But it is likely to be a long next 5-10 years as all the traded players continue their careers to various degrees of success.
As we watch James decline into retirement a couple years too late and Davis try to stay healthy and mentally tough enough to keep the Lakers in the playoffs during a rebuild.
I’d like to think that Pelinka can pull off some post James magic with FAs and the draft. We’ll see.
But we will have glorious memories of the bubble championship of 2021 to feed our souls!
But who's to say that all the traded players would have developed in the exact same way or they would have even stayed with the Lakers? I mean, a lot of the guys we traded aren't on the teams we traded them to any more. So the notion that they would have been Lakers for life and developed into a championship team is just layering guess on top of guess on top of guess
Joined: 09 Apr 2012 Posts: 1959 Location: Southern California
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 6:05 pm Post subject:
Yes. They won a title. You get those guys to win a title. That’s what this organization is about. Mission accomplished. If they don’t win another playoff game it’s still worth it. Being young and a pretty good team isn’t enough. Rather be tanking for the next chip.
Also if the Lakers kept their young core, that team would be extremely expensive. None of those guys are on rookie deals. _________________ 17 time World Champions
This was a loaded question, OP just wanted to complain because we're having troubles lately. _________________ Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Definitely worth it, the guys they traded away still haven't sniffed the playoffs and probably won't next year either.
It is all about the rings and they got one and I still believe that LeBron might have one more in him....but maybe not this year. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
They won last year, they’re one of two favorites this year, and they’ll be there again next year too. The Pelicans are a good measure of where the Lakers would be if they stuck together.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
They won last year, they’re one of two favorites this year, and they’ll be there again next year too. The Pelicans are a good measure of where the Lakers would be if they stuck together.
The Pelicans plus LBJ is a good measure where the Lakers would be if they stuck together.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
That's fair but let's face the fact that people keep using a very fortunate win last season to justify a questionably aggressive strategy to satisfy LBJ.
If people said both ways were viable paths, I don't have a problem with it.
The way they say it was the only way is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.
In what universe can LBJ/BI/Jules/DLO/Zo all share the rock? These guys developed ans had more opportunities away from each other. I’d argue that even Jules/BI/DLO together could not develop the way they did when they were apart from each other. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35854 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 8:15 pm Post subject:
BILBJH wrote:
Treble Clef wrote:
They won last year, they’re one of two favorites this year, and they’ll be there again next year too. The Pelicans are a good measure of where the Lakers would be if they stuck together.
The Pelicans plus LBJ is a good measure where the Lakers would be if they stuck together.
The Pelicans + LBJ would be a top two team in the west.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core
I would add Caruso there.
To answer the question I would agree with other ppl here that it was worth it. Even if it was possible to keep that group together under the salary cap I don’t think they would have ever reached championship success. The team that won last year was constructed to fit together with players games complementing one another, so the team would add up to more than the sum of its parts. When it’s a bunch of draft picks and you were choosing bpa the players don’t always complement eachother as well and I think that would have been the case with the lakers had they kept all those guys.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core
I would add Caruso there.
To answer the question I would agree with other ppl here that it was worth it. Even if it was possible to keep that group together under the salary cap I don’t think they would have ever reached championship success. The team that won last year was constructed to fit together with players games complementing one another, so the team would add up to more than the sum of its parts. When it’s a bunch of draft picks and you were choosing bpa the players don’t always complement eachother as well and I think that would have been the case with the lakers had they kept all those guys.
It's not about keeping the entire group together. Obviously we'd could only afford half or less of the key players. It's about having maybe two young stars... some good cost controlled role players and all of our picks.
I can't believe people are so stubborn that they continue to deny we are in a tough place right now in terms of assets.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
That's fair but let's face the fact that people keep using a very fortunate win last season to justify a questionably aggressive strategy to satisfy LBJ.
If people said both ways were viable paths, I don't have a problem with it.
The way they say it was the only way is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.
I see it in a more straightforward way.
We won a ring last year. Therefore, we know the strategy we actually took was successful.
We have no idea if an alternative strategy of keeping the existing players would have resulted in success or not.
So I will take the actual, proven success, over a guess of what might have happened with an alternative strategy.
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: In retrospect...was it worth it?
RashardA wrote:
I know hindsight is 20/20 but its still a question I believe is worth asking.
When Lebron first signed here, there were many fans who said the Lakers had sold their soul for 4 years of an aging superstar.
So I ask...If LeBron and AD dont win another title together, was signing LeBron & trading for AD really worth it?
The Lakers gave up a boatload of talent to sign LeBron and to trade for AD.
LeBron is 36 years old and has been injured 2 of the 3 seasons he's been here.
He's now giving soundbites about never being 100% ever again.
AD has achilles issues, doesnt look motivated anymore & has a long history of getting injured.
Yes, the Lakers won a title last year and that is fantastic.
That squad will forever be appreciated by the Lakers fans for winning it all in a year full of sadness and tragedy.
However, many outside of Lakers fans will view that title as < because of the circumstances under which it was won.
IMO, I looked at this season as a way for them to validate their title from last season in the eyes of their haters and detractors.
We all know if the Lakers fail to win it all this season, their haters will go all in even harder to discredit the title they won in the bubble.
So again, was it truly worth it?
Was it worth breaking up a young core that developed into 3 all stars ( DLo, BI, Ju) a sixth man of the year (JC) and a ton of top tier role players (Zo,Hart,Zu,LNJ)?
Could that young core of players have grown into champions here with a much larger window?
I ask this question because my Dad and I had a long conversation about this yesterday.
Im sure i'll get some blowback for even posing this question but im curious to know what LG thinks.
The thing is that just because we drafted all that talent doesn't mean we were ever going to pay everyone.
DLO - Max
Ingram - Max
Julius Randle - 19M and heading towards a max deal after developing.
Zo - About to pay somewhere above 20M+ per year.
Larry/Clarkson are both getting above the MLE. While Josh Hart will get at least the full MLE this summer.
Players like Zu and Randle also didn't really have much to do with Lebron/AD. Magic just decided to give Zu away. They also tried to trade Randle but nobody wanted him. Then they just let him go for nothing.
People like to romanticize some of the guys tbh. Fact is the Lakers missed out on players like Kristaps, Devin Booker, Tatum, Donovan Mitchell and Bam with the DLO/Lonzo picks.
I don't want DLO at the max. I would like to have Lonzo, but it's not as if we traded Tatum/Donovan away. Ingram was the big loss. You can say Randle as well but the Lakers could have kept him if they wanted.
As for AD not being motivated anymore. Personally I think it's odd to judge him as whole on his play coming off the longest injury of his career. We are just going to forget he just dominated the playoffs on both ends because of a bad 6 games stretch after a 2+ month injury?
As for Lebron. He was the MVP of the league this season until a freak injury. Yes his career is almost over, but he clearly still had it pre injury. His injury had nothing to do with age. It had to do we a 220 pound player falling into his leg.
For me personally yes it was worth it. We won the championship. Even if that is the only one with win with this group. If we stayed with the young core that doesn't mean we are winning a championship. If we are being honest it doesn't even mean we are making the playoffs in the West. We clearly couldn't have kept them all. It would have been a mix of some of the young guys.
Last edited by eureca on Mon May 03, 2021 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
My only quip is how we literally dumped Jules. Wish we could have held onto him. BI/Zo/4 were absolutely worth getting AD and the 2020 ring. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
That's fair but let's face the fact that people keep using a very fortunate win last season to justify a questionably aggressive strategy to satisfy LBJ.
If people said both ways were viable paths, I don't have a problem with it.
The way they say it was the only way is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.
I see it in a more straightforward way.
We won a ring last year. Therefore, we know the strategy we actually took was successful.
We have no idea if an alternative strategy of keeping the existing players would have resulted in success or not.
So I will take the actual, proven success, over a guess of what might have happened with an alternative strategy.
But people are already declaring victory when we've averaged 2.5 titles per 10 years the past 40 years when we might end up winning one in ten if we don't win this season. No one knows what happens if LBJ doesn't tear his groin.
One in ten is not modern Lakers success... And most pundits thought we were not going to win last year but we got hot from three and signed two hall of fame players at minimum salaries.
It wasn't a well constructed plan... but people are trying to argue like it was.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
That's fair but let's face the fact that people keep using a very fortunate win last season to justify a questionably aggressive strategy to satisfy LBJ.
If people said both ways were viable paths, I don't have a problem with it.
The way they say it was the only way is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.
I see it in a more straightforward way.
We won a ring last year. Therefore, we know the strategy we actually took was successful.
We have no idea if an alternative strategy of keeping the existing players would have resulted in success or not.
So I will take the actual, proven success, over a guess of what might have happened with an alternative strategy.
But people are already declaring victory when we've averaged 2.5 titles per 10 years the past 40 years when we might end up winning one in ten if we don't win this season. No one knows what happens if LBJ doesn't tear his groin.
One in ten is not modern Lakers success... And most pundits thought we were not going to win last year but we got hot from three and signed two hall of fame players at minimum salaries.
It wasn't a well constructed plan... but people are trying to argue like it was.
As opposed to missing the playoffs 6 years straight with the YUTES (and one year of LBJ)? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
That's fair but let's face the fact that people keep using a very fortunate win last season to justify a questionably aggressive strategy to satisfy LBJ.
If people said both ways were viable paths, I don't have a problem with it.
The way they say it was the only way is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.
I see it in a more straightforward way.
We won a ring last year. Therefore, we know the strategy we actually took was successful.
We have no idea if an alternative strategy of keeping the existing players would have resulted in success or not.
So I will take the actual, proven success, over a guess of what might have happened with an alternative strategy.
But people are already declaring victory when we've averaged 2.5 titles per 10 years the past 40 years when we might end up winning one in ten if we don't win this season. No one knows what happens if LBJ doesn't tear his groin.
One in ten is not modern Lakers success... And most pundits thought we were not going to win last year but we got hot from three and signed two hall of fame players at minimum salaries.
It wasn't a well constructed plan... but people are trying to argue like it was.
As opposed to missing the playoffs 6 years straight with the YUTES (and one year of LBJ)?
We were headed for the playoffs before LBJ tore his groin. You yourself have said we must sign Schroder because we have no other choice. You can spin this all you want but it is not an ideal position to be in right now.
I'll always remember it fondly and be proud/thankful. Wouldn't take it back at all. That was a hell of a ride in an otherwise awful year that i'd prefer to forget entirely.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
We won every decade because we got transcendent talents every decade. West, Baylor, Mikan, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Kobe, Shaq, Pau, and now Lebron and AD. I love the kids, and they’re all playing pretty well, but not a one of them has looked like a transcendent talent. If we kept them, it’s far more likely we’d be a capped out middling team than a team poised to win multiple rings over the next decade. Rings are rare and hard. You take them when you can get them and don’t look back.
People keep mentioning how some teams have never won a title but we are the Lakers who average 2.5 titles per decade since 1980
So regressing to one title a decade isn't really a success by Lakers standards.
If we win this year... then one can make that claim it was unquestionably a good move. If we lose and regress back into the dark ages... we are now headed towards a one title per decade average which is below our Dr. Buss era standards.
But you keep telling yourselves how brilliant it was that we are now in a position where we need to sign Schroder for over 20 million plus because we've gotten rid of all our picks and young assets.
Denver has MPJ, Jokic, Murray, Aaron Gordon, Bol Bol as a young core.
We have THT... then AD, Kuzma and Schroder as a youngish core.
Giving up everything for one title is not living up to Lakers standards.
The NBA is a lot different than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If the only thing that will satisfy you is Showtime type success, you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.
It's like a bulls fan saying a single ring today would disappoint them because they've averaged two rings a decade for the past three decades. The stat is true, but it's irrelevant to 2021.
That's fair but let's face the fact that people keep using a very fortunate win last season to justify a questionably aggressive strategy to satisfy LBJ.
If people said both ways were viable paths, I don't have a problem with it.
The way they say it was the only way is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.
I see it in a more straightforward way.
We won a ring last year. Therefore, we know the strategy we actually took was successful.
We have no idea if an alternative strategy of keeping the existing players would have resulted in success or not.
So I will take the actual, proven success, over a guess of what might have happened with an alternative strategy.
But people are already declaring victory when we've averaged 2.5 titles per 10 years the past 40 years when we might end up winning one in ten if we don't win this season. No one knows what happens if LBJ doesn't tear his groin.
One in ten is not modern Lakers success... And most pundits thought we were not going to win last year but we got hot from three and signed two hall of fame players at minimum salaries.
It wasn't a well constructed plan... but people are trying to argue like it was.
I don't really care about the semantics of whether the Lakers had a well-constructed plan or whether they got lucky or whatever. I care about the results. They won a ring. Case closed on that point.
On your other point. So by your reasoning, keeping the young players together would have only been a smart thing to do if it resulted in the Laker "standard" of 2.5 rings over a decade? If that's your criteria, I'm not sure if the Lakers could make a smart move, because it's unlikely any decision they made would have resulted in that level of success.
Last edited by activeverb on Mon May 03, 2021 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
