Jordan Hill Discussion: Cleared to play (66)

dj vitus wrote:Or maybe Hill is actually the next Marc Gasol.

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
That was a lottery pick taken at #10. When we sold to New York in 2009 and New Jersey in 2011 we dealt away the 29th and 27th picks respectively. When all is said and done, we'll likely end up with the 5th or 6th best record this year which means we dealt away the 25th or 26th pick for Ramon Sessions. Perhaps you know of a way we could take what would have been the 26th pick in this year's draft, morph him into Ramon and send him back in time to enable us to have a shot at a title? And the Dallas pick you're whining about, the Mavs have the 13th best record in the NBA which means the 18th pick in the draft son...which means we wouldn't have even received the pick since it's top 20 protected.

Doc Brown wrote:This is the same weak argument that was had back on pages 7-8 of this very thread. If anyone wants to use a nice quick and easy post to debunk any of tttppp's claims, feel free to snag my posts and use them to debunk the same argument he lost 5 pages back.

tttppp wrote:

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
That was a lottery pick taken at #10. When we sold to New York in 2009 and New Jersey in 2011 we dealt away the 29th and 27th picks respectively. When all is said and done, we'll likely end up with the 5th or 6th best record this year which means we dealt away the 25th or 26th pick for Ramon Sessions. Perhaps you know of a way we could take what would have been the 26th pick in this year's draft, morph him into Ramon and send him back in time to enable us to have a shot at a title? And the Dallas pick you're whining about, the Mavs have the 13th best record in the NBA which means the 18th pick in the draft son...which means we wouldn't have even received the pick since it's top 20 protected.

Bynum was a project. Like YOU said, projects should be taken in the second round so you don't have to offer them guaranteed money.

tttppp wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:This is the same weak argument that was had back on pages 7-8 of this very thread. If anyone wants to use a nice quick and easy post to debunk any of tttppp's claims, feel free to snag my posts and use them to debunk the same argument he lost 5 pages back.

I just made one simple comment to one person's post, then you all jumped on me. If you don't like what I said, and don't care to discuss it, then don't say anything.

bruddahmanmatt wrote:

tttppp wrote:

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
That was a lottery pick taken at #10. When we sold to New York in 2009 and New Jersey in 2011 we dealt away the 29th and 27th picks respectively. When all is said and done, we'll likely end up with the 5th or 6th best record this year which means we dealt away the 25th or 26th pick for Ramon Sessions. Perhaps you know of a way we could take what would have been the 26th pick in this year's draft, morph him into Ramon and send him back in time to enable us to have a shot at a title? And the Dallas pick you're whining about, the Mavs have the 13th best record in the NBA which means the 18th pick in the draft son...which means we wouldn't have even received the pick since it's top 20 protected.

Bynum was a project. Like YOU said, projects should be taken in the second round so you don't have to offer them guaranteed money.

Our team was a** at the time and we had motherF'ing Brian Grant on our payroll thanks to the Shaq trade, who the hell were we going to trade the #10 pick for? Get real. It made sense at the time to roll the dice on Drew. It's not like we had anything to lose in 2005. You with your apples and oranges again.

Rebuilding a team != adding complementary pieces.

Doc Brown wrote:

tttppp wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:This is the same weak argument that was had back on pages 7-8 of this very thread. If anyone wants to use a nice quick and easy post to debunk any of tttppp's claims, feel free to snag my posts and use them to debunk the same argument he lost 5 pages back.

I just made one simple comment to one person's post, then you all jumped on me. If you don't like what I said, and don't care to discuss it, then don't say anything.

I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.

tttppp wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.

I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.

tttppp wrote:The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.

tttppp wrote:I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.

Doc Brown wrote:

tttppp wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.

I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.

No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.

Doc Brown wrote:

tttppp wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.

I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.

No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.

tttppp wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:

tttppp wrote:I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.

No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.

What, so you don't like the Pau Gasol trade?

bruddahmanmatt wrote:

tttppp wrote:The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.

Bynum, Gasol, Sessions, Artest and Barnes have all been steady contributors as of late, Bryant is a given come playoff time. That's six guys, plus while they're not all-star caliber material, McRoberts, Murphy, Goudelock and Ebanks have all done what's asked of them whenever their numbers are called. Just because our role players aren't dropping 20/10/5 every night it does NOT mean they aren't contributing.

tttppp wrote:I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.

Because we're talking about our CURRENT TEAM, which is a team full of veterans getting paid big bucks who have a shot to contend and whether or not the extra costs associated with a rookie scale K for a VERY LATE 1st rounder are worth the extra coin. You went back and brought up Drew who was a LOTTERY PICK taken after a LOSING SEASON when the Lakers were in full rebuilding mode. Try again.

My argument pertained to teams with high payrolls who are looking to add small pieces because that's what we were talking about, rebuilding teams only entered the discussion when you got stuck and decided to reach back to 2005 in an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.

tttppp wrote:

bruddahmanmatt wrote:

tttppp wrote:The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.

Bynum, Gasol, Sessions, Artest and Barnes have all been steady contributors as of late, Bryant is a given come playoff time. That's six guys, plus while they're not all-star caliber material, McRoberts, Murphy, Goudelock and Ebanks have all done what's asked of them whenever their numbers are called. Just because our role players aren't dropping 20/10/5 every night it does NOT mean they aren't contributing.

tttppp wrote:I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.

Because we're talking about our CURRENT TEAM, which is a team full of veterans getting paid big bucks who have a shot to contend and whether or not the extra costs associated with a rookie scale K for a VERY LATE 1st rounder are worth the extra coin. You went back and brought up Drew who was a LOTTERY PICK taken after a LOSING SEASON when the Lakers were in full rebuilding mode. Try again.

My argument pertained to teams with high payrolls who are looking to add small pieces because that's what we were talking about, rebuilding teams only entered the discussion when you got stuck and decided to reach back to 2005 in an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.

I've seen more from our role players since Kobe went out, but for the most part there's 4 main contributors. Even if you add Artest and Barnes to the list, there's plenty of room on this team for a couple of rookies. The only time you should be selling off your draft picks is if you are stocked or broke.

GoldHammish wrote:How the eff did he never get any meaningful minutes before today?