# Rumor: Rose wants Gasol



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Rumor has it Rose has expressed to management he would be in favor of a Boozer for Gasol trade. Of course he hasn't gone public with any of this, but according to reports, he has privately endorsed this move. I'll post the link to the article...

Like all Bulls fans, I would love to see this trade go down. Not sure if this has any real traction, but it makes some sense for the Lakers. Talent wise, Gasol is better than Boozer in almost every aspect of the game. But, if you throw in a guy like CJ Watson, it starts to add up. Gasol has obviously been distracted from all the trade talks. You replace him with a guy in Boozer that would fill in some of the offense lost from Gasol. Watson would fill a huge hole at the PG spot for LA. 

Thoughts??


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

no it makes no sense for the ****ing Lakers

we dont want boozer he's not even close to Pau and he's a head case you keep his lazy injury prone ass

but maybe we'll take Noah, Gibson and CJ Watson


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



e-monk said:


> no it makes no sense for the ****ing Lakers
> 
> we dont want boozer he's not even close to Pau and he's a head case you keep his lazy injury prone ass
> 
> but maybe we'll take Noah, Gibson and CJ Watson


Monk, I agree. I'm just trying to see some reason Lakers do this. But if your front office makes this trade, I'd be a happy Bulls fan. As far as Noah, Gibson, and CJ...that's not happening, at least for Gasol. We are saving those players for Dwight. Lol.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Of course he does :drake:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

If you're not talking Noah you're not talking sense to Kupchak


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Am I missing something? Did you forget to post the link? Or are you posting the link later? My bad if it's the latter, I just read that you said you'll "post the link to the article" but never did.

It's not that I doubt you. I trust your sources, but I just want to read it for myself to get the full context of what exactly is meant by "Rose wants Gasol".


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2012/02/19/source-derrick-rose-wants-to-play-with-pau-gasol/

Showed up on my news feed...learned about Whitney Houston there too. About the only use I get out of it.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Pay Ton said:


> Am I missing something? Did you forget to post the link? Or are you posting the link later? My bad if it's the latter, I just read that you said you'll "post the link to the article" but never did.
> 
> It's not that I doubt you. I trust your sources, but I just want to read it for myself to get the full context of what exactly is meant by "Rose wants Gasol".


 http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2012/02/19/source-derrick-rose-wants-to-play-with-pau-gasol/


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Ha...we were posting at same time. 

I don't put much stock into Sheridan, especially considering Rose has been so anti-recruiting in his young career...but if its true, you can't blame Rose for wanting anything instead of Boozer.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

You guys can take Noah, heck I'll throw in a draft pick or 2. 

I'll take Pau over Noah any damn day of the week!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Carlos Boozer has no value. None. And hes going to be traded for Gasol? That's funny.

At first he was just and overpaid, heartless pussy who fakes injury. Now hes a laughing stock who shoe polishes his head.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

I'd trade Boozer+one of Watson/Korver/Brewer along with a draft pick(I would give up the Charlotte pick) for Gasol, but I wouldn't give up much more. No need to blow up the team for Gasol, if LA won't take it then too bad, we move on. Boozer isn't the perfect player, but in 30 minutes per game he still puts up 15.6 and 8.4 on 53% shooting. I'd also consider giving up Omer with one of our 1sts(not the Charlotte one), but we'd need to instantly sign a 4th big.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...s-lakers-management-potential-pau-gasol-trade



> “I'd rather (Lakers management) not trade him, but if they're going to do it, (expletive) do it already. If you're not going to do it, come out and say you're not going to do it.”



Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLine 
RT @KevinDing: Pau: "It would be nice to know one way or the other ... but I don't know if I'm in a position to really demand that at all."

jon greenberg @espnchijon 
“@ArashMarkazi: Suns 71, Lakers 46 with 7:10 left in the third quarter. 13 turnovers for the Lakers.” Sounds like Lakers could use Boozer.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> Carlos Boozer has no value. None. And hes going to be traded for Gasol? That's funny.
> 
> At first he was just and overpaid, heartless pussy who fakes injury. Now hes a laughing stock who shoe polishes his head.


And yet he'd be the best player on your Pacers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Dornado said:


> And yet he'd be the best player on your Pacers.


:laugh: 

Hes not even starting on the Pacers if he's there.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Hes not even starting on the Pacers if he's there.


Really?

You dont think he starts over West?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Really?
> 
> You dont think he starts over West?


I wouldn't start him over West, but I'm not dumb enough to not understand you could easily argue for Boozer being the better player.

Boozer being the best player on the Pacers is laughable though.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Let me put a different spin on this. 

While Lakers fan's laugh at the idea of a Boozer for Pau trade, and on paper it makes no sense but instead of laughing at the trade idea, ask yourself why is one of the game's most talented big men on the trading block in the first place.

There is obviously more to this than just a need to upgrade an aging team. Its very possible that Pau asked for a trade behind the scenes and its obvious that the Lakers wan't him gone as well, Kobe is right, if they wan't to keep Pau they could have easily ended all trade rumors but yet they still exist. 

While Pau for Boozer doesn't make all the sense in the world, it might be the only trade to really make. Pau has a list of teams hes willing to play on and this idea that the Lakers could possibly get Love for Pau is a joke since there is no way in Hell the T-Wolves even consider it. 

Why a Boozer trade makes some sense.

1. Boozer is a downgrade from Pau but not a 2-3 notch downgrade, hes still going to give you 15-18 ppg plus 8-10 Rebounds. 

2. With Pau they are a playoff team that won't win a title, With Boozer they are a playoff team that won't win a title. Are they really giving that much up?

3. Adding CJ Watson instantly upgrades your PG position and adds depth at the same time, Derek Fisher is playing some ABYSMAL basketball and while CJ isn't lighting it up, hes still a legit upgrade. 

4. If the Lakers get a draft pick and or Omer it only adds to a potential trade for Howard, they would still be in the running for Howard. 

5. Say they trade Bynum for Howard, they still have half a season of a great player who might grow to love the top shelf ass in LA and he might re sign with them, and if not the Lakers could still control where he goes and can still get a lot in return. Say they trade him to NJ for Lopez, Brooks and the Nets #1 pick, your telling me the Lakers can't build around Lopez, Boozer, Kobe, Brooks, Watson and Andre Drummon or Anthony Davis?!

Bulls fan's would be the ones who would worry the most, while I think Pau is an upgrade you better believe that you will need to find another big to back up Noah and another back up PG because there is no way in Hell I trust Lucas and Mike James. While it doesn't matter all that much in the playoff's with shortened minutes and all, I still don't trust 10 playoff minutes going to James or Lucas.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Let me put a different spin on this.
> 
> While Lakers fan's laugh at the idea of a Boozer for Pau trade, and on paper it makes no sense but instead of laughing at the trade idea, ask yourself why is one of the game's most talented big men on the trading block in the first place.
> 
> ...


What? You can spin it any way you want, Boozer is not worth Pau. Not worth close to Pau. Boozers contract is one you consider using the amnisty for, not trade for.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Carlos Boozer would start over David West. Per 36 minutes Boozer is putting up 18 and 10 on 53% shooting... you'd be celebrating his all-star nod if he was on the Pacers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Dornado said:


> Carlos Boozer would start over David West. Per 36 minutes Boozer is putting up 18 and 10 on 53% shooting... you'd be celebrating his all-star nod if he was on the Pacers.


Yea, you're right. I guess defense and team play don't matter...


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Really?
> 
> You dont think he starts over West?


No way he would start over West. West is actually doing all the things on offense we want Boozer to be doing and doesn't constantly give up layups.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Its personal preference as far as I'm concerned. West is a far better team player and has been playing great D this year. Boozer is the better overall offensive player (I guess, arguable though), but the guy has no heart and is at best average on defense. 


The idea that Boozer would be in the ASG if he was on the Pacers is funny. Dornado is just flat out wrong. Hibber and Granger would get in over Boozer if he was on the team. Without hesitation.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Let me put a different spin on this.
> 
> While Lakers fan's laugh at the idea of a Boozer for Pau trade, and on paper it makes no sense but instead of laughing at the trade idea, ask yourself why is one of the game's most talented big men on the trading block in the first place.
> 
> ...



Great post. I think the CJ/Fisher component of this isn't getting enough attention.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Great post. I think the CJ/Fisher component of this isn't getting enough attention.


No, its not. The post says "Sure they get worse trading Pau for Boozer, but not too much worse."

They don't need to trade Pau, he hasn't asked for a trade, there's no impending doom if they don't deal him. They sure as hell aren't going to take a hit in talent just to move him.

CJ Watson isn't getting this deal done.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> 1. Boozer is a downgrade from Pau but not a 2-3 notch downgrade, hes still going to give you 15-18 ppg plus 8-10 Rebounds.
> 
> 2. With Pau they are a playoff team that won't win a title, With Boozer they are a playoff team that won't win a title. Are they really giving that much up?
> 
> ...


So since Pau isn't "2-3" notches better than Boozer, we should just give him away because we aren't winning a title anyways and we get CJ Watson? Well if we aren't winning a title with Pau then CJ Watson isn't going to change that. Not to mention we could get a player like Watson without giving up Pau.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

I agree with R-Star about Hibbert. I don't see how Boozer is better than Hibbert on the Pacers. 

Granger, though? That guy is a Grade A chucker. And although I haven't seen the numbers, I doubt he's an efficient scorer. He's equal to Boozer at best.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Lakers would need Deng and Gibson for Gasol...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> Its personal preference as far as I'm concerned. West is a far better team player and has been playing great D this year. Boozer is the better overall offensive player (I guess, arguable though), but the guy has no heart and is at best average on defense.
> 
> 
> The idea that Boozer would be in the ASG if he was on the Pacers is funny. Dornado is just flat out wrong. Hibber and Granger would get in over Boozer if he was on the team. Without hesitation.


I think Boozer is better and younger than West... you're right that Boozer's defense is a weakness, but it is not a strength for David West when you compare him to his peers at the 4 either. With Boozer in the lineup Hibbert wouldn't get the same looks (Boozer is more efficient) so it is hard to say what the stat lines would look like. I think a lot of the offense would go through Boozer. 

Boozer has apparently gone from overrated in Utah to underrated in Chicago. I've never even really been a big fan of his, but he's better than David West (and I think David West is decent, don't get me wrong.)


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Damian Necronamous said:


> Lakers would need Deng and Gibson for Gasol...


I don't see the Bulls considering that.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Pay Ton said:


> I agree with R-Star about Hibbert. I don't see how Boozer is better than Hibbert on the Pacers.
> 
> Granger, though? That guy is a Grade A chucker. And although I haven't seen the numbers, I doubt he's an efficient scorer. He's equal to Boozer at best.


Granger is very far from efficient.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Dornado said:


> I think Boozer is better and younger than West... you're right that Boozer's defense is a weakness, but it is not a strength for David West when you compare him to his peers at the 4 either. With Boozer in the lineup Hibbert wouldn't get the same looks (Boozer is more efficient) so it is hard to say what the stat lines would look like. I think a lot of the offense would go through Boozer.
> 
> Boozer has apparently gone from overrated in Utah to underrated in Chicago. I've never even really been a big fan of his, but he's better than David West (and I think David West is decent, don't get me wrong.)


Boozer is taking 0 shots away from Hibbert. If Collison sees Hibbert and Boozers open in the post, hes passing to Hibbert, 11 times out of 10.

Also, lets quit acting like Boozer is some sort of offensive juggernaught. Rose gets double teamed and opens up the floor. No one on the Pacers gets double teamed. Boozer is Chicago's second option, Indiana scores by committee. 

You're also underrating 2 things here, you glaze over Boozer being a terrible defender by saying "Well yea, but....." and then underrate Wests defense this year. Hes been a great defender so far this year, and is a huge part to why Indiana is a top defensive squad. 

At the end of the day, I see West as the better overall player. But I understand I'd be in the minority on that.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Granger(he'd put up better numbers next to a guy like Rose) and Hibbert are better than Boozer. Boozer over West.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



mvP to the Wee said:


> Granger(he'd put up better numbers next to a guy like Rose) and Hibbert are better than Boozer. Boozer over West.


Fair enough. Like I said, I can't fault a guy for taking Boozer over West. Personal choice for me.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



> No, its not. The post says "Sure they get worse trading Pau for Boozer, but not too much worse."
> 
> They don't need to trade Pau, he hasn't asked for a trade, there's no impending doom if they don't deal him. They sure as hell aren't going to take a hit in talent just to move him.


Again, this isn't a trade for trades sake. 

Gasol's name should not even be on a trade block period, unless its for Dwight Howard but that doesn't get rid of the fact that Pau's relationship with the Lakers is strained, for whatever reason.

Also, who's to say that Gasol hasn't asked for a trade, at least privately. Doesn't anyone find it strange that a story about Rose wanting a trade for Gasol leaks, then the whole Kobe blasting Lakers management story leaks also? especially since both Rose and Gasol are represented by the same agent.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



e-monk said:


> no it makes no sense for the ****ing Lakers
> 
> we dont want boozer he's not even close to Pau and he's a head case you keep his lazy injury prone ass
> 
> but maybe we'll take Noah, Gibson and CJ Watson


This trade makes perfect sense. Take a look at the two teams.

L.A. Lakers - Built with the superstar guard and the twin tower center alignment, they lack depth, young legs and quality players pretty much everywhere except for starting C, PF (or second center) and SG. Even Bryant is aging and Gasol isn't exactly young. The problem for L.A. right now is that you really can focus way too much of your defense to stopping just Bryant, Bynum and Gasol. Fisher is OLD, they have no backups of any consequence and Artest is falling off of a ledge.

Chicago Bulls - Young, fast, deep full-court team that excels in the regular season, but lacks inside scoring threat, particularly in the playoffs. As currently constructed, teams can just pay too much attention to Rose. When playoff games degenerate into that back-alley mug session where it's all about getting that one basket when you need one, the Bulls can't do that inside, and consequently Rose's efficiency struggles because of extra attention.

In this trade, it's not so much about the center-piece of the Bulls side of the deal as much as it is that LA gets depth and young legs all around. With Boozer, you have to remember that he's a much different player playing with Andrew Bynum than he is with Joakim Noah. Bynum can lean in front of the basket and often require two bodies, which would allow Boozer unfettered access to the front of the rim as a slasher and post threat. Additionally he'd have an easier time getting rebounds.

Boozer only shies away from the paint when he's getting pushed around, which is much harder to do with Bynum down there. 

The trade would focus on these players:

LA gets:

Carlos Boozer
Ronnie Brewer
CJ Watson

Chicago gets:

Pau Gasol

If LA needs more quality depth and young legs than that, you can always add Gibson for Walton, and if you need to further sweeten the deal, then add that Charlotte draft pick. LA has gotten well this way in the past, as the Magic Johnson pick was the product of a deal that sent Gail Goodrich to the New Orleans Jazz. If the Kobe era is to wind down, the pick could be part of a fresh start. After all, isn't 5 titles a sufficient ROI for Joe Bryant obsessing over giving his son to LA?

For the Bulls the trade would instantly make them a team that can get a basket down low, and keep the defense off of Rose. Boozer and Noah needed to be open and close to the basket to score v. Miami last year. Pau Gasol simply needs to get position. Some basketball coaches describe it by saying, "you give him that position and it's over no matter what kind of defense you play." This would create a vacuum down low which would allow Rose much more freedom to use his footspeed to attack Miami.

What's huge for this deal is what it would do for Noah, who could really concentrate on the things he excels at without having to try to shoot that painful jumper or set up for post up opportunities. 

Ironically, I did know it would come to this. Paxson's supporters arguing that he "had to do this" and "did the best he could here." Eventually I knew Rose would demand the kind of players I like, as opposed to the kind of players that made the more ardent fans of the 07 Bulls ecstatic. 

Ironically, if this deal is made, you're really probably going from a projected Miami v. OKC Finals to the possibility of LA making one last run to meet the Bulls.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Also, why not Noah for Gasol? 

Noah, Brewer and Watson for Gasol - no draft picks. Gasol can play with Boozer in the starting lineup as a center and then can easily slide to second center (or "power forward") to play with Omer. Gibson plays a little more defensive three and the only real drop off you have is that Korver plays backup to Hamilton, which could impact defense in a long playoff series. 

Seems like a win win. LA gets young legs everywhere and Noah is flat out a better player next to Bynum than he is next to Boozer.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> Also, why not Noah for Gasol?
> 
> Noah, Brewer and Watson for Gasol - no draft picks. Gasol can play with Boozer in the starting lineup as a center and then can easily slide to second center (or "power forward") to play with Omer. Gibson plays a little more defensive three and the only real drop off you have is that Korver plays backup to Hamilton, which could impact defense in a long playoff series.
> 
> Seems like a win win. LA gets young legs everywhere and Noah is flat out a better player next to Bynum than he is next to Boozer.


Noah would be a horrible player next to Bynum. Defenses would pack the paint and Noah doesn't have the jump shot to keep them honest.

And again, we could get players like Brewer and Watson without giving up Gasol.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Why haven't you? :whoknows:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> Ironically, I did know it would come to this. Paxson's supporters arguing that he "had to do this" and "did the best he could here." Eventually I knew Rose would demand the kind of players I like, as opposed to the kind of players that made the more ardent fans of the 07 Bulls ecstatic.


Well, you were wrong, as the purported Rose demand was debunked almost immediately after it was reported.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



King Joseus said:


> Why haven't you? :whoknows:


They are waiting on bigger deals.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Noah would be a horrible player next to Bynum. Defenses would pack the paint and Noah doesn't have the jump shot to keep them honest.
> 
> And again, we could get players like Brewer and Watson without giving up Gasol.


That's what you want. Defenses to pack the paint so that Bryant can get more space. On misses, LA would have a considerable advantage with Noah and Bynum packing the paint.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Well, you were wrong, as the purported Rose demand was debunked almost immediately after it was reported.


Oh, I'm sure he "never said that" once the Paxson crew cut machine immediately realized that they might have those inside the bubble see that there are players who (a) aren't "Right Way" guys and (b) who Paxson doesn't luck into. 

Again, the question. How much is enough. If we lose to Miami this year with the current model, will you start to relent then? Two years? Three more series losses?

Because I'll tell you this. If we lose again to Miami, expect for those rumors to be more frequent and less frequently "debunked."


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Again, this isn't a trade for trades sake.
> 
> Gasol's name should not even be on a trade block period, unless its for Dwight Howard but that doesn't get rid of the fact that Pau's relationship with the Lakers is strained, for whatever reason.
> 
> Also, who's to say that Gasol hasn't asked for a trade, at least privately. Doesn't anyone find it strange that a story about Rose wanting a trade for Gasol leaks, then the whole Kobe blasting Lakers management story leaks also? especially since both Rose and Gasol are represented by the same agent.


The fact that hes depressed and upset that the Lakers have shopped him makes it pretty clear he didn't ask for a trade.


This is similar to the Dwight thread. Gasol didn't ask for a trade, Dwight doesn't want to play for you guys. The whole "Well this is the best they can get so they better do the trade" bullshit doesn't work.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> That's what you want. Defenses to pack the paint so that Bryant can get more space. On misses, LA would have a considerable advantage with Noah and Bynum packing the paint.


The problem is not Kobe having space. The problem is that our perimeter players outside of Kobe are horrible. Noah won't fix that. He would only make Bynum ineffective and prevent anyone from attacking the paint.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> They are waiting on bigger deals.


Like what, the reported Derrick Williams and picks for Gasol deal?!

You better believe Laker nation would rather have Boozer and CJ Watson over an un proven rookie like Williams.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Like what, the reported Derrick Williams and picks for Gasol deal?!
> 
> You better believe Laker nation would rather have Boozer and CJ Watson over an un proven rookie like Williams.


Like Dwight Howard. Why give up assets when you can wait until the deadline to see what happens with better players?

And like I said, we don't need to give up Gasol to get players like Brewer and Watson.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> The problem is not Kobe having space. The problem is that our perimeter players outside of Kobe are horrible. Noah won't fix that. He would only make Bynum ineffective and prevent anyone from attacking the paint.


I honestly don't see Watson and Brewer as horrible. Watson can score and has much younger legs than Fisher and Brewer is a nice player off of the bench.

Right now Gasol isn't helping you as he's being mostly relegated to playing outside because your perimeter players are horrible lol.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> I honestly don't see Watson and Brewer as horrible. Watson can score and has much younger legs than Fisher and Brewer is a nice player off of the bench.


Didn't say they were horrible. But we don't need to give up Gasol to get those type of players.



> Right now Gasol isn't helping you as he's being mostly relegated to playing outside because your perimeter players are horrible lol.


It's true that Gasol isn't being used to his utmost because Bynum has forced him out to the perimeter more often. But Noah doesn't solve that problem as he has even less perimeter game and offensive skill.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> The fact that hes depressed and upset that the Lakers have shopped him makes it pretty clear he didn't ask for a trade.
> 
> 
> This is similar to the Dwight thread. Gasol didn't ask for a trade, Dwight doesn't want to play for you guys. The whole "Well this is the best they can get so they better do the trade" bullshit doesn't work.


I don't see how this is similar to the Howard thread at all. Nobody here brought up the Gasol deal, its a reported story that leaked and its worth talking about. 

Dwight doesn't wan't to play for us and he doesn't want to play for the Lakers so why even bring it up?

What one player says or how he reacts publicly doesn't always mean he feels the same exact way privately. I would not be surprised at all if Gasol asked his agent to send out some feelers on a potential trade to a handful of teams. You think Gasol is sobbing in his underwear after games because he feels like the Lakers don't wan't him, or don't you think hes trying to stay proactive in trying to find a good fit in a market that he feels he can not only feel welcome but also succeed in?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> I don't see how this is similar to the Howard thread at all. Nobody here brought up the Gasol deal, its a reported story that leaked and its worth talking about.
> 
> Dwight doesn't wan't to play for us and he doesn't want to play for the Lakers so why even bring it up?
> 
> What one player says or how he reacts publicly doesn't always mean he feels the same exact way privately. I would not be surprised at all if Gasol asked his agent to send out some feelers on a potential trade to a handful of teams. You think Gasol is sobbing in his underwear after games because he feels like the Lakers don't wan't him, or don't you think hes trying to stay proactive in trying to find a good fit in a market that he feels he can not only feel welcome but also succeed in?


There is 0 signs of Gasol looking for a deal. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.

Not to mention, as has been said, the deal is terrible. Its Boozer for Gasol with bench players thrown in. The Lakers need a starting point guard, not another pretender.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Like Dwight Howard. Why give up assets when you can wait until the deadline to see what happens with better players?
> 
> And like I said, we don't need to give up Gasol to get players like Brewer and Watson.


Howard doesn't want to sign with you guys so don't act like its the only trade they are working on. 

AND its Gasol for Boozer, Brewer and Watson. 

Good luck trading Devin Ebanks and Andrew Goudelock for a starting 1 and a top 5 defending wing. 

Oh wait, I forgot, you guys actually think Gilbert Arenas is the missing piece to a title team lol.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Howard doesn't want to sign with you guys so don't act like its the only trade they are working on.
> 
> AND its Gasol for Boozer, Brewer and Watson.
> 
> ...


So now you're upset that no one likes this terrible deal?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Howard doesn't want to sign with you guys so don't act like its the only trade they are working on.
> 
> AND its Gasol for Boozer, Brewer and Watson.
> 
> ...


They have a TPE from the Odom trade. Know what that is? They can take back $8.9 million worth of salary without giving any players back. That plus draft picks would be more than enough to bring in players like Brewer and Watson. 

No need to give that up though until closer to the deadline when things become clearer and opportunities open up.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> There is 0 signs of Gasol looking for a deal. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.
> 
> Not to mention, as has been said, the deal is terrible. Its Boozer for Gasol with bench players thrown in. The Lakers need a starting point guard, not another pretender.


I never said hes looking for a deal, I said I would not be surprised if he was though. 

Where is that starting 1? 

Mo Williams? Good luck getting him from the Clippers for nothing.
Devin Harris? 

Your best bet might be Johnny Flynn.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Didn't say they were horrible. But we don't need to give up Gasol to get those type of players.
> 
> 
> It's true that Gasol isn't being used to his utmost because Bynum has forced him out to the perimeter more often. But Noah doesn't solve that problem as he has even less perimeter game and offensive skill.


But you don't need Noah to be that. Noah and Bynum would dominate the paint. THAT is priority #1. So what's your beef? That you then need shooters to take advantage of the space? Craig Hodges was a shooter lol. You can get shooters pretty easily

You wouldn't just be getting Brewer and Watson. You'd be getting Noah obviously. 

If I were Paxson I'd throw in that Charlotte pick, which is almost guaranteed to eventually be a top pick. Would that be enough?

Maybe you can't win either way NOW, but that's a pretty good deal.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> They have a TPE from the Odom trade. Know what that is? They can take back $8.9 million worth of salary without giving any players back. That plus draft picks would be more than enough to bring in players like Brewer and Watson.
> 
> No need to give that up though until closer to the deadline when things become clearer and opportunities open up.


But why GIVE picks when Kobe's window is closing? Wouldn't you rather get picks?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> I never said hes looking for a deal, I said I would not be surprised if he was though.
> 
> Where is that starting 1?
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter. CJ Watson is not a NBA starting PG.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> But you don't need Noah to be that. Noah and Bynum would dominate the paint. THAT is priority #1.
> 
> So what's your beef? That you then need shooters to take advantage of the space? Craig Hodges was a shooter lol. You can get shooters pretty easily
> 
> ...


If all it takes is shooters then the Lakers should keep the better player in Gasol and get those shooters another way.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> But why GIVE picks when Kobe's window is closing? Wouldn't you rather get picks?


I'd rather try to win while Kobe still has something in the tank. They can always buy a late 1st round pick, which is what we always have.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> But you don't need Noah to be that. Noah and Bynum would dominate the paint. THAT is priority #1. So what's your beef? That you then need shooters to take advantage of the space? Craig Hodges was a shooter lol. You can get shooters pretty easily
> 
> You wouldn't just be getting Brewer and Watson. You'd be getting Noah obviously.
> 
> ...


Noah is not a good offensive player, and Bynums game would unravel if his post partner was a guy who could only score 2 feet from the rim. 

Noah and Bynum would be a train wreck.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> If all it takes is shooters then the Lakers should keep the better player in Gasol and get those shooters another way.


But for whom? 

You have a value gap. Kobe's value is through the roof. Bynum and Gasol have good value. And then everyone else on your team has almost no value. If you had someone who was somewhere between Gasol and "someone you have to give away" then you'd have a point.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> But for whom?
> 
> You have a value gap. Kobe's value is through the roof. Bynum and Gasol have good value. And then everyone else on your team has almost no value. If you had someone who was somewhere between Gasol and "someone you have to give away" then you'd have a point.


The TPE and draft picks. You said yourself they aren't hard to get.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> They have a TPE from the Odom trade. Know what that is? They can take back $8.9 million worth of salary without giving any players back. That plus draft picks would be more than enough to bring in players like Brewer and Watson.
> 
> No need to give that up though until closer to the deadline when things become clearer and opportunities open up.


Who's going to give you a starting PG for nothing/cap space?

Why would the Lakers blow the exception on a guy like Devin Harris? Shouldn't they hold on to it for that bigger deal you where talking about?



> o now you're upset that no one likes this terrible deal?


I'm not upset, I din't come up with the trade idea.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Who's going to give you a starting PG for nothing/cap space?
> 
> Why would the Lakers blow the exception on a guy like Devin Harris? Shouldn't they hold on to it for that bigger deal you where talking about?


We could get a guy like Barbosa by giving up a draft pick. I would rather have Barbosa/Gasol than Boozer/Watson.

And the bigger deal comment was in reference to a poster asking why they haven't gotten a guy like Watson/Brewer yet. They will hold on to it for a bigger deal. If that doesn't happen they can always keep Gasol and upgrade the other positions.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> Noah is not a good offensive player, and Bynums game would unravel if his post partner was a guy who could only score 2 feet from the rim.
> 
> Noah and Bynum would be a train wreck.


This is bad theory; that the PF needs to be a jumpshooter. He doesn't. If you need jumpers, get them from your PG and SF. 

The only reason Gasol needs to go out there is because the paint is crowded by defenders who are NOT the PF and C.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> This is bad theory; that the PF needs to be a jumpshooter. He doesn't. If you need jumpers, get them from your PG and SF.
> 
> The only reason Gasol needs to go out there is because the paint is crowded by defenders who are NOT the PF and C.


The bad theory is that the Lakers need to trade Gasol to get better shooting from the PG and SF spot.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> This is bad theory; that the PF needs to be a jumpshooter. He doesn't. If you need jumpers, get them from your PG and SF.
> 
> The only reason Gasol needs to go out there is because the paint is crowded by defenders who are NOT the PF and C.


You don't watch the Lakers do you? If guys weren't stretching out to defened Gasol, Bynum would have a much harder life in the paint.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> We could get a guy like Barbosa by giving up a draft pick. I would rather have Barbosa/Gasol than Boozer/Watson.
> 
> And the bigger deal comment was in reference to a poster asking why they haven't gotten a guy like Watson/Brewer yet. They will hold on to it for a bigger deal. If that doesn't happen they can always keep Gasol and upgrade the other positions.


First of all Barbosa isn't even a PG, the guy is a SG in a PG's body who needs the ball in his hands to be effective... Not a good fit with Kobe IMO. 

I like Barbosa as an off the bench offensive spark plug but I don't see him solving the Lakers GLARING Hole at the PG position.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> First of all Barbosa isn't even a PG, the guy is a SG in a PG's body who needs the ball in his hands to be effective... Not a good fit with Kobe IMO.
> 
> I like Barbosa as an off the bench offensive spark plug but I don't see him solving the Lakers GLARING Hole at the PG position.


So Barbosa won't solve the problem but Watson will? Barbosa was just an example. We need someone who can get buckets from the perimeter and take the ball out of Kobe's hands. Why do you think they tried to trade for Chris Paul?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> First of all Barbosa isn't even a PG, the guy is a SG in a PG's body who needs the ball in his hands to be effective... Not a good fit with Kobe IMO.
> 
> I like Barbosa as an off the bench offensive spark plug but I don't see him solving the Lakers GLARING Hole at the PG position.


CJ Watson does though?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> CJ Watson does though?


Barbosa 11.8 ppg 1.8 rebs 1.3 ast 41% shooting 30% from 3's in 22 minutes.
Watson 10.4 ppg 2 rebs 4 ast 38% shooting 44% from 3's in 22 minutes.

I'm not saying Watson is the answer but neither is Barbosa.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Barbosa 11.8 ppg 1.8 rebs 1.3 ast 41% shooting 30% from 3's in 22 minutes.
> Watson 10.4 ppg 2 rebs 4 ast 38% shooting 44% from 3's in 22 minutes.
> 
> I'm not saying Watson is the answer but neither is Barbosa.


That's fair. But if that's true then don't say the Lakers should downgrade from Gasol to Boozer because they would also get Watson.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> Barbosa 11.8 ppg 1.8 rebs 1.3 ast 41% shooting 30% from 3's in 22 minutes.
> Watson 10.4 ppg 2 rebs 4 ast 38% shooting 44% from 3's in 22 minutes.
> 
> I'm not saying Watson is the answer but neither is Barbosa.


Which means the Lakers shouldn't trade Gasol to get a backup point guard.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> That's fair. But if that's true then don't say the Lakers should downgrade from Gasol to Boozer because they would also get Watson.


You guys really need to read before just assuming things.

I never said the Lakers *SHOULD *do anything. I put my 2 cents on a potential trade that was brought up in rumor. One of the first things I said when posting was that the trade doesn't make sense on paper but there are so many levels to this whole Pau thing that thinking of this just your basic trade doesn't touch all the bases, considering the underlining problems that Pau and Lakers are apparently have.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> Oh, I'm sure he "never said that" once the Paxson crew cut machine immediately realized that they might have those inside the bubble see that there are players who (a) aren't "Right Way" guys and (b) who Paxson doesn't luck into.


I know it doesn't help prove your point, so you'll simply ignore it, but the idea that Rose went to management was debunked by Nick Friedell of ESPN basically immediately. It's a nothing story on that front. Further, you've seen Derrick will defend his teammates to the bitter end, including Bogans. You only have to pay passing attention to the Bulls to know that it wasn't true, despite your infinite wisdom leading you to believe otherwise.

What would be much more likely is management approaching Derrick to get his thoughts, and Derrick saying OK. He's not going to go cry to management himself. Save that sort of thing for LBJ or Dwight.



> Again, the question. How much is enough. If we lose to Miami this year with the current model, will you start to relent then? Two years? Three more series losses?
> 
> Because I'll tell you this. If we lose again to Miami, expect for those rumors to be more frequent and less frequently "debunked."



My point wasn't that the Bulls shouldn't do that deal if available. They should. I'd be all for it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> There is 0 signs of Gasol looking for a deal. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.



There aren't convincing signs he isn't, either. We don't know. What we do know is that Kobe Bryant feels management is leaving him hanging up in the air. We also know management attempted to deal him this offseason. We know the Lakers will not contend with their roster as-is. So, acting like it's totally implausible that Gasol will be on the move seems a bit disingenuous.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> It doesn't matter. CJ Watson is not a NBA starting PG.


He is if your best available option is Derrick f-ing Fisher.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> He is if your best available option is Derrick f-ing Fisher.


Thats what Ive been saying, its not like they are magically going to get a starting caliber PG out of thin air. They can roll the dice with Gilbert Arenas who is a shoot first PG or they can try to use up their valuable Player Exception on a guy like Devin Harris and maybe get a guy like Mo Williams but those are long shots at best. 

CJ Watson isn't a game changer, but hes one of the best options available. Nobody in the competitive West is going to give the Lakers an advantage and that's where most of the trade able PG's are, Flynn, Harris, Williams, Brooks, Andre Miller etc.

They should have traded Bynum or Gasol for Rondo when they had the chance, it might be too late for that. Maybe think outside the box, maybe try to get Paul Pierce and use him as a point forward, he's capable of doing it but then again hes more than likely to retire as a Celtic.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Boozer is untouchable, so unless the Lakers offer both Bynum and Gasol, we are not listening. If they want Watson as well, lets talk about including the weather as well. 

Boozer and Watson for Bynum, Gasol, and the warm and nice weather.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> I know it doesn't help prove your point, so you'll simply ignore it, but the idea that Rose went to management *was debunked by Nick Friedell of ESPN basically immediately.* It's a nothing story on that front. Further, you've seen Derrick will defend his teammates to the bitter end, including Bogans. You only have to pay passing attention to the Bulls to know that it wasn't true, despite your infinite wisdom leading you to believe otherwise.
> 
> What would be much more likely is management approaching Derrick to get his thoughts, and Derrick saying OK. He's not going to go cry to management himself. Save that sort of thing for LBJ or Dwight.
> 
> ...


Debunked by Nick Friedell? How does he know? I'm amazed at how many people believe everything they hear. Is this trade story true? No one knows other than the people in the front office and DRose. If Nick asks management or a player after a shoot around at the Berto Cecnter, "any truth to DRose asking for Gasol?" ...quick answer is "no." So now Nick reports that and its true? 

Gasol is all but gone in L.A. ... will they trade him for Boozer? I hope so, but they would be dumb to do it. Trading Gasol doesn't rule out getting Dwight, because they can use Bynum, and maybe pieces from Gasol deal to turn to Orlando and get him.

The point is, what they media reports and what players say have to be taken with a grain of salt. I think they comments by L.A's management is pretty telling that they are trying to move Gasol, regardless of what Gasol says. To say, "he hasn't asked for a trade" can not be proved...it's all speculation. Same can be said about Rose, you don't know if he has or hasn't gone to management about Gasol.

Yes Rose has the image of a non-recruiter and big time supporter of his teammates, but he also wants to win...and getting Gasol helps him win.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Firefight said:


> Debunked by Nick Friedell? How does he know? I'm amazed at how many people believe everything they hear.


You can say the same thing about the rumor itself. All any reporter can do is ask the players involved. We can take that information and pair it with what we know about Rose in terms of recruiting. The case that he didn't go to management is better than the case that he did, though certainly we can't know if Rose & Forman are willing to dissemble on that issue.

Again, whether Rose ran to management is an issue separate and apart from whether the move should be made. If this deal were put on the table, you do it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> There aren't convincing signs he isn't, either. We don't know. What we do know is that Kobe Bryant feels management is leaving him hanging up in the air. We also know management attempted to deal him this offseason. We know the Lakers will not contend with their roster as-is. So, acting like it's totally implausible that Gasol will be on the move seems a bit disingenuous.


So that somehow means the Lakers should take a terrible deal? 

You're being ridiculous.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> He is if your best available option is Derrick f-ing Fisher.


And when trading Gasol, there isn't any better options out there than CJ Watson?

Again, you're being ridiculous.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> So that somehow means the Lakers should take a terrible deal?
> 
> You're being ridiculous.



And you lack reading comprehension skills. Where did I say the Lakers should make the deal?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> And when trading Gasol, there isn't any better options out there than CJ Watson?
> 
> Again, you're being ridiculous.



Where did I say there "isn't" any better options out there than CJ Watson? I simply asserted CJ Watson is startable NBA talent if your best PG is Derrick Fisher. Again, you lack reading comprehension skills.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Where did I say there "isn't" any better options out there than CJ Watson? I simply asserted CJ Watson is startable NBA talent if your best PG is Derrick Fisher. Again, you lack reading comprehension skills.


So the Lakers shouldn't do the deal, but you're arguing with anyone who says otherwise......


Are you sure _you_ understand what we're talking about here?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> I know it doesn't help prove your point, so you'll simply ignore it, but the idea that Rose went to management was debunked by Nick Friedell of ESPN basically immediately. It's a nothing story on that front. Further, you've seen Derrick will defend his teammates to the bitter end, including Bogans. You only have to pay passing attention to the Bulls to know that it wasn't true, despite your infinite wisdom leading you to believe otherwise.
> 
> What would be much more likely is management approaching Derrick to get his thoughts, and Derrick saying OK. He's not going to go cry to management himself. Save that sort of thing for LBJ or Dwight.


Wait, why do you look at it as crying? MJ did it. Cleveland and Orlando were TERRIBLE at building around Lebron and Dwight. Shaq? Vince Carter? Orlando need not blame anyone but themselves for Dwight already being a goner. That was the most poorly built team around a generational center since the early Spurs teams around David Robinson. Rashard Lewis as your four? Wow.

As for the "alleged leak" and then the "immediate debunking" - what's your point? That the Bulls have control over their message and what the perception of the Bulls is? Hey, I don't deny that brother. They still have most of this city thinking "well, if you're this age this year and you lose to Miami, then that must mean add a year and you beat Miami." LOL. Or, my favorite, "well, if you improve in the regular season to the best record in the NBA, then you must be headed for the best playoffs, right?" 

My point, and it came with a question you won't answer, was that I'm sure Derrick "never went to Bulls management." Meaning I think he did, it got leaked and then immediately the Bulls used their media connections to undo it. Your point on Freidell is moot because the Bulls will always control what "happened" through ability to dish access to reporters. Either way, if you're happy with your interpretation, I won't contest it.

NOW, on to part 2. If we lose again, you don't think he'll go to management, even to politely say "look guys, we need to do something different?" 

And then, the big question for you, which you still haven't answered. HOW many playoff losses will it take with the youngest MVP ever before you change your tune on Paxson's decisions, if they are working, and if we need to do something different, even if that means taking risks to get a better center?

I understand that you believe what you believe. If we win a ring I will congratulate you for your NBA religion paying off. If we lose, how many times do we lose before you relent?

Remember, this isn't 07 when you can fall back on "well, you have to get lucky to land a superstar." We already did get lucky. 



> My point wasn't that the Bulls shouldn't do that deal if available. They should. I'd be all for it.


This has more to do with your previous points, but what if the deal is more favorable for the Lakers than reported, which I'm sure it is. How bad can the deal get before you start in with "well, I don't want to give away the farm to do this?" 

LA likely really wants either Noah in the deal along with players, or at minimum Boozer, Brewer, Watson, the Bobcats pick and maybe more than that.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Firefight said:


> Debunked by Nick Friedell? How does he know? I'm amazed at how many people believe everything they hear. Is this trade story true? No one knows other than the people in the front office and DRose. If Nick asks management or a player after a shoot around at the Berto Cecnter, "any truth to DRose asking for Gasol?" ...quick answer is "no." So now Nick reports that and its true?
> 
> Gasol is all but gone in L.A. ... will they trade him for Boozer? I hope so, but they would be dumb to do it. Trading Gasol doesn't rule out getting Dwight, because they can use Bynum, and maybe pieces from Gasol deal to turn to Orlando and get him.
> 
> ...


Would LA really be dumb to do it if they can get the Charlotte pick though? They can always amnesty Boozer anyway. Eventually they'll either get Dwight or Paul or someone to build a new dynasty around and all they'll need is cap space to do what they've always done, bring in the best free agents because it's LA and the Lakers. Look, I love Chicago. It's the best place to be middle class, but the best place in the country to be RICH is LA. If I had $100 mill, I'd move my family and friends to Pacific Palisades and franchise a Portillo's right now lol. So all they need to do is clear space. That pick will help them do the rest.

Either they will eventually watch Kobe fade and build around Howard, or they won't get Howard and the minute Kobe is done they'll get someone else the way they got Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe - because people want to weasel there way to LA.

As for Freidell and what was said or wasn't said - doesn't this story being out there all over in the first place just lead to the perception that if this year goes like last year, Rose will make it known somehow that he isn't doing this again NEXT year?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> So the Lakers shouldn't do the deal, but you're arguing with anyone who says otherwise......
> 
> 
> Are you sure _you_ understand what we're talking about here?



Why don't you even bother to read? 

I am arguing with the assertion that Watson couldn't start for the Lakers. He could; it's immediately apparent looking even casually at their roster. 

I am not, however, arguing that the Lakers would definitely think Boozer + Watson is enough for Gasol (especially if they believe they can be a player for Howard, for instance). 

This isn't terribly difficult to discern.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> Wait, why do you look at it as crying? MJ did it...


Your posts are incredibly long-winded and tiresome. All I'm saying is there is no indication Derrick initiated the discussion with Bulls management. Based on available facts, a more likely scenario would be Bulls management checking in with his representatives about how he would feel about the deal. Derrick is incredibly self-reliant (perhaps to a fault), which is entirely evident upon following the Bulls. 

Again, and I can't make this more clear, I would do the deal for Gasol, so the rest of your tripe is pointless.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> They can always amnesty Boozer anyway.



No, they can't. Under the new CBA, you can only amnesty a player you had on your books when the CBA went into effect. So, if this trade were consummated, the Lakers could not amnesty Boozer (or Watson) and the Bulls could not amnesty Gasol.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> As for Freidell and what was said or wasn't said - doesn't this story being out there all over in the first place just lead to the perception that if this year goes like last year, Rose will make it known somehow that he isn't doing this again NEXT year?


No. First of all, it's not "out there all over in the first place." Chris Sheridan reported through an anonymous source that Derrick "let it be known" he would not oppose the trade. That was twisted into the notion that Derrick actively went to management and lobbied for it. Nobody has actually reported that, however. It was only the effect of the echo chamber.

As I pointed out above, Derrick is incredibly self-reliant. If the Bulls lose again this year to the Heat, he may well not run to management about it. Frankly, though, none of us here knows.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Your posts are incredibly long-winded and tiresome. All I'm saying is there is no indication Derrick initiated the discussion with Bulls management. Based on available facts, a more likely scenario would be Bulls management checking in with his representatives about how he would feel about the deal. Derrick is incredibly self-reliant (perhaps to a fault), which is entirely evident upon following the Bulls.
> 
> Again, and I can't make this more clear, I would do the deal for Gasol, so the rest of your tripe is pointless.


Your posts are incredibly defensive of an ideology that is old and tired and never had much basis in reality to begin with.

Of course there is an *indication.* It was at least indicated all over the Score for one.

Now, if you want to say "no one has any idea what really happened," fine, but spare me your more likely version when neither of us really KNOWS what was said.

Even if nobody knows, perception is reality, and whatever really happened, the perception has to be that there is some erosion in confidence in the current plan to win a title. Even if we were to take your version at face value, then we'd know that Paxson is shopping for Gasol, which lends to the idea that he himself knowns his plan isn't working as currently constituted.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

There is literally no chance of this happening because it would be a terrible trade for atleast one of the teams involved. 

Boozer ****ing sucks. Putting him as the center piece of any trade at this point and time will get you laughed at. He's not good and he's not worth Pau Gasol, disgruntled or not. Putting together a package of Booz/Brewer/Watson is terrible. All that gives the Lakers is a shittier power forward and role players with no potential. Managment realizes that we aren't going to contend this year, if we're giving up Pau we are getting young players with potential, not role players that have already hit their ceiling or are declining.

The only trade that does not involve Rose that would intrest the Lakers is Pau + fillers for Deng/Gibson/Watson. A lineup of Watson/Kobe/Deng/Gibson/Bynum makes them a defensive powerhouse and arguably the second best team in the west. I doubt even that incarnation would result in a championship, but it would definitely quiet Kobe and atleast put us somewhat in "contention".

But that is *way* too much for the Bulls to give up. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if y'all were this dumb, but that isn't going to happen. Gasol is aging and declining. This isn't 2009 anymore. Hell, even that version of Pau wouldn't have been enough to make you guys the favorites if Deng is leaving.

There is no way that this happens because one of the teams involved will get royally screwed.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Why don't you even bother to read?
> 
> I am arguing with the assertion that Watson couldn't start for the Lakers. He could; it's immediately apparent looking even casually at their roster.
> 
> ...


Who said he wouldn't start? It was said he wasn't very good, but no one said he wouldn't start.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> Even if nobody knows, perception is reality, and whatever really happened, the perception has to be that there is some erosion in confidence in the current plan to win a title.



I perceive you owe me $10,000.00. Care to cut me a check?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Hoodey said:


> Your posts are incredibly defensive of an ideology that is old and tired and never had much basis in reality to begin with.



We both seem to agree the Pau deal that was the subject of this rumor would make the Bulls better. Does that mean you share my "old and tired" ideology?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> Who said he wouldn't start? It was said he wasn't very good, but no one said he wouldn't start.


To wit:




R-Star said:


> It doesn't matter. CJ Watson is not a NBA starting PG.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Luke said:


> Boozer ****ing sucks. Putting him as the center piece of any trade at this point and time will get you laughed at. He's not good and he's not worth Pau Gasol, disgruntled or not.



Player A: 15.6 PPG on 53% shooting, 8.3 RPG in 30 minutes per game
Player B: 16.6 PPG on 49% shooting, 9.2 RPG in 37 minutes per game

Player A is Carlos Boozer. Player B is Pau Gasol.

Listen, I'm not saying Boozer is as good as Gasol. He isn't. But the degree to which people want to make Gasol an All-NBA stud and Boozer a bum is pretty laughable.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Player A: 15.6 PPG on 53% shooting, 8.3 RPG in 30 minutes per game
> Player B: 16.6 PPG on 49% shooting, 9.2 RPG in 37 minutes per game
> 
> Player A is Carlos Boozer. Player B is Pau Gasol.
> ...


Gasol isn't an All NBA stud. I never said that he was. But he's unhappy in a crappy situation and is better than his numbers suggest. The Lakers could get a much better package.

Boozer is pretty much the opposite at this point. He's an empty numbers guy. A big man that is as poor defensively as Carlos needs to be able to compensate by being a great rebounder or having a great back to the basket game. Boozer has neither. He's washed up at this point and was only truly effective when he had a great pick n roll point guard ala Deron Williams. The Lakers do not have such a player and that makes Boozer useless to us.

And to the people that are saying that the Lakers could simply amnesty Boozer, do you really think that the Lakers are going to trade away one of TWO attractive trade pieces for a package like Ronnie Brewer and CJ Watson? That's ridiculous.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Yeah, Boozer is soft but so is Gasoft, I mean, Gasol. This is the same guy Phil Jackson had to punch in the chest (when they were down 3-0 to the Mavs) just to get him motivated....And PJ doesn't often get that mad.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Luke said:


> Gasol isn't an All NBA stud. I never said that he was. But he's unhappy in a crappy situation and is better than his numbers suggest. The Lakers could get a much better package.
> 
> Boozer is pretty much the opposite at this point. He's an empty numbers guy. A big man that is as poor defensively as Carlos needs to be able to compensate by being a great rebounder or having a great back to the basket game. Boozer has neither. He's washed up at this point and was only truly effective when he had a great pick n roll point guard ala Deron Williams. The Lakers do not have such a player and that makes Boozer useless to us.
> 
> And to the people that are saying that the Lakers could simply amnesty Boozer, do you really think that the Lakers are going to trade away one of TWO attractive trade pieces for a package like Ronnie Brewer and CJ Watson? That's ridiculous.


The Lakers, if they acquired Boozer, could NOT amnesty Boozers contract, even if they wanted to!!!! Why are people even talking about this.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Luke said:


> Gasol isn't an All NBA stud. I never said that he was. But he's unhappy in a crappy situation and is better than his numbers suggest. The Lakers could get a much better package.
> 
> Boozer is pretty much the opposite at this point. He's an empty numbers guy. A big man that is as poor defensively as Carlos needs to be able to compensate by being a great rebounder or having a great back to the basket game. Boozer has neither. He's washed up at this point and was only truly effective when he had a great pick n roll point guard ala Deron Williams. The Lakers do not have such a player and that makes Boozer useless to us.


Boozer is not as bad as you make him out to be. Gasol is older than Boozer, so let's not pretend like he is somehow on the way up while Carlos is on the way down, physically. They're both headed in the wrong direction. I agree, though, the situation may have depressed Gasol's numbers this year. Carlos's numbers are down, though, because he plays fewer minutes than in Utah with better talent around him. I don't think he's significantly worse as a player.

You assert the Lakers can get a better package. I don't know whether that's true, but it could be. Ultimately, though, I doubt the Lakers do anything until either the deadline comes or the Howard situation resolves. Even assuming this deal with the Bulls is on the table, what would the Lakers' interest be in taking it right now? A couple more wins over the next month? They'd be better off seeing how things play out.




> And to the people that are saying that the Lakers could simply amnesty Boozer, do you really think that the Lakers are going to trade away one of TWO attractive trade pieces for a package like Ronnie Brewer and CJ Watson? That's ridiculous.



I was trying to emphasize this above. The Lakers can't amnesty Boozer because it's prohibited under the CBA. It is not worth talking about.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

It's a moot point - because amnestied or not Boozer is essentially useless for the Lakers.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

CJ Watson's stats in his 8 games started this season:

13.6 PPG
31 MPG
40.2 FG% (11.5 attempts/game)
45.5 3P% (4.1 attempts per game)
2.5 RPG
4.9 APG
1.8 SPG
1.5 TO/G


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Luke said:


> It's a moot point - because amnestied or not Boozer is essentially useless for the Lakers.



Hyperbole isn't useful.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Hyperbole isn't useful.


Neither is Carlos Boozer at this point.

The Bulls are a great team because of two things - defense and Derrick Rose. Boozer does not have a major impact on whether the Bulls win or lose games. You could probably plug in Taj Gibson in the starting lineup and not lose that much offensively. And you guys would probably be an even better defensive team.

He is not an attractive trading piece. Period. And he's not going to net you guys Gasol. Like I said before, the only Roseless scenerio that would intrest the Lakers is a deal centered around Luol Deng, and you would probably have to throw in Taj and Watson to make the Lakers bite. And that is way too much for Pau.

Since there is literally no way that both teams benefit from a trade there is not a whole lot to talk about here. It's not going to happen.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Luke said:


> Neither is Carlos Boozer at this point.
> 
> The Bulls are a great team because of two things - defense and Derrick Rose. Boozer does not have a major impact on whether the Bulls win or lose games. You could probably plug in Taj Gibson in the starting lineup and not lose that much offensively. And you guys would probably be an even better defensive team.
> 
> ...


Didn't Boozer prove last year the Bulls are that much better with him than without? Yeah.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Am I the only one that wouldn't want Gasol? He's aging, 31 right? Boozer is 30. There is no need for this team to get older. We need have young building blocks that can grow with our younger players especially Rose.

Edit- before anyone tears into me yes I think Gasol is good, better than Boozer probably, but he is also aging. That's all I'm trying to say.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



someone said:


> Am I the only one that wouldn't want Gasol? He's aging, 31 right? Boozer is 30. There is no need for this team to get older. We need have young building blocks that can grow with our younger players especially Rose.
> 
> Edit- before anyone tears into me yes I think Gasol is good, better than Boozer probably, but he is also aging. That's all I'm trying to say.


What? Hes a lot better than Boozer. A lot. 1 year of age is meaningless in that context. Especially when you look at their contracts.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> What? Hes a lot better than Boozer. A lot. 1 year of age is meaningless in that context. Especially when you look at their contracts.


Pau earns $4M/year more. Am I missing something?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Length, not value, I'm sure is what he was referencing (although it's just one year more).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



King Joseus said:


> Length, not value, I'm sure is what he was referencing (although it's just one year more).


And the fact Pau somewhat earns his contract. Boozer does not. No one can really argue that.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

I want this trade to happen so bad... Not because I want Gasol, but because all these Lakers fans are sooooo sure its not even a possibility.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



Firefight said:


> I want this trade to happen so bad... Not because I want Gasol, but because all these Lakers fans are sooooo sure its not even a possibility.


I'm a Pacers fan, and actually dislike the Lakers. 


So I'm really the only unbiased opinion in this thread.



Sorry. It was a terrible, stupid trade proposal.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Forget about age and having players to grow with Rose, we recently signed a SG that is 34 years old. We are in win now mode so the extra year of age Gasol has is nothing when you consider the massive upgrade it would be. To actually get something out of the 4 spot against Miami or any other east team in the playoffs would be huge. 

I agree it's all irrelevant because no way do the Lakers do a trade centered around Boozer, but to pretend that it wouldn't be much of an upgrade is just ridiculous to say the least.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> I'm a Pacers fan, and actually dislike the Lakers.
> 
> 
> So I'm really the only unbiased opinion in this thread.
> ...



That wasn't directed at you. And, yes, the trade idea is a bad trade for the Lakers. I didn't make the trade up, just posted what I read. I looked at it from as many angles as I could, and yet, the Lakers lose in all scenarios...but, I just thought of what possibly UNused could say to his fans if this trade DID happen...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



R-Star said:


> And the fact Pau somewhat earns his contract. Boozer does not. No one can really argue that.


Given their relative production this year, Boozer is the clear-cut better value. (Again, though, I emphasize he's not the better player).


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Given their relative production this year, Boozer is the clear-cut better value. (Again, though, I emphasize he's not the better player).


Based on pay/production, yes, Boozer is the better value. Both guys are on decline. I was watching Boozer highlights from a couple year ago, his last in Utah, and he was so much more explosive. He actually was dunking, and sometimes, dunking on people. Now, you're lucky if he gets his hand over the rim on a lay-in. It's crazy how much explosiveness he has lost. Gasol too has looked slower. He almost looks tired. I don't watch nearly as many LA games, but the ones I have, I have been unimpressed with Gasol. I guess it could be the weight of the trade talks, but man up and play. 
The main reason I would want this trade to happen is purely the length of the contract. Boozer has that extra year on it, whereas Gasol will be done in 2. And you can't amnesty Boozer, because as bad as he has been, you still need that down-low offense. I don't see anyone else you can sign if you free up that cash.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

If the bulls really wanted Pau they would have to give more than CB and take someones bad contract back. My guess is LA would want some of our bench including Tej and one of our guards like CJ, Kover, and/or Brewer and we would have to take some really awful player (players) back. LA will never trade Pau for the Boz staight up???

Something to think about.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> No, they can't. Under the new CBA, you can only amnesty a player you had on your books when the CBA went into effect. So, if this trade were consummated, the Lakers could not amnesty Boozer (or Watson) and the Bulls could not amnesty Gasol.


LOL is there a new Larry **** FAQ. Time to read up. Thanks for the update.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> No. First of all, it's not "out there all over in the first place." Chris Sheridan reported through an anonymous source that Derrick "let it be known" he would not oppose the trade. That was twisted into the notion that Derrick actively went to management and lobbied for it. Nobody has actually reported that, however. It was only the effect of the echo chamber.
> 
> As I pointed out above, Derrick is incredibly self-reliant. If the Bulls lose again this year to the Heat, he may well not run to management about it. Frankly, though, none of us here knows.


It was all over the Score. Once it's on the score, it's "all over the place." 

Again, the question. If we lose to the Heat again, will YOU change your tune?

Post short enough for you sweetheart?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> We both seem to agree the Pau deal that was the subject of this rumor would make the Bulls better. Does that mean you share my "old and tired" ideology?


Your ideology has more to do with your defenses of all the past decisions of Paxson.

I'll ask you. Is Paxson a very good GM? If so, how good? Where would you rank him? Is he a championship GM?

Now, as to the Gasol trade, the one that was reported would be an anal pounding of the Lakers, so of course I expect you to like that. However, your colors will show if the deals that get reported have us giving up more in deals that would still bring us closer to a title than we are now, at which point I would expect you to talk about not "giving up the farm."


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Player A: 15.6 PPG on 53% shooting, 8.3 RPG in 30 minutes per game
> Player B: 16.6 PPG on 49% shooting, 9.2 RPG in 37 minutes per game
> 
> Player A is Carlos Boozer. Player B is Pau Gasol.
> ...


It's not laughable. When you expand the scope beyond this season and you start looking at differences between playoff performance and regular season performance, Gasol is the much better player.

NBA playoffs degenerate to one very primitive thing. "Can you, when you are being mugged and the refs swallow the whistles, get that key basket when you need it over and over again."

This is why comparing Gasol and Boozer during the regular season is beyond irrelevant.

We all know the Bulls are a very good regular season team. So were the 93 and 94 Knicks (they had the center, but lacked even a passable second/perimeter scorer when opposing teams crowded Ewing).

Can the Bulls stare the Heat in the eyes when Lebron and Wade are getting high percentage key baskets late in ECF games, and can they come back on the other end and go inside-out to get their own key baskets? Or can they use the threat of Boozer, Gasol or whoever to keep interior defenses off of Rose when he beats the first defender?

The relative standing of Boozer and Gasol v. good AND bad teams doesn't answer these questions. The Bulls have played what, 30+ games. ONE of those games has been against the kind of team that can change their game, the Heat. So taking these stats just doesn't do anything.

Unless we get to play the Wizards and Bucks for the first 4 games of the ECF


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



jnrjr79 said:


> Pau earns $4M/year more. Am I missing something?


And he's what, 120 games removed from being a second fiddle along the lines of Kevin McHale and Scottie Pippen on a championship team.

What was LA before Pau Gasol got there?

I think looking at the last year+ is kind of useless regarding Gasol. 

Derrick Fisher has fallen off the ledge. LA has proven they have few options who can play in his place. Ron Artest is clinically insane and becoming less and less useful. LA has no depth.

Gasol's problems have been the biproduct of one thing. When you play inside out, you have to have the "out" part of that. When Fisher can't play anymore, his shots are no longer pulling defenders away from Bryant and Gasol. Artest is not a shooter and the team doesn't have Lamar Odom.

What happens? LA plays with two defenders helping way too aggressively on Gasol and Bryant, because they just don't have to stay at home the way they did in 2010. 

Gasol wouldn't have that problem here.


----------



## kelvinzee (May 5, 2006)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



giusd said:


> If the bulls really wanted Pau they would have to give more than CB and take someones bad contract back. My guess is LA would want some of our bench including Tej and one of our guards like CJ, Kover, and/or Brewer and we would have to take some really awful player (players) back. LA will never trade Pau for the Boz staight up???
> 
> Something to think about.


How about this trade in response to rondo trade rumors

Bulls get Pau Gasol and blake
Lakers get carlos boozer, rajon rondo
Celts get michael beasley, omer asik, cj watson
Twolves get first round pick from lakers.

Celts get younger and the post defender and rebounder in asik. Lakers get a huge upgrade at pg and a slight downgrade at pf. Minny dumps beasleys contract.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

I was shocked that the Lakers turned down a trade for Michael Beasley, they would have only given up a first rounder for him. 

Obviously the salary Tax is something even a team like the Lakers don't wan't to go over any more.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



kelvinzee said:


> How about this trade in response to rondo trade rumors
> 
> Bulls get Pau Gasol and blake
> Lakers get carlos boozer, rajon rondo
> ...


Boston won't take Beasely, he's due an extension this summer and the Celts are trying to clear cap space, nevermind that Beasely is 10x the headcase and not as good of a player. Asik is nice but not someone who jump-starts a rebuild.


----------



## kelvinzee (May 5, 2006)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*

Celts are actively pursuing trade for beasley from what i am reading.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



thebizkit69u said:


> I was shocked that the Lakers turned down a trade for Michael Beasley, they would have only given up a first rounder for him.
> 
> Obviously the salary Tax is something even a team like the Lakers don't wan't to go over any more.


according to the Lakers it was two first round picks, David Kahn is a liar and Chris Broussard is a gullible tool

but even if it was only one first round pick you do realize that Beasley either walks at the end of the year or they have to pay him at least 8m (that's the QO) to keep him

so the Wolves who arent going to keep him and arent even starting him were asking for 2 firsts for a guy who is going to play 30 games and walk?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Rose wants Gasol*



e-monk said:


> according to the Lakers it was two first round picks, David Kahn is a liar and Chris Broussard is a gullible tool
> 
> but even if it was only one first round pick you do realize that Beasley either walks at the end of the year or they have to pay him at least 8m (that's the QO) to keep him
> 
> so the Wolves who arent going to keep him and arent even starting him were asking for 2 firsts for a guy who is going to play 30 games and walk?


I understand the issue with giving up 2 first rounders for a guy like Beasley but you also have to understand that those 2 first round picks aren't lottery picks and aren't very valuable. The Lakers haven't had an impact pick since 2005 when they Drafted Bynum.

If the Lakers are in win NOW mode, the trade does make them better NOW. The Lakers haven't shown any real talent in picking up good players late in the draft so I could care less about the picks. 

Financially it looks like the Lakers don't wan't to commit money until they for sure know they are no longer in the Dwight Howard talks. I would not be surprised if the Beasley trade comes up again only this time its a first and a second for him, not 2 firsts.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

a guy like rose is all about loyalty he would never say he wanted a guy traded unless he was going against the team and becoming a real problem , which is unlikely in boozer's case ....much more likely is bulls management simply broached the subject and he didn't feverishly object just saying he'd be ok with it.

rose didn't even really seem so hot on lebron when he was FA its hard to see him wanting another player to replace another guy on his team.


its one of his better qualities , is his sense of team.


----------

