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.
You're just using extremes at this point.
So AD was a "lottery" ticket now? Yet the FUTURE HOF like Ingram, Ball, future 1st rd picks are better than the "lottery"?
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.
Since the merger (1977), how many NBA teams have made 5 straight Finals?
[You can count the answer on one finger].
If that's your standard for evaluating the success of a trade, then every trade ever made since Boston traded for Bill Russell has sucked. _________________ On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
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.
You're just using extremes at this point.
So AD was a "lottery" ticket now? Yet the FUTURE HOF like Ingram, Ball, future 1st rd picks are better than the "lottery"?
Your argument is getting weaker.
we traded assets for asset. simple as that. the players we drafted were assets, so were our picks, and so is AD who is still a major asset.
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.
You're just using extremes at this point.
So AD was a "lottery" ticket now? Yet the FUTURE HOF like Ingram, Ball, future 1st rd picks are better than the "lottery"?
Your argument is getting weaker.
No, I'm saying people using the logic of winning justifies everything is flawed.
I never said AD is a lotto ticket... I said you can't simplistically use that argument that because you won you made the right decision.
If someone actually bothers to explain their rationale as some have done then that is an acceptable argument. I may not agree with it, but I can understand the points of the argument.
I'm skewering the simplicity of the logic, not saying AD is a lotto ticket.
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.
Your analogy makes no sense. Trading for AD wasn't a "lotto ticket". That team came out of the gate as the best team in the league. LeBron knew that AD would mean one of the best teams in the league instantly and guess what - it was.
Keeping the kiddos would have been the lotto ticket. No guarantees any of the kids would have worked out and guess what, only one did (and I don't want to get into the nuanced discussion of yeah we could have drafted Garland - unless you are in the front office, there's no saying what we could have done, what we know is that the 4th pick ended up being garbage).
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.
Since the merger (1977), how many NBA teams have made 5 straight Finals?
[You can count the answer on one finger].
If that's your standard for evaluating the success of a trade, then every trade ever made since Boston traded for Bill Russell has sucked.
I just used that as an example.
If we were competitive all the time, I'd see the error of my ways.
I worried that our lack of depth and assets would come back to haunt us and it did unfortunately.
I know for a fact that I said if LBJ was five years younger that I could justify the trade better. I thought he'd only be really good for two more years and he went two years longer.
I never disrespected LBJ the player, I just don't like his influence on the roster.
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.
Your analogy makes no sense. Trading for AD wasn't a "lotto ticket". That team came out of the gate as the best team in the league. LeBron knew that AD would mean one of the best teams in the league instantly and guess what - it was.
Keeping the kiddos would have been the lotto ticket. No guarantees any of the kids would have worked out and guess what, only one did (and I don't want to get into the nuanced discussion of yeah we could have drafted Garland - unless you are in the front office, there's no saying what we could have done, what we know is that the 4th pick ended up being garbage).
Nuanced discussion?
We just signed Tristan Thompson and you don't think we draft Klutch client Garland... okay, then.
Again... if someone says we won so it doesn't matter
I used the lotto analogy to point out the absurdity of using that simplistic logic by employing the most extreme example to point out the idiocy of that logic.
It's crazy to me that people conflate that into AD is a lotto ticket.
AD is not a lotto ticket in the argument... the lotto ticket is pointing out how winning doesn't necessarily make a decision sound.
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.
Your analogy makes no sense. Trading for AD wasn't a "lotto ticket". That team came out of the gate as the best team in the league. LeBron knew that AD would mean one of the best teams in the league instantly and guess what - it was.
Keeping the kiddos would have been the lotto ticket. No guarantees any of the kids would have worked out and guess what, only one did (and I don't want to get into the nuanced discussion of yeah we could have drafted Garland - unless you are in the front office, there's no saying what we could have done, what we know is that the 4th pick ended up being garbage).
Nuanced discussion?
We just signed Tristan Thompson and you don't think we draft Klutch client Garland... okay, then.
Again... if someone says we won so it doesn't matter
I used the lotto analogy to point out the absurdity of using that simplistic logic by employing the most extreme example to point out the idiocy of that logic.
It's crazy to me that people conflate that into AD is a lotto ticket.
AD is not a lotto ticket in the argument... the lotto ticket is pointing out how winning doesn't necessarily make a decision sound.
1. Yeah we also traded away Harrell, THT and Lonnie is probably a goner too. Klutch doesn't mean we do 100% of the deals. By that logic, Ben Simmons would be a Laker. Sorry, you are just going by assumption here. Unless you are in the "know" us drafting Garland is just an educated guess.
2. "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." -> And the you use the lotto analogy. Which is it?
A lotto ticket is like a 1/500 million chance. Seeing AD and LBJ mesh was hardly a "lotto ticket". You think they came storming out of the gates looking like champs because of "luck"?
Luck is Brandon Ingram developing into an all-star and not Tobias Harris part II. Luck is NOT AD + LBJ team looking like they could run the table a few years (and if Solomon Hill doesn't barrel into LeBron), we could have (very good chance) gone back to back and then who knows - maybe the Russ trade doesn't happen.
3. I don't think anyone disagrees that winning = best decision and if you want to argue confirmation bias. Sure. What we do know is that people way smarter than us probably thought this was a worthwhile risk given all the information that they have and they have a lot more information than we do and their worthwhile risk (even if it was an overpay) was well, worth it. A team that could have gone back to back is no easy task, probably only happens once a decade or so.
@Dr.Laker: pure sophistry, huh? How bout checking out history. As Laker fans, Showtime ERA, Best 1-2 punch 3peat + Finals loss, Hermanos 2peat + Finals loss. A won&done ain’t like the others, son
You brought up Masai, but that dude is the head of bball ops for the NBA’s Siberian team. He knew what he was getting in trading for an expiring Kawhi (@G, I’ll get to star trades later with you, but key word here is expiring), but before that the Raps kept advancing in the postseason, but just kept running into LeBronto. You comparing Siberia to the brand that is the Lakers. Trading for an expiring AD and winning a chip with no postseason runS around it, ain’t the same. You know that.
You brought up the dubs for some reason, but even after going lottery they got to the Finals AGAIN & won. There’s no reason to really discuss their win-dow.
Miami created their “talented” group before taking their latest hiatus, so maybe you want to consider that, before making “decisions” on how to judge their bball ops.
And since you brought up the small market Bucks, they have outspent the mighty Laker brand in taxes for the last 2 seasons. After locking up Giannis & winning the chip, they stay spending to not only give their star best regular season records, but lengthy postseason runS. They do that while managing their star’s minutes…Giannis avgs less mins per than a guy 10 years older than him in Bron. Bruh?! Again, the Bucks bball ops compared to ours ain’t the same…we force Bron to play fulltime point & then had him log heavy minutes while forcing AD to play out of position.
As for the Suns, they knew their #win-dow was now after the Bucks series, so they went and did something about it. They are TBD, but at least KD, Book and Ayton are all locked up for years to see if it will Finally take.
Again, I’m judging the Bron/AD partnership off of #win-dows, cause those that came before them have done the same. But if you want to celebrate our recent won&done, go right ahead.
@G: great researched post and it’s hard to refute your take, since I’m not willing to do the same right now 😜
I will state tho that most of the examples you presented had it where the star players were either on locked up deals or were immediately extended upon trade. What did Masai give up for Kawhi? What did Nico give up for an expiring Ky? Now we all know AD intended to be a Laker, so he essentially gave a lot of the leverage to us in trade negotiations, yet we purged most of our young talent (among them two #2 overall picks) and gave up nearly all our draft assets possible (among them the given #4 overall pick). We then could have offered AD an extension, but had him waive his trade kicker, so there went that scenario, which made him a pending flight risk.
Those other examples you gave were for established contracts and having mostly established pieces around their core before making those moves. We literally had just Bron and Kuz on contract after trading for an expiring AD.
@TheBlackMamba: I have a hard time isolating the AD trade, since so many big picture elements immediately surrounded the move. We just purged a bunch of assets for Bron, so we had to exploit that situation by bringing in the right teamup. We were also without a coach (had a lame duck coach) when we first engaged for AD. We clearly wanted a 3rd max player as well, so the goal was to not only land AD via trade but literally build the foundational pieces around that Bron/AD pairing. And since we traded nearly all our remaining assets, it was hard to tinker around that pairing due to the limitations we chose to place on ourselves. That’s why it’s hard for me to look at the AD trade in a vacuum. I hope I clearly conveyed myself for you to understand why I see it that way and why I have so far given it an overall failing grade.
For context, I’m a huge fan of AD the player and wanted to land him via trade. I just believe we gave up entirely too much when he all but gave us most of the leverage in negotiations. And Bron is only getting older, so since coming to LA from 8 consecutive Finals runs with 2 different FOs, we did not efficiently utilize our prime Bron/AD win-dow imho. _________________ Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
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.
Your analogy makes no sense. Trading for AD wasn't a "lotto ticket". That team came out of the gate as the best team in the league. LeBron knew that AD would mean one of the best teams in the league instantly and guess what - it was.
Keeping the kiddos would have been the lotto ticket. No guarantees any of the kids would have worked out and guess what, only one did (and I don't want to get into the nuanced discussion of yeah we could have drafted Garland - unless you are in the front office, there's no saying what we could have done, what we know is that the 4th pick ended up being garbage).
Nuanced discussion?
We just signed Tristan Thompson and you don't think we draft Klutch client Garland... okay, then.
Again... if someone says we won so it doesn't matter
I used the lotto analogy to point out the absurdity of using that simplistic logic by employing the most extreme example to point out the idiocy of that logic.
It's crazy to me that people conflate that into AD is a lotto ticket.
AD is not a lotto ticket in the argument... the lotto ticket is pointing out how winning doesn't necessarily make a decision sound.
i think we've been through this multiple times,
using your lotto ticket analogy
if you buy 5000 lotto tickets for a chance to win lotto, you can argue it is a good decision or not at the time of the purchase.
however, if you won the lotto, you won't go back at the time to say, should i maybe by 1000 lotto tickets for different lottos and maybe i can win 5 lottos.
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.
Your analogy makes no sense. Trading for AD wasn't a "lotto ticket". That team came out of the gate as the best team in the league. LeBron knew that AD would mean one of the best teams in the league instantly and guess what - it was.
Keeping the kiddos would have been the lotto ticket. No guarantees any of the kids would have worked out and guess what, only one did (and I don't want to get into the nuanced discussion of yeah we could have drafted Garland - unless you are in the front office, there's no saying what we could have done, what we know is that the 4th pick ended up being garbage).
Nuanced discussion?
We just signed Tristan Thompson and you don't think we draft Klutch client Garland... okay, then.
Again... if someone says we won so it doesn't matter
I used the lotto analogy to point out the absurdity of using that simplistic logic by employing the most extreme example to point out the idiocy of that logic.
It's crazy to me that people conflate that into AD is a lotto ticket.
AD is not a lotto ticket in the argument... the lotto ticket is pointing out how winning doesn't necessarily make a decision sound.
1. Yeah we also traded away Harrell, THT and Lonnie is probably a goner too. Klutch doesn't mean we do 100% of the deals. By that logic, Ben Simmons would be a Laker. Sorry, you are just going by assumption here. Unless you are in the "know" us drafting Garland is just an educated guess.
2. "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." -> And the you use the lotto analogy. Which is it?
A lotto ticket is like a 1/500 million chance. Seeing AD and LBJ mesh was hardly a "lotto ticket". You think they came storming out of the gates looking like champs because of "luck"?
Luck is Brandon Ingram developing into an all-star and not Tobias Harris part II. Luck is NOT AD + LBJ team looking like they could run the table a few years (and if Solomon Hill doesn't barrel into LeBron), we could have (very good chance) gone back to back and then who knows - maybe the Russ trade doesn't happen.
3. I don't think anyone disagrees that winning = best decision and if you want to argue confirmation bias. Sure. What we do know is that people way smarter than us probably thought this was a worthwhile risk given all the information that they have and they have a lot more information than we do and their worthwhile risk (even if it was an overpay) was well, worth it. A team that could have gone back to back is no easy task, probably only happens once a decade or so.
It's not luck because I'd argue that Ingram was improving all the time and back then he'd have good halves and then completely disappear, he'd have flashes of genius and then nothing and the anti Ingram crowd would say stuff like "oh he's never scored 30 points in college", "he's weak and he'll never be more than a borderline starter" while I watched him slowly improve from being a terrible rookie to a really good player.
And even still, I never argued Ingram was better than AD... I said we shouldn't give up too much for a player who never won anything before.
This wasn't Kareem, who won a title, or Shaq who went to a finals... this was a guy who had the same partner as Giannis and only got out of the first round once.
I never said I didn't like AD... I just said we should wait and sign him for free if we could or pay less.
Yet, I'm the bad guy here?
Again the lotto ticket analogy is directed at dummies who say "Because we won, nothing else matters"
I pointed out that well, by your logic then if I win the lotto, then it becomes a good investment to buy 5000 lotto tickets.
Then some of you either intentionally or by stupidity conflated that into AD is a lotto ticket.
AD is not a lotto ticket... I am pointing out the stupidity of saying "Because we won, nothing else matters"
If they bothered to point out actual reasons to explain their position, then their argument becomes less idiotic.
Winning does not diminish the stupidity of buying lotto tickets.
The lotto ticket is simply to negate the idiocy of that argument.
Rob saved this with the deal this year, because it basically means even the 2024/2025 pick/swap situation is looking much more rosy.
The Pels bet on a declining Lebron, and while he is more injury prone he is still playing better than even they could have expected, and the core now around AD is young and talented. I think even without Lebron this is a playoff team, the Pels could have probably not even imagined that possibility.
I still think it was an overpay, losing Hart sucked. The ridiculous pick swaps sucked. But overall was a good deal and not just because of the title, you have an anchor player in AD to build around.
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.
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.
I don't have any problem with the "one ring is enough" people who say that a trade that resulted in an actual championship is better than guesses about alternative realities which might have brought a bigger benefit.
Whether you agree or disagree with that belief, I don't think it needs any additional supporting arguments. The logic is self-contained: One for-sure ring is better than any amount of hypothetical rings.
Other people have other criteria -- two rings is their minimum line for calling the trade a success. Some people, like you, would simply prefer a roll of the dice on keeping the assets we had and seeing what happened.
No one is right or wrong. No one can prove that their choice would have been better.
Last edited by activeverb on Mon Apr 10, 2023 11:40 am; edited 2 times in total
No one is right or wrong. No one can prove that their choice would have been better.
I dunno man. We would be in the middle of a dynasty right now if we had held on to DeAndre Hunter. Hard to argue otherwise. _________________ 14-5-3-12
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.
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.
I don't have any problem with the "one ring is enough" people who say that a trade that resulted in an actual championship is better than guesses about alternative realities which might have brought a bigger benefit.
Whether you agree or disagree with that belief, I don't think it needs any additional supporting arguments. The logic is self-contained: One for-sure ring is better than any amount of hypothetical rings.
Other people have other criteria -- two rings is their minimum line for calling the trade a success. Some people, like you, would simply prefer a roll of the dice on keeping the assets we had and seeing what happened.
No one is right or wrong. No one can prove that their choice would have been better.
I would say the path that puts us closest to our historical title winning trajectory is my personal goal.
I just felt like with the original two elites plus cost controlled assets was the best path for long term success.
We could be like Friedman or the old Braves where you get into the playoffs every year and only win once and another team could win more often.
But I think you want to have the Friedman or old Braves teams that are always in a position to win rather than just get one title and feel satisfied.
To win a title you always need at least one player (if not two) who are artificially limited by the max salary. That allows you to get a premium in production while also spending at other spots. That is even more true now with the changes in the CBA and the second apron.
The question for the Lakers isn’t if they should have done the AD deal. It’s how can they do the next one. _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35867 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 11:44 am Post subject:
With Lonzo turning out to be a bust due to injuries and not conveying a lottery pick this year, the deal is a lot better. There’s an alternate world out there where WE end up paying Lonzo what the Bulls paid him and being screwed for years with one of the worst contracts in the league. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
I would say the path that puts us closest to our historical title winning trajectory is my personal goal.
I can understand that position. I question whether there really is a path that can replicate our historical winning trajectory. Look at our rings:
5 rings in the 1940s/50s.
1 ring in the 1970s.
5 rings in the 1980s.
3 rings in the 1990s.
2 rings in the 2020s.
1 ring in the 2010s.
If just go by an average, the winning "trajectory" is heavily skewed by events from 70 years ago, 40 years ago, and 30 years ago.
If you go by the last 20 years, we have averaged 1.5 rings a decade.
So the question is, what does a reasonable winning trajectory mean?
Is it fair to expect a team today to match the Geoge Mikan years? To match the Showtime years where we drafted a GOAT level player and traded for another GOAT level player?
If AD was a lottery ticket, there must only be 4 or 5 players in the league worth trading for at any given time...
I loved Ingram, but honestly the move did him good. He was getting better every year, but he wouldn't have had the space to grow into the same player here. _________________ "I got Wheaties!"
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.
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.
I don't have any problem with the "one ring is enough" people who say that a trade that resulted in an actual championship is better than guesses about alternative realities which might have brought a bigger benefit.
Whether you agree or disagree with that belief, I don't think it needs any additional supporting arguments. The logic is self-contained: One for-sure ring is better than any amount of hypothetical rings.
Other people have other criteria -- two rings is their minimum line for calling the trade a success. Some people, like you, would simply prefer a roll of the dice on keeping the assets we had and seeing what happened.
No one is right or wrong. No one can prove that their choice would have been better.
I would say the path that puts us closest to our historical title winning trajectory is my personal goal.
I just felt like with the original two elites plus cost controlled assets was the best path for long term success.
We could be like Friedman or the old Braves where you get into the playoffs every year and only win once and another team could win more often.
But I think you want to have the Friedman or old Braves teams that are always in a position to win rather than just get one title and feel satisfied.
I appreciate your diplomatic take though.
Not sure why people keep arguing about this. There is no counter argument to the championship. It’s telling about the times we live in that people would rather live in a fantasy world rather than reality. People who are against the trade are the ones without logic or actual support.
I loved the Braves when I was a teenager, but it was just disappointment after disappointment every year. No I would rather win a championship instead of just having the chance to. I am sure there are a lot of fans out there like the 76ers fans who would rather win one than just having the chance to.
Last edited by lonesoul on Mon Apr 10, 2023 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
To win a title you always need at least one player (if not two) who are artificially limited by the max salary. That allows you to get a premium in production while also spending at other spots. That is even more true now with the changes in the CBA and the second apron.
The question for the Lakers isn’t if they should have done the AD deal. It’s how can they do the next one.
That was the one for me too. We had to offload nearly all our young assets to gain cap space as a resource post AD trade.
We used 2019 cap space on Green, KCP, McGee, Boog, Cook & AC (on a 2yr deal ) and gave the roomMLE to AvBrad.
Green turned into Schro who walked for nothing in free agency, so net it cost us the FRP we lost in attaching it to Green for Schro.
Kcp turned out to be one of the key pieces (in addition to Kuz + another FRP) that netted us Russ who we then offloaded with another FRP for DLo/Beas/Vando
McGee was salary dumped
Boog never played, but his DPE gave us Kieff who walked into free agency for nothing
Cook ended up getting waived
AC ended up walking away in free agency for nothing
AvBrad ended up walking away in free agency for nothing
So 2019 cap space as a resource ended up turning into DLo, Beas & Vando almost 3.5 years after AD got here.
We gave up nearly all our draft capital also in the AD trade and the ones we spared were traded in other moves (like Schro & Russ) or were unable to be moved due to the deferment options we included.
Then we had Rob preach to us about how the Stepien rule worked and how with the last remaining tradable draft assets, we should make it count. Bruh? Maybe you should have explained it to yourself before the AD trade, so that you could have made it count once Bron/AD were paired up.
So yeah, asset management has been ass during and after the AD trade. _________________ Not familiar with the salary cap/CBA rules & how it impacts our Lakers?
#GetFamiliar by CLICKING HERE!
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.
We'll need to see how things play out. My view is that the title in the bubble was the minimum acceptable return on the Lebron era (which includes the Davis trade). If that is all that we get, in a few years, most people will look back on this era and shrug. It wouldn't have been bad, but it wouldn't have been great.
Until we see how everything plays out, we're prisoners of the moment. Two months ago, people would have had a different perspective. Two weeks from now, our perspective may be very different. We shall see.
One other comment: The arguments based on tracing the assets that we gave to New Orleans don't persuade me. We were never going to keep all of those assets anyway. We would have made trades, signed free agents, etc. We committed to a pathway when we made the Davis trade. Really, we made the commitment when we signed Lebron, or even when we put Magic and Pelinka in charge. This pathway has produced the minimum acceptable result (in my opinion), but that doesn't mean that it was the best pathway. We'll be in a better position to judge the Lebron era when it comes to an end in two years. _________________ Internet Argument Resolved
I would say the path that puts us closest to our historical title winning trajectory is my personal goal.
I can understand that position. I question whether there really is a path that can replicate our historical winning trajectory. Look at our rings:
5 rings in the 1940s/50s.
1 ring in the 1970s.
5 rings in the 1980s.
3 rings in the 1990s.
2 rings in the 2020s.
1 ring in the 2010s.
If just go by an average, the winning "trajectory" is heavily skewed by events from 70 years ago, 40 years ago, and 30 years ago.
If you go by the last 20 years, we have averaged 1.5 rings a decade.
So the question is, what does a reasonable winning trajectory mean?
Is it fair to expect a team today to match the Geoge Mikan years? To match the Showtime years where we drafted a GOAT level player and traded for another GOAT level player?
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
) and gave the roomMLE to AvBrad.
