Thenextgreat wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed somewhere but what if the Paul trade wasn't vetoed...Lakers would most likely have a big 3 of Paul, Kobe and Howard...lost Gasol. Instead they end up with a big 4 or Nash, Kobe, Howard and Gasol. Based on this and how it appears on paper which do you prefer?
It's difficult to say because we would have had such a vastly different team.
I think everything worked out perfectly for LA. Paul/Kobe/Bynum would have been nice, but there's no guarantee we get Howard. Let's say we do though...
Then we've got Paul/Kobe/Howard on the same team. That's a nightmare for any team ever and we've got two of the league's premier players in their prime. In 2 years we're still cleared of major contracts and we've got about 10 million to go find them a running mate. Give them about 2-3 years and the Lakers probably build another Championship team.
However, with the way things worked out I think our team has an equal, if not greater, shot of winning short-term and they have a similar ability to work in the long-term. Considering the Lakers always build for now first and the future second, I think this team worked out well.
Also, remember Chris Paul can still be a Laker if the stars align in 2 years. If not, we can go sign another younger permier PG potentially in John Wall or Brandon Jennings or someone like that.