I just listened to the interview. He was asked about 6-7 questions about being traded and retiring before he made that statement. Mostly he was saying things like, "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it," "Did you hear that from me?", and "I danced around it then and I'll dance around it now." Eventually, after being asked how he feels about the community and how entrenched he is in it, he started talking about how much he loves it here, how much he wants to stay here, and most importantly, how he's moved his family up here and they love it here too. Then, after talking about how he uprooted his family then and would rather not uproot them again, he said he would not have signed the extension if he had known that being traded again was in his future. I don't view this as criticizing the team--I see only displeasure with the unpleasant side-effects of being traded.
They just got done broadcasting that interview on 95.5 the game. The second part of the interview he talks about catching Canzano in his yard trying to poison his pets.
The NBA is so dominated by a handful of teams that's it's hard to do more than simply name Duncan, Kobe and Jordan, but even the Celtics drafted Rondo and Pierce, but were able to trade for two other stars. So anyway, a team usually needs to draft a guy and also get lucky with some trades to add some talent around them. In our case it looks like LMA might be worthy of calling him a franchise quality player, if we could draft one more and/or trade for somebody with all-star talent then things aren't as dire and hopeless as people want to paint it out to be. Make no mistake though, this team is going to need a healthy dose of luck (for a change) but it's not like they're starting over with Darius Miles as the face of the franchise. If they acquire Harris, I kind of like the potential core that is formed by he, LMA, Nic and Wesley -- it's not enough to win a title, but it's a decent starting point.
I'll add Hakeem, Bird, Isaih Thomas, and Magic to the list. The Lakers of recent years are almost an aberration. Plus, the Heat drafted Dwyane Wade, who ended up being MVP of the Finals. The problem is getting a high enough pick to draft a transcendent player. The Blazers, unfortunately, missed on Durant, which I can't blame them for doing.
But it is enough to win a title with a healthy Oden, IMO (and by "healthy," I mean playing at least 65-70 games a season and the playoffs). The chances Oden does that are significantly higher than the team finds a franchise player in the draft, based on the history of the draft and the fact that no one with a medical degree has said that Oden's injuries are permanent (as has been said about Roy, for example). Yes, Oden may be "injury prone," so it may require luck to get healthy seasons from him. Less luck, though, than to get a superstar from the draft, IMO. The franchise needs luck one way or the other to get to the top. Oden simply represents one of those possible chances for luck. No more, no less.
Technically, Bryant wasn't drafted by the Lakers. However, to me he was, since he wasn't ever going to play in Charlotte.
Kobe was a trade, for Vlade Divac. And Rondo was hardly largely responsible for the Celtics' title. He was pretty good back then, but he's only become a star in the last couple of years. The main star on that Celtics team was Garnett.
If you want to argue technicalities, yes Kobe was a trade, but he played for Los Angeles from day one and LA obviously wanted him from the draft, so that's as good as "drafting" him to me. He said "largely responsible", and Rondo played 32 mpg in the playoffs. I mean technically, you can even put guys like Ginobili and Parker here. Great drafting is definitely the best way to turn yourself into a contender. (May not be the easiest)
Berger on twitter says knicks tried getting camby. Blazers said no. Berger also says blazers will make at least 1 move. No mention of harris. Talks must be dead I have a feeling this will be rlec all over again.
Paul Pierce won Finals MVP. I have to go with Pierce as being the primary reason they won the Finals.
Not to suggest you are wrong, but just because things have been quiet for the most part today about The Nets and Harris and the Blazers how does that make it dead? It is officially dead when a credible source says so or once that deadline ends and he is not a Blazer...
Just to be clear, what is a "credible source"? I mean, everyone on this board basically shoots down any anyone or anything reporting a rumor. Well, that's before bashing Cho I guess.
Well maybe not necessarily from one person, but if multiple people start claiming it is near dead such as Wojo however you spell his last name from Yahoo, then perhaps from someone from ESPN, then perhaps Ken Berger or whoever, then perhaps Quick himself. Perhaps not just from one person, but from multiple people that suggest it is dead or that the Nets prefer another deal from another team. However, haven't we been reading that the Nets are exploring other options and that our trade is on the "back burner," to me it still seems as if we are in the race, but Nets simply want to hear from other teams and not that the deal is dead.
The difference is, it took a trade (and also a demand from the player). The value of such a situation to the general question of drafting for success seems limited. Are you saying that most teams can get a prized prospect to insist on being dealt there? Yes, and I said Rondo was hardly "largely responsible" in my response to you. "Largely responsible" means the main driver of the success. The person who had the largest part of the responsibility. Rondo was merely a good starter then, not the main driver of that Celtics team. Otherwise, we can also include guys like Derek Fisher, who played quite a few minutes for a number of Lakers teams. But I don't think that was the spirit of the question. It seemed to me that the question meant, how often are franchise-changing stars drafted...the kinds of guys championship teams are built around.
