LA Lakers Hire Mike D'Antoni

[brownindian]

Anyone get the feeling that Dwight really does not care about LA and wants to get out of there?

 

[shoes22]

Anyone get the feeling that Dwight really does not care about LA and wants to get out of there?

He's a free agent at the end of the year. Playing badly accomplishes nothing except make teams who want you think twice about it.

 

[Mdog1]

He's a free agent at the end of the year. Playing badly accomplishes nothing except make teams who want you think twice about it.

Lol come on now. Dwight Howard is such a rare breed in the NBA that he is getting his money anywhere he wants it. He's Atlanta bound with Chris Paul though.

 

[Thunder]

Lol come on now. Dwight Howard is such a rare breed in the NBA that he is getting his money anywhere he wants it. He's Atlanta bound with Chris Paul though.

Why would Paul leave LA?

 

[MoFlo]

He's a free agent at the end of the year. Playing badly accomplishes nothing except make teams who want you think twice about it.

Dwight Howard will get a max contract no matter how bad he plays in a contract year.

 

[shoes22]

Dwight Howard will get a max contract no matter how bad he plays in a contract year.

He is absolutely getting a max contract, there's no doubt about that. My point is, teams like the Nets (one of Dwight's preferred destinations) are less likely to mortgage the farm to create enough cap space to sign him.

 

[RonG]

He is absolutely getting a max contract, there's no doubt about that. My point is, teams like the Nets (one of Dwight's preferred destinations) are less likely to mortgage the farm to create enough cap space to sign him.

The Nets took them self out of that dwightmare already.

 

[Mdog1]

Why would Paul leave LA?

There's a few reasons I can think of off hand.

1) The Clippers are not winning a title.
2) The Clippers are the Lakers ugly step brother.
3) The Clippers owner is the cheapest in the NBA.
4) The Clippers don't have a player near Dwight's caliber.
5) I'm sure Dwight, and Paul are buddy's.
6) The hype surrounding building another superteam.

All of those are legitimate reasons for Paul to leave the Clippers. It's a terribly run franchise, their coach is a joke, and Blake hasn't improved one bit. Without Paul the Clippers are back in the cellar.

 

[King J]

There's a few reasons I can think of off hand.

1) The Clippers are not winning a title.
2) The Clippers are the Lakers ugly step brother.
3) The Clippers owner is the cheapest in the NBA.
4) The Clippers don't have a player near Dwight's caliber.
5) I'm sure Dwight, and Paul are buddy's.
6) The hype surrounding building another superteam.

All of those are legitimate reasons for Paul to leave the Clippers. It's a terribly run franchise, their coach is a joke, and Blake hasn't improved one bit. Without Paul the Clippers are back in the cellar.

Yea what a cheap bastard their owner is giving Jordan 50 mil,Blake 90+ mill and then going out and signing Crawford,Hill,Barnes,and Odom.Quite the cheap fucker,huh?

 

[Mdog1]

Yea what a cheap bastard their owner is giving Jordan 50 mil,Blake 90+ mill and then going out and signing Crawford,Hill,Barnes,and Odom.Quite the cheap fucker,huh?

A few signings doesn't erase the last few decades of poor ownership. Trading the first overall pick in the draft to save 10 million or so (without looking it up).

 

[Triumph36]

A few signings doesn't erase the last few decades of poor ownership. Trading the first overall pick in the draft to save 10 million or so (without looking it up).

FFS WHEN WILL PEOPLE STOP SAYING THIS

he traded a 2.8% chance of winning #1 (and a <10% chance of even landing t3) in a draft that their front office viewed as weak. lac achieved what they wanted to from that trade and it was in no way bad.

 

[Mdog1]

FFS WHEN WILL PEOPLE STOP SAYING THIS

he traded a 2.8% chance of winning #1 (and a <10% chance of even landing t3) in a draft that their front office viewed as weak. lac achieved what they wanted to from that trade and it was in no way bad.

A quality front office puts protection on that pick regardless of the so called strength of it, and you can't convince me otherwise. That is a terrible move on their part. They would have been by far the front runners to have Paul, AND Howard on their roster right now, while still retaining Blake if they had put top 3 protection on that pick. Worst case scenario for them is they keep Kyrie, and trade for Dwight (let's face it the package they sent to NOPE was much better than what Orlando got for Howard).

 

[Jon]

FFS WHEN WILL PEOPLE STOP SAYING THIS

he traded a 2.8% chance of winning #1 (and a <10% chance of even landing t3) in a draft that their front office viewed as weak. lac achieved what they wanted to from that trade and it was in no way bad.

Never? To make matters even worse, they could have just waited out the year and then amnestied Baron after the lockout.

 

[Triumph36]

A quality front office puts protection on that pick regardless of the so called strength of it, and you can't convince me otherwise. That is a terrible move on their part. They would have been by far the front runners to have Paul, AND Howard on their roster right now, while still retaining Blake if they had put top 3 protection on that pick. Worst case scenario for them is they keep Kyrie, and trade for Dwight (let's face it the package they sent to NOPE was much better than what Orlando got for Howard).

Except they can't force another team to accept a trade. The lack of protection might (should have been) have been a requirement for Grant to accept.

Again, had they had kept the pick, they would not have gotten Kyrie. Run the lottery again and a result as unlikely as that one is not going to happen.

Never? To make matters even worse, they could have just waited out the year and then amnestied Baron after the lockout.

Then they're idiots? LAC did not trade the #1 pick and that is a fact.

Also, maybe....they didn't want to amnesty such a highly-paid player?

 

[wuck]

The LAC front office would have put protection on the pick that became Kyrie Irving, but they could not due to conditions that could have conflicted with a previous trade. Depending on how things worked out, they could have been in violation of the Stepien rule (traded 2 future #1 picks in a row).

LAC may have been idiots for making the trade itself and for trading an unprotected pick.

But they were not idiots for choosing not to put protection on that particular pick in that year. They could not put protection on it. It was not an option. If they wanted to shed salary in part by trading their #1 pick that year, it could not be protected. It's not like Grant conned them into removing the protection on the pick. The NBA office made the rules clear about the conditions on that pick.