I am going out on a limb...(T-Wolves off-season related)

Mediocre to me is high lottery, not play-off team.

I'd call that a bad team. Standards differ I suppose.

I don't see why you even bother being a fan of the team anymore, you seem to hate it since Snaq left.

Ha..ha..ha, you made up a funny nickname, tell him what he won Albert. In other words, not very funny. Want funny? Here's funny. Snaq is in the playoffs. Is Kobe fishing or raping?

Besides, if that's your definition of being a fan, good riddance. Basically what you just said is had Kobe left, you'd not be a fan. I've made it loud and clear that whilst I may not be a fan of Kobe at all times, I'm a fan of the other players on the team. Have you heard me say anything about Odom, Brown (Ok, he sucks), Walton, George, Parker, Bynum or Cook? No. Phil Jackson? Nopes.

I don't get why you're getting all defensive and questioning my reasons of being a fan, what does that have to do with the fact I think they are mediocre? They aren't in any position to win a championship nor are they in a position to get a high draft pick via lottery (meaning they don't suck). How is that not being a fan? Am I supposed to be unrealistic a la the Game and say they'll win it all next year or get this big named FA? Yeah, that'd make me a fan.

I don't have a link because I don't remember where I heard it from. But it came straight from Glen Taylor's mouth. Let me see if I can find it.

I'd call that a bad team. Standards differ I suppose.

Indeed they do.

Ha..ha..ha, you made up a funny nickname, tell him what he won Albert. In other words, not very funny. Want funny? Here's funny.

You were doing so well until...

Snaq is in the playoffs. Is Kobe fishing or raping?

That's beyond lame, seriously, don't even try. You're celebrating the fact that your supposed favourite team isn't in the play-offs? Please.

Besides, if that's your definition of being a fan, good riddance. Basically what you just said is had Kobe left, you'd not be a fan.

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? Where did I say that exactly? You might get away with just typing random garbage to other people but it won't work with me.

I've made it loud and clear that whilst I may not be a fan of Kobe at all times, I'm a fan of the other players on the team. Have you heard me say anything about Odom, Brown (Ok, he sucks), Walton, George, Parker, Bynum or Cook? No. Phil Jackson? Nopes.

I've not heard you say ANYTHING about those other players. You don't get involved in Laker discussions at all, not unless you're praising Shaq or bagging Kobe.

I don't get why you're getting all defensive and questioning my reasons of being a fan, what does that have to do with the fact I think they are mediocre?

I didn't ask you why you were a fan, therefore I wasn't questioning your reasons. What I do question is why you continue to support a team you don't seem to like. As I said, I've not seen you say anything but negatives about the Lakers. That also applies to the rest of what you said. The team made progress this season, last season was a disaster but this was an improvement. If you want to continue to downplay that then fine, but having been a fan since any progress in the play-offs at all was a good thing, maybe we have different expectations.

You said they are two entirely different things. He asks what your reasoning is behind that comment?

He says the difference between a contender and a championship winner is the Trophy, you say it's two entirely different things. What exactly is so different.

Pretty simple question I think.

You've got to be kidding, I'm not sure it even deserves a response but nevertheless you don't play to "be one of the best" if you ask every guy in the NBA he'd be playing to be the best, no matter how many "contenders" you have there's only going to be one championship winner. They're the ones people would remember. Who'd even talk about the Bulls if they were just a contender, but never won a championship? Who'd talk about Jordan?

I find it ironic that the same person who spent ages arguing with me about why Karl Malone's career is tainted by a lack of championships is also asking what the difference is between winning a championship and being a contender.

thank you for gracing us with your response. now i know what criteria you are using.

i was thinking more in context of a team situation because that's what it seemed like you and Jackal were discussing

i believe that the nba is broken into a few groups:
championship contenders
above average teams
average teams
mediocre

normally there are only a few true contenders every year. this year i believe it was the Pistons, Spurs, Mavs, Heat. Maybe even Phoenix. you can argue with that list but that's for another discussion.

There's no 100% guarantee of being the nba champion. but the best you can you hope for is to position yourself to contend for it. I believe that competitive organizations try to position themselves to be championship contenders and it is very difficult to get to that level and stay there. just ask a team like Golden State, which hasn't even made the playoffs for 11yrs. and it was remarkable on how the Spurs were able to win another title a few years back while they were 'rebuilding'. to be one of the few teams that gets to the level where they are true contenders for the title is an accoplishment.

going on with this thinking, there wasn't much of a difference between the Spurs and Pistons last year. Clearly they were the best teams in the league. The series winner could have been the Pistons instead of the Spurs. The Spurs got the hardware but that still didn't change either team's situations heading into next year

i hope that made sense

i believe that the nba is broken into a few groups:
championship contenders
above average teams
average teams
mediocre

I agree with that, that's kind of what I was refering to with Jackal. I couldn't classify any play-off team "mediocre"... average maybe, but not mediocre.

nd if la had traded kobe, shaq would've signed for 20. the only reason he wanted 30, like you said, is because he wanted kobe gone.

Huh? If Shaq remained in LA do you honestly think they will still be contenders without kobe? Theoretically, let's add GP and Zo on the lakers with Snaq sans Kobe, what do you see that team accomplishing?
I would love to read your honest and unbiased opinion.

Because kobe is la's superstar for years to come, and a free agent will join a team based on the personnel (or the money).

Where are you getting this from? Why cant you freakin understand that the lakers are:
1. over the cap for 2 more years
2. will not sign anyone for more than 2 years
3. has a gm that cant close a deal to save his life.

You judge Kobe's pull when attracting free agents? Do it in 2008 when the lakers actually have CAP SPACE and are willing to offer long term contracts.

It's unfair and biased to put all the blame on kobe when there are facts behind the lakers inability to sign a significant free agent.

but don't fool yourself, sam and spree signed there for kg

How cute. They were actually traded to minny.

but he doesn't have the style of game that compliments that many players

Kobe's style of game compliments a big that can actually finish in the post. Carlos Boozer would be an all-star beside Kobe.

the fact is shaq and contender are synomomous, they go hand in hand. That is a fact, and that is why players want to play with him.... that and he's a big.

He's declining. He's gonna be out of the league in a few years while Kobe is just reaching his prime. Buss made the right decision.

Buss knew he cant replace Shaq but he also knew that if he resigned Shaq, the franchise would have been rendered unable to sign anyone that can even pretend to play like an all-star.

At least he made sure that he would still have a top 5 player on his team even if Shaq is already gone.

so whats the new plan? la's not gonna suck enough to get high picks, and regardless if whether it is kobe's fault or not free agents don't seem to want to sign there.

Sign free agents. Antonio Daniels and the lakers were 1 year away from agreeing to a contract. Daniels wanted a 4 year contract, Lakers were offering a 2 year contract with a 3rd year team option.

A few months later, Yao and Amare signed and extensions and the 2007 plan was moved to 2008. As a fan im still hoping that if the lakers stick to this plan, history will repeat itself, this was the same plan they used in the 90's to sign free agent Shaquille O'neal.

Of course, the big difference now is back then we had the logo, now we have Kupchak.

again when i say shaq is the reason I mean by majority. When someone asks you who owns microsoft what do you say?

The stockholders.

Woah, that does not mean they are useless, that simply meant that neither are big name free agents like Michael Finley was.

Am I supposed to be unrealistic a la the Game and say they'll win it all next year or get this big named FA? Yeah, that'd make me a fan

Quit putting words into my mouth.

Socks-

what FA's do you think the Lakers can sign (realistically)? and what is their projected cap space (assuming they sign their 1st round pick this year and keep/sign next year's 1st round pick)?

Currently the cap is at 49.5 million and is expected to go up at around 1.75 million per year. So that makes it 54 million in 2008.

With that said, the lakers will have more or less 18 million to spend on free agency in 2008.

Kevin Garnett has an early termination option in 2008. Bosh could be an unrestricted FA in 2008. im not saying the lakers will be able to sign these players but apparently, one of them is the lakers prime target.

Honestly, i dont know who they can sign realistically in 2008. as a fan, i can just hope for the best. after all, the last time they did this they got Snaq.

As for the FA's they can sign in the offseason this year:
Marcus Banks, Fred Jones, Bobby Jackson are all realistic targets and can address a need at the 1.

Fred Jones would be a great fit as a 1 in the triangle.

awww, jae-kal is fighting. jackal actually thought kobe should've been mvp (if i recall), I just think he's looking at things realistically. you can be a fan of a team and disagree with what they've done or are doing.... look at knicks fans

I guess we all have different definitions. To me mediocore means medium, nothing more, nothing less. Like I said before what am I supposed to call a 7 seed in a 15 team conference? isn't that as 'medium' as it gets? I don't mind calling them average, but to me mediocore sounds more right.

heres how'd i break it down:
championship contenders
good teams
mediocore teams
bad teams
toronto raptors

ok, now to laker socks stuff.

Huh? If Shaq remained in LA do you honestly think they will still be contenders without kobe? Theoretically, let's add GP and Zo on the lakers with Snaq sans Kobe, what do you see that team accomplishing?
I would love to read your honest and unbiased opinion.

like I said before, the only way shaq would've remained in la is if kobe left. If la had chosen shaq over kobe they would've traded him. In that trade imo they would've still been contenders. That has always been my honest reason, and I would never call myself unbias, but I try to be.

Where are you getting this from? Why cant you freakin understand that the lakers are:
1. over the cap for 2 more years
2. will not sign anyone for more than 2 years
3. has a gm that cant close a deal to save his life.

You judge Kobe's pull when attracting free agents? Do it in 2008 when the lakers actually have CAP SPACE and are willing to offer long term contracts.

It's unfair and biased to put all the blame on kobe when there are facts behind the lakers inability to sign a significant free agent. Rolling Eyes

okay I will wait until 2008, but until then I will be inclined towards my current belief for the reasons I've already stated.

How cute. They were actually traded to minny.

you're right, i forgot about that. sorry. I still think bigs attract more free agents than gaurds as a rule though which is the point I was trying to make.

Kobe's style of game compliments a big that can actually finish in the post. Carlos Boozer would be an all-star beside Kobe.

I agree with the first part, not with the second.

He's declining. He's gonna be out of the league in a few years while Kobe is just reaching his prime. Buss made the right decision.

Buss knew he cant replace Shaq but he also knew that if he resigned Shaq, the franchise would have been rendered unable to sign anyone that can even pretend to play like an all-star.

At least he made sure that he would still have a top 5 player on his team even if Shaq is already gone.

Thing is I think with that choice the lakers are setup for longterm mediocrity. Maybe its just my way of thinking, but I would rather a couple of years of contention. Not to mention, again, they could've traded kobe.

Sign free agents. Antonio Daniels and the lakers were 1 year away from agreeing to a contract. Daniels wanted a 4 year contract, Lakers were offering a 2 year contract with a 3rd year team option.

A few months later, Yao and Amare signed and extensions and the 2007 plan was moved to 2008. As a fan im still hoping that if the lakers stick to this plan, history will repeat itself, this was the same plan they used in the 90's to sign free agent Shaquille O'neal.

Of course, the big difference now is back then we had the logo, now we have Kupchak.

but with a gm that sucks and a guard as your selling point, I really don't see it happenning.

The stockholders.

well difference of opinion then. I'd be perfectly fine saying bill gates

Woah, that does not mean they are useless, that simply meant that neither are big name free agents like Michael Finley was.

I'm sorry I just drew that from the dramatic sarcasm you used to show the difference still I can't see how you can credit the lakers for ALMOST signing daniels (with washington as your competion no less), and then not give credit to miami for almost signing finley with san antonio of all teams as competition.

Quit putting words into my mouth.

I don't think he was talking about you, I think he was generalizing the overenthusiastic laker fan... which you have to admit you have a lot of.

jackal actually thought kobe should've been mvp (if i recall), I just think he's looking at things realistically. you can be a fan of a team and disagree with what they've done.... look at knicks fans

1: I don't recall him ever saying Kobe should've been MVP.

2: The Lakers aren't the Knicks, they're a play-off team with a great player and some potential for the future. What I was refering to with Jackal is the fact that he seems to show absolutely no indication that he even likes the Lakers. I don't see how it's realistic to never talk about the team unless you're bagging the star player. Of course with the Knicks that's reasonable, but this is different. I'm also not sure you understand what the argument is about.

Like I said before what am I supposed to call a 7 seed in a 15 team conference? isn't that as 'medium' as it gets?

I'd call it the 10th best team in a 30 team league. Techncially that's above average.

I guess we all have different definitions. To me mediocore means medium, nothing more, nothing less. Like I said before what am I supposed to call a 7 seed in a 15 team conference? isn't that as 'medium' as it gets? I don't mind calling them average, but to me mediocore sounds more right.

I see mediocre as the negative form of average. Tim Duncan had an average season by his standards, would you say he was mediocre?

1: I don't recall him ever saying Kobe should've been MVP.

2: The Lakers aren't the Knicks, they're a play-off team with a great player and some potential for the future. What I was refering to with Jackal is the fact that he seems to show absolutely no indication that he even likes the Lakers. I don't see how it's realistic to never talk about the team unless you're bagging the star player. Of course with the Knicks that's reasonable, but this is different. I'm also not sure you understand what the argument is about.

honestly though jackal hasn't posted in nba talk with much regularity for awhile. he hasn't even talked about kobe with anything but respect since now. i think he has always been a laker fan, but what do you expect when his favorite player is traded away? heres the last relevant post i remember:

Let's start off with saying how I despise Raja Bell. His face just annoys me. Even in 2001, I thought him & his little mustache-ish thing on top of his lip maked him look like a faggot.

Now to continue.

Great game by the Suns, people should pay them the respect, they made history. Every player of that team contributed in a great fashion. I hope Nash recovers from the collision and his ankle turns out to be ok.

It'd be a shame for the Clippers to kick their fucking ass and everyone goes "oh but Nash was injured."

Mm, that was a bit rude. On a more serious note, I think the Suns will advance past the Clippers, so as you can see, the statement above was just a joke.

On to the Lakers...

Everyone expects me to start off with Kobe Bryant, but I won't.

I'd like to start off with Phil Jackson, I feel badly for him, his unbeaten record just went down the drain, tis a pity but as they say...there's a first for everything.

Kwame Brown - Is it his youth or just the fact that he's not a very capable player? I've said it's his youth for a long long time, but honestly, Kwame isn't a very good player. He fumbles easy passes, misses easy shots, it can't be his nerves all the time, not all the time, right? He's a bench player at best. My hopes of big men to lead the Lakers are now on Andrew Bynum, come on young fellow, work your ass off this offseason. Kwame really disappointed.

Lamar Odom - He tried. That's all there is to say about him.

Luke Walton - Due to the team's overall offense being as flat as it was and the fact that Phoenix was defending (double teaming) quite effectively, Walton's biggest strength was not much a factor. Passing that is. Not kissing.

Smush Parker - I don't despise the kid, I don't. I blame youth and inexperience. He isn't a bad player (Kwame), he just hasn't been in this situation, every miss just added to an already uncertain player. Next season he should be better. More sure.

The bench, a weak bench as it is, just could not step up.

Kobe Bryant - Nothing but love Bryant, nothing but love. It's an old story with Bryant and me, at times I hate his guts & at times I love him. This time, I love him. I don't blame him. Kobe Bryant, on a good night, could single handedly bring back this Lakers team. That's just how fucking awesome he is. Every single NBA watcher knows this, this is why they fear him, this is why they hate him. Look at the previous page, someone made a comment about "as long as Kobe doesn't pull any heroics". That's just how dangerous Kobe Bryant is.

Kobe Bryant needed his team-mates to get into a rhythm, atleast 2 of them for him to be able to turn anything on. They never did. Not Kwame, not Luke, not Lamar and not Smush. No one. He could begin splitting defense and he could attract a quadruple double and even pass it out just to watch his team-mates fumble, turnover or brick the ball. Kobe Bryant realised "turning it on" with a cold team was going to get him nothing but "selfish" tags. He did what he thought was best, he let the young guys build experience in a clearly out of reach game.

I wish Kobe a wonderful offseason to spend time with his two daughters & his gorgeous wife. Here's a big big big applause from me to Kobe Bryant for all the entertainment he provided me over the years and especially this season. Applaud Around this time next year, Kobe Bryant will be reading his name in the papers.

Sources: Kobe Bryant to be named MVP.

You can't get robbed back to back.

Also noteworthy that the Lakers who were labelled as failures all season long, managed to push the second seeded Suns this far. I think Laker deserve that much. They pushed them 7 games.

Overall, good season, here's looking to an even better one next year.

Now, on to support Shaquille O'Neal & the Miami Heat. Smile

I'd call it the 10th best team in a 30 team league. Techncially that's above average.

fine, average it is.

I see mediocre as the negative form of average. Tim Duncan had an average season by his standards, would you say he was mediocre?

relative to himself I would say he was bad.

btw, I see average as the postive form of mediocore, i don't think medicore is bad... just mediocore. I guess the problem lies in the different connatations we derive from the word. no big deal.

Yeah it's all down to interpretation I suppose, I've always associated mediocre as a bad thing which is why I defended the team when he mentioned it.

I have no idea how I missed that Jackal post, must've thought he was flaming someone kidding.

Edited for humour purposes

I think people are failing to see the massive jump the laker players had towards the end of the season and into the playoffs. Kwame, Smush, Lamar and Walton all looked like fine players in that strecth run when Mihm was injured, and it allowed Kobe to play a team game and the Lakers were better. If that continues next season, they could finish with a 4th seed, with Pheonix San Antonio and Dallas still ahead of them. So I don't see why they really need to sign a quality free agent. Of course it wouldnt hurt, but they arent in quicksand because of the trade involving shaq.

But had shaq been on a team without a legitimate superstar like wade, would this even be up for discussion? Kobe has Odom, but odom is hardly compariable to Wade. Shaq has that benifit, and people want to compare the team success of the two teams. Thats completely unfair. Its like saying Doug Christie was a more important player to a teams sucess than Michael Jordan in 2002 when he was a wizard.

awww, jae-kal is fighting.

I'd call it a first round knockout .

i think he has always been a laker fan, but what do you expect when his favorite player is traded away

To move on from it? How would you think Andrew or Air Gordon felt after MJ, Pip, Rodman and Jackson were told to clear their lockers out after winning the championship in 98?

Glad Magius took the time to look up that post, just because I don't post about the Lakers as often as I used to, doesn't mean I'm not a fan. Just because I constantly used to pick Shaq over Kobe, doesn't mean I don't love Kobe in my own demented way.

I refrain from posting in NBA talk as of late, that's not because I don't want to talk about the Lakers, it's because I don't want to talk about the Lakers with guys like Laker Socks, Sit and countless other hardcore fans. One thing I've noticed is you can't convince anyone otherwise over here.

This Shaq-Kobe debate, I think we had it with DRESPN, it fizzled out, in that thread me & Magius even brought in Duncan and what not, that was a long ass thread, eventually what happened? Nothing. Basically Magius has had to repeat all the points from that thread.

150 words and yet nothing was said.

And you added to that, how? Check yourself before you go frolicking around the forums playing the big man.

Lol! Check myself? Okay, sorry. Lets get that roleplay forum out.. then you'll have something to frolick around in style.

To move on from it? How would you think Andrew or Air Gordon felt after MJ, Pip, Rodman and Jackson were told to clear their lockers out after winning the championship in 98?

lol thanks for reminding me

at first i wanted to kill krumbs Krause. but after a few years of being the league's doormat, i wanted to torture him first then kill him

but i never stopped watching their games/supporting the team/discussing them with friends & on the forums

ike I said before, the only way shaq would've remained in la is if kobe left. If la had chosen shaq over kobe they would've traded him. In that trade imo they would've still been contenders. That has always been my honest reason, and I would never call myself unbias, but I try to be.

But why would Buss pick the older, declining, out of shape player that called him a motherfucker.

Why cant he live with the fact that he needs Kobe to win more titles? as far as im concerned, Kobe did not demand that shaq be traded. He could've stayed or walked to another team and Shaq would've still been a laker if he did not demand a trade.

Ultimately, this discussion points to one thing: Shaq was the one who demanded a trade. No ifs no buts. He demanded a traded. He was the one who wanted out.

okay I will wait until 2008, but until then I will be inclined towards my current belief for the reasons I've already stated.

Fair enough. I hope to shove it in your face how wrong you are in 2008.

you're right, i forgot about that. sorry. I still think bigs attract more free agents than gaurds as a rule though which is the point I was trying to make.

The only big still that IMO really attracts FA's is Tim Duncan.

You could give credit to shaq attracting a declining GP and Malone all you want but i name another player that he has attracted to play for his team that had an impact somewhere close to GP or Malone's. (Dont include Ho Grant because he was acquired via trade when he was a key player in 2001)

I agree with the first part, not with the second.

To each his own. I hope the lakers can acquire Boozer. He's gonna be a risk but i honestly think we're one big and one PG that can actually defend from being a contender again.

Thing is I think with that choice the lakers are setup for longterm mediocrity. Maybe its just my way of thinking, but I would rather a couple of years of contention. Not to mention, again, they could've traded kobe.

Look, if they decided to trade Kobe, like shaq they would have never gotten even half of his market value.

Longterm mediocrity? To each his own i guess. With Kobe, the lakers can add an impact player in 2008 and be right back to title contention. With Shaq, but Kobe out, the lineup would be shit in the first season, in the 2nd season, still shit. But let's be unrealistic and say they contend till Shaq retires. The lakers would then have to rebuild after he's gone. Remember that Mitch Kupchak is our Gm. At least with Kobe, the lakers have a bonafide superstar and the best perimeter player in the league.

but with a gm that sucks and a guard as your selling point, I really don't see it happenning.

In Buss and i trust. The team is one more impact player away from contention. We can sign one in 2008.

still I can't see how you can credit the lakers for ALMOST signing daniels (with washington as your competion no less), and then not give credit to miami for almost signing finley with san antonio of all teams as competition.

2 different situations. Daniels was being asked to play in la short term. A 30 year old PG would obviously be looking for a long term contract. One last big payday.

Finley was being offered the full 5 million MLE by the heat. that's why he listened. The heat were the only contender that offered him that much. He opted to sign with SA for the veterns minimum. More or less a million. See the 4 million difference?

I don't think he was talking about you, I think he was generalizing the overenthusiastic laker fan... which you have to admit you have a lot of.

He was talking about me. I used to post under the name the game.

EDIT:

it's because I don't want to talk about the Lakers with guys like Laker Socks, Sit and countless other hardcore fans. One thing I've noticed is you can't convince anyone otherwise over here.

How cute. Magius has convinced me multiple times in this thread.
Good arguments can convince even the most hardcore fan. Stupid and biased arguments cant even convince a bandwagoner.

But why would Buss pick the older, declining, out of shape player that called him a motherfucker.

Why cant he live with the fact that he needs Kobe to win more titles? as far as im concerned, Kobe did not demand that shaq be traded. He could've stayed or walked to another team and Shaq would've still been a laker if he did not demand a trade.

Why would shaq want to play on a team with a player that actually "told on him" to the cops?

imo, kobe did demand shaq to be traded... he only did it in a way that wouldn't tarnish his image further. For all his faults, he's not an idiot.

Ultimately, this discussion points to one thing: Shaq was the one who demanded a trade. No ifs no buts. He demanded a traded. He was the one who wanted out.

Yes ifs, yes buts. Shaq demanded to be traded because it was obvious they had picked kobe over him. Shaq also demanded the trade, because pj was not resigned.

Fair enough. I hope to shove it in your face how wrong you are in 2008.

i have saved this quote in preperation of 2008. i'm not even slightly worried... the only way they're gonna get somebody is to overpay big time.... and its not gonna be an all star.

The only big still that IMO really attracts FA's is Tim Duncan.

You could give credit to shaq attracting a declining GP and Malone all you want but i name another player that he has attracted to play for his team that had an impact somewhere close to GP or Malone's. (Dont include Ho Grant because he was acquired via trade when he was a key player in 2001)

that is true, but I'd think shaq, kg, and even yao do so in their own right as well.

To each his own. I hope the lakers can acquire Boozer. He's gonna be a risk but i honestly think we're one big and one PG that can actually defend from being a contender again.

what every team in the nba would do for a quality big and pg....

Look, if they decided to trade Kobe, like shaq they would have never gotten even half of his market value.

but relatively they would've gotten better market value considering the amount of sg's that hypothetically would've been available for kobe. true they would not be of the same calibre, but at the very least a more equal level than any big la can ever possibly acquire to try and replace shaq. imo, i'd rather build via a quality big, regardless of age, rather than from the 2. Only one team in recent history has been succesful building through a 2, and throughout that time we have seen countless misplaced hopes. fact is Kobe is not even close to mj, and la will never have a cast similar to that team. The best you can realistically hope for imo is MAYBE one good year in the finals (doubtful), ala the 76ers, and a decade of bottom half seeds.

Longterm mediocrity? To each his own i guess. With Kobe, the lakers can add an impact player in 2008 and be right back to title contention. With Shaq, but Kobe out, the lineup would be shit in the first season, in the 2nd season, still shit. But let's be unrealistic and say they contend till Shaq retires. The lakers would then have to rebuild after he's gone. Remember that Mitch Kupchak is our Gm. At least with Kobe, the lakers have a bonafide superstar and the best perimeter player in the league.

I guess the truth is we can type ourselves to death over this, but time will tell. but again, you disregard the players la would've gotten for kobe. even if they had gotten something like lamar and caron..... imo that with shaq is enough to be a contender. As it stands I see the lakers already kind of 'rebuilding' (badly) for many years to come... at least when and if shaq retired (and assuming the players brought in via the kobe trade are also old and retire too, which obviously doubtful, but we'll assume that they left somehow), at least the lakers could rebuild properly with high picks.

In Buss and i trust. The team is one more impact player away from contention. We can sign one in 2008. Wink

we'll see. i'm sure they'll sign someone, i'm pretty sure it won't be enough.

imo, kobe did demand shaq to be traded...

Let's stick to facts ok? Let's not invent things shall we?
What part of "trade me" do you not understand?
If kobe demanded that Shaq be traded, why didn Shaq whine about it to the media like he always does? Why did he do Kobe a favor and be the one to demand a trade?
Absurd.

Yes ifs, yes buts. Shaq demanded to be traded because it was obvious they had picked kobe over him. Shaq also demanded the trade, because pj was not resigned

Which still implied one thing: Shaq wanted out. That's the fact. live with it.

i have saved this quote in preperation of 2008. Very Happy i'm not even slightly worried... the only way they're gonna get somebody is to overpay big time.... and its not gonna be an all star.

We'll see.

that is true, but I'd think shaq, kg, and even yao do so in their own right as well.

So you're agreeing with me?

but relatively they would've gotten better market value considering the amount of sg's that hypothetically would've been available for kobe. true they would not be of the same calibre, but at the very least a more equal level than any big la can ever possibly acquire to try and replace shaq

Really? Name me one trade for a superstar sg in the last 10 years where the team that traded the star sg got something even close to market value?

It's not that hard to replace a declining mammoth. What was his average on points and rebounds for this season again?

imo, i'd rather build via a quality big, regardless of age, rather than from the 2

Fine, you'd choose a team with a declining, very expensive big for a sg that is arguably the best in the NBA and is just entering his prime. Whatever floats your boat.

I guess the truth is we can type ourselves to death over this, but time will tell.

I most definitely agree with you in this.

but again, you disregard the players la would've gotten for kobe. even if they had gotten something like lamar and caron..... imo that with shaq is enough to be a contender. As it stands I see the lakers already kind of 'rebuilding' (badly) for many years to come... at least when and if shaq retired (and assuming the players brought in via the kobe trade are also old and retire too, which obviously doubtful, but we'll assume that they left somehow), at least the lakers could rebuild properly with high picks.

Look, Kobe was a FA, his dad wanted him to play in phoenix and he flirted with the clips. What makes you so sure that the lakers would've gotten even a scrub for kobe? He was a freakin unrestricted free agent.

Rebuild properly? Like what? the hawks? Sorry but Jerry Buss has always avoided going through "rebuilding". The lakers are a winning organization. The lakers dont rebuild.

As a fan, i prefer playoff contention till 2008 rather than sucking till 2008. in 2008, that's when the lakers will hopefully weave their magic like they always have.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/ ... acramento/

What is this shit? People are really desperate to stir up Garnett trade rumors.