Pau Thread: Surgery a success; now rehab & rest for 12 weeks

lakersin4 wrote:Lol while that's 100% hindsight I can see his point.. Having the pieces we gave up for Pau would be better than having Pau right now. Kwame + Marc would net a better return than Pau. We officially waited too long to trade him.

lakersin4 wrote:Lol while that's 100% hindsight I can see his point.. Having the pieces we gave up for Pau would be better than having Pau right now. Kwame + Marc would net a better return than Pau. We officially waited too long to trade him.

Rooscooter wrote:

GoldenKnight wrote:Pau had a tough game, his knees are bad at the moment, id better hear the same hate on every player tonight for all of their performances.

We gave up 40 points in the 4th.... 32 after Pau went out. This one is in no way Pau's fault.

Finwë wrote:LMAO @ that 3 team, 18 player trade someone suggested. Not likely

Rooscooter wrote:

GoldenKnight wrote:Pau had a tough game, his knees are bad at the moment, id better hear the same hate on every player tonight for all of their performances.

We gave up 40 points in the 4th.... 32 after Pau went out. This one is in no way Pau's fault.

KEVIN DING ‏@KevinDing

Kobe said Pau will make the necessary adjustments to D'Antoni system: "Put your big-boy pants on."

KEVIN DING ‏@KevinDing

D'Antoni on Pau: "We're slow right now. Athletically, we're struggling."

gill wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:Lol while that's 100% hindsight I can see his point.. Having the pieces we gave up for Pau would be better than having Pau right now. Kwame + Marc would net a better return than Pau. We officially waited too long to trade him.

So you guys would trade in 3 straight Finals appearances and 2 championships just because Pau sucks AFTER those events? To top it off... YOU'D WANT TO KEEP KWAME BROWN????

How easy people forget Pau netted us CP3 LAST YEAR!

Greatest of All Time wrote:

Finwë wrote:LMAO @ that 3 team, 18 player trade someone suggested. Not likely

Let's ignore the whole 18 player trade thing no matter how unlikely it is. That's just an example of what they could do. Would you not take Millsap/Parsons/whatever over Pau Gasol at this point? Parson's potential is very intriguing, especially in this offense. I'd take him over Derrick Williams.

Yes an 18 player deal is really unlikely but if I'm each team and I consider the benefits of the deal and conclude that it would help improve my team, I'd at least explore options to see if they can come up with a deal that everyone accepts. Maybe they could restructure it to include less players, maybe they'd need 4 teams I don't care, as long as it could help my team. If I'm Jim Buss and someone told me I could possibly make a deal that would improve the team and save money but it involved a huge 3-team trade, I wouldn't let that stop me. Were you laughing at that Steve Nash thread when it was just wishful thinking by a fan?

Trading Pau virtually requires at least 3 teams. If we consider other stretch 4s like Ryan Anderson, Aldridge, David West etc., you'd have to think those teams don't want Pau straight up. So you'd need to find a third team who wants Pau and can offer enough incentive to help the Lakers get the stretch 4. This is similar to the Dwight Howard situation where the Magic couldn't get what they wanted in a straight up deal so they orchestrated that crazy 4 team deal to make it work. Except Pau's trade value is ten times lower and nobody really wants him.

Kirilenko, Williams, and Ridnour sounds nice but Kirilenko is going to get injured sooner or later. You just have to hope and pray it's nothing significant or something that lingers but he's good for missing at least 10 games a season.

Rooscooter wrote:

GoldenKnight wrote:Pau had a tough game, his knees are bad at the moment, id better hear the same hate on every player tonight for all of their performances.

We gave up 40 points in the 4th.... 32 after Pau went out. This one is in no way Pau's fault.

GoldenKnight wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:

GoldenKnight wrote:Pau had a tough game, his knees are bad at the moment, id better hear the same hate on every player tonight for all of their performances.

We gave up 40 points in the 4th.... 32 after Pau went out. This one is in no way Pau's fault.

Try convinving the blind posters of this...not everything is Paus fault.

lakersin4 wrote:How foolish do we look for not taking Dragic, Martin, Scola, 1st? Who knows if we would have made the move for Nash, but still. Hindsight can be depressing.

Lakerjones wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:How foolish do we look for not taking Dragic, Martin, Scola, 1st? Who knows if we would have made the move for Nash, but still. Hindsight can be depressing.

When was this actually on the table, though? The last I remember those guys were all going to New Orleans and we were getting Chris Paul. And then Basketball Reasons happened.

I don't remember that bundle for Pau ever being considered by the Lakers? Where is the proof of that?

lakersin4 wrote:

Lakerjones wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:How foolish do we look for not taking Dragic, Martin, Scola, 1st? Who knows if we would have made the move for Nash, but still. Hindsight can be depressing.

When was this actually on the table, though? The last I remember those guys were all going to New Orleans and we were getting Chris Paul. And then Basketball Reasons happened.

I don't remember that bundle for Pau ever being considered by the Lakers? Where is the proof of that?

I tried searching for it..

http://lakernation.com/forums/index.php ... for-gasol/

There's a link to Broussard saying it was on the table on there but the story doesn't seem to be up anymore.

Lakerjones wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:

Lakerjones wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:How foolish do we look for not taking Dragic, Martin, Scola, 1st? Who knows if we would have made the move for Nash, but still. Hindsight can be depressing.

When was this actually on the table, though? The last I remember those guys were all going to New Orleans and we were getting Chris Paul. And then Basketball Reasons happened.

I don't remember that bundle for Pau ever being considered by the Lakers? Where is the proof of that?

I tried searching for it..

http://lakernation.com/forums/index.php ... for-gasol/

There's a link to Broussard saying it was on the table on there but the story doesn't seem to be up anymore.

^^ That's what I mean. I don't think that rumor ever had any legs. If it did we'll never know. So I wouldn't worry about it as something that ever had any kind of reality to it. In other words it's not worth getting worked up about. Now the Chris Paul trade getting vetoed really was something to get worked up about - whether someone was in favor or not of the trade. The way that was shut down was straight out mafioso.

Finwë wrote:

Lakerjones wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:

Lakerjones wrote:

lakersin4 wrote:How foolish do we look for not taking Dragic, Martin, Scola, 1st? Who knows if we would have made the move for Nash, but still. Hindsight can be depressing.

When was this actually on the table, though? The last I remember those guys were all going to New Orleans and we were getting Chris Paul. And then Basketball Reasons happened.

I don't remember that bundle for Pau ever being considered by the Lakers? Where is the proof of that?

I tried searching for it..

http://lakernation.com/forums/index.php ... for-gasol/

There's a link to Broussard saying it was on the table on there but the story doesn't seem to be up anymore.

^^ That's what I mean. I don't think that rumor ever had any legs. If it did we'll never know. So I wouldn't worry about it as something that ever had any kind of reality to it. In other words it's not worth getting worked up about. Now the Chris Paul trade getting vetoed really was something to get worked up about - whether someone was in favor or not of the trade. The way that was shut down was straight out mafioso.

Well it was only logical... The Rockets were giving up Dragic, Scola, Martin & a first to the Hornets in the original 3-team CP3 centered trade and only getting back Pau. Why wouldn't they just trade for Pau straight up with us for said package after the trade was nixed? It's the same trade for them

Finwë wrote:

Greatest of All Time wrote:

Finwë wrote:LMAO @ that 3 team, 18 player trade someone suggested. Not likely

Let's ignore the whole 18 player trade thing no matter how unlikely it is. That's just an example of what they could do. Would you not take Millsap/Parsons/whatever over Pau Gasol at this point? Parson's potential is very intriguing, especially in this offense. I'd take him over Derrick Williams.

Yes an 18 player deal is really unlikely but if I'm each team and I consider the benefits of the deal and conclude that it would help improve my team, I'd at least explore options to see if they can come up with a deal that everyone accepts. Maybe they could restructure it to include less players, maybe they'd need 4 teams I don't care, as long as it could help my team. If I'm Jim Buss and someone told me I could possibly make a deal that would improve the team and save money but it involved a huge 3-team trade, I wouldn't let that stop me. Were you laughing at that Steve Nash thread when it was just wishful thinking by a fan?

Trading Pau virtually requires at least 3 teams. If we consider other stretch 4s like Ryan Anderson, Aldridge, David West etc., you'd have to think those teams don't want Pau straight up. So you'd need to find a third team who wants Pau and can offer enough incentive to help the Lakers get the stretch 4. This is similar to the Dwight Howard situation where the Magic couldn't get what they wanted in a straight up deal so they orchestrated that crazy 4 team deal to make it work. Except Pau's trade value is ten times lower and nobody really wants him.

Kirilenko, Williams, and Ridnour sounds nice but Kirilenko is going to get injured sooner or later. You just have to hope and pray it's nothing significant or something that lingers but he's good for missing at least 10 games a season.

Of course I'd take that trade, I was just stating that it's a very unlikely scenario and maybe we should refrain from discussing such ideas and start with simpler, more possible & most importantly actually rumored ones.

Lakerjones wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean it was actually something the Lakers considered (no Chris Paul in return) or that it was actually even offered. What's the point of crying over spilled milk in this case? As far as we know it was never on the table. We should more concerned about the fact that Stern screwed us in broad daylight with no repercussions. He went against the very thing that he said he wouldn't do when he took over the NOH franchise. He said in his letter that he would allow the FO to continue on doing their work including trades. He did the exact opposite thing - it was a blatant conflict of interest and he knew it, and he dismissed it. Basketball reasons. That's something to be upset about. A valid, legal trade happened and the commish stepped in as owner of the team and vetoed it because of "basketball reasons." That's never happened before and I doubt it will ever happen again.