<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> <font color="#a50400">LAKERS</font>: F-plus We all appreciated the arrogance of the Lakers "trying" to obtain Jason Kidd by refusing to offer anything beyond Kwame Brown, expiring contracts and a late-round No. 1 pick. I know I did. What???? Our horribly crappy offer isn't enough for one of the 10 greatest point guards ever? You're kidding!!!! </div> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=simmons/070223 He writes more about the Lakers, that was just a snippet.
Bill Simmons doesn't know what he's talking about. I wouldn't have offered the Nets anymore than what was offered. Andrew Bynum isn't going to get traded for a 34 year old point guard
There is NO WAY that Bynum is getting shipped out of LA. There's absolutely no reason at all for the Nets to not do the trade put on the table. Either way it was good for them, they were just being greedy.
<div class="quote_poster">AB17 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There is NO WAY that Bynum is getting shipped out of LA. There's absolutely no reason at all for the Nets to not do the trade put on the table. Either way it was good for them, they were just being greedy.</div> Other teams have much more to offer for kidd, which is a very good reason to not do the trade the lakers had on the table.
<div class="quote_poster">GiantMidget Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Other teams have much more to offer for kidd, which is a very good reason to not do the trade the lakers had on the table.</div> Really? Because if so, where were the offers?
In all honesty, that Lakers offer was horrible lol. Jason Kidd maybe old but he would still contribute more to the Lakers than Kwame is at this point. He's also still posting triple doubles, and his game hasn't slipped all that much. Kobe's life would have been much easier with him around. If Collins had been involved in that deal somehow, the Lakers wouldn't have missed anything for Kwame Brown going away. All the Lakers need is big bodies to do the dirty work right? Not like Kwame has been doing much anyway. There was nothing about that offer that was amazingly appealing; Rod Thorn did the smart move.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The Bucks deal sounded pretty fair for both teams.</div> I would've been livid beyond words had that deal gone through. Simmons is right here - the Lakers think they can offer a couple soup cans and a piece of tummy lint for good players, but that's not fair value. No GM in his right mind is going to give up Kidd for expiring contracts, and I'm glad that Larry Harris wasn't willing to give up THREE STARTERS for the same thing. The Lakers are fortunate to be as good as they are right now; they're winning without as much talent as many teams because they have a supreme talent in Kobe and a legend in PJax. As such, they don't have much to offer other teams in exchange for their good players. I don't understand why Laker fans are even upset here - you offered nothing for a legend, and didn't get him. I'm shocked.
<div class="quote_poster">Brian Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Really? Because if so, where were the offers?</div> See, the thing that Lakers fans (still) don't realize is that Rod Thorn didn't have to make a move. He can easliy wait until the offseason when teams change their rosters around. It seems like you guys think Thorn should've made a trade for the sake of making a trade.
<div class="quote_poster">Bobcats Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">See, the thing that Lakers fans (still) don't realize is that Rod Thorn didn't have to make a move. He can easliy wait until the offseason when teams change their rosters around. It seems like you guys think Thorn should've made a trade for the sake of making a trade.</div> I give Bill Simmons an F for his article. Can Rod Thorn easily trade Kidd in the offseason? Name 5 teams who would trade for him. The Lakers can no longer trade for him, so don't include them on your list. The misconception people have here is the Lakers position. They didn't have to make a move either, but they were trying to get something for their expiring contracts and aimed high by pursuing Jason Kidd. If they had acquired Kidd, fantastic, but it doesn't hurt them that they didn't. Looking ahead, I just don't see any trade out there for New Jersey, and any benefit the team had in holding on to Kidd.
