# It's official, no Marcus Banks



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/celtics/news/c-116079-25.html

Damn.. :upset: 

WTF are we gonna do with all our small forwards now?
:upset:


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

This is BS,I don't like this deal at all. Looks like Mitch still has A LOT of work left to do. How the hell did this happen? He agrees to take in yet another SF??? And not a very good one at that. :nonono:


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

this may seem like a dumb question, but how does a final deal be amended. Teams could just change thier mistakes just like that?


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadeshaqeddie</b>!
> this may seem like a dumb question, but how does a final deal be amended. Teams could just change thier mistakes just like that?


That's what I want to know.. This is ****ing BS. The new Lakers were introduced and everything.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

:hurl: What the hell are the Lakers doing? :upset: :dead:


----------



## TrailofDead (Jul 24, 2003)

The deal was amended because both Fox and Payton failed to show up for their physicals.


----------



## Jwill55gRizZ (Jun 8, 2003)

how they didnt get banks is surprising


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TrailofDead</b>!
> The deal was amended because both Fox and Payton failed to show up for their physicals.


But then WHY would it change the deal?
I don't get it.

Mitch seemed very high on Marcus after acquiring him too. :sigh:

I mean, even if we had to change the deal, did we have to get another SF? :upset:


----------



## Ghiman (May 19, 2003)

That's ***** BS!!! ***** that! If Marcus Banks isnt included in the trade, then forget the trade!!!


----------



## TrailofDead (Jul 24, 2003)

There obviously must have been some clause in the trade that if players refused to play for a team or didn't report to the team in a certain amount of time, then the trade could either be cancelled or amended.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Well I guess there's no more argument about who should start :whoknows:


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TrailofDead</b>!
> There obviously must have been some clause in the trade that if players refused to play for a team or didn't report to the team in a certain amount of time, then the trade could either be cancelled or amended.


Then Mitch should be fired.

I'd rather have kept GP and Fox than do this deal.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hov</b>!
> 
> Then Mitch should be fired.
> 
> I'd rather have kept GP and Fox than do this deal.


Very much agreed. I can't believe he wants Mihm this badly.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

According to ESPN Radio

GP screwed us by not showing up for the physical, and Mitch, being the incompetent GM that he is, tried to save the deal by sending Banks back and the 2nd rounder for Jumaine Jones. 
Damnit Mitch :upset:

I miss Banks already.


----------



## Fracture (Mar 31, 2004)

Just as soon as I was begining to change my mind about that idiot Kupchak...


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hov</b>!
> 
> Then Mitch should be fired.


Seriously...WTF


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

****ing Payton! What a crybaby little *****!

We will always remember that we had Marcus Banks but GP screwed us over. We don't even get the ****ing pick! This is a complete embarrassment.

Mitch is now once again an *******! Banks was holding our damn jersey for God's sake!:upset: :upset: 

I didn't even consider this a possibility, I thought this trade was done. Now we have no backup PG, our SF is more crowded than before and we won't make the playoffs.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

If what I read was true (that Payton was going to report but was on a cruise) than you can't even put any blame on Payton for this. Bad communication from Mitch for not even knowing where Payton was.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> If what I read was true (that Payton was going to report but was on a cruise) than you can't even put any blame on Payton for this. Bad communication from Mitch for not even knowing where Payton was.


Oh yeah! ****ing Mitch! What a dumb little *****! :upset: 

If the Celtics were complaining that GP wasn't reporting, why the heck is he still in the deal? This makes no sense at all.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

This just does not make sense...because GP didn't report we lose Banks, but GP still goes to Boston?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Celtics spokesman said Boston had agreed in advance to waive the requirement that Payton undergo a physical exam on Friday.
> "The team waived his physical as part of the amended trade," Celtics spokesman Bill Bonsiewicz said. "It (the physical) obviously became moot as part of this deal."
> 
> The amended trade will now give Los Angeles 6-foot-8 forward Jumaine Jones instead of guard Marcus Banks, and Boston will no longer be required to give up its second-round draft choice.
> ...


http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2663502


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

This still makes no sense!!!

The Celtics get Banks back just because GP didn't go to Boston immediately, when he will report to camp in October anyway?!

The Celtics shouldn't get GP if they get Banks.:upset:


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

Celtics spokesman said Boston had agreed in advance to waive the requirement that Payton undergo a physical exam on Friday.
"The team waived his physical as part of the amended trade," Celtics spokesman Bill Bonsiewicz said. "It (the physical) obviously became moot as part of this deal."

Lakers spokesman John Black said the trade had to be amended because it was contingent on all players reporting to their new teams for physicals by Friday afternoon.

"Gary Payton refused to go to Boston and do that," Black said.


WHAT THE ****.
So basically Payton was supposed to go take his physical but decided not to and now the Celtics are allowing him not to take the physical because they got Marcus back?
And even through all this, THE LAKERS STILL WENT WITH THE TRADE?
We got raped. Fire Mitch.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> This just does not make sense...because GP didn't report we lose Banks, but GP still goes to Boston?


****ing bull****! I'm so vexed right now it isn't even funny. ***** Kupchak's pansy *** screwed us over again. What a ****ing lame excuse for a GM. He probably substituted Jones for Banks by himself without Ainge even mentioning it. I'd rather let Michael Jackson babysit my kids then let this guy run our franchise.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hov</b>!
> Celtics spokesman said Boston had agreed in advance to waive the requirement that Payton undergo a physical exam on Friday.
> "The team waived his physical as part of the amended trade," Celtics spokesman Bill Bonsiewicz said. "It (the physical) obviously became moot as part of this deal."
> 
> ...


Yeah. So the Celtics basically just cheated and Mitch let them get away with it. I have NEVER seen anything like this before.:upset:

The league shouldn't allow Payton to play on Boston.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> ****ing bull****! I'm so vexed right now it isn't even funny. ***** Kupchak's pansy *** screwed us over again. What a ****ing lame excuse for a GM. He probably substituted Jones for Banks by himself without Ainge even mentioning it.


On a lighter note, imagine the conversation Kupchack had with Ainge.

Ainge: "Well *looks at watch*, since Payton isn't coming, I might as well canc-"
Mitch: *Sounds nervous* "WAIT, just WAIT A MINUTE! I got a great idea! How about we let you KEEP Marcus AND the 2nd rounder and you give us Jones instead! Eh? EH? Doesn't that sound good? Hey maybe you can make it so Payton doesn't even have to report back until training camp starts! WHAT DO YA SAY?"


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> This just does not make sense...because GP didn't report we lose Banks, but GP still goes to Boston?


Now, I may be wrong but this is what I believe what happened... GP doesn't show up for the physical, showing up for the physical was apart of the contract, so, in fear that the trade would be cut off, Mitch decides to let them have back Marcus Banks, in exchange for Jones, so Ainge agrees, because now he has Banks back, they make a NEW CONTRACT and that's that...


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Now, I may be wrong but this is what I believe what happened... GP doesn't show up for the physical, showing up for the physical was apart of the contract, so, in fear that the trade would be cut off, Mitch decides to let them have back Marcus Banks, in exchange for Jones, so Ainge agrees, because now he has Banks back, they make a NEW CONTRACT and that's that...


And in the end, we still got raped. Seriously WTF was Mitch thinking.........


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Now, I may be wrong but this is what I believe what happened... GP doesn't show up for the physical, showing up for the physical was apart of the contract, so, in fear that the trade would be cut off, Mitch decides to let them have back Marcus Banks, in exchange for Jones, so Ainge agrees, because now he has Banks back, they make a NEW CONTRACT and that's that...


We still get screwed. Basically, we traded Banks and Boston's second round pick for Jumaine Jones. Again, what the ****? He should have just nixed the deal but Kupchak just isn't a cool customer. He'd get mercked on the world poker tour.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Is it a coincidence that today is Friday the 13th?


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> Is it a coincidence that today is Friday the 13th?


Yes, mitch is just an idiot.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

[nelson muntz voice] HA HA [/nelson muntz voice]


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

this is pullsit. 

Straight pullsit.

For all those the Celtics thinks Banks is a scrub people now what. 

We got screwed we picked up another IDIOT small forward another athletic guy who can't play. 

All this for Chris Mihm is Kup outta his pamn mind. 

I wanted Banks more than anyone else in this deal. 

Then the capper is we give up the 1st and GP and get back nothing NOTHINg. 

SCREW Atkins he's a scrub. 

I really have a hard time justifying not calling off this whole deal. 

There needs to be a better explanation for any of this.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> We still get screwed. Basically, we traded Banks and Boston's second round pick for Jumaine Jones. Again, what the ****? He should have just nixed the deal but Kupchak just isn't a cool customer. He'd get mercked on the world poker tour.


I don't even look at it that way...

Payton didn't want to report, ok, bad luck, what I don't get is why he still felt obliged to make a deal with Boston. No trade is better than a bad trade.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't even look at it that way...
> ...


Thats what I'm saying if we rescend the deal and get GP back to me we're ahead of the game. 

Heck I wasn't as sure if the deal was any good in the 1st place now I know we've gotten ripped.

I still haven't figured why we need to throw in the 1st rounder anyway. They get 2 expiring contracts and a still could be productive GP and we toss them a 1. 

I don't get it.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/view.bg?articleid=39190


> Former Celts in LA-LA land: Banks & Co. embrace trade
> By Mark Murphy
> Tuesday, August 10, 2004
> 
> ...


Damnit Mitch, if you were so high on the guy then...................WHHHHHHHHY????????


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hov</b>!
> http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/view.bg?articleid=39190
> 
> Damnit Mitch, if you were so high on the guy then...................WHHHHHHHHY????????


Maybe he was high on something else :whoknows:... Well I'm out for the night guys... I'll see what goes down later...


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

This Bites,


----------



## lastlaugh (Oct 30, 2003)

I read in the paper that Gary Payton didn't have to report till August 16th (which is Monday) So if that is true (and it could not be because the Boston papers are stupid) then this whole situation doesn't make sense.

The Celtics owner was on the radio today (according to what I have read) and he tried to blame the orginal trade on Doc Rivers. He said that Doc was the deciding factor in Marcus being traded.

Why in Gods name woukld your owner agree to this trade? This makes no sense.


----------



## Limee (Jun 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> He'd get mercked on the world poker tour.


Absolutely. I think his position should have been.

"Hey Danny, Payton didn't report for a physical that's a bit inconvenient for you. I guess we can call the trade off or I could let you have that second round pick back. " 

I think another move now has to be made to clear the SF position. Of course teams now know we have to make a move which weakens our barganing position even further.


----------



## Mardaker (Aug 14, 2004)

*The deal as I see it...*

Payton is not going back to Celtics according to a phone interview with him. So he tried to mess the trade up by not showing up and hoped the teams will give up on the trade. This way he gets his wish, which is staying in LA for one more year and retires also keeps his money. 

Now, he doesn't get his wish and either has to reluctantly show up in Boston to collect his money (I don't know why at this point Doc and Danny would want him there, he will mess up the team in a short time. Talk about the chemistry between Payton and Banks, wow!) or retire now ( which he said in that interview) and loose the money.

If he goes back to Celtics, then the teams go ahead and do the trade again. That is, they get Jermain Jones back we get 2nd and Banks.

If Payton retires then the trade stays as it is now and Celts keep Banks and cap room or maybe even then trade him back to Lakers. (far shot in my opinion).

Mich wanted Mihm and Banks was his little dream (poof it goes) but Lakers desperately wanted to get rid of Payton. And since the word is going to be out then other teams would try to screw us up even more. This is the worst case scenario for the Lakers so far. But for Mich now, he only has to think about a point guard and Malone.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

*Re: The deal as I see it...*



> Originally posted by <b>Mardaker</b>!
> 
> If he goes back to Celtics, then the teams go ahead and do the trade again. That is, they get Jermain Jones back we get 2nd and Banks.


I really doubt this happens because one of the Celtic people said they were extremely happy to have Banks back. 

I'd be so happy if it happened though.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: The deal as I see it...*



> Originally posted by <b>Mardaker</b>!
> Payton is not going back to Celtics according to a phone interview with him. So he tried to mess the trade up by not showing up and hoped the teams will give up on the trade. This way he gets his wish, which is staying in LA for one more year and retires also keeps his money.
> 
> Now, he doesn't get his wish and either has to reluctantly show up in Boston to collect his money (I don't know why at this point Doc and Danny would want him there, he will mess up the team in a short time. Talk about the chemistry between Payton and Banks, wow!) or retire now ( which he said in that interview) and loose the money.
> ...


False...


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

Wow, I really feel sorry for you Lakers fans, Ainge just definitely bent kupchak over. Wow that was a stupid clause in that trade.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> Wow, I really feel sorry for you Lakers fans, Ainge just definitely bent kupchak over. Wow that was a stupid clause in that trade.


I still can't believe this happened..........
I'm not as upset as I was before but I still want Kupchack fired. I mean when Danny Ainge ***** slaps you, something's wrong.

We had the young, quick, defensive-minded PG we needed FOR YEARS and then this happened. 
He had some potential too.. Would've fit in nicely with Kobe, Odom, and Butler since they're all around the same age. That would've been a sick team to build around.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: The deal as I see it...*



> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> False...


Really, how do you know? How did you confirm it?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: The deal as I see it...*



> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Really, how do you know? How did you confirm it?


Because it's an ammended trade. It's an added on part of the deal. Now the trade has been accepted, it went through... They let the physical slide in exchange for Banks...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: The deal as I see it...*



> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Because it's an ammended trade. It's an added on part of the deal. Now the trade has been accepted, it went through... They let the physical slide in exchange for Banks...


Incorrect. You can still add on players to this trade and get Banks back if Payton reports.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

And you read this... where?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> And you read this... where?


CBA.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> CBA.


Ouch. Owned.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

And the number that states your point would be... It's not that I can't find it, but there are way too many for me to bother with...


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Mitch should be fired. He should be fired for still doing the deal. Why the hell do you do this deal. Celtics don't want to do a deal, fine, let them stay in cap hell.

I don't want some crappy Mihm or some medicore Atkins and lose a bunch of cap space in return.

Maybe Mitch wants to put a team of only small forwards on the floor or something.

Stupid Stupid Stupid

Banks was the only damn player I wanted in this deal. Can Jones shut down Kidd, can he run with Parker and defend him. We closed up a huge weakness with Banks, and now we just lost a lot of cap in return for crap.

FIRE MITCH NOW!


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Well, he couldn't have pulled out of the deal. GP would have been MAJOR pissed off. However, I just think that he should've added players into the deal (i.e. Cook/Walton) so that we could've still gotten Banks.

Looking back on the deal, it's not all Mitch's fault. However, it is understandable why we are POed at him.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Who cares if Payton is pissed off. Sit him on the bench for the whole year and wait for his contract to run out, it's better then taking on more bad contracts with Mihm


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

How Is Mihm Contract Bad, He Is Going To Make Less Than George, And He Is Only Signed Until The 06-07 Season


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> Who cares if Payton is pissed off. Sit him on the bench for the whole year and wait for his contract to run out, it's better then taking on more bad contracts with Mihm


Mihm's contract is not in any way, shape or form bad.:no:


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Mihm's contract*

You don't think it's bad? Talk to me in January.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>Truth34</b>!
> You don't think it's bad? Talk to me in January.


You going to bash everything Laker when you go as far to praise everything Celtic like Danny Ainge?

I guess since you just signed a 12th man to 1.7 million dollars you got a new bad contract on your hands as well.

Mihm is a good backup with only 3 years and backup money each year. I'll take that. Plus I think Kenneth was saying Mihm and two bad contracts, meaning he excludes Mihm's. Yet Atkins and Jones don't have bad deals etiher as each expires in two years.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Damn Ainge said Kobe was pushing for Mihm to be added into the deal so this deal could have really been ugly had Kobe not said something.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> 
> 
> Ouch. Owned.


Do you know which one he's talking about?


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

I Dont Know Which One He Is Talking About.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Cris</b>!
> I Dont Know Which One He Is Talking About.


Me either...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

My computer freezes every time I open it, so I'm just assuming he's not stupid enough to say something is "evidence" when it's not.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> My computer freezes every time I open it, so I'm just assuming he's not stupid enough to say something is "evidence" when it's not.


I assume so, but it's like 105 rules to the CBA... I'm not going through every single one of those...


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> You going to bash everything Laker when you go as far to praise everything Celtic like Danny Ainge?
> ...


I am not going to "bash everything Laker," my friend, but Mitch Kupchack is not doing a good job.

All I am saying is after you have actually seen Mihm play, then talk to me about 4 million a year for 3 years. 

Gugliotta get the veterans MINIMUM for one year is not a bad contract, because it expires at the end of the year.

Jumaine Jones sucks, and Atkins is making a lot of money for the next two. He doesn't become valuable as a contract until after the season. There is a school of thought that the Lakers might have been better off letting Payton and Fox come of the books at the end of the season and keeping their first round draft pick, where they could have gotten somebody better than Mihm. Mihm really becomes the key to the trade, so he better be worth every penny. In my estimation, having seen him play a lot, is that he is not.

You may have Kobe Bryant, my friend, but you also have Mitch Kupchak. That is turning into a problem.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Googs did not get the veterns minimum he got the celtics 1.7 million dollar exception. Vetern's minimum is about a million.

I just noticed that you are speaking lowly on Mihm now that he is traded, you seemed to like him when he was a Celtic, complementing on his rebounding and such.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>Truth34</b>!
> There is a school of thought that the Lakers might have been better off letting Payton and Fox come of the books at the end of the season and keeping their first round draft pick, where they could have gotten somebody better than Mihm.


Couple problems with this...

1. Why let them come off the books when the Lakers are in cap hell anyway? 
2. At least the lakers get some prospects in return..they haven't drafted well with the low picks they've had recently so they need to do this to get any sort of depth.
3. The lakers dont know how to draft, so why keep the pick?
4. Rudy T is a big man's coach. I think he can make Mihm better. Next year we will need a big that's ready to play, not a middle to low 1st round drafted big. The lakers are gonna have to use their exception next year on a big, so its not that bad of an idea to give up the pick.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> I assume so, but it's like 105 rules to the CBA... I'm not going through every single one of those...


I Didnt Want To Either, So I Went Ctrl F And Typed In Trade, And It Talked About Was Trade Rules And Nothing About Admended Trades


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> 
> Couple problems with this...
> ...


Your points....

1) We are in cap hell, so let's remain in cap hell? That doesn't make any sense. If you can get $10 million off and your team stays as competitive, you do it.

2) Which prospects? Banks isn't coming. You know what you're getting with Atkins, but do you think Mihm is a prospect.

3) Excellent point.

4) You better hope you're right. But Paul Silas is also a good big man's coach--and he couldn't get Mihm to produce.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Cris</b>!
> 
> 
> I Didnt Want To Either, So I Went Ctrl F And Typed In Trade, And It Talked About Was Trade Rules And Nothing About Admended Trades


EHL could you actually point out what your argument is, or at least use a quote of some sort...


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> 
> Couple problems with this...
> ...



This whole post is ridiculous. 

Reason for giving away 2 number 1's is they don't know how to draft is that the best you could come up with. 

Lakers got Rush a pretty good player, they got Walton a solid player. 

Not gonna say we picked well but I'd rather have the 2 1st rd picks instead. 

Who knows where those picks will be also. 

Mihm might be okay who knows he's been a disapointment to this point though.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> EHL could you actually point out what your argument is, or at least use a quote of some sort...


Sac, I believe the day we discussed this the trade went through, or maybe the day after. I'll let you know soon if it went through, and if not, I'll let you know what part of the CBA it states that.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>Truth34</b>!
> But Paul Silas is also a good big man's coach--and he couldn't get Mihm to produce.


Actually, you're wrong. Chris Mihm averaged 6.9ppg, 6.4rpg and 1.0bpg in 17.8mpg for the Cavaliers last season.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

Mihm can be more productive than people are giving him credit for but for the overall trade you guys got bent. GP is not as finished as people ar saying and the team could have possibly fielded more for him. Getting Banks would have been sweet for the Lakers though. Atkins is good just undersized......


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>Truth34</b>!
> 
> 
> Your points....
> ...


Thats the point, if you keep em and let the contracts expire, you've got nothing to back up Vlade but Grant and no PG prospect for the future. If they let the contracts expire then next year they would really be in trouble trying to get a backup C (since there would be no Mihm), replace Vlade, get a PG and a backup PG (since you cant gamble on Sasha being ready) and trying to upgrade the PF spot with only the LLE, VE and MLE. Even if they let the contracts expire they wouldnt be under the Cap and would only have those exceptions to work with. That is my point. 



> 2) Which prospects? Banks isn't coming. You know what you're getting with Atkins, but do you think Mihm is a prospect.


Well, I guess I chose the wrong word when I used prospects. I meant more like prospective role players...in other words the Lakers draft so poorly that Atkins and Mihm have as much potential to help the Lakers as anybody their gonna draft. 



> 4) You better hope you're right. But Paul Silas is also a good big man's coach--and he couldn't get Mihm to produce.


Well, Silas didnt get anyone else to produce over there either, not just Mihm. I may be stretching here, but again, I think Rudy T can do better than Silas.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mihm's contract*



> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> 
> This whole post is ridiculous.
> 
> Reason for giving away 2 number 1's is they don't know how to draft is that the best you could come up with.


The Lakers didn't give up 2 number ones to get Mihm. Get your facts straight before you make a fool of yourself. And if you actually read my post, you'd see other reasons why the Lakers would rather have decent role players/backups than low picks that will take time to develop.



> Lakers got Rush a pretty good player, they got Walton a solid player.


Walton, solid? :laugh: Not yet. Rush is good, but has take a few years to develop. Like I said, the Lakers cant wait around for a draft pick to develop, they need a decent body in the PG spot and as a backup C for Vlade NOW, not in 3-4 years.



> Who knows where those picks will be also.


Get real, Dr. Buss is not gonna take a bet that the team sucks and gets a high pick. He's betting it will be a low pick because he wants to win NOW.



> Mihm might be okay who knows he's been a disapointment to this point though.


Well, he's several years ahead of Cook, for example, so do they wait and draft another Cook next year with that pick, being forced to wait 2-3 more years for that guy to develop or do they get something decent right NOW? Hopefully you get the point now...the Lakers want to win NOW...not bet on sucking and getting a high draft pick.

So no, your whole post was ridiculous.


----------

