WMC 12/13: Mercy kill. (0-4)

khmrP wrote:

JGC wrote:
Ugh. I hate it when people say things like this.

What's the difference between the before Bynum Lakers and the post Bynum Lakers?

Contending teams rarely draft major impact players and when they do it is total luck. The only reason we had an opportunity to draft a player the caliber of Bynum is because we sucked arse for years.

rarely? Even Bos managed to get decent contributors like Bradley and nowSullinger. OKC managed to get Jones III. Mia added Coles who is decent enough and they actually traded up to get him unlike us who sell or trade the pick as soon as we get them. I'm not expecting Bynum type calibre player every year but dam can we can something from the draft thats not like the last pick of the draft?

Boston got extremely lucky to get the 19th pick (Bradley) IIRC, and they were heavily shopping that pick too to make one more run. They just couldn't get any takers. They wanted to do exactly what we have been doing which is move the pick. So yeah, he's a nice player but I'm not sure you can entirely credit the Celtics for KEEPING the pick since they were trying to get rid of it. Sullinger is decent, but they are going nowhere, so of course they are more likely to keep on it to potentially find rebuilding pieces.

Jones III? Seriously? He's averaging less than 2 points per game, 7 mins per game, and his career high is 6 points. That isn't a very good example of a contender with a solid draft pick (at least not yet, cmon).

And Coles? What exactly do you like about Coles game? The fact that he can't shoot better than 39% FG? That he's shooting 64% from the line? Or his 5 PPG average? I mean, he's essentially a poor man's Darius Morris! He can't crack the rotation on a team that doesn't have a legitimate point guard.

Norris Cole: 4.6 PPG, 38% FG, 1.4 RPG, 1.8 AST
Darius Morris: 5.0 PPG, 39% FG, 1.4 RPG, 1.8 AST

When I see stuff like this, it just affirms that people tend to think that others' scrubs are better than our scrubs but they aren't really.

I do get what you're trying to get at, but I'm not sure why would it would have been better at the time, to roll with Steve Blake and Darius Morris and keep the 2013 and 2015 picks, then to move the picks to get Steve Nash.

That does though, bring up an interesting question. If you could undo the Steve Nash trade right now, would you to keep the 2013 & 2015 1st round picks?

Cole sucks, even Heat fans hate him...

charvin wrote:You forgot to add the Birdman before he was signed to his new 10 day contract!

Rooscooter wrote:

lakers_09tv wrote:Its time to stop to blaming the coach. The roster is just garbage. Jesus Christ himself couldn't save this team.

I put this whole mess on Mitch and Jim Buss for passing on West, Barbosa and even Martin.

Yup.... We'd be leading the league only if we had Kenyon Martin and Delonte West......tattoo power would carry us without a doubt ....

I take it you know Pietrus is with the Raptors, yes?

tigerjeterkobe wrote:Be funny all you want.

But playing West over Duhon and Morris. And Pietrus over Ebanks and Morris -- are big upgrades. We lost a bunch of games that were close, and when teams went on huge runs against our D-League line up of Sacre, Ebanks, Morris, Duhon and Clark. YES - a few vets would have made differences in those runs and a few (3-5) more wins for us.

Just one man's opinion. GO 9ERS!!!!!

Sigh. My point was that he should have been added in the beginning of the season, long before he was signed. Same with West, when we had to start CHRIS should be out of the league DUHON and D-LEAGUE-Rious MORRIS. Doesn't matter now. Jim Buss ruined a proud franchise - after how he treated Phil, he deserves all this embarrassment..

JGC wrote:

khmrP wrote:

JGC wrote:
Ugh. I hate it when people say things like this.

What's the difference between the before Bynum Lakers and the post Bynum Lakers?

Contending teams rarely draft major impact players and when they do it is total luck. The only reason we had an opportunity to draft a player the caliber of Bynum is because we sucked arse for years.

rarely? Even Bos managed to get decent contributors like Bradley and nowSullinger. OKC managed to get Jones III. Mia added Coles who is decent enough and they actually traded up to get him unlike us who sell or trade the pick as soon as we get them. I'm not expecting Bynum type calibre player every year but dam can we can something from the draft thats not like the last pick of the draft?

Boston got extremely lucky to get the 19th pick (Bradley) IIRC, and they were heavily shopping that pick too to make one more run. They just couldn't get any takers. They wanted to do exactly what we have been doing which is move the pick. So yeah, he's a nice player but I'm not sure you can entirely credit the Celtics for KEEPING the pick since they were trying to get rid of it. Sullinger is decent, but they are going nowhere, so of course they are more likely to keep on it to potentially find rebuilding pieces.

Jones III? Seriously? He's averaging less than 2 points per game, 7 mins per game, and his career high is 6 points. That isn't a very good example of a contender with a solid draft pick (at least not yet, cmon).

And Coles? What exactly do you like about Coles game? The fact that he can't shoot better than 39% FG? That he's shooting 64% from the line? Or his 5 PPG average? I mean, he's essentially a poor man's Darius Morris! He can't crack the rotation on a team that doesn't have a legitimate point guard.

Norris Cole: 4.6 PPG, 38% FG, 1.4 RPG, 1.8 AST
Darius Morris: 5.0 PPG, 39% FG, 1.4 RPG, 1.8 AST

When I see stuff like this, it just affirms that people tend to think that others' scrubs are better than our scrubs but they aren't really.

I do get what you're trying to get at, but I'm not sure why would it would have been better at the time, to roll with Steve Blake and Darius Morris and keep the 2013 and 2015 picks, then to move the picks to get Steve Nash.

That does though, bring up an interesting question. If you could undo the Steve Nash trade right now, would you to keep the 2013 & 2015 1st round picks?

always an excuse for something I guess, we dont know the kind of players we would have because we NEVER have any 1st rd picks to begin with.....regardless of the Nash trade, there's been years where they either just sell the trade or just trade it away for nothing at all, so we'll never know what type of players we could've drafted. Like you and many others here mgmt. probably share all the same view as those picks being worthless and never bother so whatevers, now its catching up to us and our team is filled with old legs and worthless 2nd rd scrubs. As for Jones III, he doesn't play now cause OKC has its set rotation and great contender I forgot to bring up is the Spurs, but let me guess they've been lucky too right when they add contributors year after year? Sure they dont hit homeruns with their picks all the time but at least they try and succeed more often then not.

^^^ Well, to be fair, we have had several lottery picks on our team in recent years.

Kwame.
Morrison.
Jamison.

But seriously, we have Jordan Hill -- who is injury prone, but a very good player who works on his game and is getting better each year. Still young.

And Earl Clark -- similar to Hill. Works hard, hustles, has a great attitude, and is getting better.
Neither is an all-star. But those are few and far between in recent drafts.

And who knows, maybe we will have Derek Williams soon (who many on this board thought was the best player in that draft. Or Micheal Beasely.

Point is - other than Bynum (and some could argue he is a bust, like 0ther bigs who are always hurt - Oden), we could have totally whiffed on any pick like the other teams have. Even the guards -- other than Kyrie and Wall -- have mostly been busts or nothing more than roll players.

tigerjeterkobe wrote:^^^ Well, to be fair, we have had several lottery picks on our team in recent years.

Kwame.
Morrison.
Jamison.

But seriously, we have Jordan Hill -- who is injury prone, but a very good player who works on his game and is getting better each year. Still young.

And Earl Clark -- similar to Hill. Works hard, hustles, has a great attitude, and is getting better.
Neither is an all-star. But those are few and far between in recent drafts.

And who knows, maybe we will have Derek Williams soon (who many on this board thought was the best player in that draft. Or Micheal Beasely.

Point is - other than Bynum (and some could argue he is a bust, like 0ther bigs who are always hurt - Oden), we could have totally whiffed on any pick like the other teams have. Even the guards -- other than Kyrie and Wall -- have mostly been busts or nothing more than roll players.

dude talk bout a tangent, I'm talking bout our OWN picks and I'm not expecting Krie/Wall type picks, I know where we pick, at best I'm only expecting solid role players who can actually contribute on a consistent basis, all we had over the years are just 2nd rders. I take it back with Bynum, Farmar was a good 1st rd pick but we weren't contenders then.

The one pick that frustrated me the most was the Sasha for Joe Smith deal. Why in the eff do you need to attach a 1st round pick in that deal?

When was the last time a team with the League's leading scorer and leading rebounder missed the play-offs?

khmrP wrote:always an excuse for something I guess, we dont know the kind of players we would have because we NEVER have any 1st rd picks to begin with.....regardless of the Nash trade, there's been years where they either just sell the trade or just trade it away for nothing at all, so we'll never know what type of players we could've drafted. Like you and many others here mgmt. probably share all the same view as those picks being worthless and never bother so whatevers, now its catching up to us and our team is filled with old legs and worthless 2nd rd scrubs. As for Jones III, he doesn't play now cause OKC has its set rotation and great contender I forgot to bring up is the Spurs, but let me guess they've been lucky too right when they add contributors year after year? Sure they dont hit homeruns with their picks all the time but at least they try and succeed more often then not.

I totally understand what you're saying, but I think what you're asking for is just unrealistic. Nobody views those picks as "worthless so whatevers" and that is where you're missing the point IMO. It's just that you have different philosophies at play. Some teams like to build their teams through the draft. Other teams like to build their team through acquisitions. There is risk involved with either approach.

It makes sense for any aspiring contender to move their picks because they can use those picks to plug holes in their roster NOW, rather than drafting someone who will most likely turn in to a bust, or at best realistically, would take a couple years with lots of playing time to develop in to that player. Remember, drafting the player is only half the battle. The other half is developing the player. And that means time from the coaching staff, playing time on the court which means less playing time on the court for someone else.

I think the Spurs do a great job of managing their team, but I disagree they have had more success than the Lakers. No team in the Kobe Bryant era can touch the level of success the Lakers have had, so it's hard to argue that any other franchise has done a better job of managing their team than the Lakers have.

Doc Brown wrote:The one pick that frustrated me the most was the Sasha for Joe Smith deal. Why in the eff do you need to attach a 1st round pick in that deal?

Well, I thought the reason the Lakers made that trade was:

a) Save money (I think it was around $10M)
b) Sasha wasn't playing at all. Think he was getting less than 5 mins per game at the time. Shannon Brown had emerged.
c) IIRC, the Lakers basically traded the 1st round pick for 2 second round picks. That was preferable because the 2nd round picks were non-guaranteed. And we were fresh off a championship run so it was likely that a late first (minimum 2-year commit) could be acquired talent wise from a second round (non guaranteed).

JGC wrote:I think the Spurs do a great job of managing their team, but I disagree they have had more success than the Lakers. No team in the Kobe Bryant era can touch the level of success the Lakers have had, so it's hard to argue that any other franchise has done a better job of managing their team than the Lakers have.

given the market they're in and the success they have, I certain think Spurs have done a much better job than LA, if SA had the capability to spend $100mill on a team, they'd dominate the league. There's only a 1 championship difference between the Kobe/Shaq era and the Duncan era but I bet there's more than $100mill dollar difference over those time span if we compared team salaries.

khmrP wrote:

JGC wrote:I think the Spurs do a great job of managing their team, but I disagree they have had more success than the Lakers. No team in the Kobe Bryant era can touch the level of success the Lakers have had, so it's hard to argue that any other franchise has done a better job of managing their team than the Lakers have.

given the market they're in and the success they have, I certain think Spurs have done a much better job than LA, if SA had the capability to spend $100mill on a team, they'd dominate the league. There's only a 1 championship difference between the Kobe/Shaq era and the Duncan era but I bet there's more than $100mill dollar difference over those time span if we compared team salaries.

Just to be clear. If you could go back to 1996 (start of Kobe era), and you could swap the jerseys of the players, exchange the 5 chips for 4, and transaction history with the Spurs, you would prefer that?

JGC wrote:

khmrP wrote:

JGC wrote:I think the Spurs do a great job of managing their team, but I disagree they have had more success than the Lakers. No team in the Kobe Bryant era can touch the level of success the Lakers have had, so it's hard to argue that any other franchise has done a better job of managing their team than the Lakers have.

given the market they're in and the success they have, I certain think Spurs have done a much better job than LA, if SA had the capability to spend $100mill on a team, they'd dominate the league. There's only a 1 championship difference between the Kobe/Shaq era and the Duncan era but I bet there's more than $100mill dollar difference over those time span if we compared team salaries.

Just to be clear. If you could go back to 1996 (start of Kobe era), and you could swap the jerseys of the players, exchange the 5 chips for 4, and transaction history with the Spurs, you would prefer that?

so what? like I said, given the market they're in and money they spend vs. what ours can do, I say they're fairly succesful. We're becoming the new New York Knick of the Isiah era now, high priced cap team thats laughing stock of the league.

it's over.

14 point 4th quarter after being tied

That last offensive rebound by the Bulls underscored just how atrocious our interior D really is.

Howard is at one side of the rim, Gasol is at the other, and Heinrich gets the rebound?

I have lost all faith in this season. I was holding out hope to make a run toward one of the last playoff spots but each day that passes by that looks more and more like a pipe dream..

What a f*** up of a season.

I'm still disgusted at how a team with this much talent can be this bad. Besides four future hall of famers loosing to a team without its two best players they're just loosing consistently.

WMC: We have lost the knowledge of how to win games. We use to be the team that made the plays when they needed to be made but now we can't. It isn't the coach. It is the players not believing they can make the plays when it matters. All season we have shown we can stop teams when we want. We have shown we can score when we want. What we haven't shown is we can close when we want. My WMC is our lack of being able to close any major game this year. Frustrating.

We are now no longer in knee-jerk territory. BLOW IT UP.

Trade everyone. Clean house. We all knew this day would come, but damn not this year....

I blame it all on Stern. THAT POS! We wouldn't be in this situaton had we had CP3.

WMC: Coach is a stupid moron. Continues to play Kobe the entire second half when we know Kobe's leg are dead right now. Guys in their 20s don't do that very often. Has no game plan. Has completely destroyed most of the bench's confidence. He is getting paid millions to suck. Man Jim Buss cannot pick a coach to save his life. A tree stump would coach better. At least would not cut the rotation down to 6 players.

raviator wrote:I'm still disgusted at how a team with this much talent can be this bad. Besides four future hall of famers loosing to a team without its two best players they're just loosing consistently.

It's called a bad match, as in the bad matching of coach and roster. You have to ask jimmy about that.

My other WMC - Howard really isn't very good. Stan Van Gundy for coach of the year...

cthroatgtr wrote:WMC: Coach is a stupid moron. Continues to play Kobe the entire second half when we know Kobe's leg are dead right now. Guys in their 20s don't do that very often. Has no game plan. Has completely destroyed most of the bench's confidence. He is getting paid millions to suck. Man Jim Buss cannot pick a coach to save his life. A tree stump would coach better. At least would not cut the rotation down to 6 players.

This.

Apparently, Jimbo's ego is more important than the Lakers' future.

kobe publicly says that his legs are tired. d'antoni says in his postgame interview that kobe said he was fine so he kept playing him. brilliant.