Isiah Began Constructing Trade Offers For Kobe - Page 2

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-06-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

So what is your point? Backing up Isaiah? Why? The original post was a joke. And I don't mean an unfair trade - I meant it was literally a joke.

I know it was a joke. I wasn't trying to start an argument over it either. I was simply saying that it's a fairly decent trade offer. Many people don't like Isiah, but I happen to like him.

BrooklynBound · 06-06-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

I know it was a joke. I wasn't trying to start an argument over it either. I was simply saying that it's a fairly decent trade offer. Many people don't like Isiah, but I happen to like him.

Decent offer for a player much worse than Kobe. For Kobe? Not even close.

It's not a decent offer, hence why the poster used it as a joke.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-06-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

Decent offer for a player much worse than Kobe. For Kobe? Not even close.

It's not a decent offer, hence why the poster used it as a joke.

I consider three good, young players at a relatively low price, an expiring contract and several draft picks a decent offer.

BrooklynBound · 06-06-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

I consider three good, young players at a relatively low price, an expiring contract and several draft picks a decent offer.

Lots of teams can offer that. Decent means the Lakers would actually consider it, which they wouldn't.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-06-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

Lots of teams can offer that. Decent means the Lakers would actually consider it, which they wouldn't.

It's decent in my book, I don't care what your definition of decent is.

BrooklynBound · 06-06-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

It's decent in my book, I don't care what your definition of decent is.

I just told you want decent is - if the Lakers would consider it or not. And they wouldn't.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-06-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

I just told you want decent is - if the Lakers would consider it or not. And they wouldn't.

That's your definition of decent, not mine. And you don't know if they would consider it or not.

BrooklynBound · 06-07-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

That's your definition of decent, not mine. And you don't know if they would consider it or not.

That IS the definition of decent. If a team wouldn't consider your offer, how could it be remotely decent?

The Lakers are not trading Kobe unless they get a star and/or a top pick in return. You know that.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-07-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

That IS the definition of decent. If a team wouldn't consider your offer, how could it be remotely decent?

The Lakers are not trading Kobe unless they get a star and/or a top pick in return. You know that.

I never said the Lakers would consider it. I just said that it was a nice offer because of the young players etc., which is a stupid basis for discussion, but I was just backing Isiah a little bit. I agree that that offer will not get a trade done to bring Kobe here.

BrooklynBound · 06-07-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

I never said the Lakers would consider it. I just said that it was a nice offer because of the young players etc., which is a stupid basis for discussion, but I was just backing Isiah a little bit. I agree that that offer will not get a trade done to bring Kobe here.

Backing Isaiah for no reason still does not make the offer decent. The Lakers wouldn't consider it, so we know it's not a decent or legitimate offer. It's a "throw sh*t against the wall and hope it sticks" offer.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-07-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

Backing Isaiah for no reason still does not make the offer decent. The Lakers wouldn't consider it, so we know it's not a decent or legitimate offer. It's a "throw sh*t against the wall and hope it sticks" offer.

Again I'm saying the offer is decent because of what is involved in it not because of who they are making the offer to, which I already said is a stupid basis for discussion. I'm not backing Isiah for no reason. I like him because he is good at drafting players and he inherited a mess with this team and I want to give him some more time with this team. I want to see how this team is in the next couple of years with the development of Curry and the other young pieces we have.

Jason423 · 06-08-2007, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

I'm not backing Isiah for no reason. I like him because he is good at drafting players and he inherited a mess with this team and I want to give him some more time with this team. I want to see how this team is in the next couple of years with the development of Curry and the other young pieces we have.

How long would you give Isiah with the Knicks? Im actually curious about where most people see him in terms of job security. For as bad as the team got under Layden its been pretty much status quo for the Knicks at least in terms of record in a very weak eastern conference. I think its fair to throw out the Larry Brown year asthe team only ended up being that bad because Brown and Thomas both worked to undermine one another. For the most part, even with all the moves and draft picks, they are still a 33 win club. Id say in that time you had 4 teams in the East get worse(Boston, Milwaukee, Indiana, & Philly), 7 get better(Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, & Washington), and probably 4 remain around the same level(NJ, Miami, Detroit, & The Knicks).

The trend there is that of the four three that got worse they bottomed out after years of being competive due to a variety of reasons. Of the teams who got better I believe all were lotto picks in 2004, though Atlanta certainly hit rock bottom much harder than the Knicks. 5 have since made the playoffs. Of the teams that remained status quo only the Knicks are a non playoff club and a lotto dweller in all but one of Isiahs years as GM. I think you could make an argument that only Milwaukee has done worse in the east during Isiahs years with the Knicks in terms of being a team with little success to live off of. I actually think Danny Ainge has done a worse job, but they do have one division title to say he at least had one year better.

Do you give Isiah two more years? Three more years? One more year? What should be the benchmark? An Atlanta like benchmark which would be going from 33 to say 39 or 40 wins? Or a bigger benchmark like going from 33 wins to 45 wins? Of just take a wait and see attitude?

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-08-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason423

How long would you give Isiah with the Knicks? Im actually curious about where most people see him in terms of job security. For as bad as the team got under Layden its been pretty much status quo for the Knicks at least in terms of record in a very weak eastern conference. I think its fair to throw out the Larry Brown year asthe team only ended up being that bad because Brown and Thomas both worked to undermine one another. For the most part, even with all the moves and draft picks, they are still a 33 win club. Id say in that time you had 4 teams in the East get worse(Boston, Milwaukee, Indiana, & Philly), 7 get better(Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, & Washington), and probably 4 remain around the same level(NJ, Miami, Detroit, & The Knicks).

The trend there is that of the four three that got worse they bottomed out after years of being competive due to a variety of reasons. Of the teams who got better I believe all were lotto picks in 2004, though Atlanta certainly hit rock bottom much harder than the Knicks. 5 have since made the playoffs. Of the teams that remained status quo only the Knicks are a non playoff club and a lotto dweller in all but one of Isiahs years as GM. I think you could make an argument that only Milwaukee has done worse in the east during Isiahs years with the Knicks in terms of being a team with little success to live off of. I actually think Danny Ainge has done a worse job, but they do have one division title to say he at least had one year better.

Do you give Isiah two more years? Three more years? One more year? What should be the benchmark? An Atlanta like benchmark which would be going from 33 to say 39 or 40 wins? Or a bigger benchmark like going from 33 wins to 45 wins? Of just take a wait and see attitude?

I give him one more year. I think that there should be improvement by the end of this year to a .500 record and a playoff berth. I'm hoping Curry can build on the good season he had last year and that the team can stay healthy. This team was very close to a playoff berth before the injuries hit hard last year. I'm not using injuries as an excuse, but it would have been interesting to see where we would have finished if Crawford, Lee, Richardson etc. stayed healthy.

BrooklynBound · 06-08-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

Again I'm saying the offer is decent because of what is involved in it not because of who they are making the offer to, which I already said is a stupid basis for discussion. I'm not backing Isiah for no reason. I like him because he is good at drafting players and he inherited a mess with this team and I want to give him some more time with this team. I want to see how this team is in the next couple of years with the development of Curry and the other young pieces we have.

Of course an offer's value has to be considered on both sides, not just one. So it's not a decent offer for Kobe. Period.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-08-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynBound

Of course an offer's value has to be considered on both sides, not just one. So it's not a decent offer for Kobe. Period.

Why are you so sure of what the Lakers have to get in return for Kobe? If they really want to trade him that may be a sign that they want to rebuild. And the way to rebuild is by acquiring young players with potential, draft picks and freeing up cap room.

Jason423 · 06-08-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevsJetsYanks88

Why are you so sure of what the Lakers have to get in return for Kobe? If they really want to trade him that may be a sign that they want to rebuild. And the way to rebuild is by acquiring young players with potential, draft picks and freeing up cap room.

But this isnt the decision of the Lakers looking to rebuild. They were very happy with Bryant on the team. Thats their guy. Bryant is the one that wanted out. This wouldnt be like the Nets looking to move Jason Kidd if they decide to break it up or the Knicks moving Ewing years ago. This isnt Iverson who was kicked off the team. Those are the kind of moves that signal an end to something and you are often just looking to get a contract off the books. In Kobes case you are talking about a player in the prime of his career that is the best player in the NBA.

In the Knicks trade you werent giving them stud young players. With the exception of international players and the high school player most "big potential" players that become all stars are usually settled into that role by season 2 of their career. Neither Lee nor Frye really fit that bill. Good players maybe. Potential all stars probably not. I think Knick fans overrate Frye and Lee the same way Nets fans overvalue what Richard Jefferson would get you back in a trade.

In terms of salary cap relief you arent giving them any. Kobe Bryant can opt out of his deal after the 2008/09 season. If he is that unhappy that is what he will do. You are trading them Crawford, whose deal runs through 2010/11 and Malik Rose whose deal runs through the same 08/09 season as Kobes. So in terms of cap relief all they get is about 4 million this year and 5 million the following season, which is nothing in todays NBA as thats less than the MLE. In long term relief they actually lose out because Kobe would have been off the books, but now they have Crawford on the books at 9 and 10 million dollars a season. And the luxury taxes arent even a problem for LA who have a pretty low salary base.

For a package like the one the Knicks offerred to work you would have to nab Bryant in the year where he would opt out. You could sign him in a sign and trade for something like Crawford and a draft pick. Or David Lee and a draft pick. You get the upper hand in a spot like that. But right now there just isnt a match with the Knicks. I dont think there is a match with most NBA teams to be honest. The Lakers lose out big on almost any potential deal unless they get guys at a high all star level in return.

DevsJetsYanks88 · 06-09-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason423

But this isnt the decision of the Lakers looking to rebuild. They were very happy with Bryant on the team. Thats their guy. Bryant is the one that wanted out. This wouldnt be like the Nets looking to move Jason Kidd if they decide to break it up or the Knicks moving Ewing years ago. This isnt Iverson who was kicked off the team. Those are the kind of moves that signal an end to something and you are often just looking to get a contract off the books. In Kobes case you are talking about a player in the prime of his career that is the best player in the NBA.

In the Knicks trade you werent giving them stud young players. With the exception of international players and the high school player most "big potential" players that become all stars are usually settled into that role by season 2 of their career. Neither Lee nor Frye really fit that bill. Good players maybe. Potential all stars probably not. I think Knick fans overrate Frye and Lee the same way Nets fans overvalue what Richard Jefferson would get you back in a trade.

In terms of salary cap relief you arent giving them any. Kobe Bryant can opt out of his deal after the 2008/09 season. If he is that unhappy that is what he will do. You are trading them Crawford, whose deal runs through 2010/11 and Malik Rose whose deal runs through the same 08/09 season as Kobes. So in terms of cap relief all they get is about 4 million this year and 5 million the following season, which is nothing in todays NBA as thats less than the MLE. In long term relief they actually lose out because Kobe would have been off the books, but now they have Crawford on the books at 9 and 10 million dollars a season. And the luxury taxes arent even a problem for LA who have a pretty low salary base.

For a package like the one the Knicks offerred to work you would have to nab Bryant in the year where he would opt out. You could sign him in a sign and trade for something like Crawford and a draft pick. Or David Lee and a draft pick. You get the upper hand in a spot like that. But right now there just isnt a match with the Knicks. I dont think there is a match with most NBA teams to be honest. The Lakers lose out big on almost any potential deal unless they get guys at a high all star level in return.

My bad, I didn't have the cap figures correct. I was thinking Rose was coming off the books after this season.