[Philly Inquirer] 76ers have to knock over Rockets with young talent (UPDATE: 1/13)

I'm not going to derail this thread, but go look at the lakers overs the years and they always trade guy when they have value and replace them with higher upside guys. Case and point, norm nixon. Norm nixon was a really good player and played well with magic early on, but they saw him ahead of time. They traded nixon to the clippers for the draft pick of byron scott. That move La win 3 more titles in the 80's. Even when Kareem was at the end, they had Thompson ready to go, but he wasn't the answer, but had vlade ready to go. Vlade never took that next step, they freed money up for shaq and traded vlade for kobe. Kobe started progressing, they traded jones and nve. They trade a still productive and dominant shaq for 3 pieces, went to the lotto and drafted bynum. Kobe bryant screaming because they didn'ttrade their 19 yr old protege for a mid 30 pg in kidd. Evereytime the lakers trade, they get younger or just flat out better. They never make the mistake of 1 player away.

 

Mind you Wilkes was the starting SF for the Lakers at that time. Why used the 1st pick on Worthy who played the same position and would not get much PT?

You never stop stockpiling young assets even when you're winning. It's quite laughable that Morey traded away a lotto pick for a scrub when the team hadn't even gotten out of the 1st round.

 

So I have no right to question a GM's decision? I know b****ing doesn't change anything but hey I just didn't like the trade at all and I will keep bringing this up before Morey lands us a promising young talent. I'm sorry if I offended you. Not meaning to derail this thread.

 

Yep, you can never have too much talent. The one thing about compiling talent is someone else might give you something good for that talent. Not to mention, its not like the rockets were stacked at the wing at the time. Portland and Sacramento can make a move and never look back because they have alot of young talent. When you have that, the moves are easier and more impactful.

 

The problem wasn't Shane, unfortunately were Tmac & Yao. It's like if Lakers problem is Kobe.

I still prefer Shane to Gay.

 

Did you just compared a prolific scorer coming off a scoring MVP to a benchwarmer.....

 

Since Tracy was solidified at the 2, they felt that they needed a defensive minded three with some offensive skills to compliment him.

Right or wrong, they made the trade. And Thebo might still be our point guard if the trade didn't happen. BUT there was no way Gay was going to be on this team.

And if Stromile was still on this team... Landry or Scola wouldn't be...

 

I would disagree. In our first game against LA at Houston, a 1 point loss, Scola had 13 boards and Landry 8, with 5 offensive boards between them (as well as 36 points). The next game, a 10 point win in LA, they combined for 19 boards, 4 offensive, with 21 points (Carl had 15 points, Luis had 5 assists). The last game on the road in LA is the only game where you could honestly save they struggled on the boards, with 10 between them, but they combined for 34 points. I would point out that the schedule in December was brutal, with yet another game on the road against the defending champs. And while neither Scola or Landry are "great" defenders, Scola is an excellent team defender and Landry is improving, a work in progress, and may end up being better, despite not being the defensive rebounder Luis is (or as big).

I'd go to war with those two anytime. It's only worth trading one of them if we get a major upgrade in a position of need, in my opinion, that improves our cap position now or in the future, while definitely improving the team.

 

How do you define "some offensive skill"? If it equals to "next to nothing" than yes it's been the case all along. Battier is no more than a scrub to me and the only reason he's still on the team is because he has zero trade value. I'll stop here.

 

I only started following the NBA the year Tmac and Yao joined forces so I don't know anything about Worthy or Nixon, but IMHO you are way off here. You act like Bynum was the reason the Lakers are championship caliber right now. He's NOT. Andrew Bynum is was a long term project, and now he's a short term project, but he's still a project.

The reason the Lakers are so strong is because of Kobe and Gasol, and together they form the best inside-out combination in the league today. Gasol was acquired by Kwame Brown AND Marc Gasol, who was younger than his brother. Kobe, on the other hand was b****ing about the lack of talent and when the Lakers didn't trade Bynum, he demanded a trade. The Lakers obliged him, and were willing to trade him to Chicago for a package including Luol Deng, again someone younger which stupidly Paxson declined.

So the two main reasons why the Lakers are so strong today are because a) The lakers traded young for someone in his prime, and b) got declined in their attempt to get younger, and not because they gambled on Andrew Bynum. Veterans win championships. Rookies lose them. In the same token, Kobe, Gasol and Odom are far more serious threats on the Lakers than Andrew Bynum. In fact, Bynum has done nothing except show flashes of potential so far, and yet they're already paying top level money for him.

 

Then why have the Lakers, Blazers, and Spurs amongst others offered trades for Shane?

He is a little valuable than what you give him credit for.

You put a superstar at every position and you win nothing. Ask the Yankees from 2002-2008...

 

Because they can use some Shane over the even more inept (or injured)players on their team such as Morrison(expiring contract)/Outlaw(expiring contract)/Mason.

I'm only asking for one superstar who Rudy Gay may not be but may get us one as a very valuable trade asset.

 

When did thabo become a pg? It didn't have to be Rudy as i've said 1m times, it was the talent you gave up because you were thinking really,really short term for no reason at all. I'm sure the 90's rockets were in win now mode with dream hitting his prime as well as thorpe,kenny,max, and others. They also had a lotto pick/project and they chose the young talent. They also had a good offer for that young player when he became hesitant to shoot open shots. The poing is, coming off a lotto season, the rockets shouldn't have never,ever, thought they were one player away unless that guy was a high impact guy. Instead, they traded the talent for a solid player, something the lakers have never done. Something you can't get the spurs to do. Something you can't get gm's and guys to do unless the guy is a impact player which is what win in the nba. Had the Lakers been in that spot, i can bet dollars to doughnuts they would've just drafted the talent and figure the rest out later.

 

The lakers haven't ever offered anything of value for shane and neither have the spurs. The blazers thing is pure specualtion, but i wil let you have that one.

 

I understand where you're coming from Mel. If you think about it, the Rockets had absolutely no reason to trade our lotto pick for a role player no matter how solid he is. We weren't as stacked as we were when we traded for Artest last season, all we had were Yao Ming, Tmac and literally garbage like Juwon Howard and Rafer Alston, which is why despite having 2 top 10 NBA guys we couldn't get out of the 1st round. Wanting to "win now" and trading away a potential Tmac successor (or at least someone who could have been Tmac's sidekick) for just 1 role player was foolhardy with the expectation that you would suddenly go from 1st round fodder to championship was foolish and naive.

However understand this: the Rockets won that trade. Yes they gave up Rudy Gay for a declining Battier. So what? Battier was really useful for locking down the opponents best player. And the Grizzlies? Well they still suck, nothing has changed from when they traded for Rudy Gay. On the other hand, they were paying not just Gay's rookie contract, but Stromile Swift's midlevel until it expired. Now, they're getting set to pay Rudy Gay for 10 million a year at least, and he's done nothing for that organization.

In fact, if we really wanted Rudy Gay we can get him next season. I believe he's restricted, but if we outbid the Grizzlies we can have him. But we won't. You know why? Because Gay won't be worth the contract the Grizzlies sign him to! He's a defensive liability, in fact stats have shown he's one of the worst defenders in the league! SO the Grizzlies ended up paying Gay more than the mid-level during his first 3 years in the league, and now they're gonna pay him a huge amount, and his performance hasn't contributed to more wins for their team.

 

and you know this how?

 

I still don't know what the update is because this thread is so long.

 

Just like I know about the other things such as the amare trade and whatnot. I can admit i don't know or was too busy to delve about the blazers thing, but I know about what was conjecture with the lakers and spurs.

 

Battier locking down who? Kobe? Roy? Melo? And have you been paying attention to the Grizzlies this season? How far are they behind us? I can go on and on and you can't persuade me we won that trade. You can say all the great things about Shane and I will stick to my opinion. In fact we haven't got enough cap space to sign a player like Rudy Gay. Let's get back on the topic OK?

 

The lakers never offered Kobe in any trade scenerio. As far the Bynum theory, what I'm saying is when you have a young talent, even if its not ready, other teams go back to their draft grade and make offers accordingly. The lakers could've easily decided to trade Bynum and short change their upide.Their upside is what's really scary about La vs the present if they had kidd. They won a title with gasol and kobe, no doubt, but if you think bynum's size inside had nothing to do with it, i don't know what to say. When you stockpile talent or assets, its easier to make a trade and get other peices. The rockets got artest off a summer league blowup by greene. What do you think they could've gotten for gay coming off a ok rookie season? What about the next year?