Never had any doubt in the young drippa! The day we traded him is one of the blackest days for me as a Laker fan and I said as such here, since I thought he was going to be our next Kobe. He had the skills, the swagger and the desire to get better just like Kobe did. Although I should have known there will never be another Kobe, BI is the closest I've seen in terms of just elevating his game every single season.
Pels just demolished Memphis by 30 today, they're gonna be scary sooner than we think.
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram. _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year. _________________ “Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:11 pm Post subject:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
This is the proverbial dead horse. For what it's worth, I've never been sold on this argument. With the possible exception of Ingram, I'm not sure that any of the kids are going to develop into legitimate star quality players, and I'm not sure that the Lakers could have done anything differently that would have changed that or that would have made them develop more quickly. Given the philosophy of the current front office, I expect that we would have burned them all anyway. It may work out. We shall see.
He’s been so consistently good. He’s having another awesome game against the Rockets. Anyone still questioning his fit with Zion? _________________ #mamba4ever!
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:34 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
This is the proverbial dead horse. For what it's worth, I've never been sold on this argument. With the possible exception of Ingram, I'm not sure that any of the kids are going to develop into legitimate star quality players, and I'm not sure that the Lakers could have done anything differently that would have changed that or that would have made them develop more quickly. Given the philosophy of the current front office, I expect that we would have burned them all anyway. It may work out. We shall see.
How could you not be sold? Look at Ingram and Ball's improvement from deep. Russell is also a better player.
Some may not agree but Clarkson, and Randle would have benefited greatly from a better coaching staff while they were still building their foundation.
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season. They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:59 pm Post subject:
TheBlackMamba wrote:
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season.They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season.They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.
I don't see this at all..
Nope, me neither
Only part I agree with is the Gentry part, also I think they take too many quick bad 3s but that’s the nature of the new nba which sucks! _________________ #mamba4ever!
Steady improvement. BI and Zion don't look too bad together, and it's still early. _________________ "It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up."-The Greatest
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:08 pm Post subject:
BigBoi wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
TheBlackMamba wrote:
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season.They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.
I don't see this at all..
Nope, me neither
Only part I agree with is the Gentry part, also I think they take too many quick bad 3s but that’s the nature of the new nba which sucks!
How could you not be sold? Look at Ingram and Ball's improvement from deep. Russell is also a better player.
Some may not agree but Clarkson, and Randle would have benefited greatly from a better coaching staff while they were still building their foundation.
The specific question is whether the kids would have developed more quickly with different coaches. I don’t see any reason to think they would, especially given their health issues. Ingram has made a jump in the first half of his fourth season. Ball has made a modest improvement in the first half of his third season. Would they have reached their current levels last season if we had different coaches? I don’t see any reason to think so.
Young players are going to improve in most cases. By itself, the fact that a player got better proves nothing about the quality of coaching. Sometimes, it has more to do with a player being willing to listen to the coaches than to anything the coaches do. Getting traded may facilitate this. In the case of Ingram, it was always going to be a question of physical development.
Joined: 17 Jun 2003 Posts: 6284 Location: Central Coast
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:25 am Post subject:
Wishing him the best.
Every trade has its price, especially if you are getting a future Hall of Famer. Sort of like the Pau Gasol deal, we gave out Marc Gasol, that turned out to be a very good player for 10 years after the trade. The Shaq trade we didn't really want to make, got us Lamar Odom, who ended up being a very key piece when we re-booted with Kobe and Pau that got us more rings.
It's all water under the bridge, coulda, shoulda, woulda; we traded away the kids, got rid of a couple of awful contracts, and got Lebron and AD. _________________ LAKERS 2019-2020: NBA World Champions!
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:05 am Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
How could you not be sold? Look at Ingram and Ball's improvement from deep. Russell is also a better player.
Some may not agree but Clarkson, and Randle would have benefited greatly from a better coaching staff while they were still building their foundation.
The specific question is whether the kids would have developed more quickly with different coaches. I don’t see any reason to think they would, especially given their health issues. Ingram has made a jump in the first half of his fourth season. Ball has made a modest improvement in the first half of his third season. Would they have reached their current levels last season if we had different coaches? I don’t see any reason to think so.
Young players are going to improve in most cases. By itself, the fact that a player got better proves nothing about the quality of coaching. Sometimes, it has more to do with a player being willing to listen to the coaches than to anything the coaches do. Getting traded may facilitate this. In the case of Ingram, it was always going to be a question of physical development.
There was no shooting coach, the kids were instructed not to shoot as much from deep as a remedy to their shooting woes. I rest my case there.. We can agree to disagree I guess.
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:22 pm Post subject:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..
If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..
If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.
Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..
If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.
Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.
Not only time, but the space to be a playmaker/creator. With LBJ, tougher to get there. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:47 pm Post subject:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..
If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.
Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:51 pm Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..
If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.
Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.
Not only time, but the space to be a playmaker/creator. With LBJ, tougher to get there.
I've never bought the media narrative that Ingram had trouble "fitting"..
Took him a while but Ingram figured out how to play with Bron. Finished the season at 28PPG on high efficiency. Playing with Bron wouldn't have stifled his game.. Bad coaching is what did that.
Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 4372 Location: Lake Nacimiento
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:55 pm Post subject:
SocalDevin wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.
The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.
We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..
If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.
Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.
Not only time, but the space to be a playmaker/creator. With LBJ, tougher to get there.
I've never bought the media narrative that Ingram had trouble "fitting"..
Took him a while but Ingram figured out how to play with Bron. Finished the season at 28PPG on high efficiency. Playing with Bron wouldn't have stifled his game.. Bad coaching is what did that.
I agree 100%, Ingram is the kind of player that can change his game to fit with who he is playing along side.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum