# Magic Johnson: I hope Lakers lose



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

> Magic Johnson thinks that the Los Angeles Lakers should get serious about losing.
> 
> Johnson, speaking at a promotional event Tuesday in New York City, said he wants his former team to lose enough games to contend for a high lottery pick in next year's NBA draft.
> 
> ...


http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...says-hopes-los-angeles-lakers-lose-every-game


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

I thought Magic went to college.

How unprofessional he sounds. Of course that is what you want them to do, but is there any value in him stating it publicly???? He can't be that starved for attention.

How embarrassing!!! Where have the professionals gone???? Is it that pitiful to be a Laker fan. Come on ...


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Since when did the Lakers have to tank? Go buy a ****ing ring like you always have.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

best case scenario next summer: top 5 pick, rockets pick, healthy Randle, Swaggy, a couple of signings of the likes of Goran Dragic, Jimmy Butler, Marc Gasol, Deandre Jordan, Omer Asik, LaMarcus Aldridge, Rondo etc + Kobe in his last season

not likely and even probably not good enough for Kobe to get that one last chance


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

#TeamTank 

Hey Paulo, CubanLaker and myself have Magic on our side....what was that you were saying about former greats not standing for losing??? heeheeeheee....


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

@DuranSports: Swaggy on Magic's "Lakers should lose every game" comment "needs to stay at Dodger Stadium"


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> #TeamTank
> 
> Hey Paulo, CubanLaker and myself have Magic on our side....what was that you were saying about former greats not standing for losing??? heeheeeheee....


lol. Magic's an Old School head and probably still thinks a Top-5 pick in next year's draft will make a splash. That used to happen in his day. Not anymore. 
Magic's only confused...


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

It isn't just about what the actual player can do for us. It's about aquiring assets. Right now other than Randle and the Houston pick, we have no legitimate assets of value and betting on free agents wanting go come to a team bare of any talent is a long shot. We need to stock the cupboard with young pieces that are locked in for a few years. Acquire the 2nd and 3rd banana before making a move for the 1st banana. Best way is through the draft right now. I player like Dragic or Rondo in the summer will help, but we need to have something here other than ancient Kobe to entice them. Randle is a start, but not enough. Now if we land an Okafor, Mudiay or even a Stanley Johnson to pair up with Randle then we've got something cooking. Hell, we can even package the top 5 pick too if we like what other teams are offering.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> It isn't just about what the actual player can do for us. It's about aquiring assets. Right now other than Randle and the Houston pick, we have no legitimate assets of value and betting on free agents wanting go come to a team bare of any talent is a long shot. We need to stock the cupboard with young pieces that are locked in for a few years. Acquire the 2nd and 3rd banana before making a move for the 1st banana. Best way is through the draft right now. I player like Dragic or Rondo in the summer will help, but we need to have something here other than ancient Kobe to entice them. Randle is a start, but not enough. Now if we land an Okafor, Mudiay or even a Stanley Johnson to pair up with Randle then we've got something cooking. Hell, we can even package the top 5 pick too if we like what other teams are offering.


What assets will the Lakers acquire with this:

2015 first round draft pick from Houston
Houston's 1st round pick to the L.A. Lakers *protected for selections 1-14 in 2015*, 1-10 in 2016, 1-10 in 2017, 1-5 in 2018, 1-5 in 2019 and 1-3 in 2020 and unprotected in 2021 [Houston-L.A. Lakers, 7/13/2014]

2015 first round draft pick to Phoenix
L.A. Lakers' 1st round pick to Phoenix protected for selections 1-5 in 2015, 1-3 in 2016 and 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018 [L.A. Lakers-Phoenix, 7/11/2012]


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Barring a catastrophic run of injuries for Houston, that pick is in the 20s this year which means we'll get it. Hell, they've been dealing with injuries the last few weeks and STILL winning.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

A draft pick in the 20's usually means very little... And considering it appears next years draft is only, like, 3 players deep (for the Lakers needs), i wouldn't put much hope in the draft. even if the Lakaers would tank, can they tank harder than Philly and Detroit? Suck as much as Minny? Doubtfull...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Agreed with Magic if I'm a Lakers fan. Winning 30 games or so does you no good. Lakers need to finish in the bottom 3.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Hibachi! said:


> Agreed with Magic if I'm a Lakers fan. Winning 30 games or so does you no good. Lakers need to finish in the bottom 3.


You know the Lakers have to be sorry ass hell to see Mr. Laker talk about tanking…..


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hibachi! said:


> Agreed with Magic if I'm a Lakers fan. Winning 30 games or so does you no good. Lakers need to finish in the bottom 3.


Finishing with shirty records works brilliantly for the Kings the last 8 years.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Finishing with shirty records works brilliantly for the Kings the last 8 years.


Watch it, Jamel! You're talking about a franchise that picked Joe Kleine over Karl Malone and Chris Mullin, Kenny Smith over KJ and Reggie, Pervis Ellison over Timmy and Kemp, Tyreke Evans over Stephen Curry!


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> *A draft pick in the 20's usually means very little*... And considering it appears next years draft is only, like, 3 players deep (for the Lakers needs), i wouldn't put much hope in the draft. even if the Lakaers would tank, can they tank harder than Philly and Detroit? Suck as much as Minny? Doubtfull...


I've already done this exercise but here we go again - fact is you can find contributors if you're astute (and the Lakers have been (with limited opportunity) - maybe these guys are not all stars but they're certainly upgrades on what we have now

taken at or after 20

Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, Nikola Peckovic, Mario Chalmers, Deandre Jordan, Omer Asik, Goran Dragic, Darren Collison, Taj Gibson, Dejuan Blair, Kenneth Faried, Reggie Jackson, Kyle Singler, Chandler Parsons, Isaiah Thomas - I could go on


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> I've already done this exercise but here we go again - fact is you can find contributors if you're astute (and the Lakers have been (with limited opportunity) - maybe these guys are not all stars but they're certainly upgrades on what we have now
> 
> taken at or after 20
> 
> Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, Nikola Peckovic, Mario Chalmers, Deandre Jordan, Omer Asik, Goran Dragic, Darren Collison, Taj Gibson, Dejuan Blair, Kenneth Faried, Reggie Jackson, Kyle Singler, Chandler Parsons, Isaiah Thomas - I could go on


Yes, you could go on. You could also add Parker, Arenas and Manu. It's obviously true that one can find a usefull player in the 20's or lower. Even a star. But the chances are not good, i'd say.

And please keep in mind that we are addressing tanking *this season*. Considering that, even if the Lakers were to go that route (i imagine Kobe would have to get "injured" somehow and skip the rest of the season) is the next draf as deep as to be a good reward for it? IF the Lakers couldn't get a top-3 pick, would all that hassle be worth it?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

PauloCatarino said:


> would all that hassle be worth it?


yes, because once again the other option is NOTHING

And the Lakers, while not nearly as good as the Spurs, do have a good track record of making lower end picks count


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Let's see, tank to get a CHANCE at a top pick which MAY become a useful player and possibly lucking into a decent player with Houston's pick or win 30 games giving the Suns 7-10 pick and still keeping that 20-25th pick. I'd rather tank. I trust our FO to be able to make a good pick. Once again, the player we pick doesn't mean jack. We could trade the top pick before the draft for proven talent if its worth it. It's an asset on a team devoid of them.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> yes, because once again the other option is NOTHING


"NOTHING"? Last season's Lakers team was arguably the worst team ever. You wanna follow that by being even WORSE? Has someone changed the colours of the jerseys? Has someone removed the banners from the rafters? Is this the franchise that doesn't celebrate Division Championnships? And so on, and so forth...



> And the Lakers, while not nearly as good as the Spurs, do have a good track record of making lower end picks count


Toney Douglas in 09?
Jordan Farmar in 06?
Vujacic in 04?
Brina Cook in 03?
Chris Jefferies in 02?
Madsen in 00?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> Yes, you could go on. You could also add Parker, Arenas and Manu. It's obviously true that one can find a usefull player in the 20's or lower. Even a star. But the chances are not good, i'd say.
> 
> And please keep in mind that we are addressing tanking *this season*. Considering that, even if the Lakers were to go that route (i imagine Kobe would have to get "injured" somehow and skip the rest of the season) is the next draf as deep as to be a good reward for it? IF the Lakers couldn't get a top-3 pick, would all that hassle be worth it?


you never know and the Lakers are actually pretty good at getting useful players with low picks - right now they need contributors as much as they need stars - mostly they need to acquire building blocks

having two picks in any given draft you can wind up packaging them for something more interesting if you play it right


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> Toney Douglas in 09?
> Jordan Farmar in 06?
> Vujacic in 04?
> Brina Cook in 03?
> ...


half those guys had or are having multi-year careers - that's not the case with most 2nd rounders - finding contributors in the 2nd round is a good thing


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> half those guys had or are having multi-year careers - that's not the case with most 2nd rounders - finding contributors in the 2nd round is a good thing


Those are ALL first rounders, bro.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

still stands - those guys all played multiple seasons - several of them contributed to titles - other teams took on those guys after the Lakers were done with them - doesn't support your point, undermines it (also a couple of those guys were drafted for other teams and never played for the Lakers)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> *you never know* and the Lakers are actually pretty good at getting useful players with low picks


that's kinda my point: it is uncertain that the Lakers, if tanking, would get suitable players. IMHO, the Lakers have more to lose by tanking than to gain. that is, if you care for imaterial stuff like pride, effort, et all...



> - right now they need contributors as much as they need stars - mostly they need to acquire building blocks


That's actually debatable: one train of thought is first you get the star and then you build the team around him. But i get your point and don't disagree, in principle.



> having two picks in any given draft you can wind up packaging them for something more interesting if you play it right


That's true. Unless you are the Lakers. Cause if you are the Lakers or a) no one will help the franchise by trade or b( the NBA will find a way to screw us over


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> still stands - those guys all played multiple seasons - several of them contributed to titles - other teams took on those guys after the Lakers were done with them - doesn't support your point, undermines it (also a couple of those guys were drafted for other teams and never played for the Lakers)


Those were all crappy selections, bro. Trash.

Look, e-monk. We're talking about tanking a season, here. Mainly, this season. IMHO, it isn't worth it. I may be in the minority, here, but even if the Lakers were *guaranteed *to get, say Okafor, Mudiay or Towns (wich they aren't, even if they tanked), i would still say it wouldn't be worth it. There's no Durant or Duncan in next year's draft. 
I understand the argument about loading up on picks, and chance of getting a decent-to-good starter, but i just don't see it as worth it.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Finishing with shirty records works brilliantly for the Kings the last 8 years.


The Kings can't attract any free agents with their location. Without our record we would have never gotten Boogie. The Kings have also made some very poor draft choices. The talent has been there to pick from. Picks like Jimmer, Douby, Jason Thompson, and Hawes never panned out, and that's on Petrie for making awful picks. Those drafts all had high quality players available. It's also worth noting that the Kings at no point had a top 3 draft pick. 

All of our picks came 4 and below. 4 was Tyreke, 5 was Boogie and T-Rob (awful pick), and the rest were all 7 and below. In a way you're making my point for me. The Kings have been awful but never worst in the league awful (which is best case what you're looking at for the Lakers), and it has cost them some star players and high draft picks. Our worst year, when we won just 17 games, we followed up by getting Cousins. The rest we were bad, but not horrific enough to get the top 3 picks.

The Lakers can get nice draft picks and still have the allure of being Los Angeles. The Lakers aren't going to changer any minds of future superstars winning 35 games thinking like "Hey they might have something there." They will if they get a nice rookie to go with Randle when he comes back. 

It worked out quite well for San Antonio when they tanked to rebuild. Look at all the top teams in the NBA right now. Other than maybe Memphis/Houston all of them at one point bottomed out. Dallas, Chicago, San Antonio, Cleveland, Blazers, Thunder, and Wizards all got their stars from bottoming out and getting a high draft pick.

The only ones that didn't are Memphis and Houston. Memphis recovered after being able to draft Kevin Love (who they should have kept) and trading for OJ Mayo. Worked out because they snagged Randolph and Gasol panned out.

We all know the Lakers aren't making the playoffs. They aren't going to win enough games to be relevant. So why finish with say, the 6th-10th worse record, and instead finish near the bottom to get a high draft pick? Makes no sense.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hibachi! said:


> We all know the Lakers aren't making the playoffs. They aren't going to win enough games to be relevant. So why finish with say, the 6th-10th worse record, and instead finish near the bottom to get a high draft pick? *Makes no sense*.


Just one question: you have players like Kobe and Young scoffing at the notion; you got Byron Scott laughing about it; you have Mitch saying (some time ago) something the likes of "Lakers don't tank". I don't remember reading any of the Buss's talking about it, though.
So, if the players, the coach and the organization are openly against tanking, why is it non-sensical? Can you or me, or whoever pretend to know better than the Lakers organization?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Just one question: you have players like Kobe and Young scoffing at the notion; you got Byron Scott laughing about it; you have Mitch saying (some time ago) something the likes of "Lakers don't tank". I don't remember reading any of the Buss's talking about it, though.
> So, if the players, the coach and the organization are openly against tanking, why is it non-sensical? Can you or me, or whoever pretend to know better than the Lakers organization?


The entire 76'ers organization is openly against tanking. The players get VERY upset when they ask them about tanking. Can you argue that the 76'ers aren't privately tanking? How many GM's/coaches/players have come out while their teams have sucked and said "I hope we lose every game"? That's a nonsensical argument.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hibachi! said:


> *The entire 76'ers organization is openly against tanking*. The players get VERY upset when they ask them about tanking. Can you argue that the 76'ers aren't privately tanking? How many GM's/coaches/players have come out while their teams have sucked and said "I hope we lose every game"? That's a nonsensical argument.


That's absolutely false. Proposterous, really, SacKings.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> That's absolutely false. Proposterous, really, SacKings.


http://www.theplayerstribune.com/michael-carter-williams-dont-talk-to-me-about-tanking/

The players are against it. The ownership and GM's don't term it tanking. They call it "rebuilding" and whether or not it works out depends on what they end up doing with their picks. But once again, you look at the top of the NBA, and you see that they've ALL bottomed out at some point. None stayed mediocre for 5 or 6 years.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hibachi! said:


> http://www.theplayerstribune.com/michael-carter-williams-dont-talk-to-me-about-tanking/
> 
> The players are against it. The ownership and GM's don't term it tanking. They call it "rebuilding" and whether or not it works out depends on what they end up doing with their picks.


The players are against it because no player will ever admit he isn't playing hard. But it's very, very *public *that the Sixers are tanking. for a couple of years now. How many undrafted players do they have on the roster, again?



> But once again, you look at the top of the NBA, and you see that they've ALL bottomed out at some point. None stayed mediocre for 5 or 6 years.


Not all, S-Star, not all... And that's my point!


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> The players are against it because no player will ever admit he isn't playing hard. But it's very, very *public *that the Sixers are tanking. for a couple of years now. How many undrafted players do they have on the roster, again?
> 
> 
> 
> Not all, S-Star, not all... And that's my point!


Fair enough on both accounts.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hibachi! said:


> The Kings can't attract any free agents with their location. Without our record we would have never gotten Boogie. The Kings have also made some very poor draft choices. The talent has been there to pick from. Picks like Jimmer, Douby, Jason Thompson, and Hawes never panned out, and that's on Petrie for making awful picks. Those drafts all had high quality players available. It's also worth noting that the Kings at no point had a top 3 draft pick.
> 
> All of our picks came 4 and below. 4 was Tyreke, 5 was Boogie and T-Rob (awful pick), and the rest were all 7 and below. In a way you're making my point for me. The Kings have been awful but never worst in the league awful (which is best case what you're looking at for the Lakers), and it has cost them some star players and high draft picks. Our worst year, when we won just 17 games, we followed up by getting Cousins. The rest we were bad, but not horrific enough to get the top 3 picks.
> 
> ...


The Lakers have been in the lottery 3 times and drafted two all-stars with the 10th pick. The 3rd was Randle.

I watched a 33 win Laker team with Van Exel, Divac and Campbell (all drafted after pick 28) become a young contender in less than two years. What happened? No tanking, just shrewd moves.

Drafted Eddie Jones with the 10th pick. Traded a future first for Cedric Ceballos. Traded Vlade for a kid named Kobe. Shaq said "hey, they might have something there" and signed up.

The Lakers have always been the Lakers because of their allure and winning tradition. If being in LA was it all it took the Clippers wouldn't have waited until two years ago to win a division title.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> Those were all crappy selections, bro. Trash.


a couple of them (Farmar, Sasha) made significant contributions to title runs

two of them (Jefferies and Douglas) were never actually Lakers 

and there wasn't much quality behind Madsen who in any case managed a 9 season NBA run



> Look, e-monk. We're talking about tanking a season, here. Mainly, this season. IMHO, it isn't worth it.


it's not like it isn't actually happening right now - the season was tanked this summer - tanking isn't something that players do (typically), it's something that the execs do by not fielding a quality squad - if the Lakers had gone after a few of the mid quality players last summer they might not suck so much but they also wouldn't be contending and most likely they'd be capped out for another 2 years




> I may be in the minority, here, but even if the Lakers were *guaranteed *to get, say Okafor, Mudiay or Towns (wich they aren't, even if they tanked), i would still say it wouldn't be worth it. There's no Durant or Duncan in next year's draft.


I don't think you're being realistic about where the Lakers are right now - while a star would be nice just having a couple more tradeable assets is a better position than they are in right now - the picks do have value




> I understand the argument about loading up on picks, and chances of getting a decent-to-good starter, but i just don't see it as worth it.


so what is the alternative? they have very few assets to trade to get better from outside this season, they are clearly going to be a lottery team - the tank is officially on and has been - now imagine being this bad and having to give your lottery pick to the Suns because it's not top 5....

you can talk about the Lakers never tanking but they've never been in this position before, the Paul veto wiped out the value of 2 of their best players, the Nash trade was clearly a last gasp hail mary that turned out to be a mistake but more importantly the newest CBA makes it such that this is how teams have to do things now 

and the NBA can give mouth to the idea that tanking is a bad thing but look back at the Paul trade they did make, it's primary virtue was that it allowed the Hornets to tank - they're hypocrites too


----------

