eltoro wrote:Lakerjones wrote:As interesting as it would have been to pair up Bryant with another all out competitor like CP3, I'm not sure that back court would have worked out completely. Also with Bryant, CP3 and Bynum as your core, that's 4 bum knees to count on for your future.
Don't get me wrong, I hated the "basketball reasons" and the turmoil caused by Stern and Co. as much as anyone here. I was also very intrigued about the possibility of adding Howard to that triumvirate, which would have been the ultimate move by Mitch and the Buss's.
All that said, I think we can survive that squashed trade. We're going to have to make some very smart moves, though.
You are delusional if y don't think 40 million dollars aged would not have afforded us a better team than what we have now. And 40million is exactly the amount we would've saved if th CP3 trade did not get vetoed by David Stern.
^^Maybe it's a language thing, but I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
You seem to be going after my opinion in some way, but I'm not getting it. I said I was basically in favor of the trade that was consummated and then reneged on by David Stern and Company (the other owners around the league) of Odom and Pau for Chris Paul and TPE.
But even at the time I had worries about CP3 and Kobe co-existing in the backcourt, and I was even more worried about the four bad knees between those guys and Bynum. If we had traded Bynum for Howard, I would have been ecstatic. I admired what the Lakers were trying to do and I was in favor of it, even if I had some doubts.
As this is all retrospect though, I'm more ok with the fact that it didn't go down now. It was hypocritical of David Stern and the league - that's my biggest issue with it getting squashed with the rationale: "Basketball reasons." Especially since Stern had sent out a memo after the NBA took over the Hornets expressing that he would not do what he ended up doing - overstepping the front office of the team.
Again, I'm confused as to what you're arguing with me about. I never said we wouldn't possibly be better, just that I think we can survive it. I never mentioned money so I don't know what you're talking about in that regard.
But regardless of whether we are actually agreeing or disagreeing, even if I did have an idea that ran counter to your own, I can assure you that I'm not delusional. It kind of irritates me that you're starting off a post with that sort of nonsense. If I don't happen to agree with you then I'm delusional? Really. People disagree about plenty of things all of the time. It's called discussion, debate. It doesn't mean anyone has mental illness.