I think that team is better than the Heatles, at least for a year or two. If LAL want to rebuild, they will try finding ways to get rid of Bryant. Since they aren't, adding an MVP-level center isn't a bad trade, IMO. I think Howard-Bryant could win a title with that line-up in the next few years.
I think any time you can add an MVP-caliber talent in his prime, it's a good trade. I just don't think it makes them better in the short-term. Unless they pull off another big impact deal in addition to getting Howard, I don't think they can. Bryant's reputation massively outstrips his actual impact at this point.
It was until Bynun always got injured and Gasol couldn't handle Chandler/Dirk/Haywood in the playoffs. I'd take a three-man rotation of Howard and Odom and some vet scrub over what Gasol showed in the playoffs this year. It was obvious to me that the current Laker team either lacked inspiration or got old in a hurry. Since they can't trade Bryant, moving Gasol and Bynum for a young player elite like Howard seems like an OK deal for the immediate future. Who in the West will handle those two playing together? Teams in the East had trouble at time handling Jameer Nelson and Howard.
How many dominant years does Kobe have left? He has numerous lingering injuries and has lost much of his explosiveness. He basically never drove to the hole in the Dallas series, he settles for jumpers. He is an excellent shooter but he is not a top 5 player in this league anymore, in 3 years will he be top 20? The Lakers are giving up their second and third best player. I wonder if Howard will basically be in the same spot in 3 years stuck on a highly overpaid roster with an underwhelming supporting cast. This is still a great deal for the Lakers, they get the best big man in the game. But this might not bring them the championships and the dominant team people expect. Can you imagine if instead Dwight went to OKC with Durant or New Orleans with Chris Paul? Those could be multi year dynasties. Dwight going to LA kind of pisses me off in that it feels as if the Lakers unfairly get all the franchise players, but this doesn’t make them anything close to as dominant as the 2001 Lakers or 1996 Bulls or even the 2011 Heat.
Thats what they said when LA traded 5 decent guys for Kareem. It may take a couple of years, but it is always worth it. Assuming Howard stays healthy. Orlando already got screwed by the Lakers once. If they trade Howard to LA they have no one to blame but themselves.
It is a great trade for LA, but Gasol had 14.7 Win Shares last season. LA still wasn't the best team in the regular season, and with more frontcourt depth. Kobe was pretty worn down by the end of the year too, even with all that rest.
And "they" were right. Abdul-Jabbar didn't even approach making them a title contender in the short term. It took drafting one of the several best perimeter players in history to become a legitimate title contender. Yes, I said in a previous post that it's always a good trade to pick up an MVP-caliber player in his prime. But "a couple of years?" I think you're wildly underestimating how rare it is to get a Magic Johnson or even a Kobe Bryant. The current Kobe is fading and not dominant anymore. Maybe they'll get another in a few years, but I wouldn't give them good odds of it.
Just because they got their asses swept by the Blazers in 76' didn't mean they were not title contenders. Kareem was the MVP of the league and the Lakers had the best record in the league. Yes It takes more than one star, but it when you have one of the most dominant players in the game, you have a good foundation to build on. Howard is. Bynum/Gasol are not.
Yes, that's true. I did forget that the Lakers were the team the Blazers swept in the 1977 Finals, but the other years they were either not in the playoffs or not real threats to win the title. Bynum and Gasol have been fine foundations. They've won a couple of titles with them. Again, you're not arguing anything I'm saying when you suggest that a prime MVP candidate is good to have. Before you responded to me, I had already said that would be a good deal. I simply said that Howard, a fading Kobe and not much else won't be a bigger threat to win the title than Gasol, Bynum and Kobe. If they can get another Magic Johnson, he'll go great with Howard.
That's the problem. Once they get the first piece, they always get the second. Then guys like Odom and Artest will take less than market value to play there as well. The Lakers have a built in advantage because stars want to play in front of stars. (And live on the beach) Why teams always help them I will never understand.
I agree that they will eventually be a title contender again, and can get that second piece. But Kobe isn't going anywhere and he gets 30 million a year. I don't think Odom is such a horrible contract either he had a career year. Odom is great bang for the buck. I think they're stuck with the other pieces if they get Howard.
Others disagree. And then we get your opinion on Howard needing Magic Johnson v2.0 to win a title. I disagree with that as well.
Well why do the Knicks have the longest playoff series winning drought in the NBA and why have the Clippers been horrible their entire existance? I agree the big markets have advantages, but there are plenty of big markets that have struggled just the same as the Minnesota's and the Milwaukee's. San Antonio has 4 titles and LA has 5 titles in the last 12 years. Tiny market Memphis and Oklahoma City have the two most talented young rosters in the west. I think we all agree getting Howard is a good move for LA, but I just don't see them being able to add another superstar player anytime soon. They only have a chance of getting Howard now because they have one of the best young centers in the game and an all-star PF, once those assets are gone they will need to bring in talent with late draft picks and cheap free agent signings.
I go back to the 1970 season. Who has won the most titles in that time? I understand that other teams have had success. And small markets will continue to be competitive. But I am telling you they have a slight advantage. I hate the fucking Lakers, but I can't deny that the #1 most desired team to play for in Basketball is the Lakers. I have been to a Clipper game and I have been to a Laker game this past year. And it was like I was in two different buildings. Completely two different crowds. Basketball players are sucked into the celebrity scene. New York used to be that way. But too many years of losing has diminished it. All I am saying is when the Lakers get down, don't fucking bail them out by trading them a high pick (Magic/worthy) or a superstar (Kareem) They always find a way. Hell Kobe only would play for a big market. And Shaq wanted to be in Hollywood. How many years do you have to see it to believe they have an advantage. Has anyone ever said trade me to Pinot or Micro brew country or I walk? Or damn I miss the rain........trade me to Portland! Keep the Lakers down!
#2 and Gasol for Howard isn't a bad trade for ORL if they think they're going to lose him for nothing.
I agree with that. I just think Bynum and Gasol is better for Orlando, since I don't feel you're likely to get a better player than Bynum with the #2 pick in this draft. It's not an LA/Orlando deal I find unlikely...it's the LA/Minnesota deal.
The issue with Bynum and Gasol vs. the #2 and Gasol is that it's another $10MM in salary they have to trade/eat. They can use the #2 to pick Williams and quickly rebuild their frontline.
