# Link: 5 Trades That Could Turn The Lakers Into Contenders



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Jacob Rude is an nba expert.

http://lakeshowlife.com/2014/10/06/5-trades-turn-lakers-contenders/2/


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I'd do every one of those trades except the Boston one and the deal with the Pelicans. I think that's a bit too much to give up for a rental of Rondo and Wallaces horrible contract. When it comes to Eric Gordon, I'm just not sure he'll ever be completely healthy and to be honest, I think that while he's good when he is healthy, he's overpaid.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Way too much for Hibbert who last seen was a big flopping stiff
Monroe is not bad but doubt Pistons do that
too much for Barnes
doubt Boston does that and anyway don't like rondo
not a big Gordon fan either (you could possibly land a future Gordon with just the pick)

AND

none of those trades by themselves does anything like render the Lakers contenders


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Nash/Hill for Hibbert is a perfect trade for Lakers.

1. Hibbert is top 3 defender and still young.

2. Save Lakers 4 million dollars, Nash 10 million salary this year is 5 times overpaid compare to Ray Allen. Hill 9 million salary this year is 3 times overpaid compare to Ed Davis. Ed Davis plays 99 games with the Memphis Grizzlies, averaged 13.0 points, 10.1 rebounds and 2.2 blocks per 36 minutes, shooting 52.9% from the field.

When you trade a player with 500% overpaid and another player with 300% overpaid in one package, your trade is the best trade ever.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

after last season Hibbert is crap until proven otherwise, and the deal saves the Lakers nothing, it actually costs the Lakers an extra year at 15m and a first round draft pick of indeterminate value

and in no way does it turn the Lakers into contenders


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> Way too much for Hibbert who last seen was a big flopping stiff
> Monroe is not bad but doubt Pistons do that
> too much for Barnes
> doubt Boston does that and anyway don't like rondo
> ...


Jordan Hill who is an overpaid role player, Steve Nash who's career is over and a draft pick is too much for Hibbert?

And you actually think that. Like you honestly, truely believe that.

That is why I'm done posting on here. You're an idiot. So many of you are just delusional morons that it makes this place unpostable. 

I came here to check in on fantasy league and made the mistake to look around again.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Jordan Hill who is an overpaid role player, Steve Nash who's career is over and a draft pick is too much for Hibbert?
> 
> And you actually think that. Like you honestly, truely believe that.
> 
> ...


Reply to e-monk, who has been watching nba basketball for over 60 years?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I chuckled, then laughed loudly at the last two posts.

This is why I still post here.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I chuckled, then laughed loudly at the last two posts.
> 
> This is why I still post here.


The guy second from the right on your avatar is Anderson Varejao. Two things that concern me about that. 1. Maybe he should concentrate about a healthy basketball season instead of trying to Bo Jackson it with two sports. 2. Two fingers in the air is my move, not his. So he can **** off.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

R-Star said:


> Jordan Hill who is an overpaid role player, Steve Nash who's career is over and a draft pick is too much for Hibbert?


yes because they're both expiring contracts and you're giving up a 1st rounder and taking on an additional year of a dude pulling in a near max who was POSTING 0+0S in the play-offs AND WHO YOUR OWN F-ING COACH WASNT EVEN PLAYING IN THE MOST IMPORTANT MINUTES OF THE LAST SEASON'S MOST IMPORTANT GAMES 

I guess you took a nap for most of the last season because I have zero faith that Hibbert isn't a complete trainwreck at this point and giving up picks and space in the next 2 years on a flyer is very testy


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Dear e-monk, 

Is this statement true or false?

You have been watching ABA/NBA for 68 years.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

dear bs I have been watching the NBA since the late 60s when I was a small child

now your turn:

you don't really have a degree in hoop science do you? t/f?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Actually I am not basketball scientist. I am an earth scientist. (earth = ball).

I worked for xxx science institute as a engineering geoscientist for two years before I came to this country.

engineering geoscience: experimental assessment of soils to be used for land application of vegetable and fruit by-products.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

This is the most direct, coherent replies I have ever seen BS make....BS is that description of your job true?


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> This is the most direct, coherent replies I have ever seen BS make....BS is that description of your job true?


I'm in disbelief.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

@Ballscientist, why do you choose to be overweight?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

e-monk said:


> Way too much for Hibbert who last seen was a big flopping stiff
> Monroe is not bad but doubt Pistons do that
> too much for Barnes
> doubt Boston does that and anyway don't like rondo
> ...


Do be fair, I don't think any one trade is really going to accomplish that. Even if you got Kevin Durant for Wesley Johnson, the team would still have legitimate holes.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I didn't name the topic, that's on the OP - you'd think a scientist would be more precise with language


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Jordan Hill who is an overpaid role player, Steve Nash who's career is over and a draft pick is too much for Hibbert?
> 
> And you actually think that. Like you honestly, truely believe that.
> 
> ...


It was, a second rounder is all it took. Glad Mitch is as wise as @e-monk!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> It was, a second rounder is all it took. Glad Mitch is as wise as @e-monk!


Yet if I bring up your recent trade posts, such as say, the 2nd overall paired with Jordan Hill and Nick Young for Cousins and the 6th, you'll stomp and yell and pout until mods come in and bail you out.

Good for you Jamel, you really showed me.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Yet if I bring up your recent trade posts, such as say, the 2nd overall paired with Jordan Hill and Nick Young for Cousins and the 6th, you'll stomp and yell and pout until mods come in and bail you out.
> 
> Good for you Jamel, you really showed me.


If you go back and read that thread, I flat out said the Kings would be getting ripped off in that deal and Vlade would be a idiot to do it. But then again as you proven here you're out of touch with reality. 

Kind of like you did when you suggested George Hill for Chris Paul? All that pops out of your mouth is delusion. Maybe you should run away from this site again out of frustration. 

Im really glad I didn't bet you $50 that Hill, Nash and a first was a good deal for Hibbert. Note to self: always listen to @e-monk over @R-Star. E-monk was right about Meeks over Barbosa and he was right that this package was too much for Roy when R-star said:



> ordan Hill who is an overpaid role player, Steve Nash who's career is over and a draft pick is too much for Hibbert?
> 
> And you actually think that. Like you honestly, truely believe that.
> 
> That is why I'm done posting on here. You're an idiot. So many of you are just delusional morons that it makes this place unpostable.


Cue R-star bringing up shit that was said in other threads because he can't admit he was delusional here. Admit you were wrong for once or run away.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> If you go back and read that thread, I flat out said the Kings would be getting ripped off in that deal and Vlade would be a idiot to do it. But then again as you proven here you're out of touch with reality.
> 
> Kind of like you did when you suggested George Hill for Chris Paul? All that pops out of your mouth is delusion. Maybe you should run away from this site again out of frustration.
> 
> ...


George Hill for Chris Paul? Care to quote that one for me?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> If you go back and read that thread, I flat out said the Kings would be getting ripped off in that deal and Vlade would be a idiot to do it. But then again as you proven here you're out of touch with reality.
> 
> Kind of like you did when you suggested George Hill for Chris Paul? All that pops out of your mouth is delusion. Maybe you should run away from this site again out of frustration.
> 
> ...


Meeks over Barbosa? Meeks averaged 11 points per game on 42% shooting while doing absolutely nothing else on the court. He also didn't make the playoffs. Barbosa is a world champion and is obviously important to the team since he was re-signed.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

I mean, if you conveniently ignore that Barbosa tore his ACL that season.....

EDIT:


R-Star said:


> Meeks over Barbosa? Meeks averaged 11 points per game on 42% shooting while doing absolutely nothing else on the court. He also didn't make the playoffs. Barbosa is a world champion and is obviously important to the team since he was re-signed.


This was before the start of the 12-13 season, when e-monk insisted that the Lakers were much better off having signed Jodie Meeks instead of Barbosa (who I believe was initially connected to the Lakers before signing with the Celtics). That season Meeks averaged a little under 8 points a game on 38% shooting (overall, not from 3) while Barbosa shot better from the floor in fewer minutes (averaging a little over 5 a game) before blowing out his knee. If anything, e-monk was either wrong or (more likely) it was a push.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> I mean, if you conveniently ignore that Barbosa tore his ACL that season.....
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...


Not according to @Jamel Irief. 

I agree with everything said though. I've always like Barbosa and overrate him a bit as a scorer and ball handler off the bench. Not to mention I have underrated a few Lakers bench players from their bad years.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

R-Star, I don't know any Pacers fans in real life. At least none that will admit it. 

No but seriously, you watched Hibbert throughout his career. What happened to the dude? Can he bounce back with a change of scenery? I mean, we're not expecting much. Can he at least still be a top rim protector?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Uncle Drew said:


> R-Star, I don't know any Pacers fans in real life. At least none that will admit it.
> 
> No but seriously, you watched Hibbert throughout his career. What happened to the dude? Can he bounce back with a change of scenery? I mean, we're not expecting much. Can he at least still be a top rim protector?


I think a change of scenery is just what he needed. Two seasons ago Larry Bird went out of his way to pick up Andrew Bynum at the deadline even though Hibbert was playing the best ball of his career and was the favorite for DPOY at that point. Not to mention there was rumors of a teammate sleeping with his girlfriend. The guy completely imploded.

As long as Kobe isn't expecting a dominant big man on offense, I think Hibbert will look great this year and is going to make a lot of people eat their words. He's probably not going to get more than 12 ppg and may 8 rpg, but his defense will really change how the Lakers look. 

When you're trying to bring along 3 young players like the Lakers are, having a guy who can erase some of their mistakes on the defensive end is going to be a great boon for LA.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> I mean, if you conveniently ignore that Barbosa tore his ACL that season.....
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...



Thank you, R-star is happy you always have his back on this board. 

How do you feel about the only moronic delusional idiots think that Hill, Nash and a first is too much for Hibbert claim?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> George Hill for Chris Paul? Care to quote that one for me?


As soon as you quote me saying the #2 pick and trash is a good deal for the Kings in exchange Cousins and the sixth,or Lamarcus Aldridge will sign in LA or that the Lakers will get two max free agents I will quote your post where you said the Pacers could get Chris Paul for George Hill.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't think that scenario would be waiting on Mitch's approval. Probably Vlades.
> 
> Come on Vlade, you lead us the 91 finals and assisted Horry in Game 4 2002, do us another solid!


You're right, you shot that trade scenario right down!



Jamel Irief said:


> Id rather have the Clarkson-Randle-Okafor trio over just Cousins, but as others have mentioned it's not just Cousins.


Here's you discussing how you like the trade if it were Cousins and the 6th for the 2nd and junk "as others have mentioned"


Now please. Find a post where I even mention George Hill and Chris Paul in the same post. 


You're getting pathetic.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Heres what I said:


Jamel said:


> As soon as you quote me saying the #2 pick and trash is a good deal for the Kings in exchange Cousins and the sixth,or Lamarcus Aldridge will sign in LA or that the Lakers will get two max free agents I will quote your post where you said the Pacers could get Chris Paul for George Hill.


Now again, find me a post where I said that that was a *good trade for the Kings* and i will get you your post where you suggest hill for paul. Don't bother replying unless you have a post to quote where I said cousins and the 6th for the 2nd and hill/young is *good trade for the Kings*. Or if you want to come in and admit you were wrong for once about Hibbert and were delusional I'll take that to.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Heres what I said:
> 
> Now again, find me a post where I said that that was a *good trade for the Kings* and i will get you your post where you suggest hill for paul. Don't bother replying unless you have a post to quote where I said cousins and the 6th for the 2nd and hill/young is *good trade for the Kings*. Or if you want to come in and admit you were wrong for once about Hibbert and were delusional I'll take that to.


Where did I say once that you said it was a good trade for the Kings? Why is that all of the sudden a prerequisite? 


Short answer? It isn't. You're just floundering now.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

R-Star said:


> I think a change of scenery is just what he needed. Two seasons ago Larry Bird went out of his way to pick up Andrew Bynum at the deadline even though Hibbert was playing the best ball of his career and was the favorite for DPOY at that point. Not to mention there was rumors of a teammate sleeping with his girlfriend. The guy completely imploded.
> 
> As long as Kobe isn't expecting a dominant big man on offense, I think Hibbert will look great this year and is going to make a lot of people eat their words. He's probably not going to get more than 12 ppg and may 8 rpg, but his defense will really change how the Lakers look.
> 
> When you're trying to bring along 3 young players like the Lakers are, having a guy who can erase some of their mistakes on the defensive end is going to be a great boon for LA.


It's crazy how players at this high a level can have such shaky confidence. I'm still wondering what the hell happened to Pau in the 2011 play-offs. 

Anyway, thanks for the info. Definitely not looking for much offense from him. Hope he can bounce back. New setting, contract year, much lower team expectations. Just compete, and protect the damn rim.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Uncle Drew said:


> It's crazy how players at this high a level can have such shaky confidence. I'm still wondering what the hell happened to Pau in the 2011 play-offs.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the info. Definitely not looking for much offense from him. Hope he can bounce back. New setting, contract year, much lower team expectations. Just compete, and protect the damn rim.


I'll be watching a hell of a lot more Laker games this year than I had planned on, that's for sure. For better or worse he's one of my favorite players.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Where did I say once that you said it was a good trade for the Kings? Why is that all of the sudden a prerequisite?
> 
> 
> Short answer? It isn't. You're just floundering now.


Because without that all you're mocking about was discussing a rumor someone else posted, in which I said it was heavily lobsided in the Lakers favor. 

So basically you don't have shit and are trying to take the attention from your incredibly moronic post from last year instead of admitting you were wrong. Typical R-star.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> Thank you, R-star is happy you always have his back on this board.
> 
> How do you feel about the only moronic delusional idiots think that Hill, Nash and a first is too much for Hibbert claim?


Not always, but I was as involved in that Barbosa/Meeks conversation as anyone, if I remember correctly (I haven't pulled it up), so I figured it was prudent to point out that Barbosa blew out his knee in his early thirties and Meeks didn't have a particularly good season in 12-13, so it's a bit disingenuous to say that e-monk was clearly right (I know you're just getting R-star riled up, but still). 

As far as Hibbert goes - after that postseason presser where the front office basically begged him to opt out, it was clear that Indy wasn't going to get anything of value for him, but I think that's at least partly their own doing. All in all I think Larry Bird's having a pretty poor summer - maybe Myles Turner will be good down the road, maybe he won't, but he isn't likely to be ready now and Indy's let their starting frontcourt walk for nothing so that they can load up on undersized two-guards without any replacements in the middle. Whether or not they make the playoffs this year will be a function of how much of peak Paul George is still there after the broken leg, but I feel like the Pacers would have been better served running the gang back one last time before hitting re-set with a clean(ish) cap sheet next summer.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Because without that all you're mocking about was discussing a rumor someone else posted, in which I said it was heavily lobsided in the Lakers favor.
> 
> So basically you don't have shit and are trying to take the attention from your incredibly moronic post from last year instead of admitting you were wrong. Typical R-star.


What? You said you weren't even discussing the trade before. That's why we are where we are now.

For you to be like "Nope, I had to say specifically that I thought it was a good deal for the Kings or it doesn't count." well actually it does. 

Go back and read your posts. I brought up that you were discussing the trade and you lost your mind and asked for quotes. Once quotes were provided you started this whole "Where did I say it was good for the Kings!" nonsense.

Honestly, you're being an idiot man.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> What? You said you weren't even discussing the trade before. That's why we are where we are now.
> 
> For you to be like "Nope, I had to say specifically that I thought it was a good deal for the Kings or it doesn't count." well actually it does.
> 
> ...


Nope. I'll explain again because you're dense.

You quoted a post where I said the Lakers were top suitors to get *just Cousins* and scolded me for saying the second pick and trash was a horrible deal for Cousins and the sixth. 

I mentioned I was talking about *just Cousins*. Then you quoted posts from earlier in the thread when I *was* discussing cousins and the sixth, and heres the irony, the posts you quoted were of me essentially saying that the Lakers would be bandits if they got Cousins and the sixth for the second and role players and the kings likely don't do it.

I know you struggle to keep up. Hell you even thought I predicted Aldridge to the Lakers when you were the one that did.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Nope. I'll explain again because you're dense.
> 
> You quoted a post where I said the Lakers were top suitors to get *just Cousins* and scolded me for saying the second pick and trash was a horrible deal for Cousins and the sixth.
> 
> ...


Where did anything you just wrote take away from the reality of our conversation? 

"Well I was talking about Cousins and the 6th, but......."


It's somewhat depressing seeing how terrible you are at this now that we're finally debating on opposite sides. You're.... you're an idiot Jamel. When placed up against someone with even the basest of conversational skills you lose your **** and just keep repeating the same tired nonsense over and over again.


You're truly a letdown to me. I mean that honestly. It's ****ing disappointing seeing you in this light.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Where did anything you just wrote take away from the reality of our conversation?
> 
> "Well I was talking about Cousins and the 6th, but......."
> 
> ...


Not surprised you have no retort and just result to basic insults. Do better if you want my attention.


----------

