Chillbongo wrote:Wait I don't think I ever hated Blake. Sure the move made us better because it saved the Buss's some money. In terms of basketball it was a lateral move, but one with potential to be better because we picked up a young player who might possibly re-sign with us. If they don't it was strictly a financial move and I can't say it benefited or hurt the team. But by no means was I excited to let Blake go. It would have been much better to let Nash go.
But no one would have taken Nash's contract so naturally Blake was the one to go. It was a financial move. If you hated Blake because of his salary that's one thing. But this trade was by no means reflective of his performance on the court. And that's matter of fact.
To be honest, Farmar is much younger and hasn't stayed healthy. Blake had the Chicken Pox (virus), stepped on a spike strip (WTF), and had a freak funny bone injury. I wouldn't call that injury prone but he was definitely getting old.
We, all of us, hated on him copiously, including myself and I really liked Blake. For a while I defended him around here when few wanted to hear it. He was a great person, a great competitor, and a great teammate.
BUT... He was also incredibly injury prone, inconsistent with his shooting, inconsistent with just TAKING shots, defensively a liability at times, and often played out of position (that's not his fault, but it was frustrating).
He was the person that needed to go and that's really all there was to it. We couldn't move Nash. We want to keep the younger guys like Marshall and Farmar. My only point really is that it was a good trade for the Lakers (and the Warriors). They moved a couple pieces they weren't going to use and they got a wily vet. We got a couple more auditions and all we gave up was an injury prone older player.
It was a good trade, but for a couple days after the trade happened most of the posts around here were really negative. It didn't make much sense to me.