Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Yes, $68m/5 yrs for these two would have been well worth it
4
16%
No, $68m/5 yrs would have been overpaying
21
84%
 
Total votes : 25

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby JGC on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:18 pm

tttppp wrote:
JGC wrote:All of those combinations of players are better than Ariza himself. Sorry. There's a reason he has played on 3 teams in 3-4 seasons. Now your opinion on all player/talent evaluation going forward must be questioned until you start coming to better conclusions.

I didn't say signing Ariza would prevent the Lakers from signing any of those other players per se, but I see you're missing the point (which seems to be a recurring trend unfortunately. NOT a good sign).

There are two t-shirts. Both just about the same t-shirt. One of them is $4 and the other is $12. To me, the smart bet is to buy the $4 shirt and get something else with $8. Like maybe some pants.

Your logic that I should buy the $12 shirt, because spending $4 won't prevent me from shelling out $12 for the exact shirt is sad and makes me lose faith in humanity.


Ariza can hit his shots and mastered the triangle. Two things Barnes can't do. Barnes has some value as a defender but he is very weak on offense. This makes him a second or third string sf. Ariza would be starting if the Lakers had him today. Also, Ariza would be making roughly average salary for an NBA starter. This is far from over paying him.


Ariza mastered the triangle? We don't run the triangle. It makes no bit of difference if he mastered Rubick's Cube too once. Oh but wait, he solved a puzzle in his teenage years!

Ariza can hit shots but Barnes can't? Since which year? You're done here.

Matt Barnes (eFG% on jump shots)
2011-2012: 35.4%
2010-2011: 44.4%
2009-2010: 47.0%
2008-2009: 46.9%
2007-2008: 39.8%

Trevor Ariza (eFG% on jump shots)
2011-2012: 35.0%
2010-2011: 37.7%
2009-2010: 41.0%
2008-2009: 42.0%
2007-2008: 33.0% as Laker
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby tttppp on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:33 pm

therealdeal wrote:
tttppp wrote:
Saying some people are fools implies they fell for something. In this case it was the con by the Laker front office.

When I first read your post, I was surprised it was done by a moderator. There's is nothing wrong with saying someone might not be old enough or may have a bad memory, but it is instigating.


Even if that's true, it's extremely rude. If I call someone a complete moron because they've purchased 400 dollars worth of Justin Bieber merchandise, it's true but it's still rude. You cannot treat other members that way on this board.

I never said it in an insulting manner, I honestly thought you may be too young to remember. If that was insulting I apologize.


It was only 6 years ago. I was a very strong Laker fan then, I followed the Lakers very closely. I think I was even on cl then. Why would I forget? I remember very clearly how Luke Walton played. Most people on cl think he has always been worthless. I don't think thats the case. But he has never been championship material as a starter.

I'm surprised you're defending the signing of Luke Walton. If you have the money I'm all for keeping the players that help you. But if you don't, you have to make a tough decision. This guy is not starting sf material so we'll give him a low offer and if we lose him so be it. Ariza is starting sf or sg material. Even if you start Artest, Ariza can get significant minutes at the sf, sg, or pg positions and play at the level of a starter. This is a guy I would want to pay. Paying Ariza $6-7 million is reasonable. There's no way you'd regret it unless you went bankrupt and couldn't afford anything.

There is no rule that says you can't sign Ariza just because you have Artest. Why not sign Ariza for a reasonable amount and be an even better team? I can't believe you guys are tolerating this from Laker's ownership. We can afford to pay Luke $5 million, but we don't have enough for Ariza. I'm surprised this didn't lose the Lakers many fans. I used to be a Braves fan in the 90s, and believe me they lost a lot of fans eventually because they were too cheap to sign their own players after they played well. The fans got the hint the Braves were only playing for second place, and they stopped showing up. This is what the Lakers are doing. They used to be the Yankees of the NBA, now they are the Braves.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby Congo Cash on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:39 pm

There's not enough minutes for both... No point on overpaying Ariza to play like 10-15 minutes a game, besides Barnes is much cheaper...
Last edited by Congo Cash on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- insert signature here -
User avatar
Congo Cash

 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby JGC on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:40 pm

You keep saying the same thing. It still smells the same.
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby tttppp on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:45 pm

Congo Cash wrote:There's not enough minutes for both... No point on overpaying Ariza to play like 10-15 minutes a game, besides Barnes is much cheaper...


You know what, I'm wrong. Barnes is doing a terrific job spreading the floor for the Lakers this year. And those other guys that replaced the Lakers bench from 2008, they are doing a terrific job as well. The Lakers have the deepest team in the league. Don't listen to those people who say the Lakers only have 3 players.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:49 pm

TIME wrote:
tttppp wrote:You're overstepping your bounds. Saying stuff like "maybe your too young to remember (6 years ago)" or "have a bad memory" or "you don't know how contracts work" is more offensive than anything I said.


No, he is not overstepping his "bounds". You called a groups of posters here "fools". That is a clear violation of site rules. It does not matter how relatively "offensive" his comments to you are in comparison to your comments to them. Your comment violated the rules and he gave you a generous unofficial warning even though he was within his "bounds" as a site moderator to give you a formal warning.

On the other hand his comments did not violate any site rule. He gave you the benefit of the doubt (thus the word "maybe") regarding your possible age or misunderstanding. He did not insult you or flame you. No need for you to take offense.

The bottomline is that he did what moderators do. Just flow with it and make the needed adjustment and stop calling people with which you disagree here fools.


Well you be censoring freedom of speech? I need a new sig. :man10:
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:59 pm

therealdeal wrote:Wrong on both counts. I already showed you how his shooting was great during the 2006-2007. He shot 38.7% from deep during that season. That's better than anyone we have on the team now not named Andrew Goudelock. His defense against bigger stronger SFs was always above average actually. I don't know if you remember but he has played fairly well against guys like Carmelo and Pierce in the past. Not great, but serviceable.


Troy Murphy gets no love man. :man10:

As for the rest of your post regarding Luke, as much as this topic was created to discuss our SF situation after he was already re-signed, I'm glad some folks still remember that Luke was actually a pretty solid talent before the injuries struck. He was (and to some extent still is) one of the more fundamentally sound players in the league. Didn't stand out in any particular area but he was solid all-around, and his man defense (especially down on the box), footwork and general feel for the game were all above average as you pointed out. It really is a shame that the hereditary health issues struck. I guess when it comes to that family the more things change, the more they stay the same.
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:14 pm

therealdeal wrote:
tttppp wrote:
Saying some people are fools implies they fell for something. In this case it was the con by the Laker front office.

When I first read your post, I was surprised it was done by a moderator. There's is nothing wrong with saying someone might not be old enough or may have a bad memory, but it is instigating.


Even if that's true, it's extremely rude. If I call someone a complete moron because they've purchased 400 dollars worth of Justin Bieber merchandise, it's true but it's still rude. You cannot treat other members that way on this board.

I never said it in an insulting manner, I honestly thought you may be too young to remember. If that was insulting I apologize.


You really want to be lecturing folks on how they should treat other members of this board after these?

http://www.clublakers.com/lakers-discussion/devin-ebanks-eddie-jones-t132160-40.html#p3513988
tttppp wrote:EDIT: Don't bypass the swear filter and don't bait site members. Please check your PMs. - TIME


http://www.clublakers.com/lakers-discussion/minnesota-wants-pau-gasol-t133142-280.html#p3561213
tttppp wrote:bruddahmanmatt STFU
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby Doc Brown on Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:16 pm

This thread seems like fun. I will have some reading to do at halftime of the game tonight.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 18298
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby TIME on Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:26 pm

Doc Brown wrote:This thread seems like fun. I will have some reading to do at halftime of the game tonight.


Now that you mention it, I think it has run its course.

bruddamanmatt and tttppp, you two are free to carry on your debate in PMs. Locking this before it gets too personal.
Vitti uttered three words that surely applies to how Bryant made two free throws on one leg, walked off the court on his own and processed his rehabilitation plan amid the pain, frustration and tears.

“That’s really cool.”
User avatar
TIME
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 8901
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:06 am

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby therealdeal on Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:47 pm

I'm gone for a couple hours and TIME locks my thread??? That's it... it's fisticuffs. :boxing1:

:man9:
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 36965
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Should The Lakers Have Signed Ariza AND Artest in 2009?

Postby TIME on Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:15 pm

therealdeal wrote:I'm gone for a couple hours and TIME locks my thread??? That's it... it's fisticuffs. :boxing1:

:man9:


Hey feel free to unlock it, but then it's on YOU to keep the peace. :man10:
Vitti uttered three words that surely applies to how Bryant made two free throws on one leg, walked off the court on his own and processed his rehabilitation plan amid the pain, frustration and tears.

“That’s really cool.”
User avatar
TIME
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 8901
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:06 am

Previous

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barnstable, Battle Tested20, Center Court, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media and 11 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.