|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eddiejonze wrote: | Both can be true, both opinions of it being a success Vs. a failure, can be true.
We won the title, and in this sport history judges titles mostly...Lakers win titles.
But could it have been more successful? yes.
Is AD injury prone? Yes.
Are we possibly too beholden to Bron (westbrick deal)? Yes.
Are some of the other guys (BI) balling? Yes.
Just like you can't judge a team until the whole 82 game season is over to truly analyze, trades can only be analyzed over the traded players WHOLE career with their new teams...
This truly can't be analyzed until AD is done here. |
I'd argue a few things:
(1) Perceptions of how good/bad trades are will change over time.
(2) In some cases, big trades are perceived as slam dunk successes or failures (Kareem for Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith and Brian Winters). But most of the time, there isn't a clear consensus.
(3) My guess is the AD trade will ultimately not have a clear consensus. There will always be a sizeable number of people who think an alternative scenario would have been better, and, like any woulda-coulda-shoulda, you won't be able to prove them right or wrong. So this will be one of those things that come up now and then, where everyone will repeat the same old arguments, until it dribbles to a close. Over time, the passion for the discussion will wane, and the discussions will become shorter and shorter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gng930
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11475
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | Trading/dumping nearly all our young assets (every kid except Kuz) and nearly all our draft capital (3 out of 4 possible FRPs that are allowed to be traded during a 7yr window and 1 out of 3 possible 1st round swaps). You primarily trade one or the other in the AD trade. We did both…and all in the name of capspace, that mostly went unrealized.
If you had to do both and you wanted to occupy a 3rd max player with that space, our title win-dow wound have been so much truer with Jrue coming along with AD.
Again, big picture planning should be to not only attain the target, but fully exploit it once you come good on it.
We gave up most of our trade assets in the AD trade to tinker the roster around him and Bron with in sustaining title runS.
Multiple big men later, we still haven’t given dude a fulltime center to run with and we have 1 bubble ring as our only deep playoff run and 2 play-in appearances to applaud over with Bron/AD here for a 5yr #win-dow.
Imho, it’s been a fail! |
I have to admit that my initial reaction was that it was an over-pay. I felt we didn't leverage the #4 pick enough; it seemed like the same type of deal we would make even without lucking into that pick.
In retrospect though, you have additional context. Off the top of my head, the major star trades over the years have been AD, KD, Harden (from Houston), PG, Mitchell, Gobert, Murray, Jrue. Please let me know if I'm missing anybody
In terms of FRPs:
AD: 3 + 1 swap
KD: 4 + 1 swap
Harden: 3 + 4 swaps
PG: 5 + 2 swaps
Mitchell: 3 + 2 swaps
Gobert: 5 + 1 swap
Murray: 3 + 1 swap
Jrue: 3 + 2 swaps
Even without accounting for AD's superior value, it doesn't seem Rob got taken to the cleaners. Even if you take into account the #4 pick ended up being traded for two FRPs, I still feel there was nothing egregious here.
In terms of best player sent out:
AD: Ingram
KD: Bridges (locked into a bargain deal)
Harden: Jarrett Allen
PG: SGA
Mitchell: Markkanen
Gobert: Vanderbilt
Murray: Gallinari
Jrue: Bledsoe
Ingram is clearly top 3-4, but has also been the most injury prone of that top group. In the context of AD arguably being the best player overall in this discussion, I can't criticize Rob here.
In terms of rotation-level players otherwise:
AD: Ball, Hart
KD: Cam, Crowder
Harden: Levert, Prince
PG: Gallinari
Mitchell: Sexton
Gobert: Bev, Beasley
Murray: none
Jrue: Hill
Ball has the highest ceiling here but his health struggles are well-documented. The Pelicans didn't even bother matching the Bulls' offer. Hart is a great role player but doesn't really stand out otherwise from other players in this group.
So I think you can argue that Rob fumbled some of the details in the margin and the aftermath of the deal. But when you look at the deal in a vacuum compared to similar blockbuster trades, you can make an argument he came out ahead. AD, KD, and Harden are in a tier of their own but AD was easily the youngest of the 3 at the time of the trade. One might argue for PG as well but it's clear the Clippers gave up significantly more.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerFan1987
Star Player
Joined: 30 Oct 2022
Posts: 1534
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Great analysis GNG930! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gng930 wrote: | NB4 a certain someone sucks the oxygen out of the thread.
It's always tricky trying to do these type of analyses when it comes to picks used. Do you consider players that could have been drafted instead? Darius Garland is obviously the one that stands out. Jalen Williams was a top 2 rookie. And it's simply too soon to make a call on Dyson Daniels.
The one thing you can't dispute is that we don't win the championship without AD in 2020. |
We also don't win a championship without signing two Hall of Famers for the minimum and Caruso emerging as a starter.
When the trade happened, my complaint was we gave up too much and that we didn't have depth.
The reason we needed depth is because LBJ was getting older and AD was injury prone.
So we likely don't win if we don't fluke those signings, and AD and Bron don't get to rest for five months.
Who knows who we would have signed had we not made the trade?
People say we couldn't have gotten Butler, but what if we had prioritized him?
Then we'd have LBJ, Butler, BI, Lonzo, Hart, Zubac, Rondo, KCP, Garland, Kuzma
And we'd have all our picks so we'd have a consistent supply of new cost controlled contracts when our kids became too expensive.
You never know 100% when you make a deal or don't make a deal whether it is going to work or not.
But you always want to put yourself in a better position to win.
I think either waiting for AD the following year, or signing Jimmy Butler would have been superior to making the trade.
There are other ideas which have been forgotten with time, there may have been better deals that Rob wanted to do but his hands were tied by LBJ and Klutch.
But just because you won doesn't mean you put up the best team.
The 1988 Dodgers won with a garbage team. I loved that team, I went to watch one of the World Series games (Not the Gibson game unfortunately)
But just because they won the championship, I'd never want to recreate it.
The A's should have won just like the Clippers should have won that year.
You always want to be the better team, not one that got lucky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomoreshaq
Star Player
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 5141
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | eddiejonze wrote: | Both can be true, both opinions of it being a success Vs. a failure, can be true.
We won the title, and in this sport history judges titles mostly...Lakers win titles.
But could it have been more successful? yes.
Is AD injury prone? Yes.
Are we possibly too beholden to Bron (westbrick deal)? Yes.
Are some of the other guys (BI) balling? Yes.
Just like you can't judge a team until the whole 82 game season is over to truly analyze, trades can only be analyzed over the traded players WHOLE career with their new teams...
This truly can't be analyzed until AD is done here. |
I'd argue a few things:
(1) Perceptions of how good/bad trades are will change over time.
(2) In some cases, big trades are perceived as slam dunk successes or failures (Kareem for Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith and Brian Winters). But most of the time, there isn't a clear consensus.
(3) My guess is the AD trade will ultimately not have a clear consensus. There will always be a sizeable number of people who think an alternative scenario would have been better, and, like any woulda-coulda-shoulda, you won't be able to prove them right or wrong. So this will be one of those things that come up now and then, where everyone will repeat the same old arguments, until it dribbles to a close. Over time, the passion for the discussion will wane, and the discussions will become shorter and shorter. |
In the grand scheme of things, it was a 100% winner. No matter what.
It is VERY VERY VERY hard to win an NBA ring. Consider that the Lakers were in the friggin lottery the year before.
Ask the 2005 Heat if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2008 Celtics if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2010 Mavs if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2016 Cavs if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2018 Raptors if it was "worth it"
All of those teams were essentially one and done. They made certain moves to get there.
Heat - traded for Shaq
Celtics - traded for KG and Allen
Mavs - they made a series of good moves and then blew it up...
Cavs - same as Mavs so to speak
Raptors - traded for Kawhi
The only reason this isn't a "good trade" is because yall think every trade needs to be a Pau Gasol type robbery that results in multiple rings and multiple trips to the finals.
Guys, that happens like once every generation and TBH it seems to only happen to the Lakers (trade for Kareem, trade for Worthy [sort of], trade for Kobe [sort of], trade for Pau). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petergr
Star Player
Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 1523
Location: kiki
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those that complain about the trade are not complaining about AD's greatness.Yes the trade was worth it. But...you don't do a trade like that 100 out of 100 times as championships are not guaranteed due to trades. Most most good or great trades wont win you championships. Winning a championship almost always involves lots luck...especially with injuries to your team and other teams.
My only issue with the trade is you could have got the same AD for a lot less. Lakers were bidding against themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThePageDude
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 2573
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: |
<snip>
(1) Perceptions of how good/bad trades are will change over time.
<snip>
|
Right. I see this flaw ALL the time in these hindsight discussions and they don't make sense to me at all: decisions need to be judged based on the best information that was available at the time the decision was made - plus what could have been (reasonably) anticipated given that information. NOT how history happened to unfold. I mean if a baseball manager walks a .300 hitter so his pitcher pitches to a .250 hitter but loses the game - that turn of events doesn't negate the original decision.
So I don't mock NO for how the deal unfolded, they took a risk, did get some good results, just not the maximum possible results, happens with risk-taking. As for the Lakers, the deal traded potential for certainty and the Lakers certainly got short-term certainty. The most I can wonder is if it could have been better negotiated BUT that is a question about the *execution* of the deal NOT about the deal itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gng930
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11475
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BILBJH wrote: | | gng930 wrote: | NB4 a certain someone sucks the oxygen out of the thread.
It's always tricky trying to do these type of analyses when it comes to picks used. Do you consider players that could have been drafted instead? Darius Garland is obviously the one that stands out. Jalen Williams was a top 2 rookie. And it's simply too soon to make a call on Dyson Daniels.
The one thing you can't dispute is that we don't win the championship without AD in 2020. |
We also don't win a championship without signing two Hall of Famers for the minimum and Caruso emerging as a starter.
When the trade happened, my complaint was we gave up too much and that we didn't have depth.
The reason we needed depth is because LBJ was getting older and AD was injury prone.
So we likely don't win if we don't fluke those signings, and AD and Bron don't get to rest for five months.
Who knows who we would have signed had we not made the trade?
People say we couldn't have gotten Butler, but what if we had prioritized him?
Then we'd have LBJ, Butler, BI, Lonzo, Hart, Zubac, Rondo, KCP, Garland, Kuzma
And we'd have all our picks so we'd have a consistent supply of new cost controlled contracts when our kids became too expensive.
You never know 100% when you make a deal or don't make a deal whether it is going to work or not.
But you always want to put yourself in a better position to win.
I think either waiting for AD the following year, or signing Jimmy Butler would have been superior to making the trade.
There are other ideas which have been forgotten with time, there may have been better deals that Rob wanted to do but his hands were tied by LBJ and Klutch.
But just because you won doesn't mean you put up the best team.
The 1988 Dodgers won with a garbage team. I loved that team, I went to watch one of the World Series games (Not the Gibson game unfortunately)
But just because they won the championship, I'd never want to recreate it.
The A's should have won just like the Clippers should have won that year.
You always want to be the better team, not one that got lucky. |
It's easy to cite the best-case scenario in your alternative universe when there is absolutely no way to prove/disprove the real-case scenario. But yes please, continue to also take the trouble of transcribing all the imaginary discussions you have playing in your head.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Last edited by gng930 on Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petergr
Star Player
Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 1523
Location: kiki
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nomoreshaq wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | eddiejonze wrote: | Both can be true, both opinions of it being a success Vs. a failure, can be true.
We won the title, and in this sport history judges titles mostly...Lakers win titles.
But could it have been more successful? yes.
Is AD injury prone? Yes.
Are we possibly too beholden to Bron (westbrick deal)? Yes.
Are some of the other guys (BI) balling? Yes.
Just like you can't judge a team until the whole 82 game season is over to truly analyze, trades can only be analyzed over the traded players WHOLE career with their new teams...
This truly can't be analyzed until AD is done here. |
I'd argue a few things:
(1) Perceptions of how good/bad trades are will change over time.
(2) In some cases, big trades are perceived as slam dunk successes or failures (Kareem for Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith and Brian Winters). But most of the time, there isn't a clear consensus.
(3) My guess is the AD trade will ultimately not have a clear consensus. There will always be a sizeable number of people who think an alternative scenario would have been better, and, like any woulda-coulda-shoulda, you won't be able to prove them right or wrong. So this will be one of those things that come up now and then, where everyone will repeat the same old arguments, until it dribbles to a close. Over time, the passion for the discussion will wane, and the discussions will become shorter and shorter. |
In the grand scheme of things, it was a 100% winner. No matter what.
It is VERY VERY VERY hard to win an NBA ring. Consider that the Lakers were in the friggin lottery the year before.
Ask the 2005 Heat if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2008 Celtics if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2010 Mavs if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2016 Cavs if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2018 Raptors if it was "worth it"
All of those teams were essentially one and done. They made certain moves to get there.
Heat - traded for Shaq
Celtics - traded for KG and Allen
Mavs - they made a series of good moves and then blew it up...
Cavs - same as Mavs so to speak
Raptors - traded for Kawhi
The only reason this isn't a "good trade" is because yall think every trade needs to be a Pau Gasol type robbery that results in multiple rings and multiple trips to the finals.
Guys, that happens like once every generation and TBH it seems to only happen to the Lakers (trade for Kareem, trade for Worthy [sort of], trade for Kobe [sort of], trade for Pau). |
There are a LOT more trades...even good ones that do not win championships.
You also have the Wesbrook, Kyrie variety trades that gut a contender into a lottery team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerFan1987
Star Player
Joined: 30 Oct 2022
Posts: 1534
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| petergr wrote: | Those that complain about the trade are not complaining about AD's greatness.Yes the trade was worth it. But...you don't do a trade like that 100 out of 100 times as championships are not guaranteed due to trades. Most most good or great trades wont win you championships. Winning a championship almost always involves lots luck...especially with injuries to your team and other teams.
My only issue with the trade is you could have got the same AD for a lot less. Lakers were bidding against themselves. |
Under your logic, the Lakers should have traded the 1st rd pick + $30M worth of contract fillers.
Great theory. Too bad theory isn't reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerFan1987
Star Player
Joined: 30 Oct 2022
Posts: 1534
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| petergr wrote: | | nomoreshaq wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | eddiejonze wrote: | Both can be true, both opinions of it being a success Vs. a failure, can be true.
We won the title, and in this sport history judges titles mostly...Lakers win titles.
But could it have been more successful? yes.
Is AD injury prone? Yes.
Are we possibly too beholden to Bron (westbrick deal)? Yes.
Are some of the other guys (BI) balling? Yes.
Just like you can't judge a team until the whole 82 game season is over to truly analyze, trades can only be analyzed over the traded players WHOLE career with their new teams...
This truly can't be analyzed until AD is done here. |
I'd argue a few things:
(1) Perceptions of how good/bad trades are will change over time.
(2) In some cases, big trades are perceived as slam dunk successes or failures (Kareem for Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith and Brian Winters). But most of the time, there isn't a clear consensus.
(3) My guess is the AD trade will ultimately not have a clear consensus. There will always be a sizeable number of people who think an alternative scenario would have been better, and, like any woulda-coulda-shoulda, you won't be able to prove them right or wrong. So this will be one of those things that come up now and then, where everyone will repeat the same old arguments, until it dribbles to a close. Over time, the passion for the discussion will wane, and the discussions will become shorter and shorter. |
In the grand scheme of things, it was a 100% winner. No matter what.
It is VERY VERY VERY hard to win an NBA ring. Consider that the Lakers were in the friggin lottery the year before.
Ask the 2005 Heat if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2008 Celtics if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2010 Mavs if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2016 Cavs if it was "worth it"
Ask the 2018 Raptors if it was "worth it"
All of those teams were essentially one and done. They made certain moves to get there.
Heat - traded for Shaq
Celtics - traded for KG and Allen
Mavs - they made a series of good moves and then blew it up...
Cavs - same as Mavs so to speak
Raptors - traded for Kawhi
The only reason this isn't a "good trade" is because yall think every trade needs to be a Pau Gasol type robbery that results in multiple rings and multiple trips to the finals.
Guys, that happens like once every generation and TBH it seems to only happen to the Lakers (trade for Kareem, trade for Worthy [sort of], trade for Kobe [sort of], trade for Pau). |
There are a LOT more trades...even good ones that do not win championships.
You also have the Wesbrook, Kyrie variety trades that gut a contender into a lottery team. |
No one is saying the Lakers didn't mess up the Westrbrook trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's telling that the vast majority of the people who support the trade use simplistic logic that because we won, it was a good trade.
Especially the ones who have been using this one sentence rationale for five years now.
No supporting arguments, no attempt to use logic.
I at least respect those who give good supporting arguments to why they like the trade.
As for the others, it's like if they purchased 5000 lotto tickets and won the lottery that they'd argue with you that you made a sound financial decision.
You didn't make a sound financial decision... you got f*cking lucky.
Am I happy that we won? Absolutely
Am I happy with the trade? I think AD is a great player and better than Ingram but I'd rather have Ingram, Garland and see what we would have done with all those assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gng930 wrote: | | BILBJH wrote: | | gng930 wrote: | NB4 a certain someone sucks the oxygen out of the thread.
It's always tricky trying to do these type of analyses when it comes to picks used. Do you consider players that could have been drafted instead? Darius Garland is obviously the one that stands out. Jalen Williams was a top 2 rookie. And it's simply too soon to make a call on Dyson Daniels.
The one thing you can't dispute is that we don't win the championship without AD in 2020. |
We also don't win a championship without signing two Hall of Famers for the minimum and Caruso emerging as a starter.
When the trade happened, my complaint was we gave up too much and that we didn't have depth.
The reason we needed depth is because LBJ was getting older and AD was injury prone.
So we likely don't win if we don't fluke those signings, and AD and Bron don't get to rest for five months.
Who knows who we would have signed had we not made the trade?
People say we couldn't have gotten Butler, but what if we had prioritized him?
Then we'd have LBJ, Butler, BI, Lonzo, Hart, Zubac, Rondo, KCP, Garland, Kuzma
And we'd have all our picks so we'd have a consistent supply of new cost controlled contracts when our kids became too expensive.
You never know 100% when you make a deal or don't make a deal whether it is going to work or not.
But you always want to put yourself in a better position to win.
I think either waiting for AD the following year, or signing Jimmy Butler would have been superior to making the trade.
There are other ideas which have been forgotten with time, there may have been better deals that Rob wanted to do but his hands were tied by LBJ and Klutch.
But just because you won doesn't mean you put up the best team.
The 1988 Dodgers won with a garbage team. I loved that team, I went to watch one of the World Series games (Not the Gibson game unfortunately)
But just because they won the championship, I'd never want to recreate it.
The A's should have won just like the Clippers should have won that year.
You always want to be the better team, not one that got lucky. |
It's easy to cite the best-case scenario in your alternative universe when there is absolutely no way to prove/disprove the real-case scenario. But yes please, continue to also take the trouble of transcribing all the imaginary discussions you have playing in your head. |
I think what Rob did acquring DLo is an example of a miracle trade that one couldn't predict.
Klutch and LBJ convincing AD to wait, or greenlighting a Butler signing are far from pie in the sky scenarios.
If you don't see how we could do it, then you don't have much faith in Klutch as an organization.
It's funny that I'm the one dissing Klutch all the time, yet even I know they are strong enough to get deals done.
They could have gotten AD to wait if Bron was more patient.
You can say that's a pipe dream, but to me it seems obvious we would have a high likelihood of convincing him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gng930
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11475
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have the worst analogies. A lottery ticket is not the same as a calculated risk.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheBlackMamba
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 9057
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vasashi17+ wrote: | Trading/dumping nearly all our young assets (every kid except Kuz) and nearly all our draft capital (3 out of 4 possible FRPs that are allowed to be traded during a 7yr window and 1 out of 3 possible 1st round swaps). You primarily trade one or the other in the AD trade. We did both…and all in the name of capspace, that mostly went unrealized.
If you had to do both and you wanted to occupy a 3rd max player with that space, our title win-dow wound have been so much truer with Jrue coming along with AD.
Again, big picture planning should be to not only attain the target, but fully exploit it once you come good on it.
We gave up most of our trade assets in the AD trade to tinker the roster around him and Bron with in sustaining title runS.
Multiple big men later, we still haven’t given dude a fulltime center to run with and we have 1 bubble ring as our only deep playoff run and 2 play-in appearances to applaud over with Bron/AD here for a 5yr #win-dow.
Imho, it’s been a fail! |
I think you have to isolate the trade from the other moves that came after it. The fail part came with throwing the remaining assets away for Westbrook, not re-signing Caruso, bringing in a parade of washed vets on 1-year deals, not using the 2020/2021 1st round picks to bring in guys who would be contributors by now, etc. Up until that point, would anyone argue that the deal didn't work out for the Lakers? We had won a ring, made a second playoff trip, and were up 2-1 on the eventual Western Conference representative in the Finals before AD went down. If the management of the roster wasn't so questionable after that point, who knows how this team looks right now?
Those are big ifs and we can't judge based on hypotheticals...but I guess from my point of view, the AD trade itself from a value perspective is still closer to a push than a fail, with the ring putting it over the top as a win. The problem is almost everything they did after that was a "F" grade, before the moves in February. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gng930 wrote: | | You have the worst analogies. A lottery ticket is not the same as a calculated risk. |
When someone says simplistically we won so it was a good choice.
That is the same as saying because I purchased 5000 lotto tickets and won that I made a good financial decision.
Winning does not make a decision good simply by the result
If you don't get this analogy, then I don't know what more I can say to you.
I wasn't even addressing your argument, you at least tried to make a fair point... I'm talking about the majority who have made this half ass argument for years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | anth2000 wrote: | Would do the deal 10 out of 10 times.
No brainer, not really up for debate.
Lakers got a championship.
Other than Ingram, none of the other players have been all-star level so it's all good. |
You’ve really got to be a 99th percentile miserable fan to still be complaining about a deal that got us by far the best player and a championship. |
All of us know that we have a few very vocal LGers who, for various reasons, have an agenda that requires them to label AD and Lebron as unsuccessful. Consequently, they will always declare that any outcome from the trade was insufficient. If we win one ring, they will say two rings is the minimum accomplishment to a denote successful trade. If we win two rings, they'll change the goalpost again.
Those folks create a lot of noise at the moment. Over time, their passion will ebb and the noise will diminish significantly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerFan1987
Star Player
Joined: 30 Oct 2022
Posts: 1534
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gng930 wrote: | | You have the worst analogies. A lottery ticket is not the same as a calculated risk. |
Next thing u know he would say that the Lakers wouldn't have extended Lonzo Ball because they know of his injuries.
Selective memory, sequence, history, future etc whatever you want to call it.
Some people will never be happy in life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gng930
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11475
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BILBJH wrote: | | gng930 wrote: | | You have the worst analogies. A lottery ticket is not the same as a calculated risk. |
When someone says simplistically we won so it was a good choice.
That is the same as saying because I purchased 5000 lotto tickets and won that I made a good financial decision.
Winning does not make a decision good simply by the result
If you don't get this analogy, then I don't know what more I can say to you.
I wasn't even addressing your argument, you at least tried to make a fair point... I'm talking about the majority who have made this half ass argument for years. |
Because a lottery ticket is just that...a lottery and therefore random. Anybody could tell you that MVP Lebron and prime AD is an excellent shot at a championship. And unlike those lottery balls, you can actually dictate the circumstances around Lebron and AD (i.e. coaching, roster construction). I too am not sure what more I can say.
_________________
Luxury Tax/FA Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomoreshaq
Star Player
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 5141
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BILBJH wrote: | It's telling that the vast majority of the people who support the trade use simplistic logic that because we won, it was a good trade.
Especially the ones who have been using this one sentence rationale for five years now.
No supporting arguments, no attempt to use logic.
I at least respect those who give good supporting arguments to why they like the trade.
As for the others, it's like if they purchased 5000 lotto tickets and won the lottery that they'd argue with you that you made a sound financial decision.
You didn't make a sound financial decision... you got f*cking lucky.
Am I happy that we won? Absolutely
Am I happy with the trade? I think AD is a great player and better than Ingram but I'd rather have Ingram, Garland and see what we would have done with all those assets. |
So, you trade 1 guaranteed chip for several "maybe" chips? All right then. Agree to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | anth2000 wrote: | Would do the deal 10 out of 10 times.
No brainer, not really up for debate.
Lakers got a championship.
Other than Ingram, none of the other players have been all-star level so it's all good. |
You’ve really got to be a 99th percentile miserable fan to still be complaining about a deal that got us by far the best player and a championship. |
All of us know that we have a few very vocal LGers who, for various reasons, have an agenda that requires them to label AD and Lebron as unsuccessful. Consequently, they will always declare that any outcome from the trade was insufficient. If we win one ring, they will say two rings is the minimum accomplishment to a denote successful trade. If we win two rings, they'll change the goalpost again.
Those folks create a lot of noise at the moment. Over time, their passion will ebb and the noise will diminish significantly. |
Who started this thread? Me?
Yet I'm the one with the agenda.
I love people who have an agenda yet use the tactic as labeling the others as having one.
One man's agenda is another man's opinion.
I've never said AD and LBJ are unsuccessful as players.
I've said they are injury prone and old.
If we played well and were in the finals five straight years and lost all five I'd freely admit the trade was good and I misjudged it.
I was worried about how the team would hold up over the long term and that is reasonable when you are concerned about depth.
I probably even said we should be good for a year or two, but would suffer later. And LBJ exceeded my expectations by still being good.
But I was right in predicting the lack of assets would come back to haunt us.
I am happy right now with the team.
If we stick with this, I'm good... I can still enjoy this team even if we don't win a title because we are moving in the right direction.
If Klutch pulls another Westbrook move and we trade all these players for Kyrie then I won't be happy.
If you want to call that an agenda, then so be it.
I call that simply being a true fan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17105
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | anth2000 wrote: | Would do the deal 10 out of 10 times.
No brainer, not really up for debate.
Lakers got a championship.
Other than Ingram, none of the other players have been all-star level so it's all good. |
You’ve really got to be a 99th percentile miserable fan to still be complaining about a deal that got us by far the best player and a championship. |
All of us know that we have a few very vocal LGers who, for various reasons, have an agenda that requires them to label AD and Lebron as unsuccessful. Consequently, they will always declare that any outcome from the trade was insufficient. If we win one ring, they will say two rings is the minimum accomplishment to a denote successful trade. If we win two rings, they'll change the goalpost again.
Those folks create a lot of noise at the moment. Over time, their passion will ebb and the noise will diminish significantly. |
Well stated.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nomoreshaq wrote: | | BILBJH wrote: | It's telling that the vast majority of the people who support the trade use simplistic logic that because we won, it was a good trade.
Especially the ones who have been using this one sentence rationale for five years now.
No supporting arguments, no attempt to use logic.
I at least respect those who give good supporting arguments to why they like the trade.
As for the others, it's like if they purchased 5000 lotto tickets and won the lottery that they'd argue with you that you made a sound financial decision.
You didn't make a sound financial decision... you got f*cking lucky.
Am I happy that we won? Absolutely
Am I happy with the trade? I think AD is a great player and better than Ingram but I'd rather have Ingram, Garland and see what we would have done with all those assets. |
So, you trade 1 guaranteed chip for several "maybe" chips? All right then. Agree to disagree. |
Your counter argument is that because I'm a lotto winner, I'm a fool to invest my money in a mutual fund because maybe I don't get rich.
The mutual fund is always better than buying those lottery tickets... even with the current economic environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ducasse
Star Player
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 8140
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No AD = no ring, so it was a win. Solid deal for Pels though. They got a younger all star talent for a player that wanted out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BILBJH
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Posts: 5119
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | anth2000 wrote: | Would do the deal 10 out of 10 times.
No brainer, not really up for debate.
Lakers got a championship.
Other than Ingram, none of the other players have been all-star level so it's all good. |
You’ve really got to be a 99th percentile miserable fan to still be complaining about a deal that got us by far the best player and a championship. |
All of us know that we have a few very vocal LGers who, for various reasons, have an agenda that requires them to label AD and Lebron as unsuccessful. Consequently, they will always declare that any outcome from the trade was insufficient. If we win one ring, they will say two rings is the minimum accomplishment to a denote successful trade. If we win two rings, they'll change the goalpost again.
Those folks create a lot of noise at the moment. Over time, their passion will ebb and the noise will diminish significantly. |
Well stated. |
We've been debating this passionately for four or five years... but sure AV is a prophet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
