few years in order to make the most of being bad.

[catch24]

Ahhh...but when you admit they tried to tank.

What are you talking about? You are talking about the front office putting together a team they didn't think would be good.

Why wouldn't I? Did you read the article you posted? lol.

Their intent was to start BOTH Bledsoe and Dragic. That is a ****ing disaster. :oldlol:

One freak occurrence where the lineups intended to tank...didn't actually happen...does not favor you. Once again you're in complete denial.


"Tanking", is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

The literal definition > your warped sense of reality :applause:

[DMAVS41]

Why wouldn't I? Did you read the article you posted? lol.

Their intent was to start BOTH Bledsoe and Dragic. That is a ****ing disaster. :oldlol:

One freak occurrence where the lineups intended to tank...didn't actually happen...does not favor you. Once again you're in complete denial.



:applause:


So Dragic and Bledsoe wouldn't have tried hard if they had played together?

Their intent was to develop their young players while putting a roster out there they didn't think was good....exactly what I've been saying all along.

The players and coaches didn't actively try and lose games...hence why they nearly made the playoffs.

Again...you make my points for me.

[ZenMaster]

If you think the Lakers brand is at a big risk if they aren't good next year...fine.

I just could not disagree more.

And you guys do realize that you can't be good every year...right? Like even if you try to be good...you won't be good every year...

I know Lakers fans don't understand this because you've been so lucky throughout the years, but sometimes a team is just going to be bad regardless....and it actually makes sense for them to be bad.

Hence why you see certain teams in certain situations..."punt" on a year or a few years in order to make the most of being bad.

You asked for proof of how the brand had specifically been hurt and I showed you..

I do realize you cannot be good every year, but that doesn't mean I want the team I watch to be one of the 3 worst teams in the league for multiple years. I'm quite happy with Russel, Randle and Clarkson for these last two years, now it's time to try and win again while Kobe is still wearing a jersey.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

This is your response after I just got done talking about the extremes you people are trying to portray?

It can be extremely important and also not be worth putting out by far the worst roster in NBA history to get.

Your example is terrible.

Its a simple extension of your high risk high reward argument.

64.3% chance Lakers get a top 3 pick for me on a 1 yr contract. :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Its a simple extension of your high risk high reward argument.

64.3% chance Lakers get a top 3 pick for me on a 1 yr contract. :confusedshrug:


It's not an extension...it's not a realistic example of anything.

And I answered you...trying to play this absurd thought experiment.

I can be important, but not so important it's worth putting out the worst team in NBA history by far.

What more do you want here?

[catch24]

So Dragic and Bledsoe wouldn't have tried hard if they had played together?

Their intent was to develop their young players while putting a roster out there they didn't think was good....exactly what I've been saying all along.

The players and coaches didn't actively try and lose games...hence why they nearly made the playoffs.

Again...you make my points for me.

:confusedshrug:

At that point, it wouldn't even matter, they are a bad fit together. Absolutely awful. Anybody that knows basketball would tell you they'd get raped by half decent backcourts.

But yeah...that's tanking buddy. :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

You asked for proof of how the brand had specifically been hurt and I showed you..

I do realize you cannot be good every year, but that doesn't mean I want the team I watch to be one of the 3 worst teams in the league for multiple years. I'm quite happy with Russel, Randle and Clarkson for these last two years, now it's time to try and win again while Kobe is still wearing a jersey.

That isn't the brand being hurt. It's just the normal thing that happens when a bad team so people watch them less.

Again, I realize you don't want to watch a bad team...they might not have a choice though.

You realize that even with Hibbert and a couple other guys....if they play their young guys a lot (which they absolutely should)...they likely are still going to be really bad.

Obviously I can't say for sure, but they are likely going to be really bad regardless. A bottom team in the league likely.

[Rooster]

If you think the Lakers brand is at a big risk if they aren't good next year...fine.

I just could not disagree more.

And you guys do realize that you can't be good every year...right? Like even if you try to be good...you won't be good every year...

I know Lakers fans don't understand this because you've been so lucky throughout the years, but sometimes a team is just going to be bad regardless....and it actually makes sense for them to be bad.

Hence why you see certain teams in certain situations..."punt" on a year or a few years in order to make the most of being bad.

Or you could be bad for 20 plus years with a playoff appearance once every blue moon because you barely made an effort to put your best team.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's not an extension...it's not a realistic example of anything.

And I answered you...trying to play this absurd thought experiment.

I can be important, but not so important it's worth putting out the worst team in NBA history by far.

What more do you want here?

I'm convinced by your argument and want to suit up to help the team. :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

:confusedshrug:

At that point, it wouldn't even matter, they are a bad fit together. Absolutely awful. Anybody that knows basketball would tell you they'd get raped by half decent backcourts.

But yeah...that's tanking buddy. :oldlol:


And that is the front office putting that team together. So you are supporting my view.

Do you really not get this? They put together a team that they didn't think would work....but it happened to work because the players and coach didn't try to actively lose games.

It's the clearest cut example and it fully supports what I've been saying.

Front offices are the ones that "tank"...players and coaches don't got out there on a nightly basis and say:

"well, we could win this game if I tried a bit harder, but nah....I'll just miss these shots on purpose and not get back on defense"

That doesn't happen...and if it does...it's very rare.

[DMAVS41]

Or you could be bad for 20 plus years with a playoff appearance once every blue moon because you barely made an effort to put your best team.

You could...don't see the relevance to that here for the Lakers...a franchise that isn't in danger of not trying to win over the long haul.

[ZenMaster]

That isn't the brand being hurt. It's just the normal thing that happens when a bad team so people watch them less.

Again, I realize you don't want to watch a bad team...they might not have a choice though.

You realize that even with Hibbert and a couple other guys....if they play their young guys a lot (which they absolutely should)...they likely are still going to be really bad.

Obviously I can't say for sure, but they are likely going to be really bad regardless. A bottom team in the league likely.

Come on now, having the worst season in the history of the franchise, being a joke in the league is definitely hurting the brand. Any new fan who started watching basketball last season will think of LA as a joke and not the greatest franchise in history.

We'll see how bad it really ends this year, I feel much better than with last years roster though as I think Randle will surprise people and Russel might be special. But for sure I don't want to watch our defense with Jordan Hill as starting center again, no way!

[catch24]

And that is the front office putting that team together. So you are supporting my view.

Do you really not get this? They put together a team that they didn't think would work....but it happened to work because the players and coach didn't try to actively lose games.

It's the clearest cut example and it fully supports what I've been saying.

Front offices are the ones that "tank"...players and coaches don't got out there on a nightly basis and say:

"well, we could win this game if I tried a bit harder, but nah....I'll just miss these shots on purpose and not get back on defense"

That doesn't happen...and if it does...it's very rare.

The "tank" itself was scrapped after the roster intended to compete...was no longer feasible.

Bad rosters, lineups, and effort all goes into tanking. Nobody has said otherwise. Everything with the intent to lose games...but that isn't what Phoenix did after Bledsoe went down.

None of this changes the point that tanking literally means to drop games. As the definition states.

[DMAVS41]

Come on now, having the worst season in the history of the franchise, being a joke in the league is definitely hurting the brand. Any new fan who started watching basketball last season will think of LA as a joke and not the greatest franchise in history.

We'll see how bad it really ends this year, I feel much better than with last years roster though as I think Randle will surprise people and Russel might be special. But for sure I don't want to watch our defense with Jordan Hill as starting center again, no way!

I just don't think a franchise like the Lakers can do damage to their brand by being bad for a few years in a row.

I think they can shrink from relevancy a little, but that's about it. I think it would take prolonged sucking to hurt the brand.

The thing that actually hurt their franchise...I wouldn't even say brand yet...was Howard leaving them. That hurt a lot....on and off the court.

[DMAVS41]

The "tank" itself was scrapped after the roster intended to compete...was no longer feasible.

Bad rosters, lineups, and effort all goes into tanking. Nobody has said otherwise. Everything with the intent to lose games...but that isn't what Phoenix did after Bledsoe went down.

None of this changes the point that tanking literally means to drop games. As the definition states.


Players and coaches do not actively try to lose games though. You keep ignoring this. You say effort above...so I take that as you think players really do go out there trying to lose. Which is just laughable...

Do you think players actually go out there and try to lose?

Do you think coaches actually go out there and try to lose?


And I have no idea what you are talking about with Dragic/Bledsoe. That team went 28-15 in the games Bledsoe played.

They started the year 19-11...in those first 30 games....they went 16-8 with Bledsoe.

So what are you talking about?

[catch24]

Players and coaches do not actively try to lose games though. You keep ignoring this. You say effort above...so I take that as you think players really do go out there trying to lose. Which is just laughable...

Do you think players actually go out there and try to lose?

Do you think coaches actually go out there and try to lose?

I have never argued that ownership and general management don't try to tank. I'm saying that players and coaches do too...without retroactively making it public.

Makeshift lineups, spotty effort...again, they won't admit it to the media or their fans, but you can see a dip in play. It's ****ing obvious.

[ZenMaster]

I just don't think a franchise like the Lakers can do damage to their brand by being bad for a few years in a row.

I think they can shrink from relevancy a little, but that's about it. I think it would take prolonged sucking to hurt the brand.

The thing that actually hurt their franchise...I wouldn't even say brand yet...was Howard leaving them. That hurt a lot....on and off the court.


Well we'll have to disagree then :) Thanks for a good discussion and enjoy your day :)

[DMAVS41]

I have never argued that ownership and general management don't try to tank. I'm saying that players and coaches do too...without retroactively making it public.

Makeshift lineups, spotty effort...again, they won't admit it to the media or their fans, but you can see a dip in play. It's ****ing obvious.


You are just talking about things that can happen on bad teams. LOL

And I just roasted your Bledsoe injury point. I'll post it here again.

Suns started the year 19-11...With Bledsoe they went 16-8 in those first 30 games. Then Bledsoe missed like 34 straight games and I think they went 17-17 in those games.

So....let me get this straight. They were tanking, but then Bledsoe got hurt and screwed everything up....even though they were much better with Bledsoe than without him...

And you tell me this:

At that point, it wouldn't even matter, they are a bad fit together. Absolutely awful. Anybody that knows basketball would tell you they'd get raped by half decent backcourts.

ROFL...

The notion you are spewing that the Bledsoe injury ruined the tank is absurd. They were good from the jump in 14.

And if you admit they tried to tank...you admit I'm right.

Talking about how sometimes there is effort issues on bad teams and questionable decisions...etc. That is just normal and completely different than saying players/coaches actively try and lose games.

Bad teams often just wear players down throughout the year and it's harder to get up and give full on effort every night when you aren't feeling good about your situation or the team.

That happens on so many teams each year...LOL

[catch24]

You are just talking about things that can happen on bad teams. LOL

And I just roasted your Bledsoe injury point. I'll post it here again.

Suns started the year 19-11...With Bledsoe they went 16-8 in those first 30 games.

The notion you are spewing that the Bledsoe injury ruined the tank is absurd. They were good from the jump in 14.

And if you admit they tried to tank...you admit I'm right.

Talking about how sometimes there is effort issues on bad teams and questionable decisions...etc. That is just normal and completely different than saying players/coaches actively try and lose games.

Bad teams often just wear players down throughout the year and it's harder to get up and give full on effort every night when you aren't feeling good about your situation or the team.

That happens on so many teams each year...LOL

And how do we know they would've made the playoffs WITH Bledsoe? Because of how they started for a quarter of the season...if that? They are a bad fit, which is why Dragic wanted out in Phoenix. :oldlol:


"Tanking," is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

^Are you angry that the Suns didn't do that? :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

And how do we know they would've made the playoffs WITH Bledsoe? Because of how they started for a quarter of the season...if that? They are a bad fit, which is why Dragic wanted out in Phoenix. :oldlol:



^Are you angry that the Suns didn't do that? :oldlol:

You can't just admit you are wrong.

That team went 28-15 with Bledsoe....20-19 without him.

If you think that is somehow evidence that losing Bledsoe made them better...I give up.

It was a clear case of the front office trying to put a team out there that didn't work...but it happened to work because players/coaches don't actively try and lose on purpose.

[catch24]

You can't just admit you are wrong.

That team went 28-15 with Bledsoe....20-19 without him.

That's nice...but there is no guarantee they would've kept it up. Dragic wanted to GTFO despite "almost" making the playoffs in Phoenix.

Your point is valid though...lol


It was a clear case of the front office trying to put a team out there that didn't work...but it happened to work because players/coaches don't actively try and lose on purpose.

The players didn't want to tank though. I've said all along that a tank is a concerted effort from everyone. Not just the management. Not just the players. It's actually a team effort. :applause:

[DMAVS41]

That's nice...but there is no guarantee they would've kept it up. Dragic wanted to GTFO despite "almost" making the playoffs in Phoenix.

Your point is valid though...lol



The players didn't want to tank though. I've said all along that a tank is a concerted effort from everyone. Not just the management. Not just the players. It's actually a team effort. :applause:


I'm not saying they would have kept it up. Although there is good evidence when a team starts 16-8 with a player...then goes 17-17 without him....then finishes the year 12-6 or whatever they went.

I'd say that is pretty good evidence that they were just simply better with him.

Remember, you wrote this:

At that point, it wouldn't even matter, they are a bad fit together. Absolutely awful. Anybody that knows basketball would tell you they'd get raped by half decent backcourts.

So of course I'm confused...are you saying you now don't feel that way?


As to the tanking thing...I really don't think so. I don't think players and coaches go out there and actively try to lose. I think there is of course some trickled down affect of a front office "punting" on a season, but that is true with bad teams whether it's on purpose or not.

[ArbitraryWater]

just glossing over this DMAVS completely killed you with the Bledsoe/tank argument... you had a tough time owning up to that :lol

[DMAVS41]

And there you go...the Lakers just added Lou Williams at 7 million a year for 3 years.

Exactly the kind of move I was saying that makes sense. Good value on good contract that can help develop the guards, but wouldn't add a lot of wins.

To me, and it's just my opinion, that makes a ton of sense...

This is the exact type of move I was hoping the Mavs would do...and why I wanted them to open up cap space doing a sign and trade. That is just a valuable contract to own regardless. So even if the Mavs or Lakers need more cap next year...moving that will be easy...in fact, somebody will give you something real for it. That contract is going to look even more great next summer.

[DMAVS41]

just glossing over this DMAVS completely killed you with the Bledsoe/tank argument... you had a tough time owning up to that :lol

It's amazing the lengths people will go to rather than just admitting they were wrong.

[catch24]

I'm not saying they would have kept it up. Although there is good evidence when a team starts 16-8 with a player...then goes 17-17 without him....then finishes the year 12-6 or whatever they went.

I'd say that is pretty good evidence that they were just simply better with him.

Remember, you wrote this:

At that point, it wouldn't even matter, they are a bad fit together. Absolutely awful. Anybody that knows basketball would tell you they'd get raped by half decent backcourts.
I had no recollection of their W/L record, but just seeing them play together, I never got the sense they would've had success long term.

Sure they had an OK start for a quarter of the season...again...if that...but that's just not enough to tell me they would've made the playoffs. What's more, Dragic didn't want to be on the team. He said himself that it wasn't a good fit, and wanted to play for a team that spotlighted his playmaking.

Not really sure how that takes away from my original point. It takes an entire team to tank. And what tanking is...is deliberately dropping games. That has been my contention all along.

[DMAVS41]

I had no recollection of their W/L record, but just seeing them play together, I never got the sense they would've had success long term.

Sure they had an OK start for a quarter of the season...again...if that...but that's just not enough to tell me they would've made the playoffs. What's more, Dragic didn't want to be on the team. He said himself that it wasn't a good fit, and wanted to play for a team that spotlighted his playmaking.

Not really sure how that takes away from my original point. It takes an entire team to tank. And what tanking is...is deliberately dropping games. That has been my contention all along.

Why do you keep talking about the playoffs? Who said they were going to make the playoffs?

All I showed you was that your earlier assertion that Bledsoe ruined the tank job was flat out false. Why can't you admit that?

As for the tanking...this Suns team flies in the face of that. Why? Because players don't ever do what you are talking about.

Yes, losing teams can often have issues with effort and performance, but they aren't on purpose from a player perspective. Players are not actively going out there and playing poorly on purpose.

Players don't care enough about the bottom line for owners or the future of the team to sabotage their own playing careers.

Do you really think a player is good with putting himself out on a NBA court with video evidence forever...and actively not trying to play well on the court?

That would ruin players careers man. We have video evidence of this shit forever. Teams would bring that up in contract negotiations when they are free agents.

Coaches get fired for poor records all the time. You think they are putting their job on the line and actively trying to lose?

That isn't how it works man.

[bballnoob1192]

this is such a bandaid bullshit trade. it hurts me right now to be a laker fan. if this dude is not gone after next year imma be pissed.

[catch24]

Why do you keep talking about the playoffs? Who said they were going to make the playoffs?

We know they didn't tank...so why not talk about the playoffs? How are we judging their success together otherwise?


All I showed you was that your earlier assertion that Bledsoe ruined the tank job was flat out false. Why can't you admit that?

Small samples do nothing for me.


As for the tanking...this Suns team flies in the face of that. Why? Because players don't ever do what you are talking about.

But I agree that they didn't tank. What are you talking about?

The Sixers and Lakers were tanking at the end of the season. It was too obvious.

What you ignore is that they would NEVER admit to that.

Ever.

[DMAVS41]

We know they didn't tank...so why not talk about the playoffs? How are we judging their success together otherwise?



Small samples do nothing for me.



But I agree that they didn't tank. What are you talking about?

The Sixers and Lakers were tanking at the end of the season. It was too obvious.

What you ignore is that they would NEVER admit to that.

Ever.

I'm trying to follow you here but I'm lost.

You said the Suns were going to tank, but the Bledsoe injury screwed that up and made them good. I showed you how that isn't accurate at all. I'm assuming you concede that and just won't admit it. Fine.

So now they didn't tank? You just got done saying they were trying to tank.

See...the truth is you just agree with me but won't admit it.

You have now realized that it's the front office that actually tanks. We heard it from the guy running the damn team. He was trying to tank...never told the coach to actively try and lose....because that isn't how it works.

What happened was a team he thought would be bad...ended up being good because the players and coaches don't actively try and lose games...why they don't do this is utterly obvious and I explained the ramifications for players purposely playing poorly would have on their careers.


We agree that teams at the end of year actually do try to actively lose games here and there when push comes to shove. I've mentioned this repeatedly already though. And sometimes they don't though...sometimes teams just win games (like the Knicks did)...it's not always the case or something.



I think my points hold up really strong here. It's the front office/franchise that "tanks"...the actual players/coaches absolutely do not actively try and lose on purpose. This would do devastating damage to their careers and it's not worth the risk at all over the course of an entire season.

[catch24]

I'm trying to follow you here but I'm lost.

You said the Suns were going to tank, but the Bledsoe injury screwed that up and made them good. I showed you how that isn't accurate at all. I'm assuming you concede that and just won't admit it. Fine.

Does that even matter when they aren't a good fit?

Why ignore that Dragic wanted out of Phoenix?
Why ignore that you're basing this off a small sample?

Whatever the case, I've maintained they didn't tank.


So now they didn't tank? You just got done saying they were trying to tank.

Uhh, I said they would've playing he and Dragic the entire season. I never thought they were a playoff team even with both of them healthy. They played pretty good early, but I never saw that continuing. Everything was based on the health of Memphis and even Dallas to a certain extent.


You have now realized that it's the front office that actually tanks.

Its everyone. I have never said the front office DOESNT tank.

Again players and coaches do too. We saw it from the Sixers and Lakers who you've just admitted to doing so.


We heard it from the guy running the damn team. He was trying to tank...never told the coach to actively try and lose....because that isn't how it works.

OK, but when did I say otherwise? Where did I say the players tanked? We know Phoenix didn't, so what is your point here?


We agree that teams at the end of year actually do try to actively lose games

Which again proves my point. The players and coaches do intentionally lose games at the end of the season. Rotations say it all. :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Catch man...

You were dead wrong about the Suns/Bledsoe...and that is obvious to anyone reading the thread.

My point from the beginning was simple.

Franchises/front offices are the ones that try to tank. The players and coaches on the actual team do not go out there purposely trying to lose games....

Again, with the caveat that in end of season situations...teams often lose purposely. But that happens with good teams as well...and that was absolutely not what you were talking about with you earlier points.

I won't respond to you again on this subject as I'm bored now.

I'll talk about hibbert or lou wlliams, but not about what tanking is...it's obvious what it is and isn't.

[tpols]

I
I think my points hold up really strong here. It's the front office/franchise that "tanks"...the actual players/coaches absolutely do not actively try and lose on purpose. This would do devastating damage to their careers and it's not worth the risk at all over the course of an entire season.

players that are on teams where the FO shows they don't give a fk about winning will be unmotivated.. so it doesn't matter if the FO is the one tanking.. it rubs off on the whole team.

Idk what you mean by players always playing hard.. players sleepwalk through rs's all the time.. half the guys in this league are in it for a paycheck and nice life it can provide them.

its better for guys like russell and Randle to be thrown out their with the best possible lineup to compete every night to accelerate their development rather than use losing or uncohesive lineups purposely to have an outside chance at keeping a pick they could lose anyways. Hibbert doesn't take anything away from those guys.. he covers for Randle shortness and bother Randle and russell will still get all the touches they want.

[DMAVS41]

players that are on teams where the FO shows they don't give a fk about winning will be unmotivated.. so it doesn't matter if the FO is the one tanking.. it rubs off on the whole team.

Idk what you mean by players always playong hard.. players sleepwalk through rs's all the time.. half the guys in this league are in it for a paycheck and nice life it can provide them.

its better for guys like russell and Randle to be thrown out their with the best possible lineup to compete every night to accelerate their development rather than use losing or uncoheisve lineups pusporsely to have an outside chance at keeping a pick they could lose anyways. Hibbert doesn't take anything away from those guys.. he covers for Randle shortness and bother Randle and russell will still get all the touches they want.


I've addressed all this before and absolutely agree there is a trickle down impact...especially toward the end of the season. Please read the thread first before you jump in.

Like I said before...I'll take my chances with the young guys developing just fine on a 20 win team...over giving up the chance at Ben Simmons or a top 3 pick...that by filling out the roster with vets likely prevents.

And lets not act like Kobe, Nick Young, and Clarkson are terrible players for rookies to play with.

Just give me the Thunder strategy all day. Play the rookies a ton...suck...hopefully get your pick....build organically. I mean...if Russell and Randle are actually good this year and they keep the pick. This team is set up for 12 years minimum. And they have enough cap for 2 max players.

This team could have Ben Simmons, Russell, Randle, Clarkson....2 max players...and then bring Kobe back and pay the tax. That isn't an unrealistic scenario. It's just as likely as the Lakers making a playoff push and making real strides to develop the young players in a way they wouldn't without not filling out the roster better.

I do like the Lou Williams signing...I just don't like the Hibbert signing.

I do worry a little about playing time. I am a huge believer in just throwing rookies out there big minutes...I think it really speeds up their development. The Thunder figured this out and I think it paid huge dividends for Durant and WB.

Durant played 35 minutes per game as a rookie and WB played 33 minutes a game as a rookie. You fill out this roster and try to make a playoff push or something (don't think this is likely) and you'll naturally just play these young guys less.

They should be playing 30 minutes a game at minimum all year imo.

[tpols]

I've addressed all this before and absolutely agree there is a trickle down impact...especially toward the end of the season. Please read the thread first before you jump in.

Like I said before...I'll take my chances with the young guys developing just fine on a 20 win team...over giving up the chance at Ben Simmons or a top 3 pick...that by filling out the roster with vets likely prevents.

I do like the Lou Williams signing...I just don't like the Hibbert signing.

I do worry a little about playing time. I am a huge believer in just throwing rookies out there big minutes...I think it really speeds up their development. The Thunder figured this out and I think it paid huge dividends for Durant and WB.

Durant played 35 minutes per game as a rookie and WB played 33 minutes a game as a rookie. You fill out this roster and try to make a playoff push or something (don't think this is likely) and you'll naturally just play these young guys less.

They should be playing 30 minutes a game at minimum all year imo.

They're not filling out the roster for a playoff push though.. they just added a center because that's their only real position of need with the backcourt filled out and Randle coming back for pf.. they want to cover Randle defensive short coming and maybe have him watch a guy who knows a little something about defense

Hibbert takes no minutes or touches away from russell or randle.. ironically the guy you're all for, sweet lou, does and will. All he can do is shoot and score.. it's all he does.


Overall it's just not a big deal.. west is stacked to hell and hibbert might take LA from low 20 wins to mid 20s.. they might lose 5-10% on their odds to win the pick but the young guys might learn how to scrap and play defense.. so if they keep their pick it could even end up being a nice positive.

[DMAVS41]

They're not filling out the roster for a playoff push though.. they just added a center because that's their only real position of need with the backcourt filled out and Randle coming back for pf.. they want to cover Randle defensive short coming and maybe have him watch a guy who knows a little something about defense

Hibbert takes no minutes or touches away from russell or randle.. ironically the guy you're all for, sweet lou, does and will. All he can do is shoot and score.. it's all he does.


Overall it's just not a big deal.. west is stacked to hell and hibbert might take LA from low 20 wins to mid 20s.. they might lose 5-10% on their odds to win the pick but the young guys might learn how to scrap and play defense.. so if they keep their pick it could even end up being a nice positive.

they just added lou williams as well. just added Brandon Bass.

I tend to agree with you here that it won't add too many wins, but these margins are really thin. a 10% change in odds here is actually of huge importance in my opinion.

I also think hibbert might help them a bit more than people expect. he might not of course, but I think he might help a bit more given the players on this roster.

[catch24]

Catch man...

You were dead wrong about the Suns/Bledsoe...and that is obvious to anyone reading the thread.

My point from the beginning was simple.

Franchises/front offices are the ones that try to tank. The players and coaches on the actual team do not go out there purposely trying to lose games....

Again, with the caveat that in end of season situations...teams often lose purposely. But that happens with good teams as well...and that was absolutely not what you were talking about with you earlier points.

I won't respond to you again on this subject as I'm bored now.

I'll talk about hibbert or lou wlliams, but not about what tanking is...it's obvious what it is and isn't.

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong...but I don't put much value in small samples and the fact their best player, and lead playmaker, wanted out despite "almost" making the playoffs.

And the bolded part...I agree they tank. Never said otherwise. My contention all along has been that players and coaches do too...as we've seen with Philadelphia and my Lakers this past season.

[DMAVS41]

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong...but I don't put much value in small samples and the fact their best player, and lead playmaker, wanted out despite "almost" making the playoffs.

And the bolded part...I agree they tank. Never said otherwise. My contention all along has been that players and coaches do too...as we've seen with Philadelphia and my Lakers this past season.

Let me ask you something real quick and the we can move on.

How do you feel about the 08 and 09 Sonics/Thunder?

Do you feel like Durant and Jeff Green and Westbrook actively tried to lose games...same with the other players? Or were they just a bad team that played their rookie/rookies a ton and didn't have a good mix?

And connected to that...do you think 08 and 09 stunted the growth of Durant and WB as players?